Research and Scholarship Committee
Minutes
September 22, 2010
The Research and Scholarship committee met in Ashmore Hall, 114 at Noon on September 22nd. The following committee members were in attendance: Ed Davis, Don Stumpf, Susan Sammons, Scott Mateer, Chris Baker, April Garrity, Priya Goeser, Doug Masini, DavidLake (chair) and Beth Childress.
ChairDavidLake explained his desire to have the full committee give input in regard to the design of a rubric or set of specific guidelines for use in the evaluation of the proposals due in by October 29th. What is designed today will assist the Faculty Research and Scholarship sub-committee members in reading and evaluating the grant proposals more efficiently and consistently. Those proposals will be reviewed during the month of November.
The discussion focused on each of the seven areas addressed in the Criteria for Research and Scholarship Grants. The following suggestions were make to condense these areas and assign numeric weight to each:
- Remove VII: Compliance with Application Procedure from the actual criteria list and change it to Qualification Points for all proposals. Each of the items bulleted under VII enables the proposals to be examined. Those that meet the requirements would go forward, and those which lacked all “qualifying elements” would be immediately eliminated.
- CombineI. Need and II. Validity into one area called Significance so that it reads “Does the application show the significance of the project to the most current research/scholarship in the field?” Does the research design appear to be valid?
- Feasibility and Personnel Qualificationsis unchanged
- Implementation Plan is unchanged
- Assessment is unchanged
- Budget is the same with one additional bullet moved from I. Need.
Is there evidence that what is asked for in the proposal is necessary to the project?
The final design would have five criteria with scoring points allocated in this manner:
- Significance: 20 points
- Feasibility and Personnel Qualifications: 15 points
- Implementation Plan: 25 points
- Assessment: 25 points
- Budget: 15 points
There was lengthy discussion on a number of items: (1) The relevance of previous award outcomes in the overall evaluation process. The concern centered on whether any of the above might give some additional weight to senior faculty, which could affect junior faculty consideration, especially those who have not had the opportunity build a history of successful research and publication here at Armstrong. The key issue was to find an equitable way to evaluate all proposals based on their content rather than considering a faculty member’s past awards, at least in the initial phase of reading the proposals. (2) The importance of collaboration with students and other faculty members in the actual proposals, some of which lend themselves to collaboration more than others.
Dr. Mateer announced that he has scheduled a meeting of the Student Sub-Committee of this group for Wednesday, September 29th. [See Attached Minutes]. Dr. Lake will communicate with the Faculty Sub-Committee via –internet. The next full committee meeting will probably take place during spring semester. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth A Childress
Secretary
Research & Scholarship Committee
ATTACHMENT: Research and Scholarship Committee
Student-subcommittee meeting
Minutes—September 29, 2010
Research and Scholarship Committee
Student-subcommittee meeting
Minutes—September 29, 2010
The First meeting of the Student-subcommittee was held in the ScienceCenter in room 1201 at 1 pm. The following committee members attended: Chair, Scott Mateer, Kristin Stout, Chris Baker, Josh Smith, Ella Howard, and Don Stumpf. Ed Davis was not in attendance.
The group discussed the several issues related to next spring’s research and scholarship symposium. Jonathon Roberts attended the meeting to ask that Honor’s research project presentations be a part of the symposium. In addition, Jonathon relayed information from President Bleicken that she would like to attend the event and that she would be willing to pay for a reception. It was also discussed that the STEP program in CST would like its students to also present their research at this years symposium.
Another item of discussion was a time line for the symposium. It was agreed that the Request for Proposals would be issued on the first day of class in the spring semester, and that the deadline would be in March 1 month before the symposium. The date of the symposium would be between April 11th-22nd. Since President Bleicken would like to attend the actual date of the symposium would be selected to accommodate her schedule. In addition, it was agreed that students could elect to do a either present a poster or give an oral presentation. Finally, it was suggested that we have a keynote speaker give an address as part of the symposium ceremony.
Various duties were divided up among the members of the subcommittee. Kristin Stout was asked to look into using the student center as a venue for the symposium. Josh Smith will explore the development of a website to announce the symposium and to accept online submission of abstracts. Don Stumpt will gather past RFP information to help in the development of this years request for proposals. Chris Baker was asked to head up advertising and marketing of the symposium. Finally, Jonathon Roberts volunteered to be the point man in a search to find a keynote speaker.
The next meeting of the subcommittee will be October 13th at 1 pm in SC1201.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott C. Mateer
Chair
Student Subcomittee.