Speakers: Ann Blair Kennedy, University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville; Jennifer Sholts, Prisma Health - Midlands

Topic Areas: Research Development, Research Operations, Compliance

Level: Basic

Description: Every research study depends on interpretation. Protocols must be translated into participant conversations. Scientific questions must be connected to lived experience. Institutional expectations must become practical workflows. Yet research often assumes these translations happen naturally. This session explores the often-overlooked role of research professionals and patient partners as interpreters who bridge science, operations, and lived experience. Drawing on experiences in competency-based workforce development and patient engagement, we will examine how intentional preparation, mentorship, facilitation, and partnership enable people to move beyond completing tasks to creating understanding.

Through interactive scenarios and discussion, participants will discover how investing in these “interpreters” strengthens communication, trust, participant experience, research quality, and organizational capacity. Attendees will leave with practical strategies to better prepare and support the people who connect research to the real world.

Learning Objectives:

1. Recognize the critical role research professionals and patient partners play as interpreters between research, practice, and lived experience.
2. Analyze where communication, preparation, and understanding break down across the research lifecycle and how intentional support can strengthen those connections.
3. Apply an interpreter’s lens to identify differences in language, roles, expectations, power, and lived experience among research professionals, participants, researchers, and patient partners.
4.  Advocate for research systems that value interpretation, partnership, and preparation alongside compliance and technical excellence.

Speaker: Marta Collier-Youngblood, University of Central Arkansas

Topic Areas: Research Operations, Research Development, Artificial Intelligence 

Level: Advanced

Description: Research administration has traditionally focused on compliance, stewardship, proposal development, and regulatory oversight. Recent shifts in the federal funding landscape suggest that technical compliance alone may no longer be sufficient to protect institutional research portfolios. Research administrators increasingly operate in environments where framing, interpretation, and public perception of research activities can influence stakeholder support, institutional reputation, and program sustainability. Come explore the emerging role of narrative strategy within research administration through a series of case-based examples drawn from higher education, public engagement, and sponsored research environments. We’ll examine how identical activities can generate significantly different stakeholder responses depending on how they are communicated, contextualized, and aligned with institutional mission and sponsor priorities.

The session will introduce a practical framework for evaluating narrative risk across the research lifecycle, including proposal development, public-facing communications, institutional partnerships, and externally funded initiatives. Special attention will be given to the growing intersection of artificial intelligence, public discourse, and federal funding priorities. As AI tools increasingly influence proposal development, content generation, and information dissemination, research administrators must understand the opportunities and risks associated with automated communication and institutional messaging.

Participants will leave with strategies to help researchers and institutional leaders better align project descriptions, broader impacts statements, public communications, and stakeholder engagement efforts with institutional goals while maintaining academic integrity and scientific rigor. Effective research administration in the coming decade will require professionals who are not only experts in compliance and funding regulations, but also skilled interpreters of institutional context, stakeholder expectations, and narrative environments.

Learning Objective: Identify narrative and communication risks that may affect sponsored research activities.

Speaker: Audrey Ross, College of Charleston

Topic Area: Pre-Award

Level: Basic

Description: This session will focus on the key differences between the more traditional research grants (particularly in STEM fields), grants for the arts, humanities, social sciences, and programmatic grants. These four areas have different policies, guidelines, and solicitations than in STEM fields. Typically, grants for the arts, humanities, and programs have more restrictive policies or are restrictive in ways different than STEM grants. The majority of policies, procedures, and guidance that research administrators are typically used to only apply to ‘traditional’ research grants in the STEM fields.

The session also will discuss grant solicitations in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and other programs. By learning about grant policy in other disciplines, research and grants administrators can gain a wider knowledge of the research administration field and how to better support a wide variety of PIs.

Learning Objectives:

1. Understand the key differences between traditional STEM research grants compared to grants for the arts, humanities, social sciences, and programmatic projects. 
2. Gain insights into the main considerations of solicitations, application processes, and grant budgets in the four areas discussed in the session.
3. Learn about major grant funders and grant opportunities in the four key areas.

Speakers: Craig Kinley, Clemson University; Tiffany Beverly, University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Research Operations

Level: Basic

Description: Coming soon

Learning Objectives: Coming soon

Speakers: Samual Stehle, Digital Science, SCRA; Adam Fisher, SCRA

Topic Areas: Research Security, Compliance

Level: Intermediate

Description: In the evolving geopolitical and regulatory landscape of international scholarship, research security at the institutional level and productive research collaboration at the individual level require upkeep. The South Carolina Research Authority leverages Dimensions Research Security to facilitate a statewide understanding of research security. Dimensions Research Security (DRS) leverages the largest collection of interconnected global research data to provide a comprehensive picture of research activity at the researcher and institutional levels. Built in consultation with the research security and compliance community, organizations around the world rely on DRS to verify research disclosures, vet potential collaborators, and proactively monitor institutional collaborations. Research security teams can review their institution’s publications, grants, patents, clinical trials, and review researcher activity – all in one place.

Dimensions Research Security is designed to help teams screen at scale, quickly surfacing research activity connected to organizations on restricted entity lists, countries of concern, or talent program funding. All source records are available so information can be contextualized and assessed according to your institution’s own risk decision matrix. The South Carolina Research Authority has utilized Dimensions Research Security across its member institutions to advance collaborative research initiatives, promote data-driven compliance at the university level, and inform state-level strategies for increasing research integrity and success.

DRS facilitates common workflows among research security offices. Custom analytics and reporting at the state and institutional levels bring new questions and security implications to administrators’ attention. This presentation demonstrates the DRS capability and discusses its utility to the SCRA’s statewide approach to research security.

Learning Objectives:

1. Describe how a consolidated data query and workflow tool enables research security offices to screen disclosures, vet collaborators, and monitor institutional research activity at scale.
2. Explain how a state-level research security focus can leverage a shared analytics platform to advance consistent, data-driven compliance practices across multiple tiers of research institutions. 
3. Identify key data-driven workflows that enable research security offices to streamline research activity monitoring that take into account institutional risk tolerance.

Speaker: Gary Schools, University of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Artificial Intelligence, Research Operations

Level: Intermediate

Description: Research cores are vital to biomedical research, but their contributions are often underreported because authors do not consistently acknowledge core facilities or shared instrumentation in publications. This makes it difficult for research administrators and core directors to document productivity, justify investments, and support funding applications. Traditional methods for identifying core-supported publications rely on manual literature searches and author follow-up, which are time-consuming and often incomplete. To address this challenge, an AI-assisted workflow was developed using custom Python scripts generated with ChatGPT.

The system accepts lists of principal investigators, core facility names, and instrumentation and searches publicly accessible literature databases for publications that may have used core resources. Candidate citations are then manually reviewed and verified before inclusion in reporting datasets. A pilot study involving 13 principal investigators associated with the Center for Targeted Therapeutics and the Microscopy and Flow Cytometry Core demonstrated substantial benefits. Compared with a traditional manual review process, the AI-assisted workflow identified twice as many candidate publications (14 versus 7), reduced the number of papers requiring manual review, and decreased processing time from approximately four hours to less than one hour.

Overall, the approach achieved an estimated 80% reduction in labor while improving detection of potential core-supported publications. Although human review remains necessary and non-publicly accessible publications may be missed, this project demonstrates how generative AI can improve the efficiency and completeness of publication tracking for shared research resources.

Learning Objectives:

1. Using ChatGPT to make custom scripts.
2. Improving accuracy of activity reporting.

Speakers: Susan Klie, University of South Carolina; Melissa Bell, University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Post-Award

Level: Basic

Description: Properly identifying, documenting, and monitoring cost share helps ensure institutions meet sponsor requirements, maintain financial integrity, and are prepared for audits. This training provides an overview of cost-sharing requirements, institutional policies, and best practices to support consistent and compliant management throughout the award lifecycle.

This session will help participants explain the different types of cost share and when they apply; determine when cost share is required versus optional (particularly when an institution has a policy of prohibited voluntary cost share); identify allowable sources of cost share; understand roles and responsibilities throughout the award lifecycle; track and document cost share in a way that supports compliance and audit readiness; and recognize common risks and apply best practices to avoid them.

Learning Objectives: 

1. Differentiate among the types of cost sharing
2. Identify the roles, responsibilities, and allowable funding sources
3. Apply best practices for tracking, documenting, and monitoring cost sharing.

Speakers: Steven Schrimpf, University of South Carolina; Douglas Gaines, University of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Research Security, Compliance

Level: Intermediate

Description: Federal agencies have significantly expanded research security requirements in response to concerns regarding foreign influence, undisclosed affiliations, foreign talent recruitment programs, conflicts of commitment, and the protection of federally funded research. While institutions have implemented individual compliance measures to address these requirements, many continue to struggle with integrating research security activities into a coordinated, risk-based program that satisfies sponsor expectations while supporting an open and collaborative research environment.

This presentation will provide a practical framework for developing a comprehensive foreign influence risk management program within a university research enterprise. Drawing upon lessons learned from implementing research security, export control, conflict of interest, insider threat, and foreign travel security programs, the session will outline key program elements necessary to identify, assess, and mitigate foreign influence risks across the research lifecycle. Topics will include governance structures, risk assessment methodologies, foreign relationship disclosure reviews, foreign talent recruitment program screening, due diligence on international collaborations, training and awareness initiatives, compliance monitoring, and cross-functional coordination among research administration, export control, information security, legal counsel, human resources, and academic leadership.

The presentation will also discuss strategies for aligning institutional practices with CHIPS and Science Act requirements, NSPM-33, agency-specific research security mandates, and emerging federal expectations. 
Attendees will leave with practical tools and implementation strategies to establish or mature a research security program that is compliant, scalable, and defensible, while reducing institutional risk and maintaining the openness that is essential to scientific discovery and international collaboration.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify the key federal research security requirements and foreign influence risk factors that drive institutional compliance obligations, including CHIPS and Science Act provisions, NSPM-33 requirements, foreign talent recruitment program restrictions, and agency-specific expectations.
2. Evaluate foreign influence risks associated with international collaborations, foreign funding, visiting scholars, foreign appointments, and undisclosed relationships using a risk-based assessment framework.
3. Design a comprehensive foreign influence risk management program that integrates research security, export control, conflict of interest, conflict of commitment, information security, and research administration functions into a coordinated institutional approach.
4. Apply practical strategies and best practices to develop governance structures, review processes, training programs, and monitoring mechanisms that mitigate foreign influence risks while supporting compliant international research collaboration and scientific openness.

Speakers: Elias Tzoc, Clemson University; Heather Heckman, University of South Carolina; Eric Resnis, Coastal Carolina University

Topic Areas: Research Development, Compliance, Research Operations

Level: Intermediate

Description: Research administrators are increasingly asked to support requirements related to research data management, data sharing, compliance, and research impact. While these responsibilities are often viewed through the lens Research Offices, Academic Libraries have developed expertise, services, and infrastructure that can help institutions address these challenges more effectively. Drawing on experiences from Clemson University, the University of South Carolina, and Coastal Carolina University, this session will explore how library-based research support services contribute across the research lifecycle. Presenters will discuss collaborations that strengthen data management and sharing plans, support compliance with federal funding requirements, connect researchers with institutional and disciplinary repositories, and increase awareness of open access publishing options and transformative agreements.

The session will highlight practical examples of partnerships between libraries and research administration offices that improve proposal development, maximize institutional resources, and support research dissemination and impact. Attendees will gain a better understanding of how library expertise can complement existing research administration functions and identify opportunities for collaboration that enhance researcher support, funding competitiveness, and compliance outcomes across institutions of varying sizes and classifications.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify library services that support research administration activities across the research data lifecycle, including data management, data sharing, and research dissemination.
2. Describe how partnerships between libraries and research administration offices can improve compliance with funding agency requirements and strengthen proposal development.
3. Evaluate opportunities at their own institutions to leverage library expertise, infrastructure, and resources to enhance researcher support and research impact.

Speakers: Jennifer Taylor, Francis Marion University; Ann Jenks, Wofford College

Topic Area: Pre-Award

Level: Basic

Description: Turning a great project idea into a competitive proposal requires more than a strong narrative. It also requires a budget that aligns with the project scope and meets both institutional and funder requirements. In this session, we’ll review the basics of budget development through the lens of ERIs and PUIs.

Participants will explore strategies for supporting faculty in budget development with limited resources, gain a better understanding of common budget categories and allowable costs, and learn key considerations for building budgets that are both compliant and competitive.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify the major components of a sponsored project budget.
2. Recognize key sponsor and institutional requirements that influence budget development and proposal competitiveness.
3. Identify strategies for leveraging limited institutional resources to support proposal development.

Speakers: Anthony Dames, Senior Product Engineer, InfoEd Global; Mike Bryant, Director, Electronic Research Administration, Clemson University

Topic Area: Artificial Intelligence

Level: Basic

Description: As research institutions face growing administrative demands with constrained resources, maximizing the value of existing enterprise systems while demonstrating measurable return on investment is critical—particularly for Emerging Research Institutions. This session presents a collaborative approach between Clemson University’s Electronic Research Administration (eRA) team and InfoEd to modernize research administration through strategic integration and applied artificial intelligence.

At the core of this effort is InfoEd as the system of record, extended through integrations with Workday, modern data platforms, and semantic models to enable improved data accessibility, reporting, and cross-system workflows. Building on this foundation, Clemson has implemented a series of practical AI agents designed to enhance efficiency and decision-making across the research lifecycle. These include applications in compliance monitoring (such as Responsible Conduct of Research tracking), customer service and knowledge access, document remediation, and research security review processes.
This session will demonstrate how structured enterprise data from InfoEd can be leveraged to power intelligent automation and natural language interaction, transforming traditionally manual and fragmented workflows into streamlined, user-centered experiences. Attendees will see how AI capabilities can complement—not replace—enterprise systems by extending their functionality and improving usability.

A key focus will be on measuring and communicating ROI. The presenters will share methods for process mapping, identifying high-impact automation opportunities, and quantifying time savings and operational improvements through dashboards and analytics. These insights support leadership decision-making and enable scalable adoption across institutional units.

Designed for ERIs and institutions seeking practical modernization strategies, this session provides a roadmap for extending enterprise research systems like InfoEd with AI-driven capabilities. Attendees will leave with actionable approaches to integrate systems, deploy AI responsibly, and demonstrate clear, measurable value from their modernization efforts.

Learning Objectives:  

1. Explain how enterprise systems like InfoEd can be extended through integrations and data platforms to support modern research administration needs.
2. Identify practical AI agent use cases that enhance workflows such as compliance, research security, and user support.
3. Understand how structured data enables AI capabilities, including automation and natural language interaction.
4. Apply process mapping techniques to uncover high-impact opportunities for system integration and AI-driven improvement. 
5. Develop strategies to measure and communicate ROI from system modernization and AI adoption.

Speaker: Denise Wynn, Consultant

Topic Area: Post-Award

Level: Basic

Description: Successful post-award administration requires more than monitoring a budget. Research administrators must navigate sponsor requirements, institutional policies, financial activity, prior approvals, reporting deadlines, and ongoing communication with investigators and campus partners throughout the life of an award. Small issues that are overlooked early can quickly become larger financial, compliance, and closeout challenges. This session takes a practical look at the post-award lifecycle and identifies common mistakes that can occur from award setup through closeout.

Participants will explore strategies for establishing strong award management practices, monitoring expenditures and burn rates, documenting decisions, identifying potential compliance concerns, and addressing problems before they become audit findings or financial liabilities.

Learning Objectives:

1.  Identify common financial, administrative, and compliance risks that occur throughout the post-award lifecycle.
2. Apply effective practices for award setup, financial monitoring, reconciliation, documentation, and closeout.
3. Use proactive monitoring and communication strategies to identify and resolve post-award issues before they result in compliance concerns, audit findings, or financial liabilities.

Speaker: Nicole Williams, Medical University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Research Development

Level: Basic

Description: A well-designed limited submission program strengthens institutional competitiveness by aligning internal processes with sponsor requirements and supporting investigators throughout the application process. This session will highlight practical strategies for managing limited submission opportunities, including program infrastructure, internal competitions, reviewer engagement, communication planning, and process improvement, with an emphasis on approaches that can be adapted across institutions.

Learning Objectives: 

1. Identify the key components of an effective institutional limited submission program.
2. Develop fair and transparent processes for managing internal limited submission competitions.
3. Create effective timelines and communication strategies that support investigators, reviewers, and research administrators.
4. Evaluate common challenges in limited submission management and implement strategies for continuous process improvement.

Speakers: Kia Zellers, University of South Carolina; Melissa Nolan, University of South Carolina; Katherine Brown, University of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Research Operations; Research Development

Level: Intermediate

Description: The University of South Carolina's tick testing program began as a grant-supported surveillance effort focused on testing ticks collected from state parks for disease-causing pathogens. As demand grew beyond the scope of the original research, the program expanded to provide tick identification and pathogen testing for the general public. As the laboratory's reputation as a leader in tick pathogen testing grew, requests for testing services increased from state health departments beyond South Carolina and other organizations. This expanding demand from both public and organizational partners ultimately drove the program's evolution into a fee-for-service model and its integration into the USC Research Cores network.

This session will share our experience developing a community-facing research service and the operational and administrative decisions behind its growth. Rather than focusing on the scientific aspects of tick testing, we will discuss practical considerations such as designing workflows for external customers, customer onboarding, payment management, adapting administrative processes originally developed for institutional researchers, and identifying solutions when traditional research core management systems did not align with a public-facing service model.

As research institutions explore approaches that complement traditional grant funding, our experience demonstrates how community demand can drive innovation in research operations and service delivery. We will share what worked well, the challenges we encountered, and what we continue to refine. Although centered on public tick testing, the operational strategies and implementation lessons are broadly applicable to institutions developing community-engaged research services, expanding research core operations, or strengthening research infrastructure through innovative service models.

Learning Objectives:

1. Describe the operational and administrative considerations involved in transitioning a grant-supported research activity into a sustainable, public-facing research service.
2. Identify strategies for adapting traditional research core operations and administrative workflows to support external users.
3. Apply implementation lessons from a public-facing research service to strengthen operational sustainability, institutional research infrastructure, and community engagement.

Speakers: Lumi Bakos, University of South Carolina; Jonathan Smalls, Claflin University

Topic Area: Research Operations

Level: Basic

Description: Coming soon

Learning Objectives: Coming soon

Speaker: Danielle McElwain, University of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Research Development, Pre-Award

Level: Basic

Description: A well-developed and justified budget is a critical component of a successful proposal, but budget development can also be one of the most intimidating and time-consuming parts of the proposal process for faculty researchers. Research Administration professionals are uniquely positioned to make this process more efficient, accurate, and approachable by providing researchers with the right tools and resources.

In this session, we will explore how Research Administration professionals can develop practical budgeting tools tailored to the needs of their institutions and research faculty. Using examples from the University of South Carolina Molinaroli College of Engineering and Computing’s Research Operations Office, we will showcase streamlined yet comprehensive budget templates, budget narrative boilerplates, and other resources designed to simplify proposal budget development. Participants will also learn key considerations for designing, implementing, and maintaining budgeting tools that support consistency and compliance while reducing administrative burden for both researchers and research administrators.

Learning Objectives:

1.  Identify key components and considerations for developing effective proposal budgeting tools that support institutional requirements, sponsor guidelines, and faculty researcher needs.
2. Explore budget templates, budget justification boilerplates, and other resources that can streamline budget development, improve consistency and accuracy, and reduce administrative burden during proposal preparation.
3. Develop strategies for creating or enhancing budgeting tools at their own institutions using adaptable approaches and examples presented during the session.

Speakers: Carla Stipe, Medical University of South Carolina; Edie Goldsmith, University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Research Development

Level: Basic

Description: The NIH Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) programs promote research competitiveness by funding basic, clinical, and translational research in certain states. The IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program stimulates partnerships between research-intensive and primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). 
SC INBRE supports the career development of faculty and students at network institutions through annual workshops, mentoring, and other relevant topics, as well as funding opportunities at network institutions. The network incorporates SC’s three Comprehensive Research Universities and 15 of the state’s PUIs. SC INBRE is administered at the University of South Carolina Floyd School of Medicine.

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) ranks as the top-funded institution for IDeA Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) grants, directly responsible for nearly $160 million in funding for research at MUSC (as of April 2026). Through three phases, COBREs foster the development of sustainable research centers, support early-stage investigators, and build critical research infrastructure. Because institutions are limited to a single COBRE application submission per cycle, MUSC has developed a rigorous and transparent internal review process to identify the most competitive proposal.

The MUSC Office of Research Development (ORD) coordinates multiple evaluation strategies to promote fairness, transparency, and institutional competitiveness. Once a proposal is selected, ORD partners closely with research teams throughout the application development process, providing strategic guidance, proposal review, and grant writing support. MUSC currently holds five active COBRE centers, each offering specialized core resources available to external investigators across our region.

Learning Objectives:

1.  Understand the NIH/NIGMS IDeA Program and how it benefits South Carolina.
2. Understand the Limited Submissions process and how to identify competitive research proposals.
3. Recognize the Core Research Resources available to investigators in our state.

Speakers: Jessica Purrington, University of South Carolina; Justin Beardmore, Universith of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Post-Award; Artificial Intelligence; Research Operations

Level: Intermediate

Description: As the complexity of sponsored research administration continues to grow, post-award professionals face increasing demands for compliance, financial stewardship, reporting, transparency, and operational efficiency. At the same time, institutions must manage expanding research portfolios with limited administrative resources. This presentation explores the evolution of post-award research administration and the balance between traditional manual processes and modern technology-driven solutions.

Drawing on experiences within the Molinaroli College of Engineering and Computing at the University of South Carolina, presenters will examine the benefits and limitations of manual processes, including increased familiarity with grant activity and financial details, as well as the challenges of duplicate data entry, fragmented communication, delayed reporting, and inefficient workflows. Participants will learn how connected systems, improved team communication, and enhanced data tracking can increase transparency, support collaboration, and strengthen post-award operations.

The session will highlight practical approaches for determining when to optimize existing processes versus implementing new technologies. Emerging tools such as workflow management platforms, automated reporting solutions, dashboards, and artificial intelligence applications will be discussed, with a focus on reducing administrative burden and enabling more strategic grant management.

Learning Objectives:

1. Explore common concerns surrounding AI adoption, generational perspectives on technology, and the importance of maintaining human expertise and oversight.
2. Develop practical strategies for leveraging technology, automation, and AI while preserving the professional judgment and institutional knowledge essential to effective research administration.

Speakers: Susan Anderson, College of Charleston; Paige Pilkinton, College of Charleston

Topic Areas: Research Security; Research Compliance

Level: Basic

Description: Emerging Research Institutions (ERIs) are not required to establish institutional research security offices, but they are subject to certain research security measures. For example, federal funding agencies have implemented research security training requirements and certifications by covered individuals and Authorized Organizational Representatives that are applicable to all institutions. Responsibility for meeting these requirements may not be aligned with current institutional roles in ERIs. ERIs often do not have comprehensive software systems to manage these requirements. Research compliance offices may not have the resources needed to meet these new requirements. IT staff may not have content knowledge or awareness of the requirements to be able to incorporate solutions.

This presentation will describe how ERIs can identify relevant research security compliance requirements, and will provide important information to help them address those requirements. Presenters will describe a key resource, the NSF SECURE (Safeguarding the Entire Community in the U.S. Research Ecosystem) Center, which was created to "empower the research community to make security-informed decisions about research security concerns." The Center is designed for research community input in the creation of tools and resources. ERIs will gain valuable information relevant to their institutional needs and be introduced to participation in this co-creation environment.

Learning Objectives:

1. Clearly identify research security requirements relevant for their institution. 
2. Navigate the NSF SECURE Center website and access relevant resources.

Speaker: Jonathan Smalls, Claflin University

Topic: Research Operations

Level: Basic

Description: Coming soon

Learning Objectives: Coming soon

Speakers: Melinda Fischer, Clemson University; Joe Flaherty, Coker University

Topic Areas: Research Operations

Level: Basic

Description: In this session, we will discuss the importance of basic templates, timeline tools, checklists, and communication strategies for sponsored programs offices. Learn best practices, tips and strategies to stay organized, and learn how (and where) to access resources that can support you and your team.  No need to reinvent wheels or templates!

Learning Objectives:

1.  Identify core components of an effective PI support toolkit that address common pain points across the proposal development and award lifecycle.
2. Apply practical tools—such as checklists, timelines, templates, and communication guides—to support PIs more efficiently and consistently, regardless of institutional size or research intensity.
3. Develop a starter PI support toolkit that can be used at their institution to decrease timeline-related stress and increase proposal quality.

Speaker: Stacy Winchester, University of South Carolina

Topic Areas: Research Development; Pre-Award

Level: Intermediate

Description: Data Management and Sharing Plans (DMS Plans) are documents that lay out how researchers will collect, preserve, and share their research data during and after a study. They are required components of federal funding proposals. The NIH and NSF have recently implemented major changes to their DMS Plan requirements. In this session, Stacy Winchester, Research Data Librarian at USC's Libraries, will provide a discussion of these changes, demonstrating how they affect proposals going forward.

Learning Objectives:

1. Understand how NSF and NIH Data Management and Sharing Plan requirements have changed.
2. Identify how to find help.
3. Know how to support PIs in submitting these plans.

Speakers: Wade Luther, University of South Carolina; Alysia Bridgman, University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Post-Award

Level: Overview

Description: This session initiates discussion on techniques for building relationships with Principal Investigators through the post-award grants administration process as projects move from start-up to closeout phases.

Learning Objectives:

1. Initiating a kick-off process. 
2. Maintaining contact through the project life cycle.
3. Communication methods for PI's of varying experience, seniority and skill sets.

Speaker: Adam Fisher, South Carolina Research Authority

Topic Areas: Compliance; Pre-Award; Post-Award

Level: Overview

Description: The South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) advances South Carolina’s research and innovation ecosystem by strengthening university research capabilities, fostering collaboration among academia, industry, and government, and accelerating the commercialization of new technologies. Since its creation in 1983, SCRA has evolved to meet the changing needs of researchers, universities, and technology transfer offices while supporting the growth of high-technology industries, high-value jobs, and the state’s economic competitiveness.

SCRA provides funding programs that help move promising technologies toward commercialization, including Academic Matching Grants, Federal Matching Grants, and SCRA-Academic Collaboration Team (SACT) grants. The organization has also administered initiatives such as the Commerce-funded Applied Research Project and currently manages 3PhaseSC, a free statewide resource that helps South Carolina businesses prepare competitive SBIR/STTR grant proposals.

Recognizing the growing importance of research security, SCRA launched the Center for Research Security in January of 2026. Through a partnership with Digital Sciences, the center provides leading research institutions with tools to assess and mitigate research security risks. SCRA is also working directly with institutional research security leaders to better understand their needs and deliver resources that protect research funding, intellectual property, and the integrity of South Carolina’s research enterprise.

Learning Objectives:

1. Broad overview of SCRA's traditional programming and how it supports our researchers, institutions, and tech transfer offices.
2. Review recent initiatives to see how SCRA does more than just offer grants, but provide a system of support.
3. Discuss the newly-created Center for Research Security and see where SCRA is going in the future.

Speaker: Kimberly Cannady, Medical University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Research Development

Level: Intermediate

Description: Many institutions recognize the value of structured grant development programs, but moving from the idea of a program to implementation requires thoughtful planning, institutional support, and a commitment to continuous refinement. Building an effective program involves understanding faculty needs, developing a structure that can evolve over time, and responding to changing research priorities, funding expectations, and institutional goals.

This presentation will focus on the behind-the-scenes work of developing and managing a faculty grant development program - from recruiting scholars and designing the curriculum to coordinating peer review, engaging faculty reviewers and mentors, and coordinating the many operational details required to keep the program on track.

Using the Medical University of South Carolina’s (MUSC) Learning Initiative for Faculty in Training (LIFT) Academy as a case study, attendees will learn practical approaches for creating or expanding faculty grant development initiatives at their own institutions. The session will also highlight lessons learned along the way, including challenges encountered, adjustments made, and strategies for refining a program based on experience and feedback.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify key considerations for moving a faculty grant development program from concept to implementation. 
2. Describe approaches for designing and managing a structured grant development program, including scholar recruitment, curriculum development, peer review, and mentor engagement. 
3. Apply lessons learned from the MUSC LIFT Academy to refine, sustain, or expand grant development initiatives at their own institutions.

Speakers: Rebecca Wessinger, University of South Carolina; Shelby Mills, University of South Carolina; Rhea Matthews, University of South Carolina

Topic Area: Pre-Award

Level: Overview

Description: Coming soon

Learning Objectives: Coming soon

Speakers: Dan Yates, The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina; John Weinstein, The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina

Topic Area: Post-Award

Level: Basic

Description: Grant closeout is more than submitting final reports, it is the culmination of effective award management that started on Day 1. Yet for many PUIs, limited staffing, competing priorities, and changing sponsor requirements can make the closeout process challenging. This interactive discussion session invites grant administrators to share experiences, discuss common obstacles, and explore practical strategies for planning successful federal grant closeouts.

Through facilitated conversation and real-world examples, participants will exchange ideas on communication, compliance, and collaboration that can help reduce risk and improve the closeout process at their own institutions.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify common challenges and compliance risks encountered during federal grant closeout at PUIs. 
2. Discuss strategies for planning ahead and engaging principal investigators, finance offices, and other stakeholders throughout the life of an award. 
3. Compare institutional approaches to grant closeout and share practical solutions that can improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden.

Speakers: Elaine Marshall, University of South Carolina - Upstate; Jennifer Guardner, University of South Carolina - Upstate

Topic Areas: Research Development; Pre-Award; Post-Award; Research Operations

Level: Intermediate

Description: When USC Upstate’s recent Strategic Plan set a goal of more than doubling our current annual sponsored awards total within the next few years and with no new staff, the Sponsored Awards & Research Support (SARS) office knew we had to change how we had been approaching both grant seeking and award management.

As a PUI, USC Upstate faces two persistent gaps: limited grant-writing experience among faculty and inconsistent understanding of grant processes among departmental administrative staff. This presentation will describe two complementary professional development programs we developed to strengthen campus-wide grant capacity, improve proposal readiness, and provide additional post-award support.

The RISE Up! Faculty Grant Writing Program is an eight-session, hands-on workshop series that guides faculty from identifying funding opportunities and understanding sponsor guidelines to developing project objectives, budgets, methods, support documents, peer review strategies, and final submission materials.

The Grants Overview Series for Departmental Administrative Staff is a three-part series designed to build foundational knowledge of the grant lifecycle, clarify roles across institutional offices, and equip staff to support Principal Investigators in financial monitoring and compliance, and common post-award processes and problem areas.

The session will share how, together, these programs foster a shared understanding of grants across roles while strengthening institutional infrastructure to support proposal development and award management. We’ll share sample training session topics, how institutional tools are integrated into training, translating grants concepts for non-specialists, lessons learned, and strategies other institutions can adapt to their own needs.

Learning Objectives:

1.   Identify key training needs for different campus audiences involved in sponsored projects, including faculty proposal writers, departmental administrative staff, business managers, and other grant support personnel. 
2. Design a scalable professional development model that supports faculty proposal development and administrative support across the grant lifecycle. 
3. Apply practical tools (e.g., workshop structures, pre-work assignments, or lifecycle-based training modules) to outline an implementation plan for a campus-based grant capacity-building program.

Speakers: Debbie Blacknall, South Carolina State University; Godwin Mbamalu, Benedict College; Gilbert Eyabi, Anderson University; Tammy Washington, Denmark Technical College

Topic Area: Research Operations

Level: Basic

Description: Coming soon

Learning Objective: Coming soon

Speaker: Denise Wynn, Consultant

Topic Area: Research Operations

Level: Advanced

Description: Research administration offices collect an enormous amount of data, but too often that data is used primarily for reporting rather than decision-making. Proposal submissions, award activity, success rates, expenditures, workload, turnaround times, and other operational measures can provide valuable insight into institutional research performance and administrative effectiveness.

This session will help research administrators move beyond simply collecting numbers to using data to tell a story, identify trends, anticipate challenges, and support strategic decisions. Through practical examples, participants will explore how research administration data can be transformed into meaningful metrics and dashboards that help leaders better understand research activity, allocate resources, and identify opportunities for improvement.

Learning Objectives:

1. Use data to tell a story, identify trends, anticipate challenges, and support strategic decisions
2. Transform data into meaningful metrics and dashboards.