Peggy Lowry (recently retired from Oregon State) and I (retired from
Colorado State) published an article about this topic way back in 1992. "The Need to Evaluate Research
Support Offices in Institutions of Higher Education,” Journal of the Society of
Research Administrators (Vol XXIII, No. 4 (Spring issue)). Peggy published at least one more
article on the topic, with Sharon Davis, in maybe 1995, I think with NCURA. This is to say there isn’t a great body
of literature about the topic.
As you put together your evaluation process, it might be worthwhile to
ask some questions. Those which
come to my mind include:
- What all
are we doing? Newsletters,
active electronic information (e.g., forced e-mails to lists or individual
faculty about opportunities), training, FAQs, data bases, one-on-one
contacts (e.g., meeting with new faculty), editing, coaching, topical
seminars, collaborations with administration or post-award…
- What
are the quantities involved?
Staffing hours by professional levels, numbers of contacts, numbers
of programs tracked, numbers of recipients of info or opportunities
advertised, numbers of training events and numbers of attendees from how
many departments, dollars-worth of programs promoted vs dollars-worth of
proposals submitted vs dollars-worth of awards, number of fields or
agencies advertised.
- Has
anything changed? If earlier
assessment results are available, how does current compare to former? If no earlier assessment results
are available, has anything changed noticeably? New faculty, new dept, new emphasis, new staff, new
effort in some direction, new funding, obvious increases, change in pace,
demand?
- How
well are we doing what we do? Qualitative assessments by faculty, pre-award staff,
administrators involved in proposal submissions at all levels about what
works well and what has not, including both process and product. On-going
evaluations of training efforts can contribute. Some info here might be useful in focusing efforts more
precisely – what seems to be unproductive, unnecessary, labor-intensive?
- Attribution
and predictions. Can you tell
what contributes to what? Will
new systems on campus predicate new services or procedures? Will projected research emphases
alter pre-award directions? Staffing
changes?
It is worth mentioning that numbers don’t account for everything. Sometimes just FINDING a funding
opportunity for a faculty member in a field without much funding available, or
the FIRST award for a new faculty member albeit at $20K, is a stunning success. Find a way of recording these, as well
as the $8.7M awards.
Celia Walker
xxxxxx@Comcast.net