Retired Action Project - Improve Environment that Fosters Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity

1. Description

Research is one of the functions of universities, and emphasis is placed on the scholarship of discovery, application and teaching (outlined by Ernest Boyer in"Scholarship Reconsidered," 1990). FHSU recognizes the relationship between research/scholarship activities and excellence. Research and activities link theory with practice and address the needs of society. Everybody in departments, centers and institutes conduct research to identify insights, interpretations, and explore ways to apply this knowledge. By improving the environment that fosters research scholarship and activity, we aspire to create a more dynamic and academic university.

2. Related AQIP Categories

Primary 4-Valuing People
Related 1-Helping Students Learn
Related 2-Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
Related 4-Valuing People
Related 6-Supporting Institutional Operations

3. Rationale for Action

The valuing of people, namely faculty, is addressed as a critical element of the institution's overall integrated approach to faculty development. The professional development of faculty is critical to the institution's growth as a professional entity and critical to the student learning process.

4. Areas Affected

Institutional effectiveness and assessment; Graduate School; Provost's Office; University Relations (Webmaster); Center for Teaching Excellence and Learning Technology; Docking Institute of Public Affairs

5. Processes Affected

Internet and intranet construction; research funding; newsletter; grant writing training (for faculty members); application process; sabbatical; reassigned time survey; Research Editorial Board

6. Process Measures

Application process - sabbatical, reassigned time, training, utilization

7. Outcome Measures

External funding - number of external dollars procured; number of applications submitted; number of publications, presentations or creative activities as a result of external funding; publication and creative activity - number of publications of a referred nature; number of creative and scholarly activities of a non-referred journal format or non-publication format; reward and recognize accomplishment - Scholar of the Year; Fort Hays Studies; newsletter highlighting achievement; sabbatical reports; faculty satisfaction; satisfaction survey

8. Keeping Focus

Emphasize faculty take in the success of the goal; emphasize importance of faculty development; greater involvement for faculty in the process of resource distribution and subsequent review of finished works.

2006 Annual Update Information

Goal retired November 2006.

1. Describe the past year's accomplishments and the current status of this Action Project.

During 2005-2006, we continued to make progress on improving the research environment at Fort Hays State University. The Research Environment Committee (REC) continues to implement the recommendations from the Research Environment Task force (RETF) and to provide continuing support and monitoring of research and creative activities. For example, the research portal on the University’s web site was expanded and improved in many ways and is now linked to the main page. The REC fostered the creation of an archive and display for faculty research in the library, as well as promoted the use of the administration routing slip. The REC also developed a set of criteria for the departmental research liaisons. During the spring semester, the REC once again organized, with the support of the Graduate School and the Provost’s office, the annual Research and Creative Activities Week that showcased the research of faculty and students. We stressed the event to the non-science disciplines this year, including training sessions on making poster displays, all with success. Even greater levels of activities (displays, concerts, presentations, exhibits, and panel discussions) were held this year than in previous years. The REC feels as though the Research and Creative Activities week will continue to grow and is well on its way to becoming an institutionalized and energetic celebration.

2. Describe how the institution involved people in work on this Action Project.

The REC included roughly a dozen faculty members, the Dean of the Graduate School, and the Assistant Provost for Quality Management. Members of the committee were selected to represent a diversity of disciplines and many different types of research and creative activities. Although not formally on the committee, the committee has benefited from the contributions of the Provost, the Director of Forsyth Library, and the university’s Grants Facilitator. In gathering information and coordinating Research and Creative Activities week events, the REC has worked extensively with department chairpersons and individual faculty members.

3. Describe your planned next steps for this Action Project.

Some of the recommendations of the original RETF remain to be addressed. Particular areas that the REC may pursue during the next year include: the full implementation of departmental research facilitators; review of departmental merit, promotion, and tenure criteria; discussion and development of policies governing the use of indirect cost funds from external grants; encouraging new faculty to develop research programs and offering REC expertise in shaping a research program. A portion of the committee’s emphasis will need to be directed to evaluating the scholarship of engagement as directed by the Provost. Additionally, the REC may look at ways to improve the research prospects for departmental chairs.

4. Describe any "effective practice(s)" that resulted from your work on this Action Project.

This action project in general and the REC in particular remain excellent models of how faculty can initiate change with in the university. The FHSU faculty has perceived a deficiency in the research environment within the university and has through this action project and the REC we continue to make recommendations to address this weakness. The administration has generally supported the actions and decisions of the faculty in regards to the research environment and provided many of the resources necessary to implement the policies and programs needs to reshape the research environment. This cooperation between faculty and administration in areas identified as important by the faculty has been encouraging to the faculty and effective in addressing issues that face this campus.

5. What challenges, if any, are you still facing in regards to this Action Project?

Much of the challenge in meeting the remaining RETF goals deals with evaluating and improving the environment for scholars at the departmental level; i.e., reviewing scholarship activities and expectations; encouraging fair teaching loads among faculty; and especially the expectations and support for new faculty with respect to research. Unfortunately, chairs seem already to be overworked and strung out in many directions. In addition, as mentioned last year, most of the accomplishments in improving the research environment over the last three years have been in areas where it has been relatively easy for the different parties to reach a consensus and many of the necessary actions have been obvious. Some of the recommendations that remain to be acted upon are potentially among the most powerful in the reshaping the research environment, but are also likely to be the most controversial (e.g. review of role of research in hiring, tenure, promotion, and merit pay criteria). Addressing these controversial issues while also looking into the new charge regarding the definition of scholarship on campus will be a difficult task.

2004 Annual Update Information

1. Describe the past year's accomplishments and the current status of this Action Project.

The past year has seen dramatic progress on this action project. A faculty-led task force, including representation from all academic units and several administrative offices, was appointed and charged with analyzing the research environment at FHSU and developing a set of recommendations. The task force surveyed the faculty on their attitudes and perceptions of the research environment and, in parallel, conducted a systematic study of several aspects of the research environment, including the facilities and support mechanisms available to support research and scholarship, opportunities for faculty to disseminate their research results, and the university’s policies and procedures related to research. Measurement data collected by the Council of Institutional Effectiveness played a significant role in this analysis. Based on the collection and analysis activity, the task force prepared a set of over two dozen specific recommendations. Some of those were implemented immediately (100% increase in Faculty Development Funding). Throughout the task force’s effort, the Council for Institutional Effectiveness was intimately connected through membership on the task force as well as presentations by the task force chair about the status of the project. Independently of the task force effort, a group of faculty formed a research association, with the goal of recognizing and promoting research outside the context of the policy/funding environment. The Faculty Research Association held several events at which faculty members presented recent research results, and started production of a research newsletter supported financially by the University’s Research Office. Finally, one of the best outcomes from this goal was the creation of a biannual research-based magazine “Research Matters” that highlights faculty publications (Volume 2 is underway).

2. Describe how the institution involved people in work on this Action Project.

This action project was initiated and has been largely driven by faculty, initially through the Faculty Senate and, after becoming institutionalized, through the actions of interested faculty and representatives of relevant University offices. Because the action project focuses broadly on the University culture and environment, liaisons between the Research Environment Task Force and Faculty Research Association and other campus constituencies have been frequent and productive. Reports were made by the task force to the Faculty Senate on a monthly basis, and feedback from the Senate was brought into the task force’s discussions. In fact, Faculty Senate support was one factor credited with the 100% increase in Faculty Development Funding. The task force leadership also involved the FHSU AAUP chapter on issues related to conditions of employment. A number of administration officials, including the Assistant Provost for Quality Improvement, Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, and Director of the Forsyth Library, were active members of the task force and were able to provide effective communication with those offices. As the action project proceeds, it is anticipated that the role of students and other outside stakeholders will become more significant.

3. Describe your planned next steps for this Action Project.

In the short term, a new faculty-led Research Environment Committee is being created to continue the work of the task force. Over the next year, the new committee will implement the recommendations of the task force, continue to develop new recommendations as appropriate, monitor the changes in the research environment, and serve as the central body in developing research policy. It is also fully expected that additional data collection based on the original set of metrics will occur this fall, and some additional measures proposed by the task force will be used to assess the research environment.

4. Describe any "effective practice(s)" that resulted from your work on this Action Project.

Perhaps the most useful new practice developed as a result of this action project has been the way in which a faculty-driven initiative intended to make fundamental changes in the institutional culture has been fostered by the administration through the creation of a multi-constituency, faculty-led task force working in a systematic way and empowered to create change. Key aspects of this approach have been the selection of committed faculty to participate in and lead the task force, the direct participation of the quality management community in the task force’s work, and public support and recognition of the task force’s efforts by the university administration.

5. What challenges, if any, are you still facing in regards to this Action Project?

At this point, with the task force’s effort completed, the remaining challenges include availability of funding to support some of the recommended initiatives, changing traditional expectations for faculty research activity, and the general problems involved in making permanent changes in the institutional culture. It is not expected that any of these challenges will prove insurmountable.

2003 Annual Update Information

1. Describe the past year's accomplishments and the current status of this Action Project.

This is the first reporting cycle for this action project, but several events have happened over the last year that appears to have a positive impact on this goal. This action project has been in the works for some time and was only brought to the forefront when we were comfortable that there was sufficient campus interest. Faculty Senate and other key campus leaders made the final appeal and the goal was declared. Since that point we have had a few significant events occur. Last fall several members of the academic community came together to plan a measurement strategy for this action project. Once the measurements were established, they were nearly immediately distributed for reporting purposes. In addition to the immediate measurement, the Council for Institutional Effectiveness acted on the goal by selecting a task force to study both the metrics used, the data collected, and the outcomes that improved the research environment. This task force met before the end of the spring semester for a charge, and has met several times since that point to begin to build an agenda to accomplish their goals.

2. Describe how the institution involved people in work on this Action Project.

Since its inception, this has been an action project that has been largely moved forward by faculty. The action project focuses on the research outcome as well as the larger culture and environment. Several important stakeholder groups have played a major role in the inception of this project. It is anticipated that more faculty and the larger campus community including students, staff, and other outside stakeholders will have a more significant role as the project takes shape in the future.

3. Describe your planned next steps for this Action Project.

Over the course of the next year, the special task force is charged with bringing forward immediate and long-term solutions to creating an improved research environment. In addition to this priority, substantial resources have been allocated to the study of the research environment. It is also fully expected that additional data collection based on the original set of metrics will occur this fall, and additional work by the task force may provide us with better measures in assessing the research environment.

4. Describe any "effective practice(s)" that resulted from your work on this Action Project.

Given the recent nature of the action project, no effective practices have been identified. We will continue to look for new insights in this area.

5. What challenges, if any, are you still facing in regards to this Action Project?

Over the next year the most important outcome is the completion of the work of the task force and the collection of relevant data on the goal. While data collection will not be problematic, the work of any committee can be hindered by any number of factors. Until their work is complete, the goal will not realize its full potential.