I'll continue Spanky's caveat. Especially in academic departments, grant writers can't do much to help. Faculty have to write their own grants. Department heads, dean's offices, those in departmental research administrative positions can help with the budget (which in many ways should define the grant writing), and the OSP can edit for typos, long sentences, etc., which we rarely do because we don't have time. One action that came out of the survey below, however, was that it captured the provost's imagination. I therefore have an incentive fund of about $100,000 per FY that could ostensively be used to pay a grant writer. But I don't use it for that unless she asks me to. I use it for the incentives listed below and wish I had more. The only grant writer we have paid is for a TRIO grant, which is more formatted to begin with, and someone with experience in this area can succeed. But unless someone has strong academic grant writing success, faculty member is left to creation based on expertise in the particular field. We can lobby to get them the time to write, but so often other things impinge even when they have the time. Mike McCallister wrote: > 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!! > > ====================================================================== > 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") ======================================================================
Show/hide attachments