FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE MINUTES, 15 JANUARY 2004

The meeting was called to order at 11:00 AM by Chair Suzanne Mabrouk. Participants: Adelman, Chen, Cretacci, DeRoma, Elksnin, Heisser, Kelley, Knapp, Mailloux, Templeton, Toubiana, Woolsey.

Early Applications for Presentation Grants. The Chair reported that she had received inquiries from faculty members about presentation of research grants for the 2004/05 fiscal year. She asked Committee members present whether these should be considered right away or at the time already scheduled for consideration, pursuant to our April 5, 2004, call. In one instance, she said, the reason given by the faculty member for the inquiry was the possibility of getting cheaper rates if reservations were made early.

Peter Mailloux moved, seconded by Linda Elksnin, that the Committee wait to consider such early proposals for presentation grants until after the deadline, at the scheduled meeting time. Bill Woolsey observed that we might save some time by considering proposals more frequently—say, once a month. Peter Mailloux observed that we already have the authority to give early consideration to proposals if special circumstances warrant it. Linda Elksnin suggested that, in the call for proposals, we indicate the scheduled deadlines, but state that exceptions can me made for cause. The Chair said that she had heard from COL Ralph Earhart that grant recipients can get money prior to the start of the fiscal year, if needed, but that the problems arise when people ask for the money after the close of the fiscal year. There being no further discussion it was decided unanimously to adhere to the present schedule for considering applications—with the proviso that early consideration can be given when circumstances warrant.

Discussion followed of items listed on the Research Committee Agenda distributed to members by the Chair prior to the meeting.

Applicants Not Using Current Forms.
Keith Knapp moved, seconded by Bill Woolsey, that the Committee not consider applications not made on the current forms. Saul Adelman said that forms should be dated as to when they have been revised. The Chair reported that the latest forms do have a revision date. Professor Adelman suggested that the call say applicants are required to use the "current form dated _____" or words to that effect. Mei Chen asked whether applicants would now receive a reminder if they submit a proposal using an outdated form, and the Chair responded that she checks the forms for completeness anyway; she will check the date on all submitted applications as well. The Chair said that this requirement will be added to the January 26^th call. The motion carried unanimously.

Some Applicants Not Providing All Necessary Information on Form or Sending Information in Separate Attachments.
Keith Knapp moved, seconded by Peter Mailloux, that applicants should be informed that the Committee will not consider proposals if all questions on the form are not answered. Keith suggested we consult the verbiage used by the Development Committee to convey this sentiment. The Chair said that this requirement will be added to the January 26^th call.

The motion was adopted unanimously.

Saul Adelman said that some people don’t know how to make attachments from Web pages to the Word form and that not everyone has Acrobat for adding PDF files. In discussion it was mentioned that people can scan things, and attach PDF documents. The Chair observed that some people do not know how to fill in the form and asked if we need to schedule another session for faculty on how to do this? Peter Mailloux asked if we might allow people the option to submit 15 copies of proposals in paper in lieu of the electronic form; but Suzanne and others objected that this would be a step back to a paper environment. Saul Adelman suggested that we hold a meeting for new faculty each year to explain how to complete electronic forms, and that all faculty be invited to attend. The Committee decided to post information on its Web site about filling out forms.

Current Curriculum Vitae. Suzanne Mabrouk reported that not all applicants are providing a link to the URL for their current CV. Josey Templeton observed that paper copies of the CV should not be required/accepted because all faculty should maintain an updated CV accessible electronically and that the Committee may get enough information to make a decision about recommending grants from the specific items required on the form. Linda Elksnin said that a CV is useful as evidence of a track record of scholarship. Keith Knapp added that the CV can serve as a check to see what a person is doing, especially for presentation grants. Linda Elksnin observed that part of our mission is to promote scholarship, and the CV is evidence of activity.

Linda Elksnin moved, seconded by Keith Knapp, that we require applicants to keep a current CV accessible in electronic format. The motion was adopted unanimously. The Chair said that this requirement will be added to the January 26^th call. She said that faculty members can get help from Eric Oman in Communications for getting their updated CV on The Citadel Web site.

Post Information About Research Committee Budget and Time of Awards On-line.
Suzanne Mabrouk asked whether we should provide details about when things are supposed to happen and why sometimes they don’t happen according to the posted schedule. Linda Elksnin suggested the Research Committee Web site include a page of frequently asked questions. Saul Adelman suggested that people receive a message saying that can anticipate final notification of their award after X-Date.

Posting Proposal Abstracts/Entire Texts on Web Site.
Mei Chen suggested that the Committee post the abstracts of all Research Grant recipients on the Web site, as a means of increasing public awareness of the grant program. In the discussion, Suzanne Mabrouk said that we might want to post a few complete applications as examples of how to do it. Bill Woolsey added that it might be good to include links from the abstracts to the full proposals. Linda Elksnin asked whether people are required to include an acknowledgement in their publications of CF funding received. Keith Knapp and David Heisser noted that this is routinely done in some disciplines. Peter Mailloux said that, in the past, he received some Citadel research support and was required to acknowledge same in the published book; and suggested that the Provost might make the request or recommendation in grant award messages to recipients that they acknowledge CF funding in their publications. Saul Adelmen suggested that it would be good periodically to post a list of recipients of presentation grants: name of recipient, title of paper, name of conference. Linda Elksnin asked who would be expected to do the work on posting abstracts and presentation grants. Mei Chen said she would volunteer to take this on. However, Suzanne Mabrouk said that she had already raised the issue with the Provost and with Dean Metts about having the services of a graduate assistant to help the Committee in its work. Dean Metts had indicated that this was unlikely. However she said that she would raise the matter again, in connection with posting of abstracts/complete applications of research grants to the Web. She also said she would recommend that the Provost request that recipients acknowledge CF funding in their eventual publications.

Length of Research Proposal. Peter Mailloux reported that the Humanities/Social Sciences Subcommittee had had problems with some Research proposals with inordinately long statements on projects. Keith Knapp suggested that a limit of 1,500 words be imposed and that applications with longer statements not be considered. Virginia DeRoma raised the question whether a review of the literature was really necessary. Suzanne Mabrouk opined that such a review is helpful to provide context for the value of the research. It was agreed by consensus that a 1,500-word limit for detailed proposals be required and enforced.

15 Paper Submissions of the First Page and Budget Page to Committee for Members.
Some members of the Humanities/Social Sciences Subcomittee suggested that applicants provide 15 paper copies of the budget pages of the application. Keith Knapp and Suzanne Mabrouk noted that members can easily print out the first page and the budget page when reviewing the online submissions. Mei Chen suggested that the application form be redesigned so that the budget page will always be page 2. There was a consensus to do this. In discussion Virginia DeRoma and Peter Mailloux suggested that subcommittee meetings and some full Committee meetings be held in rooms with computers, projectors and screens, so that people can all look at electronic submissions without members needing to print out lots of paper. A consensus agreed to this idea.

Asterisks Beside Presentations/Publications From Previous CF Research Grants on Research Form?
Mei Chen said that we only need to see a list of relevant or pertinent literature. Josey Templeton added that the Committee should require a list of the most recent or relevant research publications/presentations and we are not concerned with CF Development grants. Peter Mailloux and Keith Knapp noted that CF gives grants for some presentations, in the area of pedagogy. It was decided by consensus to retain the requirement that CF-funded publications/presentations be designated by asterisks, and that the word "research" be added to the form.

Requirement of Presentation/Publication from Previous CF Grants: On-campus Poster Session?
The Chair reported that she had asked Professor Kevin Crawford about allowing faculty to participate in the student poster sessions, but that he said this would not be appropriate.

Saul Adelman suggested that people should give talks on campus about their research. There was discussion of how this might be done. Josey Templeton said that in her department an effort had been made to have faculty report on research at occasional brownbag lunches, but that interest soon waned. Peter Mailloux said that many speakers at Phi Beta Kappa brownbag luncheons would discuss their ongoing research; but he said that many faculty would not have the interest or time to attend—much less to present at—regular gatherings sponsored by the Research Committee. Keith Knapp observed that CVs should tell us what people are doing. Bill Woolsey said that in some disciplines poster sessions are not used, and that people in those fields would probably not want to participate. The Chair noted that there seemed to be a consensus not to require any specific reporting. As there was no motion to that effect, the matter was dropped.

Quote/URL Address/Catalog Name and pp. for Items over $500?
Josey Templeton, seconded by Keith Knapp, moved to require this. Adopted unanimously.

Justification for Student Pay Rate Over Minimum on Form?
Bill Woolsey, seconded by Mei Chen, moved to require this. Adopted unanimously.

Location of Books Purchased from CF Research Grants: Library or Personal Collection?
Peter Mailloux said that the Humanities/Social Sciences Subcommittee was raising the question whether there was a clear policy on this, and whether such materials should be offered to the Library. David Heisser said the Library would be interested in a kind of "right of first refusal," but would not want a requirement that all grant-purchased materials be cataloged and included in its collections. Keith Knapp said that books so purchased might be needed over a long period of time and that they might not be available to the faculty member at times when the Library was closed, e.g., during the winter break; he added that such a requirement would be unenforceable. Bill Woolsey moved that books acquired through CF research grants be offered to the Library; however, there was no second, and the matter was dropped.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 PM.

The next meeting is scheduled for the Achurch Room, Capers Hall, on Jan. 29, at 11:00 AM.

Respectfully submitted.
David Heisser, Secretary.