I think all this process is smart and for sure these decisions are never easy. I've found, though, that no matter how much process we put in at the research administration level, at some point the Dean or Deans will have to work out this issue. They really make the decisions about research emphases. While there are real faculty/center development issues in making this particular decision, it will eventually get down to resource allocation for research and teaching based on the unit's (college, whatever) plan and leadership. So this is a situation where I may use a committee as a first cull, but usually and for sure eventually I just call the Deans. That's not what it says in a procedure manual, but then that procedural manual is something for my staff to follow-- I get to vamp as needed. Spanky At 12:14 PM -0400 10/1/02, Charlie Hathaway wrote: >This is really an interesting issue. While it is pretty easy to >develop an announcement and selection process (we have a standing >"Awards Committee" composed of faculty who choose the candidate >based on CV, short proposal, and dept chair letter of rec), it is >never without wrinkles; Chuck and Leonard alluded to a few >potential, very real problems. > >As more funding agencies begin to see the value of getting >institutions to do the bulk of the review work, these kinds of >internal selections will become more common and the decision-making >more involved. I have recently seen a large private foundation >requiring both internal selection of a single candidate AND >solicitation of outside reviews of the proposal PRIOR to submission >to the foundation. Of course, if these requirements are coupled to >the refusal to pay indirect costs, you start to wonder who is really >being philanthropic. > >The larger issue concerns the usefulness of institution-initiated >pre-submission pre-selection. For those cases in which we can be >confident that merit is the overriding criterion for award selection >(I think most federal research funding falls into this group), and >truly believe that it is possible for half of the 10 grants made by >an agency to go to 5 labs at one school, there is no need for >intervention. > >But, when it comes to other funding, we might take a few lessons >from the development people. These fundraising/foundation pros will >tell you that many boards making funding decisions get confused when >they see multiple applications from a single institution. So, >restricting applications to those submitted by 1 or more approved >candidates, and perhaps investing resources to maximize quality of >those applications, probably makes a lot of sense. > >The problem is being undemocratic in a culture that often views the >academic as a self-employed entrepreneur who is free to do whatever >he or she wants. But most faculty understand that grants are not >really their property and that schools have an interest in grants >that goes beyond the support of the ideas and careers of >individuals. I think the trick is to convince the faculty that >consideration of competitiveness is good for everyone. Less time >wasted, more money received. And if Prof X does not get the nod >(and the extra help!) this time, he might next time. > >Charlie > > >At 03:09 PM 9/30/02 -0500, you wrote: >> Greetings, We are in the process of developing a policy for >>the institution that addresses decisions about which of two or more >>investigators can submit a proposal to a funding agency when the agency >>will allow an institution to submit only one proposal. Does anyone >>currently have a policy or process in place that they are willing to share? >> Wendy A. Lawrence-Fowler, Ph.D. Assoc. VP for Research University of >>Texas-Pan American Edinburg, TX 78539 >************************************** >Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director >Office of Grant Support >Albert Einstein College of Medicine >1300 Morris Park Avenue >Bronx, NY 10461-1975 >Phone: 718 430-3642 Fax: 718 430-8822 >email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.edu > > >====================================================================== > 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. Director, Research and Sponsored Programs University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 (v) 501-569-8474 (f) 501-371-7614 (c) 501-590-5609 "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'" ~ Isaac Asimov ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
