ANNUAL REPORT OF THE RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY COMMITTEE Date: May 2, 1985 Torr James LeRoy Smith, Chair of Faculty From: Roger G. Eldridge Jr., Chair of Research/Creative Activity Com. Membership: Trenton Davis, Representative for Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Robert Franke, Representative for Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement Joe Boyette, Dean of the Graduate School Collett Dilworth, English Roger G. Eldridge Jr., Education George Evans, Chemistry Margie Gallagher, Home Economics Gregg Givens, Allied Health and Social Work Umesh Gulati, Business Ruth Katz, Library Services Joong Ho Kim, Mathematics Ed Leahy, Geography and Planning Brian McMillen, Medicine Larry Means, Psychology Eugene Ryan, Arts and Sciences Committee Meetings August 29, 1984. Givens, Kim, Leahy September 26, 1984. Boyette, Dilworth, Evans, Givens October 10, 1984. Davis, Boyette, McMillen, Means October 17, 1984. Davis, Boyette, Givens, Gulati, Katz, Means, Ryan October 24, 1984. Evans, Kim February 13, 1985. Givens February 20, 1985. Katz, Davis, Boyette, Ryan, Kim, Evans February 27, 1985. April 17, 1985. Dilworth, Evans, Givens, Gulati, Kim, Means The R/CAC reported to the Faculty Senate October 23, 1984, at which time the Senate approved the revised guidelines and April 23, 1985 concerning proposals for recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. None The R/CAC functioned as a whole in its major task of evaluating and ranking proposals. Each member read and ranked each proposal. To accomplish this task effectively, every member had their own copy of the proposals. Several subcommittees were appointed during the year. Margie Gallagher chaired the subcommittee which reviewed the evaluation form and submitted to the committee membership revisions of the form. Ruth Katz chaired a subcommittee which was asked to study the effects of research/creative activity grants on the production of papers, presenta- tions, works, shows, etc. of the University faculty. Larry Means chaired a subcommittee to review criteria, instructions and the pro- posal form for summer stipend proposals. Collett Dilworth chaired a subcommittee which was to develop guidelines for evaluating proposals from individuals who fail to spend their grant money once it has been awarded. These subcommittees and their chairs deserve recognition for their outstanding efforts. Outlined below are the actions completed or begun but not yet completed by the R/CAC in the 1984-1985 academic year. A. Annual review of the criteria, forms and procedures for soliciting evaluating and recommending R/CA proposals to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. 1. Proposal Forms: The academic year proposal form was revised to eliminate extraneous information, to clarify the kind of content need in the proposals, to stipulate the need for brevity of the proposal, to emphasize that the R/CAC does not fund travel to meetings or publication costs. The proposal form for summer stipends was developed for the first time. The academic year and summer stipend forms differed only in that the summer form requested no information about budgets. Criteria and Guidelines: Guidelines were added which requested applicants to file appropriate forms for use of human subjects and animal subjects. To the summer stipend guidelines, the stipulation was added that twelve month employees must make special arrangements to avoid dual employment during the time of the stipend. Call Form: Both academic year forms and summer stipend forms were sent out on the same day and both had the same deadline date. Evaluation Form: A uniform evaluation form was used for all pro- posals. This form provides for a numerical score for each in- dividual for each proposal. The score is based on the following factors: 1) investigator's experience with new investigators receiving 9 points more than experienced investigators; 2) criteria of excellence; and 3) whether the budget expenditures were supported in the proposal. The summer stipend proposals also had a uniform evaluation form without a budget category. Calendar for Review: To facilitate the work of the R/CAC and to present proposal recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs as soon as possible the R/CAC adopted a calendar for 1984-1985. This procedure worked well. Additionally, the R/CAC in collaboration with the Teaching Grants Committee adopted a general calendar so the faculty will know when to expect calls and when to expect due dates. Proposal Evaluation: Evaluation of proposals was completed using the following steps: a) All proposals were due at 5:00 p.m. January 14, 1985. b) R/CAC members had until February 8th to read individually, evaluate and score all academic year proposals. Each member also recommended budget by line item. R/CAC members had until February 15th to read individually, evaluate and score all summer stipend proposals. The R/CAC secretary prepared a summary of all academic year proposal scores and ranked the academic year proposals with #1 receiving the highest score, etc. The R/CAC met on February 13th to decide if all academic year proposals met the criteria and to discuss the merits of the academic year proposals. After this discussion, each committee member had until February 22nd ‘to submit final evaluations making changes if he/she so desired. Individuals whose proposals did not meet the criteria received a letter written by the Chair of the R/CAC explaining the reason the proposal would not be reviewed. The R/CAC secretary prepared a summary of all scores and ranked summer stipend proposals with # 1 receiving the highest score, etc. The R/CAC met on February 20th to decide if all summer stipend proposals met criteria and to discuss the merits of the summer stipend proposals. After this discussion each committee member had until March lst to submit final evaluations, making changes if he/she so desired. Persons whose stipend proposals did not meet the criteria received a letter written by the Chair of the R/CAC explaining the reason the proposal would not be reviewed. The R/CAC secretary then ranked all academic year proposals again by score and also averaged budget recommendations. The R/CAC secretary then ranked all summer stipend proposals again by score. Both academic year and summer stipend proposals reviewed were recommended by rank to the Vice Chancellor. Action of the R/CAC was reported to theFaculty Senate at the April meeting. Each person who submitted either an academic year proposal and/or a summer stipend proposal received written notification of the action of the R/CAC. Persons who had academic year proposals reviewed by the R/CAC received written notification of the rank of their proposal, the recommended budget, and a summary of the evaluation. Persons who had summer stipend proposals reviewed by the R/CAC received written notification of the rank of their proposal and a summary of the evaluation. Infor- mation was sent only to the investigator; no record of the evaluation summary exists except that sent to the investigator. The process outlined above appeared to work very well. Since the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs did not reveal a total amount of money to be awarded by the R/CAC and because of the high number of academic year proposal submitted 39% of the academic year proposals were not funded. The R/CAC voted to fund a total of 33 academic year proposals this year. Four summer stipend proposals were awarded out of a total of 17 summer stipend proposals submitted. None Issues to be addressed next year: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) To develop a plan for a grant-writing workshop for all faculty members interested in applying for R/CAC grants. To continue the study of the effects of grants given to University faculty as concerns publications, presentations, works, shows, etc. To obtain from the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs a clarification of who is eligible for summer stipends. To conduct a total re-evaluation of the proposal criteria, guide- lines, and evaluation form for the 1985-1986 academic year. To respond to criticisms of the procedures used to report rankings and evaluation comments to persons submitting proposals. To develop procedures for establishing an appropriate cut-off for proposals which are not meritorious. These procedures must be in place before the discussion of proposals occurs. To define the term creative activity and to specify activities that constitute creative activity. Evaluation of the R/CAC: A. Structure: Given the diverse nature of research and creative activity on the campus, it is appropriate for the R/CAC structure to be diverse. Likewise, it is important that persons submitting proposals to the R/CAC recognize and understand the diversity of the R/CAC. The diverse membership does provide for a balance within the University community. Duties: The R/CAC's task is to accept proposals and to evaluate them so as to provide financial assistance to those proposals that are meritorious. This year 57 academic year proposals and 17 summer stipend proposals were reviewed. The criteria for establishing the call for proposals is set by the Faculty Senate, and the R/CAC attempts to suggest changes to the Faculty Senate which clarify the criteria and enhance the likelihood that quality proposals are being funded. In the three years I have served on the R/CAC many steps have been taken to improve the grant sub- mission process, the review and evaluation process, and especially the feedback process. More steps are left to be taken, but we are making strides to improve the entire granting process. The R/CAC members work conscientiously. Individuals submitting proposals must realize that evaluation of proposals is based on merit as defined by the current membership of the R/CAC and the diverse orientations to research and creative activity the members bring to the R/CAC. The R/CAC has standardized many of the evaluation procedures such as having all members read and evaluate all proposals and the use of a standard evaluation form. A beginning has been initiated; further refinement of the evaluation process must follow. Personnel: The personnel of the R/CAC works hard, efficiently and effectively over long hours. Members devote much time to reading and discussing each proposal. The secretary of the Faculty Senate, Helen Ruff Broaddus must be commended for all of the work she does to help the R/CAC complete its tasks. Further- more, the secretary of the R/CAC, Margie Gallagher, must be commended for her tireless efforts to see that all actions taken by. the R/CAC are recorded and the evaluation figures tabulated accurately and the rankings calculated precisely. Subcommittee chairs have done a commendable job to see that the preparations for the call for proposals are efficiently carried out. XI. Suggestions: The R/CAC must continue as best it can to provide unbiased proposal evaluations. The committee must continue to improve all aspects of the proposal evaluation process as well as improve the feedback process to all individuals submitting proposals. bgt litte fe Roger G. Eldridge, Jr. Chair, Research/Creative Activity Committee