RESEARCH COMMITTEE MINUTES, FEBRUARY 12, 2004

The meeting was called to order by Chair Suzanne Mabrouk at 11:10 AM.
Present: Adelman, Chen, Cretacci, Davis, Heisser, Knapp, Mailloux, Templeton, Woolsey.

Abstracts and Full Text of Grant Proposals on the Web site.
The Chair said that the Committee’s Graduate Assistant can scan proposals and/or abstracts and put them online as directed. Keith Knapp raised the question of who will be able to see them? Suzanne responded that this had not been decided at the last meeting, since loss of a quorum had made it impossible to vote on motions. The Chair said some faculty would object to letting everyone see details of former funding they had received. Bill Wooley pointed out the difference between putting abstracts on the Web as opposed to full text proposals and suggested that putting information on Web CT might be preferable, at least at the start. Peter Mailloux said he sees no reason to publish details on his own research to the whole world.

Mei Chen suggested that the Committee ask ITS about options for restricting access to the abstracts/proposals. David Heisser said that, in the case of databases to which the Library subscribes, people on campus have access through the Library’s Web site, while off-campus people gain access through a proxy server, requiring their CIT number and the first four digits of their PAWS PIN number to view the files. The Chair said that she will speak with ITS and with Frederick Young in the Library about the details.

Mei Chen proposed that we provide abstracts at first. Bill Woolsey raised a question about the advantages of letting outsiders see the research information. Bill and Peter Mailloux both made the point that some people might like the research that is being funded, while others might not approve. David Heisser pointed out that we already give universal access to faculty CVs. Mei Chen said that it is important for new faculty to get an idea of what is being funded. Others, as well, may want to look up information about a faculty member to see what she/he is doing.

Suzanne Mabrouk raised the question whether we can provide a page listing awardees, while giving restricted access to the full text and/or abstracts of proposals. Mei Chen said this is what we want. Peter Mailloux said we are already asking people to say if they give permission to have their proposals on the Web; but Suzanne Mabrouk replied that in the revised application form we will be asking permission to provide up the abstract and the text of the proposal. Peter Mailloux asked if we also need to obtain the awardees’ permission to list their names on the Web site. He added that he already gets unwanted emails from people who see that he is working on some topic and send him questions or comments which he considers nuisances. Saul Adelman asked if the institution has an obligation to report details on grants to anyoneand said that, if so, restricting access to information might cause legal problems. The Chair agreed to find out if a list of CF awardees is public information or not.

Josey Templeton recalled the booklet that was once published on Faculty Scholarship; David Heisser reported that Daniel Library is considering reviving it in hard copy or electronic form. Bill Woolsey observed that we don’t list everyone’s salary, even though this is supposed to be public knowledge. Peter Mailloux responded that we would not publish salaries unless we were required to do so.

Bill Woolsey proposed that we put a link from the Committee Web page to a list of proposals; from that a person would need to obtain a password to see the full text. Mei Chen asked how far back the texts whould go, and suggested that this year and the prior year would suffice. We can ask all faculty, she added, if they would agree to having their names listed.

Bill Woolsey moved, seconded by Peter Mailloux, that a link from the Research Committee Web page go to a list of faculty names and proposal titles; with a further link to abstracts and full text, restricted to those for which the applicants give permission; further, that access be available anywhere on campus.

Keith Knapp and Saul Adelman observed that we need abstracts and some examples of full proposals. Mei Chen suggested that the Committee might choose some representative samples.

Bill Woolsey amended his motion to the effect that only some full text examples would be posted on the Web. Mei Chen said it would be good to post abstracts for all who receive grants, but full text only for representative samples. Suzanne Mabrouk pointed out that people will have checked a box on the application form giving permission to have their proposals posted, so the Committee will be free to choose those to go on the Web. Peter Mailloux said that there are really two purposes to the posting: (1) to help people—especially new faculty—make successful proposals; and (2) to show people what is being done by Citadel faculty. To achieve these purposes Peter thought we should post all abstracts, with links to sample full text of proposals. Saul Adelman added that it would be good to post examples that will show how to fill out the application form correctly. Bill Woolsey agreed that we would not need everybody’s application, but that all abstracts should go on.

Saul Adelman cautioned that proposals might contain proprietary or semi-propriety information, and added that people need to see how correctly to list items such as student wage rates, ink cartridges, etc. For this kind of information one good example could suffice. Keith Knapp said that a number of sample proposals will be needed, from different disciplines, to give a sense of the possibilities of things that can be funded.

Mei Chen suggested that the motion before the Committee be split in two. Hence,

Bill Woolsey moved, seconded by Keith Knapp, that a list of proposals with titles and abstracts for the current year be posted on the Web site.

Secondly, Bill Woolsey moved, seconded by Keith Knapp, that access be given to full text of selected samples of successful applications.

The sense of the meeting was that access would be given from any computer on campus; but that off-campus access would be limited in some way to Citadel people.

Both motions were approved unanimously.

Deadlines for Applications.
There was discussion of deadlines set by the Committee for grant applications. Keith Knapp said that LTC Ralph Earhart has indicated that Financial Services prefers that requests for grant money be made at regular stated intervals. Saul Adelman suggested that we need to put deadlines forward, because people sometimes put in early requests for the next fiscal year. Chair Suzanne Mabrouk explained that early requests are usually made in order to save some money on travel, conference registrations, etc. She and Keith Knapp both noted that people can pay upfront if need be, for example, by credit card.

Saul Adelman said that we could allow people to apply earlier and receive an indication of approval, even if the money is not yet available from Financial Services; some people would feel better knowing that the money is forthcoming. Peter Mailloux observed that people always have the option of applying directly to the Provost for funding, if money is not available from a grant recommended by this Committee. Keith Knapp added that we are not in competition for scarce funds, and historically, all worthy proposals have been funded. Saul Adelman said that we should stick to our deadlines.

Keith Knapp moved, seconded by Peter Mailloux, that the Research Committee will not consider applications that do not meet published deadlines. The motion was adopted unanimously.

Research Grants for Sabbatical Recipients. The Chair said that the Provost has agreed to provide additional funds for research for sabbatical awardees. Sabbatical awardees who have already submitted a 2004/2005 Research Grant application will be asked to submit a revised budget and explanaton for costs and awardees who did not submit a 2004-2005 Research Grant application will be required to submit a complete application form.

Mei Chen left the meeting at 12:10 PM. In the absence of a quorum the Chair said that members present could continue discussions, but that no votes would be taken.

Agenda Items. The members took up the question of clarification of budget items that people report on the application forms. The Chair said that decisions could be made on the basis of this year’s experience.

Regarding wages for human subjects, Saul Adelman noted that the National Science Foundation allows archaeologists to take spouses with them on expeditions, and to pay them, since these people typically share in work at the digs; these things are discipline-specific. Josey Templeton raised the question about funding meals and lodging for students who are trained to assist a faculty grantee in carrying out a funded project. She said she sees no difference between that and the regular student wages. Bill Woolsey said there is a line between human subjects and employees. Saul Adelman observed that we should not get into this level of detail. Some questions should be referred to Financial Services for rulings. Peter Mailloux opined that the Committee can agree on some issues with which we have experience. The Chair said that she would discuss the aforementioned points with LTC Earhart and report back to the Committee.

Changes to Application Forms.
The Chair asked if members want to make changes in the application forms, other than the change already agreed upon to enable budget totals without the applicant having to type in zeroes. The consensus of the meeting was not to make any additional changes in the forms. The Chair observed that some people use programs other than MS Word. Peter Mailloux said that he uses WordPerfect, but finds it easy to convert to Word.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted.
David Heisser, Secretary