Senior Director & Principal Advisor, Research Integrity

Job Description

WORK SCHEDULE: Hybrid work arrangement with at least 5 days per month on-site; additional on-site time may be required based on business need.

BUDGETED SALARY: $250k to $325k

REPORTS TO: Senior Program Director, Research Conflicts and Integrity (dual report to the Associate Vice Provost for Research Policy & Integrity)

SCHOOL/UNIT DESCRIPTION:

The Research Policy and Integrity (RPI) office, within the Office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Research, provides university-wide policy and regulatory leadership for Stanford's research enterprise. RPI works closely with faculty leadership, school deans, research administration offices, the Office of the General Counsel, and other campus partners to develop and implement clear, consistent approaches to complex research policy and compliance matters. The office stewards the Stanford Research Policy Handbook and provides policy and regulatory leadership in several areas, including Conflict of Interest & Conflict of Commitment; Research Security, Export Controls, and Global Engagement Review; and Research Integrity.

POSITION SUMMARY:

The Senior Director & Principal Advisor, Research Integrity is a newly created leadership position that helps ensure research integrity concerns at Stanford are examined rigorously and fairly. The role requires substantial, direct experience handling research misconduct matters and demonstrated practical knowledge of the applicable federal regulations, guidelines, and procedures governing the research misconduct process, including assessments, inquiries, and investigations.

Reporting to the Senior Program Director, Research Conflicts and Integrity, with a dual reporting relationship to the Associate Vice Provost, Research Policy & Integrity, the position serves as the University’s senior expert and advisor on research integrity matters, leads fact-finding in significant and complex proceedings, and helps shape Stanford’s research integrity program, policies, and practices. The role exercises substantial independence in conducting and managing assigned investigations and works closely with University leadership.

The position conducts and leads assessments, inquiries, and investigations involving allegations of research misconduct. Working at the intersection of science, law, and university policy, the role develops investigative strategies; directs evidence preservation and sequestration; analyzes documentary, electronic, data, image, and other scientific evidence; interviews respondents, complainants, and witnesses; engages forensic, statistical, and subject-matter experts; and prepares the analyses and reports on which institutional decisions rely. The role advises faculty committees and university leadership on evidentiary sufficiency, procedural requirements, and the application of federal regulations and university policy to complex and novel matters.

Beyond individual cases, the position plays a leading role in Stanford’s research integrity program: advising university leadership on policy and institutional response, developing procedures and guidance, advising schools on the matters they handle, training committee members and university partners, and representing Stanford with federal agencies, journals, collaborating institutions, and peer research integrity professionals. The role also takes on other significant research policy, security, and integrity assignments, such as specialized reviews, policy analysis, and complex matters that call for independent judgment.

The ideal candidate is a seasoned research integrity professional or attorney with substantial, direct experience in research misconduct matters, including the assessment, inquiry, and investigation of allegations of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The position requires demonstrated knowledge and practical experience applying federal research misconduct regulations, institutional policies, and associated procedural requirements, including those governing evidence preservation, investigative processes, reporting, and institutional responsibilities.

The successful candidate must be able to navigate complex scientific and regulatory issues independently, exercise sound judgment involving sensitive matters, and provide authoritative guidance to faculty committees and senior university leadership. A scientific, engineering, or health research background, particularly when combined with legal training, is a significant asset. Experience in or working knowledge of related areas of research compliance, policy, and oversight including conflicts of interest and commitment, research security, export controls, human and animal research protections, research data governance, publication ethics, responsible conduct of research, sponsored research compliance, and other areas of institutional regulatory oversight is also desirable, particularly where these areas intersect with research integrity and institutional risk.

Preferred/Desired Qualifications

• Juris Doctor (JD) strongly preferred. Particularly relevant backgrounds include law firm or in-house investigations, regulatory investigations, inspector general or other federal enforcement work, prosecutorial experience, and other complex investigative or fact-finding roles.
• Candidates without a JD are encouraged to apply if they bring substantial research integrity or comparable scientific-investigations experience, such as service as a Research Integrity Officer or deputy, significant responsibility for research misconduct proceedings, or equivalent work at a university, academic medical center, ORI, an Office of Inspector General, or another research oversight body.
• Doctoral-level scientific or clinical research training (PhD or MD) is especially valued.
• A scientific, engineering, or health research background is a significant plus, particularly when combined with a JD or substantial investigations experience.
• Experience with research integrity or another complex investigative or regulatory environment is strongly preferred; candidates should be able to work confidently at the intersection of scientific evidence, institutional policy, and legal or regulatory requirements.
• Demonstrated experience leading complex, sensitive investigations involving disputed facts, extensive records, and senior stakeholders at a research university, academic medical center, federal agency, law firm, corporation, or comparable organization.
• Demonstrated, direct experience applying federal research misconduct regulations and institutional requirements in the assessment, inquiry, or investigation of research misconduct allegations, including a strong working knowledge of applicable procedural standards, evidentiary requirements, institutional responsibilities, and federal reporting obligations.
• Demonstrated ability to analyze complex documentary, electronic, scientific, data, and image evidence and reach well-supported conclusions; experience with evidence preservation, chain of custody, e-discovery, or forensic review is a plus.
• Exceptional writing skills, including experience preparing clear, persuasive investigative reports, legal or regulatory analyses, or comparable work relied on by senior decision makers.
• Experience planning and conducting sensitive interviews, assessing conflicting accounts, and managing confidential matters with discretion, fairness, and sound judgment.
• Ability to translate complex evidence and regulatory requirements into clear advice for faculty, senior leadership, counsel, committees, and federal agencies.
• Excellent interpersonal, communication, and conflict-management skills, including the confidence and diplomacy to work effectively with distinguished faculty and senior leaders in high-stakes or contested matters.
• Experience building or improving investigative processes, training or advising committees, supervising professional staff, and directing forensic, statistical, or other subject-matter experts.
• An exemplary track record of integrity, independence, and judgment, including the ability to reach and clearly defend well-supported conclusions that may be unwelcome.