KU: University Governance

Final Report FY10: Faculty Senate Research Committee
Submitted by Lorie A. Vanchena, ChairApril 5, 2010

Standing Charges FY10
1. Monitor the administration of the General Research Fund (GRF) and make recommendations, as needed, to ensure its effectiveness and appropriate utilization. Report to FacEx concerning actions taken in respect to this charge by 03/09/10

.2. Monitor the implementation of the University’s policy on Restricted Research (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article IX), including policies and procedures for handling requests for exceptions.

3. Serve as the body to hear faculty appeals of research rejected by the restricted research committee or by the Vice Provost for Research, as specified in the Restricted Research Policy.

4. Monitor the implementation of policies and procedures for determining which proposals will go forward in cases where the number of grant applications that may be submitted from the University is limited. Identify problems or concerns, and report issues and recommendations to FacEx (ongoing).

5. Work with ACTC and consider needs for and issues with research to computing and telecommunications, including recommendations for sustainable policies and procedures. Monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by the Task Force on Research Computing. Report issues and recommendations to FacEx 12/01/09.

Actions Taken
Charge #1. In fall 2009 committee members recognized that last year’s GRF subcommittee of the FSRC had not issued recommendations for the reallocation of GRF funds made necessary by the creation of the School of the Arts within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, nor had the subcommittee completed the three-year review of the GRF required by governance.

The FSRC consulted Lisa Wolf-Wendel, President of the Faculty Senate, who subsequently charged the FSRC with making recommendations for reallocating funds due to the creation of SOTA. The FSRC submitted its recommendations on GRF reallocations to FacEx on December 1, 2009; the recommendations were approved.

The Faculty Senate also subsequently charged the FSRC with completing a GRF review for FY06 – FY09, which would entail evaluating reports submitted by each entity, outlining the degree to which each entity met its GRF-related research goals, and recommending GRF allocations for the next three-year period. We will submit our report on the GRF review to FacEx on April 5, 2010.

Throughout the GRF review process, members of the FSRC emphasized the need to consider broader issues related to the GRF review and the GRF in general. In the broadest terms, the FSRC has considered whether the current review process is the best approach to determining the effectiveness of the GRF. We request that the following issues be included among the committee’s charges for FY11:

1. Devise new criteria for evaluating entities’ success in using GRF awards to further their research goals and work with Faculty Senate to revise the relevant governance code.

2. Utilize our experience this year to improve both the GRF reporting and the GRF review process. We could provide valuable input to RGS on the issue of developing and maintaining on online database, for example. We have also gathered information from current entity representatives that could be used to facilitate the reporting process.

3. The committee regrets that it was not included in discussions conducted by the KU Research Engagement Task Force during the 2009-2010 academic year. As a Faculty Senate committee with charges that focus directly on research at KU, we feel that our work sheds lights on several research-related issues and that we could make valuable contributions to actions that will be taken “to promote, sustain, and recognize research engagement” and “to enhance and utilize university resources to achieve and sustain high levels of research engagement” (KU Research Engagement Task Force Report, 24 March 2010, page 1). The FSRC suggests that in FY11 we be charged with working with RGS and monitoring the progress of actions implemented as a result of the Task Force Report.

Charge #2.
As chair of the FSRC, Lorie Vanchena also served as an ex-officio member of the Restricted Research Committee, which is chaired by Professor Doug Huffman. Lorie attended the initial meeting of the RRC in October 2009 and reported to the FSRC that the RRC receives approximately 6 applications for exemptions each year. KUCR attempts to resolve restrictions on publications or access to the research process or facilities through negotiation, but if these negotiations are unsuccessful, the investigator may apply for an exemption. The merits of the proposed research and the potential benefits to be realized must clearly outweigh the disadvantages of the restrictions. An appeal of a decision made by the RRC would come to the FSRC. As of October, this had not happened in two years. A decision can be appealed only when there were evident procedural problems with the original decision process or when there is new or additional information about the project that could reasonably change the original decision. We would have 2 weeks to respond with our recommendation. Doug and Bill assured me that they would provide whatever assistance we need in order to make a good decision. Our recommendation would then be presented to the Vice Provost, with whom the final decision rests.

Charge #3.
There were no appeals of decisions made by the Restricted Research Committee.

Charge #4.
Joshua Rosenbloom, Associate Vice Provost, KUCR, met with members of the FSRC on April 2 to discuss limited submission proposals. We had met with him in October 2009 to discuss KUCR’s process of peer review for such grant competitions. He explained the process and the history of the policy governing limited submission proposals, which was vetted with FSRC. He indicated that he would be open to discussions about the selection of peer reviewers. It was suggested that this committee develop a simple survey to gather feedback from faculty on research policy at KU.

Our plans to follow-up on this suggestion were not carried out, as we agreed to take on two large tasks involving the GRF. We suggest that this charge be carried forward to FY11.

Professor Rosenbloom suggested, during our April discussion, that the FSRC might be interested in monitoring the growing burden placed on researchers by compliance and administrative issues related to research. He would welcome feedback from the FSRC on this burgeoning issue.

Charge #5.
FSRC held two meetings in fall 2009 to address this charge. FSRC invited Professor Donna Tucker, Chair, Academic Computing and Telecommunications Committee (ACTC), to attend the first meeting, held October 30. FSRC then invited Donald F. (Rick) McMullen, Director of Research Computing and Senior Scientist, Research and Graduate Studies and Information Services, and members of ACTC to attend a second meeting, held December 16.

Professor Donna Tucker was asked to discuss commitments the Provost had made in response to the report of the Task Force on Research Computing and the status of Vice Provost Denise Stephens’ promise to form seven campus-wide advisory groups. Conversation during this meeting focused largely on whether progress had been made in achieving integrated planning among IS, KUCR, and RGS, and, if there had been such progress, whether it was being made public in an appropriate manner.

Director McMullen was asked to speak on progress that is being made with respect to academic computing and how results are being communicated. He discussed in detail initial conditions and directions, the current status, a roadmap for research computing, continuing challenges, and needs and issues.

During the discussion that followed Director McMullen’s presentation, members of FSRC and ACTC made several observations and raised several questions that formed the basis of eight recommendations we put forth in a report submitted to FacEx on January 29, 2010. These recommendations focused on the need to devise ways of 1) ensuring that Director McMullen and his office remain well informed of faculty and student needs with respect to academic computing and 2) monitoring not only what progress is being made but also how this progress is being communicated to the university community.