Greetings all.

Thanks for the story, Charles.  It helped crystalized my thoughts.  If I could transport the story to California 50 years ago, and if you had seen a "Hewlett-Packard" sign and walked into a garage with people feverishly building things, the PVR may have formed into a CIR (capital investment response).

In my view, a faculty member with a good idea already has something of value.  Your faculty member may have years of experience, decades of know-how, bookshelves of publications, a vast network of colleagues, the good will of the profession, knowledge of what makes for a meaningful contribution, etc.  Add to this primarily value the fact that the chair/dean/VP has approved the use of the university's name and the use of a center name, and you have already added value and form to the good idea.  By virtue of this formal recognition, the professor is able to signify to others (funders, colleagues, undergraduate and graduate students, the community) that the university and the Director of the Center are working on this issue, may have already made a substantial contribution, and intends to continue making a contribution.

Further, even if the university "doesn't put any money in," the university is still paying the faculty member and the indirect costs that go into supporting a faculty member.  So, consider what we know about IDC. The fact that the faculty member holds a position (with an office, phone, etc.) and has been given the green light to create a center, means that the university does indeed monetarily support the work, if primarily indirectly, at the moment.  If the university did not support research in the area of Rural Social Work (for instance), then the professor would't have a job and/or wouldn't be approved by academic hierarchy to devote additional time to these projects.

As for the effect on other faculty of creating a center without beaucoup bucks up front, in my estimation, other faculty are likely to see that someone tried to do something and were supported to do a proof of concept by the administration.  If it takes off, gets funding, gathers students, makes an impact, wonderful.  A success has many parents.  If it flops, well, then at least the university tried.  On the other hand, if a faculty member tries to get something going and is met with suspicion, resistance and accusations of fraud from the get-go, well, then, the university (research admins, chairs, deans, etc) are unlikely to hear a lot of good ideas.

Many reading this list will recall the fable of making stone soup (if not read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup).  A "center in name only" is another way of boiling the pot, and that entrepreneurial spirit is what gets a lot of good meals started.  Our job is to help get some carrots, maybe a potato or two.  After all, for most of us, we are here to encourage and assist.

That's my 2 cents of investment.

Joseph

======================================================================
 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.healthresearch.org (click on the
 "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

 A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help
======================================================================