internal funding recommendations n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Internal Funding Recommendations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Internal Funding Recommendations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Internal Funding Recommendations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 67 Views
  • Uploaded on

Internal Funding Recommendations. The Ad Hoc Task Force on Internal Funding Fred Beard (Journalism), Bob Houser (Chemistry), & Joe Rodgers (Psychology) May, 2010. The Following are the nine action recommendations developed by the task force. Recommendation #1.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Internal Funding Recommendations


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
internal funding recommendations

Internal Funding Recommendations

The Ad Hoc Task Force on Internal Funding

Fred Beard (Journalism), Bob Houser (Chemistry), & Joe Rodgers (Psychology)

May, 2010

recommendation 1
Recommendation #1
  • Internal funding should be better coordinated among OU units than has occurred in the past.

Especially, coordination between the funding opportunities offered by the RC, and those that emerge from college activity, should be complimentary and not competitive. Improved coordination between the VPR office and college research activity (often administered by an appointed associate dean) is recommended.

recommendation 2
Recommendation #2
  • The RC, supported by the VPR office, should develop a more flexible approach to changes in internal funding methods and mechanisms.

(The many years of discussion of increasing the Junior Faculty Summer Research Grants is an example of how such lack of flexibility can create inequities within the system.)

During each summer, the past RC chair, the incoming RC chair, and the VPR's office should collaborate to implement new methods and approaches.

recommendation 3
Recommendation #3
  • Specific new funding categories should be immediately implemented.
    • A separately budgeted line related to subvention requests is currently under discussion.
    • Another funding category we recommend developing applies to research that has particular relevance to Oklahoma, including economic, demographic, historical, and other research agendas that apply to Oklahoma.
recommendation 4
Recommendation #4
  • Funding to support research time should be expanded.

Categories to consider include

    • senior faculty summer research fellowships;
    • release time requests;
    • and support for research activities during sabbaticals (separate from sabbatical salary funding).
recommendation 5
Recommendation #5
  • A more dynamic and interactive support process should be developed (and is currently going forward)

Internal support for potentially fundable projects, through the PI investment awards, should be coordinated through the VPR's office, in particular by drawing on support from the newly established office to support Proposal Development.

recommendation 6

.

Recommendation #6
  • A separately budgeted line should be created to support larger grant activities and initiatives
    • Innovative and transformational research
    • More expensive internal research projects
    • Multi-year research projects
recommendation 7
Recommendation #7
  • We recommend that the VPR office continue to keep the budget together in relation to different parts of the university
    • The rationale is to continue to be consistent with the inter-disciplinary nature of the RC.
    • We also strongly recommend that the RC model be continued in which a broad and diverse review team evaluates all proposals.
recommendation 8
Recommendation #8
  • We recommend continued discussion -- and potential development -- of an endowment that would partially or completely support various categories of RC funding. Such endowment money would have to be recruited at high levels of the university structure.
recommendation 9
Recommendation #9
  • There is currently ongoing analysis of an OU Research Climate survey, to which a number of OU faculty responded in spring, 2010.
    • The results of that survey, when available and when analysis is completed, should be studied in relation to the recommendations in this document.
    • We expect that many of those results could contextualize, motivate, or in some cases suggest revision in our recommendations.
    • (Note: actual climate survey questions related to internal funding are included in the next slides)
slide12

Important Survey Items Related to Internal Funding

5. I have the knowledge and ability to write proposals for external funding.

6. I have the experience to write proposals for external funding.

18. I participated in the development of an external funding or grant proposal prior to coming to OU.

32. There is a high expectation in my department to conduct research that is externally funded.

34. There is a high expectation in my department for faculty to generate as much funding as possible via research and/or creative/scholarly activities (e.g. external funding sources).

These items deal with resources/needs that faculty use RC funding to support.

59. I have access to adequate resources such as secretarial support, research/teaching assistants, computers, library materials, data analyses, technical support, clerical staff, etc., to conduct my research and/or creative/scholarly activity.

60. My department provides me with, or I have from external or other sources, adequate support to travel to professional/academic conferences.

61. I have adequate space to conduct my research and/or creative/scholarly activity.

62. I have space that is well equipped for me to conduct my research and/or creative/scholarly activity.

63. I have adequate time to conduct research and/or creative/scholarly activity projects.

climate survey questions related to internal funding
Climate Survey Questions Related to Internal Funding

These items deal with productivity.

95. Over the last two academic years, how many peer-reviewed proposals/papers have you submitted that were accepted for national conference presentations that involve your research?

96. Over the last two academic years, how many national government grant proposals have you submitted in which you were an investigator?

97. Over the last two academic years, how many national government grant proposals have you submitted in which you were an investigator that were partially or fully funded?

98. Over the last two academic years, how many national private grant proposals (i.e., from private foundations, etc.) have you submitted in which you were an investigator?

99. Over the last two academic years, how many national private grant proposals (i.e., from private foundations, etc.) have you submitted in which you were an investigator that were partially or fully funded?

100. Over the last two academic years, with how many contracts for research with private industry have you been involved?

101. Over the last two academic years, on how many research projects external to the university have you served as a consultant?

102. Over the last two academic years, how many state and/or local government grant proposals have you submitted in which you were an investigator?

103. Over the last two academic years, how many state and/or local government grant proposals have you submitted in which you were an investigator that were partially or fully funded?