University Governance

Faculty Senate Research Committee

 

Faculty Senate Research Committee Final Report FY2011


Standing Charge #1a, Addendum to Report on Standing Charge #1b, Standing Charges 2-4
Addendum to Report on Standing Charge #5

 Faculty Senate Research Committee Report: Standing Charge #1a
April 15, 2011
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 with respect to this charge by 03/09/11.  Special charges under Standing Charge #1 are:

a. 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 guidelines.  Report to FacEx concerning actions taken with respect to this charge by 03/09/11.

On February 10, 2011 the FSRC informed each GRF entity that it was seeking to improve certain aspects of the GRF review process “in order to ensure that reviews are as transparent, fair, and effective as possible.” Our main concern, the letter stated, was “what we deem to be a general lack of explicitness, primarily in the criteria used by the FSRC to evaluate entity reports, but also, in some cases, in the entity reports submitted during last year’s review process.”

The FSRC requested that each GRF entity respond to the following four questions:

  1. What are your entity’s goals for the GRF?
  2. How do your selection criteria reflect your goals?
  3. How would you like the FSRC to evaluate your success in realizing your goals?
  4. What are the quantifiable outcomes you expect from recipients of GRF awards (conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, grant proposals, graduate student funding, etc.)?

Responses were received from each GRF entity and discussed at our April 1, 2011 meeting. The range of responses to Question #3 varied widely: some entities asked that the FSRC consider external reviews, various rubrics, the number of GRF applications in a given entity, NIH rankings, and success of GRF recipients in obtaining tenure and promotion.

The committee decided to adapt a chart provided by the School of Engineering that lists categories of possible GRF outcomes. The FSRC could develop a master list and then ask each entity to indicate which outcomes should be used for its recipients.

Below is a copy of the letter send in February to GRF entities.

Recommendation for FY12
Carry Standing Charge #1a over into next year so that the FSRC can continue working with GRF entities to establish transparent and effective guidelines in time for the next GRF 3-year review (spring 2013).

Respectfully submitted by Lorie A. Vanchena, Chair, FSRC

 

Dear GRF Entity,

In spring 2010 the Faculty Senate Research Committee (FSRC) conducted a mandated review of the General Research Fund (GRF). Based on this experience, the FSRC recommended to the Faculty Senate that certain aspects of the review process be improved in order to ensure that reviews are as transparent, fair, and effective as possible. The Faculty Senate charged the FSRC FY11 with devising “new criteria for evaluating entities’ success in using GRF awards to further their research goals” and working “with Faculty Senate to revise the relevant guidelines” (Standing Charge 1a).

Our main concern is what we deem to be a general lack of explicitness, primarily in the criteria used by the FSRC to evaluate entity reports, but also, in some cases, in the entity reports submitted during last year’s review process. The FSRC currently uses the following criteria to evaluate entity reports:

  1. Has the entity made sufficient progress toward achieving the goals specified in its application for funds?
  2. Has the entity continued to demonstrate a commitment to enhancing the research, scholarly, and creative activities of its faculty through the use of the GRF?
  3. Have the entity and its faculty made appropriate efforts, reasonable for the discipline, to secure external support for faculty scholarship?

 

As a first step, the FSRC is asking each entity to tell us what it seeks to accomplish with the GRF and how it seeks to accomplish its GRF-related goals. We are also requesting that GRF entities, in consultation with their faculty, revise (if necessary) their current GRF goals and selection criteria so that they are explicit and so that the selection criteria are congruent with the stated goals. The FSRC will provide feedback during this process, which will result in the submission of new evaluation criteria to Faculty Senate.

While each entity is expected to demonstrate how its GRF goals and selection criteria support the University’s research mission, each entity has its own set of goals and selection criteria. Some entities expect faculty to use GRF awards as seed money for securing external grants or to fund graduate students, for example, whereas other entities award GRFs to faculty members conducting archival research. For this reason, it is critical that each entity clearly define how its success in meeting its GRF goals should be evaluated during three-year reviews.

Please respond to the following questions by Wednesday, March 16, 2011 (send responses as attachments to vanchena@ku.edu):

  1. What are your entity’s goals for the GRF?
  2. How do your selection criteria reflect your goals?
  3. How would you like the FSRC to evaluate your success in realizing your goals?
  4. What are the quantifiable outcomes you expect from recipients of GRF awards (conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, grant proposals, graduate student funding, etc.)?

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. We appreciate your assistance in this important process.

Lorie A. Vanchena
Chair, Faculty Senate Research Committee

 

Faculty Senate Research Committee, Addendum to Report on Standing Charge #1b
April 15, 2011
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 with respect to this charge by 03/09/11.  Special charges under Standing Charge #1 are:
b. Utilize data gathered for the Committee’s 2010 GRF report to make recommendations toward improving both the GRF reporting and the GRF review process.  Provide input to RGS on the issue of developing and maintaining an online database.  Solicit feedback from 2010 entity representatives to inform recommendations.  Report to FacEx concerning actions taken with respect to this charge by 03/09/11.
As reported in March 2011, the chair of the FSRC was added to the Stakeholder Group that had been asked to provide feedback on the activities of the Steering Committee focusing on developing an electronic tool for reporting faculty activity (FARS, Faculty Activity Reporting System).

At the FSRC’s meeting on April 1, 2011, Vanchena reported on the demonstration on March 20, 2011 by Digital Measures of its faculty activity reporting system:

Vanchena reported enthusiastically that the system is customizable to a high degree (most likely on a unit, rather than individual, basis). There are two types of users: faculty and administrators. Faculty can manage their activities and run custom reports. Digital Measures is developing utilities to make data entry as easy as possible, in order to secure a high rate of faculty buy-in; KU could also hire people to handle data input. Any type of file can be attached (Word, Excel, movie, audio, image). By tying into the Registrar, for example, FARS could generate course listings, including the number of students and grade distribution; it can also indicate “new course preparation,” “new format for existing course,” etc. There would be a central administrator on campus who would work with individual units to determine needs and then work with Digital Measures to implement those customizations. It is a hosted service, backed up five times each night. The system can also be used to keep each faculty member’s public profile up to date.

Vanchena asked the Digital Measures representatives if faculty data could be flagged to indicate research outcomes tied to GRF awards; she was assured that this would be possible.

Recommendation for FY12
The FSRC should continue to work with the Steering Committee and with GRF entities to ensure that FARS implements the customization necessary to use the system for GRF reporting purposes.

Respectfully submitted by Lorie A. Vanchena, Chair, FSRC

 

Faculty Senate Research Committee Report, Standing Charges 2-4
April 15, 2011

 

Standing Charge 2: Monitor the execution of the University’s Restricted Research Policy (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, Article IX) in handling requests for exceptions.  (standing)

As chair of the FSRC, Lorie Vanchena also served as an ex-officio member of the
Restricted Research Committee. She was not asked to meet with the Restricted Research Committee this year.

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

Standing Charge 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).
On February 26, 2011 Joshua Rosenbloom, Associate Vice Provost, KUCR, provided members of the FSRC with a report on Limited Proposal Submissions. This year the committee did not identify any problems or concerns that needed to be reported to FacEx.

 

Recommendation for FY12
The FSRC could follow up on a suggestion made last year that the committee monitor the growing burden placed on researchers by compliance and administrative issues related to research.

 

 

Faculty Senate Research Committee, Addendum to Report on Standing Charge #5
April 15, 2011

Standing Charge #5: Work with ACTC to process needs for and issues with computing and telecommunications for research, including recommendations for sustainable policies and procedures.  Monitor the origination of the autonomous Information Technology (IT) division and report issues and recommendations to FacEx. Report status of progress to FacEx by March 1, 2011.

 

On March 1, 2011 the FSRC reported to FacEx that the FSRC and ACTC had contacted Vice Provost Goddard about meeting candidates for the CIO position and offering our feedback to the search committee.

Members of the FSRC did meet with the two candidates for Chief Information Officer during the campus visits on March 15 and March 17. A separate time had been scheduled for members of ACTC, but members of each committee could attend either meeting. The FSRC submitted its feedback on each candidate to the search committee on March 18 and March 21, respectively