MEMORANDUM to All Lamar University Faculty
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Research Enhancement Competition
Spring 2016
Call for Proposals: The Lamar University Research Council is accepting proposals for the 2016 Research Enhancement Grants (REGs). The grants support internally-sponsored research and creative activity. Awards totaling $100,000 will be made. The following guidelines apply:
1
1. Deadline for submittal to the Research and Sponsored Projects Administration Office is March 30, 2016. You must submit an electronic application by using Lamar UniversityCompetition Space. Detailed instructions for submission will be provided in February. (See page 4)
1
2. Each Proposal should describe a project which will culminate in a publication, exhibition, presentation, or external grant application. Funds must be expended prior to August 31, 2017 (but encumbered by August 1).
3. Each full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty member is limited to one successful proposal per year, and no person may receive support three years in succession. Proposals with two or more principal investigators are permitted.
4. To ensure that each proposal is presented effectively, applicants must consult with their Research Council representative during the development of the proposal. Representatives are identified on page 3.
5. Budgets may contain funding for materials and supplies, student research assistants, travel related directly to the project, and other justifiable items, such as equipment if HEAF monies are unavailable. Budgets may also contain faculty stipends not to exceed $2,500 for one summer session. In the case of multiple investigators, the stipend may be divided but may not exceed $2,500. If a stipend is requested the associated fringe benefits should also be budgeted. Furthermore, with approval of the department chair, budgeting for replacement faculty to make possible released/reassigned time is permitted at $2,000 per course in a long semester. Faculty members with REG-funded released/reassigned time may NOT also teach an overload. If departmental constraints of emergency proportions require an overload assignment for an REG recipient who had been approved for REG-supported released time, the grantee must submit an alternate plan for the expenditure of the $2000. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs must approve such budget revisions.
6. Twenty-five percent of the funding will be set aside for faculty who have not received a Research Enhancement Grant and were employed at L.U. after 2013. Though twenty-five percent of the funds will be set aside, only viable projects of high quality will be funded; unused funds will be reallocated to the general category.
7. Twenty percent of the available funding will be set aside for faculty who have not had a funded research or creative project within the past five years. “Funded” refers to both internal and external funding of $5,000 or more. Though twenty percent of the funds will be set aside, only viable projects of high quality will be funded and unused funds will be reallocated to the general category.
8. Fifty-five percent of the available funding will be awarded in the general category which is open to all faculty.
9. The same or strikingly similar projects will not be funded for a second year.
On-going funding should be sought externally.
10. Faculty who have not submitted their final reports for prior Research Enhancement Grants are not eligible for new awards.
11. Two categories of grant proposals will be supported.
The first category, the research orcreative activity grant, will support proposals for research that will be completed by the August 31 deadline. Maximum request for this type of grant is $5000.
The second category, the proposal writing grant, will support proposals to develop external grant requests. Maximum request for this type of grant is $15,000. Funding amount will be dependent upon funding agency and data needed to be collected to support the proposal.Only viable projects of high quality will be funded in each category, with unused funds reallocated to the other category. The August 1 deadline for encumbrances of funds and August 31 completion of the proposed work applies to all REG awards.
12. A final report is required for all funded projects.
1
EVALUATION
The Research Council will evaluate the proposals and successful recipients will be notified during the month of May. Please contact your Research Council representative for assistance in preparing proposals.
Generally, the Council looks favorably upon proposals that are pilot efforts to investigate the feasibility of larger efforts that could qualify for external sponsorship. Thus, to some extent the Research Enhancement funds are ‟seed capital.” This should not be construed to mean, however, that only proposals for research which hold promise for future extra-state support will be considered by the Council. In general, the Research Council is not likely to look favorably upon research proposals which include renewal of seeding efforts that have not been fruitful or requests that can be justifiably handled through other sources.
The Research Council evaluates proposals based on the quality or merit of each, including a clear description of objectives, use of sound methodology, evidence of applicant’s knowledge of related research, evidence that the research may result in publication or recognition in other professional venues, and the relative contribution of the work product to the stock of knowledge in their respective field or discipline. The Evaluation Forms for REGs used by the members of the Research Council to score and rank applicants can be found on the following pages.
RESEARCH COUNCIL MEMBERS
2015- 2016
Peter Kelleher, Ex OfficioResearch and Sponsored Programs
Gail Davis, Ex Officio Research and Sponsored Programs
T. J. GeigerArts & Sciences – Arts
Jim WestgateArts & Sciences – Sciences
Xianchang LiEngineering
Rebecca Frels Education & Human Development
Millicent Musyoka Fine Arts &Communication
Helen Arthur-Okur Library
Vivek Natarajan Business
Please note: If you plan to submit an REG, we encourage you to meet with your respective representative from your college for guidance or any questions you may have.
Lamar University Competition Space
Lamar University Competition Space is an innovative online platform that streamlines the process of finding, and applying for funding opportunities through Lamar University. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Administration (OSPRA) anticipates a launch date in February 2016. Access and log on will be located on the ORSPA website. The following opportunities will be posted, and can be applied for, through Lamar University Competition Space:
- Internal grants (Research Enhancement Grants – REG)
- Awards (University Scholar)
- Limited Submissions
- Other Opportunities
With this platform, faculty investigators interested in research funding opportunities will be able to:
- Search open internal competitions
- Keep track of proposal deadlines
- View program-specific funding guidelines and instructions
- Download application materials
- Submit proposals and obtain approvals electronically
Research Enhancement Grant Application
The application shall consist of the following:
•Internal Route Sheet
•Title Cover with Abstract
•Narrative description (addressing the items outlined below in A & B)
•Budget
•Budget Justification (explain each item; one-page form)
• Proposals must be submitted electronically through Lamar University Competition Space.
A. Research and Creative Activity Proposals: ($5,000) Narrative Description Outline(five page limit)
1. PLAN AND SIGNIFICANCE:Description of the project. Experimental plan, research design, or description of creative project. Discuss significance of the project and include pertinent literature references. Be especially clear about your methods.
2. WAYS IN WHICH THIS PROJECT WOULD INVOLVE / BENEFIT STUDENTS:Describe student participation in gathering and analyzing data, writing reports, presenting papers, etc. Discuss ways in which this project would benefit students (i.e., budget contains funds for student assistants, project will be part of course, project will yield information valuable to student support, etc.) If a project is not conducive to direct student participation, the researcher should explain why and emphasize the indirect advantages to teaching / students.
3. EXPECTED FOLLOW-UP PLANS:Indicate how the proposed project will form the basis for any professional presentations, publications, exhibitions, and / or lead to an external grant proposal.
4. PREVIOUS GRANTS:Give dates and titles for all previous internal and external grants received in the last 5 years. List the grants, exhibitions, presentations, and / or publication resulting from such grants.
5. PROFESSIONAL RECORD OF SCHOLARSHIP:May use abbreviated vitae. Do not list abstracts, informal talks or performances, or other professional activities which are not refereed by peers.
B. Proposal Writing Applications: ($15,000) Narrative Description Outline (five page limit)
1. EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):List and briefly describe the most likely sources of external funding.
2. CAPACITY OF THE INSTITUTION:Demonstrate that the proposed project can be conducted feasibly at Lamar University with facilities and equipment already in place or allowable as expenses in the proposed RFP (Request for Proposal). This includes IT hardware, software and maintenance support.
3. CAPACITY OF THE INVESTIGATOR:Demonstrates that the PI is prepared to undertake the proposed project and obtain external funding.
4. EXPECTED RESULTS AND DISSEMINATION:Explain briefly the product or conclusion of the project and the means of presenting it to the academic world.
5. PREVIOUS GRANTS:Give dates and titles for previous LU Research Enhancement Grants. List the grants, exhibitions, presentations, and / or publications resulting from such grants. In a separate list, give dates, titles, and amounts of external grants received by the principal investigator during the past five years.
In addition to these guidelines, applicants should study the appropriate evaluation form to be used by the Research Council in ranking the applicants.
Internal Route Sheet
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
Project Director (Name/Dept./LU Address): ______
Project Title: ______
Amount of this request: $______Period Covered: ______to______
Amount of total project: $______Period Covered: ______to______
Type of Sponsored Project:Research & Creativity Project Proposal Writing
Will you receive a stipend from this grant? Yes No
Did you become a full-time faculty member at LU within the last three years? Yes No
Have you received a grant (internal or external) of $5000 or more in the last five years?
Yes No
Does this project require:
Yes No
Humans in Research
Animals in Research
Additional Building Space
If “Yes”, person authorizing space commitment:
______
Maintenance Cost
If “Yes”, source of funds (e.g., account#):
______
IT Support and Maintenance Cost
If “Yes”, source of funds (e.g., account#):
______
Routing:Signature Date
Principal Investigator______
Co-Principal Investigator ______
(If applicable)
Department Chair______
College Dean______
1
Title Cover Sheet
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
Date: ______
Title of Proposal:
______
Principal Investigator(s):Name, Academic Rank, Department, Phone
Education and Employment:Degrees, Previous Professional Appointments (dates and locations).
Abstract:Brief description, 100 words or less, understandable by one not an expert in the field.
Check One: General New Researcher Returning Researcher
Had no funded Research in Past 5 years Hired after 2013
Research and Creative Activity
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
Evaluation Form for Use by the Research Council
Faculty should consider these categories when writing proposals. (Not to be confused with Proposal Writing Evaluation Form.)
Name(s) of Principal Investigator(s):______
Title of Proposal:______
Part I. Point Rating of Categories
Title: 0-5 points ______
Meaningful, understandable, reflects proposal content.
Abstract: 0-5 points ______
Stays within 100 word limit, can be understood by one not an expert in the field, clearly describes the project, presents a cogent summary of the proposal.
Project Plan: 0-25 points ______
High quality in design of the project, effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient administration of the project, clear description of the objectives, and methods for achieving them.
Project Significance:0-25 points ______
Significance of the project as judged by the Research Council, evidence of thorough review of pertinent literature, contribution to stock of knowledge in respective field or discipline.
Student Involvement: 0-10 points ______
It is expected that most projects will involve students in a direct, meaningful way (e.g., gathering and analyzing data, writing reports, presenting papers). Further, all proposals should present evidence of indirect benefit to students: will enhance lectures, has strong chance at outside funding to support students, etc. If project is not conducive to direct student participation, application must explain why.
Expected Follow-Up Plans 0-15 points ______
Probability of future funding, publications, exhibitions, and/or presentations is high.
Budget: 0-10 points ______
Budget is adequate to support the project activities, costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project, budget is clear and easy to understand.
Aesthetics of Application: 0-5 points ______
Organization of the proposal enhances the content and makes it easy to find information, margins are consistent, pagination is accurate, uses consistent type style, application is neat and attractive, absence of spelling and grammar problems, typing is accurate, section headings are clear and consistent in format.
TOTAL POINTS: ______
Part II. Comment Section of Categories
Please address weaknesses of proposal and make constructive comments to the researcher. Ratings must be justified.
Title:
______
Abstract:
______
Project Plan:
______
Project Significance:
______
Student Involvement:
______
Expected Follow-Up Plans:
______
Budget:
______
Aesthetics of Application:
______
Proposal Writing
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
Evaluation Form for Use by the Research Council
Faculty should consider these when writing proposals. (Not to be confused with the Research and Creative Activity Evaluation Form.)
Name(s) of Principal Investigator(s): ______
Title of Proposal: ______
Part I. Point Rating of Categories
Evidence of Viable Funding Source(s):0-20 points ______
Specific funding source or sources are identified. Strong match between stated objectives of funding source(s) and proposed project. Deadlines for submission of proposal to funding source(s) can reasonably be met. Funding source(s) identified has history of funding related projects and does not preclude funding institutions of higher education in Southeast Texas.
Merit and Soundness of the Proposal: 0-15 points______
Proposal shows evidence of strong technical writing skills and is adequately referenced. The project plan is well documented with a viable time schedule. The proposed project involves original, untested idea that looks feasible. The proposal demonstrates an awareness of current methods, procedures, techniques, and technologies that are relevant to the project. There is a good match between the objectives of the proposal and the role, scope, and mission of Lamar University.
Capacity of the Institution:0-15 points______
Project budget does not contain items that an institution of higher education would reasonably be expected to already have. With available resources budgeted from the proposal, the institution has the resources, facilities, supplies, and equipment that would be needed for the proposed project. The applicant has the capacity to recruit well-qualified students and staff to participate in the project.
Budget and Cost Effectiveness:0-15 points______
The budget is adequate to support the project. Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project. Budgeted items are allowable by Texas and University regulations.
Capability of the Investigator(s):0-35 points______
Principal investigator(s) with outstanding records in the proposed area. Evidence that funding source(s) will see the PI(s) as particularly qualified to successfully complete the proposed project. All support personnel are qualified to participate in the project.
Total Points:______
Relative Ranking for the Competition: ______
Recommended for Funding (Yes/No): ______
Part II.Comment Section of Categories
Please address weaknesses of proposal and make constructive comments to the researcher. Ratings must be justified.
Evidence of Viable Funding Source(s):
______
Merit and Soundness of the Proposal:
______
Capacity of the Institution:
______
Budget and Cost Effectiveness:
______
Capability of the Investigator:
______
Budget Request Summary
1
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
A. SALARIES
FACULTY SUMMARY SALARY STIPEND$______
(Maximum request allowed: $2500, stipend for one summer season. May be split between two or more investigators but may not exceed $2500. If included you must include fringe benefits also.)
ACADEMIC YEAR RELEASED TIME$______
($2000 per course)
TOTAL SALARIES REQUEST:$______
B. STUDENT ASSISTANTS
GRADUATE STUDENTS$______
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS$______
TOTAL STUDENT ASSISTANTS REQUEST:$______
C. Fringe Benefits: $______
D. EXPENSE ITEMS
SUPPLIES$______
POSTAGE$______
TRAVEL (required to conduct research)$______
OTHER$______
OTHER$______
OTHER$______
TOTAL EXPENSE REQUEST:$______
E. CAPITAL
(On separate page, list each item and amount, and explain.)
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUEST:$______
F. TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST
$______
1