This is wonderful information (which Phil should put into a
newsletter or journal), but I have to take exception with at least two
faculty fallacies-- release time for proposal development, which is
impossible to value or evaluate-- it generally becomes just release
time-- and grant writers-- many faculty are so scared of putting
"pen to paper" they would rather sub it out to somone
else. For sure they need editors badly, but proposal development is
part of their job adn only they can write expertly about their
research. I know I harp about this, but if we don't help them learn
their craft, adn this is a big part of it,we are doing them a huge
disservice AND putting outself at the front of the blame when the
proposals aren't funded. Faculty need to be independent grown-up
people who learn NOT to need us.
Spanky
At 07:57 AM 7/27/2005, you wrote:
I think most of the good stuff
has been said. But several years ago the Faculty Incentives Committee of
our research foundation surveyed the faculty here. There were over 300
responses. Here are the findings in order of frequency. It is important
to note that there was agreement on the seven priorities below by active
"grant" faculty (those who write proposals and have awards) and
inactive faculty who have not done proposals at least recently. For both
active and inactive faculty, it is interesting to note that while release
time was far and away the top vote getter, inactive faculty rated it
higher than active grant faculty. Furthermore, administrators were also
sent the same survey, and the priorities were the same.
1. Develop/disseminate a release time policy for engaging in grant
writing.
2. Consider grant writing activity in salary reviews.
3. Consider grant writing activity in tenure/promotion decisions.
4. Develop a procedure for providing matching dollars.
5. Provide information on grant opportunities that match faculty
interests.
6. Disseminate info about OSP (Office of Sponsored Programs) resources
available to support grant writing.
7. Develop procedure for the provision of travel assistance with grant
activity.
Two open ended questions were asked to elicit suggestions for additional
incentives and how to fund incentives. Here are the suggestions to
promote grant writing activity:
1. Salary stipend based on amount of grant.
2. Promote cooperation between OSP, Development Office and grant writing
faculty. There may be additional resources available through that
exchange.
3. teaching load from 4 to 3 courses/semester.
4. Provide a unit reward for grant writing; department that has the
highest morale and can explain their reward system.
5. Time to fill out the volumes of paperwork.
6. Technical assistance from the OSP.
7. Stipend for non-faculty.
8. Summer stipends for grant writing.
9. Grant writing workshop in each college.
10. Allowing faculty to write professional development funds into grants
on a regular basis.
11. Publish brochures on the benefits of grant writing for the
University, the College, the Department and the faculty member.
12. Provide and encourage grant opportunities for staff that will fund
travel opportunities nationally and/or internationally to explore
alternative ways of accomplishing university goals.
13. provide incentive share money (small percentage) back to the
researcher's research program.
14. Providing both tangible and intangible rewards. E.g.; one intangible
is recognition in a research magazine, at award receptions put on by the
OSP, at president's or provost's convocation, etc.)
15. More recognition in salary and tenure reviews.
16. Without grant writers, small departments cannot take part.
Then there were suggestions for funding faculty incentives, in no
particular order of priority:
1. Overhead -- hold some back for support of future grants.
2. Build incentives into the regular budget.
3. Use academic money that was not spent last year that carried over in
the budget this year.
4. Return a portion of the indirect dollars to the individual
writer.
5. Request funds from the research foundation and the OSP.
6. More than one-on-one assistance from the OSP.
7. All seven areas above are important. Need to separate into two
categories -- promote vs. reward.
8 [Again] A line item for encouraging grant writing must be created in
the [institutional] budget.
9.[Again] incentive share money.
Dolores Brzycki wrote:
In my experience, the incentives
that work depend on faculty needs and culture at each particular
institution. What don't the faculty have enough of at your
university? If operating funds are scarce, then minigrants that can
be spent on travel or computing equipment can be very popular. If
you are at a teaching institution, release time that enables faculty to
work on research should be appreciated. If support staff is
limited, then graduate assistants or access to existing support staff
could be valued. Structures and incentives that encourage peer
modeling and support can also work, especially if few faculty are
involved in a particular endeavor - whether that is research or some
other activity that you want to promote.
Dr. Dolores Brzycki
College of Health and Human Services
724-357-2088
xxxxxx@iup.edu
<
mailto:xxxxxx@iup.edu>
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Susan Steiner
<
mailto:xxxxxx@CGU.EDU>
*To:* xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG
<
mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:33 PM
*Subject:* [RESADM-L] Collecting evidence
Colleagues:
We have a new president at Claremont Graduate
University, who
would like to know if any of you have data--numerical,
anecdotal,
inspirational, or otherwise--as to whether or not
certain
incentives for faculty to go for extramural funding
work better
than others, e.g.:release time, seed funding,
recognition,
graduate assistant funds, a promotion criteria,
etc.?
Thanks, Susan
Susan Steiner, Ph.D.
Associate Vice President
Research and Sponsored Programs
150 East Tenth Street
Claremont CA 91711
Tel: (909) 607-8069
Fax: (909) 607-9655
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List,
including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive,
are
available via our web site at
http://www.hrinet.org
(click on
"Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via
our web site at
http://www.hrinet.org
(click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at
http://www.hrinet.org
(click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
Mike McCallister, Ph.D.
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
2801 South University
Little Rock, AR 72204-1099
(o) 501-569-8474
(c) 501-590-5609
(f) 501-371-7614
http://www.ualr.edu/orsp/
:-} Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention
of
:-} arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather
to
:-} skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, beer in the other, body
:-} thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming... What a
:-} ride!!