Faculty Senate Research Committee

2003 – 2004 Report

 

The Faculty Senate Research Committee met three times during the academic year, twice with Mohammed El-Hodiri as chair and once with Ann Brill as chair.  The committee changed chairs in late February when El-Hodiri stepped down due to health reasons.

 

In addition to the standing charges, the committee had five charges this year:

  1. Review the procedures for appointing committees that evaluate GRF proposals (by every entity and unit) and of the process of reporting the recommendations of those committees to the administrator of the GRF (e.g. Who are the administrators that review the recommendations? What is the role of deans, chairs, and directors on the evaluation committees?)
  2. Continue the work from FY-03 dealing with Conflict of Interest/Technology Transfer.  See the comments in the 2002 – 2203 final report.
  3. Review general issues related to GRF policies, reporting, and outcomes pertaining to (a) the University’s general policy on the GRF fund; (b) specific policies (by entity and unit) of the GRF fund.
  4. Submit to AP&P via SenEx a request to initiate better awareness on the part of individual faculty, department/unit heads, and deans, of the University’s Scientific/Scholarly Misconduct Policy and Grievance procedures so that disputes be first addressed at the lowest level of administration before advancing to the Provost’s office.
  5. Revisit the University’s policy on Classified Research. (The reason is that a number of faculty see their work being perceived by the federal government as overlapping with classified research.)

 

Four subcommittees were formed to meet, investigate and report on the additional charges.  Unfortunately, due to resignations of some members and the change of leadership, only three subcommittees submitted brief reports.

 

Charges 1 and 3 were not dealt with and should be reassigned to the 2004-2005 committee. The FSRC committee further suggests that the charges be combined to one charge instructing the 2004 - 2005 committee to submit a report on the overall purpose and process by which each unit assigns GRF funds.

 

Charge #2: When the committee met March 12, 2004, they reviewed a new brochure published by the KU office of Technology Transfer & Intellectual Property.  After discussion, the members requested clarification of this publication as regard to the charge of their role in the conflict of interest/technology transfer.  Members were uncertain of the committee’s role and the role of the office that published the brochure.

 

Charge #4: The University Senate Rules and Regulations, August 2003, include Article IX “Guidelines for Dealing with Allegations of Scientific/Scholarly Misconduct.” The guidelines are very clear and outline specific actions and procedures with guidance for the process that should be taken. The University of Kansas has had guidelines in place for a number of years. With the exception of minor changes, the wording has been the same. The challenge that remains is to develop an awareness of them by the faculty, especially by those who have been newly hired. Incoming faculty should be given an overview of the guidelines in Article IX perhaps as part of their campus orientation or during the induction process in their departments.  Clearly, the issues raised in Article IX are very serious and merit review by all.  In addition, changes to the University Senate Rules and Regulations 2.6.1 concerning the academic misconduct policy were circulated to members of the University Senate on March 2, 2004.  Again, the members of the research committee were uncertain as to their role in revising, circulating and publicizing the information about academic misconduct as it relates to research.

 

Charge 5: At the November 14, 2003, meeting the committee heard from George Wilson, representing Jim Roberts, Vice Provost for Research.  Wilson said KU policies on classified research, section G3, also were under review by the Vice Provost’s office.  No one from that office was available to attend when the FSRC met for the final time March 15, 2004.  The FSRC suggest that this charge be assigned to the 2004- 2005 committee with the addition request of working with the research office, the associate deans’ committee on research and other research committees on campus to coordinate discussion on the University’s policy on classified research.

 

Finally, members of the 2003 – 2004 FSRC requested a clarification of its charges. The five members who met March 15, 2004, did not wish to meet again this year. At that meeting, however, members voiced the concern that this committee was not a viable entity and urged Faculty Senate to reinvigorate it and empower it with specific charges as to its oversight and authority. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Ann Brill, chair

May 21, 2004