![[Case Western Reserve University -- Toolbar]](/pix/lowpro.gif)
Self-Study, Volume II, Chapter III: Research
Research is an integral part of the intellectual life at Case Western Reserve and a central theme - with education and citizenship - of the university's mission. Two of the institutional goals approved by the Board of Trustees in the most recent five-year plan for the university mention research directly:
Progress toward these goals was reviewed in detail by President Pytte in his 1992-93 annual report of the university. As he noted in his message to the CWRU community, the university's success in research reflects the excellence of its faculty, students, and research staff, as well as a tradition of nearly five decades of leadership and support for outstanding research that has assured Case Western Reserve a place among the nation's top research universities.
This report will attempt to provide qualitative and quantitative indications of the vitality and importance of research at CWRU. It may be illustrative, though, to first cite a few recent and noteworthy accomplishments of university researchers. The individual researcher, working alone or with others, is the single most important element of the research enterprise.
Funded research represents a significant portion of the university's operating budget, though a considerable volume of research proceeds without support from external sources. Research is expected to account for approximately 39 percent of total revenue in 1994-95. Awards from all sources to support research in fiscal year 1993-94 were $136.8 million, up 7.7 percent from the prior year. Federal agencies accounted for about 81 percent of awards in FY1994, with the largest single source of support being the National Institutes of Health. Private sources accounted for about 14 percent, and non-federal government sources (mainly the State of Ohio) the remainder. For the federal fiscal year ending September 31, 1992, the most recent period for which data are available, CWRU ranked 35th among all universities in the nation, and 16th among private universities, in federal awards to support research and development.
Research at CWRU is primarily a department-based activity. All faculty members on campus in their teaching and research capacities are associated with an academic department where their responsibility and tenure lie. Research centers serve a special role by creating critical masses of researchers in interdisciplinary fields. Such centers foster collaborative investigations that can tackle broad-based research programs with meaningful depth. Successful interaction between centers and departments on this campus has been encouraged through the collegiality of department chairs and center directors, along with the centers' faculty participants. Because appointments and tenure are department-based, in fact, interdisciplinary research often depends upon the willingness of the department chair to support such initiatives.
Research is important to the university administration and to the faculty governance body: the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research reports directly to the provost, and the Faculty Senate has a standing committee on research. In addition, there are numerous other standing and ad hoc committees on campus that relate directly to the research enterprise. During the past several years, major issues related to research productivity have been examined by the Faculty Senate and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. These activities have focused on generating policies that enhance research on campus and directly address issues of concern. For example, specific policies have been developed in the areas of authorship and data custody, laboratory safety, environmental operations and waste disposal, conflicts of interest, and strategic planning.
The university is continually evaluating the research on campus. Between 1991 and 1993, for example, the Faculty Senate Research Committee examined the research environment at CWRU. The result of this study was a 'white paper,' included as an appendix to this report, that described a number of concerns and made four major recommendations for action:
In the summer and fall of 1993, CWRU participated in a joint project of the National Science Board and the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable to study the stresses on research and education at colleges and universities. This was done through a series of four meetings of faculty and staff, the first three involving specific constituencies on campus: junior faculty, senior faculty, and administrative staff. The deliberations of each of these meetings were summarized in a series of recommendations addressed to the institution and to federal agencies that support research. Many of the recommendations in this report were consistent with those of the Faculty Senate White Paper. The 'Research Stresses' report is also included as an appendix.
A Research Strategic Planning Committee led by the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research is currently examining the internal and external environment for research, with the goal of developing a strategic plan to maintain and strengthen the university's research vitality in this decade and beyond.
CWRU continues to evaluate its policies and procedures to assure that the integrity of the research enterprise is maintained. In 1993 the Faculty Senate approved a policy on authorship of research publications in order to clarify the rights and responsibilities of authors - how to determine which participants in a research study should be included among the authors, and what obligations this recognition carries. In a different but related activity, one department is currently trying to develop a definition of 'mentorship' as it relates to graduate students, postdocs, and junior faculty. A goal is to alleviate any perceptions of unfair treatment by senior faculty.
This year the Faculty Senate approved policy guidelines for dealing with conflict of interest regarding research commercialization. These guidelines are necessary to facilitate university technology transfer without disrupting academic activities, and to prevent inequitable utilization of university or government assets to benefit a private enterprise.
Other issues of research integrity and ethical behavior continue to be discussed. Some of these topics include conflict between federal and state law (for example, in the use of fetal tissue in research), the impact of safety regulations, and the use of human subjects in research.
The impact of an active research program on graduate education include providing laboratories for formal training; teaching the methodology of research; and serving as a vehicle for placement of students in professional careers, especially in engineering. Research is essential for training the workforce - industry employees frequently spend several months in CWRU labs to learn about new developments. Unfortunately, the perception among some outside the university is that universities train only for the professorate, and that university research is often not relevant or valuable. The university might consider ways to integrate research more closely into its educational programs; in the Mandel School, for example, research is tied to the community. The university maintains that one of the goals of a major research university is the training of future scientists. However, more effective communications are needed to educate the public about the importance of this mission.
The subcommittee believes that research should be considered an integral component of the undergraduate experience as well. One of the advantages of an undergraduate education at a research university is the opportunity for students to work closely with faculty as part of a research team, engaging in active learning and discovery. While the university's formal program designed to engage undergraduate students in research was discontinued in recent years because of a lack of commitment and funding, many undergraduates participate in research through the efforts of individual faculty and departments. As discussed later in this report, the subcommittee endorses the re-establishment of a formal mechanism to support undergraduate participation in research.
The Research Stresses report recommended the introduction of an interdisciplinary problem-solving graduation requirement for undergraduates, to require that students demonstrate acquired learning through research. There has also been some recent discussion in the College of Arts and Sciences about including such a project in the core curriculum.
Essential to the success of the individual researcher is an environment that encourages and fosters research excellence. The research infrastructure includes both the general research climate on campus and the facilities, services, policies, and processes that support the research conducted by university faculty. The self-evaluations of the research enterprise described above have identified both important assets and a number of concerns related to the research infrastructure on campus.
Research Environment: People and Programs. The major strengths of research at CWRU are its faculty, students, and programs. The faculty are self-motivated intellectuals with demonstrated leadership in their respective disciplines. The students are bright, deep thinkers driven by curiosity and the desire to achieve. The academic programs are innovative and adjusted to meet the needs of society. The climate for research at CWRU is very stimulating: there is a dynamic interaction among researchers of different disciplines, on campus and throughout the national and international community.
CWRU is the home of nearly 100 research centers, many of which are interdisciplinary in nature. Among these are the centers cited earlier as well as the Mandel Center for Nonprofit Organizations, sponsored jointly by the schools of management, law, and applied social sciences; the Yeager Center for Electrochemical Sciences, bringing together the expertise of faculty in eight departments in the sciences and engineering; the Center for Professional Ethics, created to discuss issues of personal and professional ethics that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries; and the Center on Aging and Health, involving faculty from all schools of the university in programs of research, education, and service relevant to the health and well-being of older people.
Role in Tenure Decisions. Faculty are the central element of the research infrastructure on campus. Tenure decisions are based on evaluations of faculty contributions to teaching, to research, and to university/community service. By ensuring that research continues to be a prominent factor in the evaluation of faculty, the university is strengthening the research infrastructure.
Office of Research Administration. The ORA is an administrative function on campus that is dedicated to assisting researchers to meet their obligations in terms of securing funding for their work and facilitating its progress.
Planning. Strategic planning to better position the university to respond to future needs and priorities takes place in many units across the campus. The planning activity in the basic science disciplines of the School of Medicine, for example, is seen as a model for strategic investment elsewhere on campus. This activity has been very successful at bringing significant returns to the university in expanded programs and increased national and international recognition.
New Facilities. Great strides have been made during the past few years in expanding and upgrading the facilities on campus for research. CWRU has made a significant investment in a fiber-optic network to link all university offices and facilities. This state-of-the-art system facilitates faculty access to library acquisitions, literature search services, databases, and other information resources, both locally and externally. It also serves as an efficient means of enhancing communication among researchers on campus and elsewhere. A number of buildings and laboratories have been constructed or upgraded to expand the quality of research space on campus. These include the new Biomedical Research and Kent Smith Engineering and Science buildings, and the complete renovation of research and teaching facilities in the Rockefeller Physics Building. Examples of investment in advanced laboratories include the microelectronics laboratory and the functional electrical stimulation laboratory.
The university continues to look toward the future needs of researchers and take advantage of modern technology. For example, a state-of-the-art library building and information system is being built and should be ready for use in 1996.
Safety and Environmental Services. The university has developed an infrastructure to assist researchers in meeting all safety and environmental regulations with minimum bureaucracy and work.
Training Programs. The university has obtained research grants that provide first-class opportunities for students to obtain advanced training. One successful program is the Biomedical Sciences Training Program, which offers an example of the positive impact of research on teaching: by providing flexibility for students in their choice of program, the BSTP requires faculty to 'recruit' students to their research programs through their teaching.
Strategic Investment Programs. The State of Ohio has been a leader nationally in the formation of some new kinds of research relationships with public and private universities. The Regents' Research Challenge program provides resources that can be allocated across the university to address research opportunities, whether they involve large-scale projects that are linked to major strategic goals, or smaller projects proposed by individual faculty that may provide the seeds for the major research initiatives of the future. CWRU also participates in five centers affiliated with or sponsored by the state's Thomas Edison Program, created to promote economic development based on technology originating on Ohio campuses.
A number of concerns related to the research support structure have also been identified through the research self-evaluations. These issues include:
Grants Accounting and Procedures. Researchers on campus are limited by the existing financial management system in their ability to access real-time information on grant accounts. The university's grants management system must be improved to provide better financial information to investigators; it could also include on-line information on university and funding agency policies and procedures.
Graduate Student Support. Graduate students are also an element of the research infrastructure. The subcommittee endorses the recommendation of the Research Stresses report that the university develop a plan for cost-sharing graduate tuition. Graduate tuition is returned to the deans as unrestricted income (except in the School of Medicine, where most of the tuition is returned to departments). This system for distributing graduate tuition makes it difficult for departments to plan student recruitment, and discourages medical faculty from supporting students in the Case School of Engineering or College of Arts and Sciences. A start-up pool of funds for graduate student support would be valuable, and named fellowships might make graduate student support more attractive to potential donors.
Training grants are available, for both undergraduate and graduate students. A central source of model training grant proposals would be helpful, since many faculty have little experience in writing them.
Flexibility in Human Resources. Research in many laboratories must be carried out by highly skilled and trained personnel with extensive experience in specialized fields. The university's personnel classification system often assigns greater weight to administrative and supervisory responsibilities, however, than to the technical expertise required by research positions. This sometimes leads to assignment of salaries and fringe benefits for research staff that are not comparable with those for other university positions or at other institutions in the Cleveland area. These policies must be re-examined in order to attract and keep good people.
Contingency Funding. The subcommittee endorses the recommendation of both the Senate White Paper and the Research Stresses report that the university develop a contingency funding mechanism to provide support for faculty whose research funding has temporarily lapsed. Such a mechanism would help ensure continuity of research, prevent the loss of experienced research staff, and is particularly important in the context of a changing national research environment that provides less long-term stability in funding patterns.
Shops. There is a continuing concern that shops services such as machine and glass-blowing facilities are being deteriorated to the point of not being useful and responsive to the research enterprise.
In this section, we attempt to document in a quantitative fashion the vitality of research on the CWRU campus. In a preliminary way, this can be summarized by the data presented in Table 1 that compares faculty size, external research funding, and graduate enrollment ten years ago and in 1993-94.
By all quantitative indicators, it can be seen that research is active and productive at CWRU. In extensive discussions during the preparation of this report, however, the subcommittee agreed that significant additional efforts may be needed to further document the vitality of research on campus and the progress the university is making in the research endeavor. This is particularly important to determine trends in various activities and ensure that remedial action can be taken when problem areas are identified. The goal is not simply to measure research activity, but to assess research impact and consequence. Measures that can be important indicators of the direction of research on campus include:
This subcommittee strongly endorses the notion of a university ad hoc committee to examine this list further in order to develop measures that will fully evaluate the research activity on campus, perhaps creating a database to track such measures. Since many aspects of a dynamic research environment cannot be quantified, however, it is important not to lose sight of the non-quantitative indicators included among those above. A recommendation regarding this issue is offered in the following section.
The subcommittee considered a number of initiatives and goals that could lead to improvement in the research enterprise at CWRU. These include:
It is essential that the university develop a research investment strategy at the school/college level. The premise of the strategy would be that research vitality requires a certain level of university commitment and investment. It will be particularly important for the university to develop opportunities and reward faculty for research in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
The subcommittee also believes that there is a need for the university to develop a plan to re-engage those faculty who are no longer involved in productive research and scholarship. The university must consider that research is a dynamic activity. Many times active faculty members reach a point in their careers where their current research effort has reached its limits. It is essential that the university retrain these highly qualified people to address needs in new fields. The department chair plays a key role in this process, not only in mentoring junior faculty but also in revitalizing mid-career faculty and in providing support for changes in research thrust. The Research Initiation Program and other sources of seed grants are usually aimed at junior faculty; there are few such programs for mid-level faculty. While faculty development resources - access to technical editors, statistical specialists, and so on - are expensive, they should be considered as much an investment in the research capability of the university as are expenditures for equipment and technology.
The complexities of research require knowledge in multiple fields and need to involve collaborative interactions. The university must recognize that these are important components in doing gainful research. Therefore, methods must be found to evaluate collaborative and interdisciplinary scholarship and to encourage and reward collaborative activities, particularly when faculty are being considered for tenure and promotion.
The subcommittee supports the White Paper recommendation that the Office of Research Administration conduct an annual review of research performance and infrastructure. This would also include the establishment of a data management system of research vitality indicators. It is recommended that the provost consult with the deans (who would in turn consult with their department chairs) on how best to do such an evaluation without putting departments in competition with each other. A mechanism of ongoing evaluation of research vitality must encompass all levels of the university (individual, department, school, institution) and must be distinct from the annual salary review. It should also be tied into overall institutional goals and planning.
The research infrastructure can be enhanced in a number of key service areas. Included are developing a sponsored projects management system, developing a plan for cost-sharing graduate tuition, establishing a mechanism for providing contingency funding, and establishing policies which control additions of unbudgeted but required services to direct charges of grants. Other services, such as machine and glass-blowing shops, must be strengthened and augmented with services from off-campus vendors.
Methods must be devised to improve the communication between faculty researchers and the university administration. Also, programs must be developed to educate others (for example, students, legislators, the general public) about the importance of research to society.
The university needs a formal and sustained commitment to facilitate undergraduate research experiences and relationships with the professional schools. One option would be to recreate a structure similar to that of the former Office of Undergraduate Research, in order to provide formal support for the efforts of both students and faculty. Of course, funding is a major issue. The university must be proactive in identifying and taking advantage of the various sources of funding available for this purpose.
Full-time Research Awards Graduate
Faculty (thousands $) Enrollment*
1984-85 1993-94 1984-85 1993-94 1984-85 1993-94
Arts and Sciences:
Arts, Humanities,
and Social Sciences 120 106 $816 $1,467 228 380
Math and Natural Sciences 92 89 6,331 6,352 185 170
Administration - - 157 50 - -
Subtotal, Arts and Sciences 212 195 7,303 7,868 413 550
Engineering 107 108 13,626 24,349 673 743
Applied Social Sciences 26 30 561 4,522 49 45
Dentistry 48 27 389 95 - -
Law 42 44 13 0 - -
Library Science 9 - 77 - 19 -
Management 53 78 429 990 153 155
Medicine:
Basic Sciences/Centers ** 163 14,052 34,269 195 365
Clinical Departments ** 1,054 20,401 58,635 10 8
Other - - 0 2,662 - -
Subtotal, Medicine 933 1,217 34,453 95,566 205 373
Nursing 38 70 1,066 2,404 53 51
University General - - 174 1,051 - -
Total 1,468 1,769 $58,091$136,845 1,565 1,917
(*) Excludes non-degree students and students in professional programs
(MD, DDS, JD, MBA, MAcc, MSSA, MSN, ND)
(**) Editor's note: values lost in conversion from original format to
plain text (dlr3 - 6/14/95)
In addition to the goals and objectives for research that are expressed in the University's 1990-1995 plan, there have been a number of discussions recently of issues related to the research enterprise both at CWRU and nationally. Last spring the Faculty Senate Committee on Research issued a White Paper on the Research Environment at CWRU. At the invitation of the National Science Board and Government-University-lndustry Research Roundtable, a group of faculty and administrators participated in a series of discussions this summer on the stresses facing research and education at colleges and universities; the summary of those discussions addressed both institutional and agency responses. A working group has recommended the creation of a Sponsored Projects Management System that would provide timely financial information on expenditures and commitments for research projects.
The charge to the Subcommittee on Research is to look in greater depth at some of the policy issues raised by these recent reports. How should a strategic planning process, recommended by both the Senate Committee and the Roundtable be redefined to include research development? What is the relationship of research to graduate education and training? What is the role of research faculty who are not on the tenure track? One point of consensus that emerged from the Research Roundtable discussions is that changes in the support environment, particularly at the federal level, are inevitable. What issues must be addressed - accountability, conflict-of-interest, indirect cost recovery, relationships with industrial and other private-sector partners - in the transition to a new support environment? The subcommittee's discussions should include consideration of both sponsored and unsponsored research in all disciplines of the University, including the humanities and arts.
Committee members:
Ex officio member:
Student members:
This White Paper on the Research Environment at CWRU is an initial step toward improving communication between University research faculty and the administration. Its ultimate goal is to initiate changes that will enhance the research environment by addressing the needs of researchers and to encourage President Pytte to place a high priority on the University's research mission just as he has on its teaching mission. This White Paper presents recommendations for
The two major missions of the University are teaching and research. These are mutually dependent: the vitality of the educational enterprise depends upon research. It is the most important aspect of graduate education, and vitality in research programs also makes for vitality in undergraduate and professional education. Moreover, the indirect costs provided by the research enterprise are critical to maintaining the research infrastructure of the University. The reputation and visibility of the University depend considerably on the scholarly productivity of its faculty.
The research enterprise at CWRU and elsewhere is beset by external forces threatening to reduce or compromise our efforts. Federal sources of funding are becoming ever more competitive and difficult to obtain. State sources of funds are likely to shrink. Private foundations are struggling too; some now also require institutional matching funds, others direct more of their funds into services than research. American industry is tightening its belt and the research it supports may be increasingly goal-directed. Furthermore, society and government are questioning the orientation and direction of research. The University community must adapt to this rapidly changing environment in order to maintain and strengthen our research position.
The charge of the Faculty Senate Committee on Research is to participate in the initiation and formulation of University policies bearing on academic research in order to facilitate the performance of high-quality research at CWRU. This document assembled by the Committee presents the perspective of the diverse research community on University activities and functions which are important to the well-being of the research enterprise. The intent is to suggest strategies for improving the relationship among investigators, support staff, and administration and to facilitate the conduct of outstanding research at Case Western Reserve University. The ultimate goal of the document is to enhance the research environment by addressing the needs of the researcher at all levels of the University and to encourage the President to place a high priority on this important mission of the University.
The University must develop an investment strategy to ensure that we stay at the forefront of modern basic and applied research in engineering, the humanities, social, natural, and medical sciences, and are thus able to compete successfully for public and private support and scholarly eminence. A strategic planning capacity would set priorities for investment in faculty, equipment, space and services. It should have broad-based academic involvement and seek also to create and maintain an atmosphere of trust between the faculty and administration. The goal is to generate a detailed action plan for the continued rebuilding and readjusting of individual University units. The apparent absence of such planning results in seemingly uncoordinated management of University resources and disharmony between faculty and administration.
We propose that the Faculty Senate establish the mandate for a Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) of faculty chosen by and directly interacting with the President and Provost. The SPC should be given the information it needs to properly assess individual units of the University and should be provided with secretarial and other support services to conduct its affairs. This advisory committee could have significant impact on the management and forward progress of the University. For example, it could identify resources needed by multiple units and areas where investment could markedly enhance scholarly productivity. A model for the SPC is the Research Committee of the Medical School. This committee has been charged with evaluating several aspects of the research life of the Medical School and has had considerable influence on the School's policy development. We feel a similar University-wide endeavor will focus attention on areas worthy of investment and help establish priorities.
The SPC, acting with and for the President, should have a relatively small group of faculty (not department chairmen) from all areas of the University and should be appointed for five-year terms or at the pleasure of the President. Its single mandate should be to help promote the growth and eminence of scholarship and research on our campus. The measure of success will be the greater number of faculty receiving honors and awards, an observable increase in grant funding and in scholarly productivity.
The cost and intensity of the research effort make Principal Investigators (PIs) major consumers of University services. Researchers interact regularly with nearly every aspect of the University; decisions which affect the function of University services impact heavily on the research community.
Office of Research Administration. The mission of the Office of Research Administration (ORA) is to serve faculty needs as they plan and carry out research programs. Most faculty seeking or conducting funded research interact with the ORA at various stages of proposal development, for assistance with contracts and agreements, and for various aspects of post-award administration.
The Committee on Research suggests that there be a formal annual review of University research performance and concerns in which Committee members and ORA review issues and discuss specific initiatives for remedial action. The result of this review should be transmitted to the President, Provost, faculty deans, and Vice President for Administration. The Committee suggests that the ORA develop a document describing the principles and rationale of the various local administrative aspects of conducting research and include operational details for complying with the necessary paperwork and permissions.
Personnel. (1) Accurate classification and adequate compensation of research staff is an urgent issue. Specifically, some research staff positions are classified at a lower salary grade than necessary to compete for employees with other agencies and institutions. It is particularly frustrating when faculty researchers lose valued research staff to other institutions because they are unable to pay a competitive salary. University resources are wasted in training and developing personnel who leave after a short tenure.
The Committee on Research understands that the current system of grading personnel strongly emphasizes administrative and supervisory responsibilities. The technical skills and expertise required to do laboratory work, data management, or statistical analyses seem to be undervalued. Laboratory and statistical workers may not often supervise others or have extensive contact with persons outside their department, two aspects of work that are heavily weighted in determining position and salary grade. However, research staff carry significant responsibility for the quality of their own work and the technical skill with which it is carried out. Unfortunately, many faculty researchers have had difficulty convincing Human Resources personnel about the relative value of these more autonomous aspects of the job performance of research staff. The misclassification of research staff has resulted in peculiar inequalities. This is often seen when an administrative staffer within the same department has less experience and education than a research assistant but has a higher salary.
The Research Committee recommends that faculty researchers work with the Human Resources department to develop more relevant standards for classification and compensation of research personnel. The ability to work autonomously, technical skills and the need for accuracy must be given sufficient weight in the rankings. Furthermore, avenues of communication between faculty researchers and Human Resources personnel need to be enhanced. We recommend that Human Resources designate a contact person and develop procedures for dealing with special cases involving research personnel. PIs need to have more influence on recommendations for salaries, raises, and promotions for research personnel, especially those with unique skills.
(2) The lack of health benefits for post-doctoral fellows is deplorable. This group of more than 100 University employees with advanced professional degrees receives no University health benefits. CWRU would exercise national leadership by providing health benefits to post-doctoral fellows equivalent to those made available to faculty and staff. Such a provision would give the University a competitive edge in attracting outstanding post-doctoral fellows. The University should consider the feasibility of separating health care benefit rates from other benefits in the fringe benefit total rate so that health care benefits could be paid by grants or departments to graduate students independently of retirement plans or other benefits.
Space. Biomedical research space has increased in amount and quality with the renovation of Medical School laboratories and construction of the Biomedical Research Building. Engineering space is similarly getting a major boost with the new Macromolecular Building. Until very recently, the last major upgrading of space in the sciences was the construction of Millis nearly 30 years ago. The Committee is happy to learn that the University has applied for and received funds from the National Science Foundation to renovate the Physics Department laboratories. We urge the University to consult with the research faculty and staff during the specification and design phases of these projects in order to make the resulting space appropriately usable. Other science departments also require attention.
Technical Services. A major research university requires institutional support in terms of shops, stockrooms, and technical support people. The University's performance in providing this sort of support has seldom been at a level appropriate to a major research university. Although some services are adequate, many are not. Researchers should have access to high-quality, reasonably priced services such as photographic services, glassblowing shop, chemistry stockroom, electronics stockroom, electronics design and construction service, and machine shop. The perennial problems of these services are insufficient staffing, exorbitant cost to the user, short hours, and inadequate inventories of supplies and materials. It appears that the failure of the University to maintain high-quality, or even adequate, support in these technical areas results from institutional policy. Providing services at the level necessary to sustain a nationally competitive research program will require a change in approach. The University must acknowledge that these services are an indispensable part of the research infrastructure and make a commitment to providing high-quality technical services at reasonable cost.
Accounting and Funding. (1) For several years, researchers at CWRU have communicated to the accounting offices of the University that the grants accounting process is not responsive to their needs. The University is now undertaking the development of a Grants Management System. The Committee on Research welcomes this and looks forward to the timely completion of this project. It suggests integration of the Grants Management System with the University Financial Management System, and that the reports from both systems be timely, accurate, and appear in understandable format.
(2) The University needs to establish policies on additions of unbudgeted but required services to direct side of grants. PIs occasionally face new, required expenditures once a program of research has begun. Examples of expenditures for services not required or anticipated in the original proposal include obtaining Hepatitis-B vaccine for involved grant personnel, service or equipment cost increases disproportionately greater than reasonably justified in a grant budget, and changes in the administration budget recovery strategy.
Most often PIs are required to cover these new charges from existing grant funds. This strategy places an unreasonable demand on the PI. The Research Committee recognizes that the University cannot always anticipate the financial impact of NIOSH-imposed regulations or supply-cost inflation. However, the Committee recommends that where possible such expenditures be considered as indirect costs rather than direct charges to grants. Long-term policy for unanticipated costs is warranted. It could take the form of set-aside funds that would be earmarked on an annual basis to provide a mechanism for the University to enable researchers to continue the essential work.
(3) The University should establish a Contingency Funding Mechanism to sustain PIs through temporary funding lapses. PIs with ongoing funding may find themselves temporarily unfunded or underfunded if anticipated awards are not made, a lapse occurs between two funding/contract periods, or if a research budget is severely reduced by the granting agency. We propose that the University establish a Contingency Funding Mechanism to enable PIs to maintain research personnel salaries during such lapses. This would prevent loss of the substantial investment in trained, expert research staff due to temporary shortfalls. This problem and the need for a supportive solution is likely to grow as competition for funding becomes ever more intense.
(4) The University community should be aware that a growing number of faculty members are not being compensated by the University for teaching and service activities, but in fact are supporting these activities with their research funds. This situation is a source of some discontent.
The faculty's perception of the University administration's policies and goals with regard to research is not always accurate. Similarly, the administration's understanding of the faculty's needs is not always complete. Communication between faculty researchers and the University administration needs to be improved.
President Pytte has been quite clear about his feelings on the teaching priorities of the University. This has been accomplished through direct written and oral presentations to the faculty, students, and the community at large. Words and actions have communicated a clear understanding of the importance of the teaching mission at CWRU. We hope that the same approach will be taken to improve the research environment at the University.
A clear line of communication between the research faculty of the University and the University administration must be established. We suggest that the University administration evaluate the mode of communication that is currently in place with the idea of improving and enhancing the communication between all parties. It would be beneficial for the University community if the administration were to inform the faculty of its goals, philosophies and policies regarding research and its willingness to foster a positive research atmosphere at CWRU. Likewise, faculty must be able to communicate their concerns more directly to all levels of the University administration. This White Paper is a first step in the direction of strengthening communication between research faculty and the administration at CWRU.
This report is the result of a series of four meetings of faculty and staff members of Case Western Reserve University. The meetings were held in response to an invitation from the National Science Board and the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable to offer an institutional perspective on the significant issues facing education and the research enterprise. Each of the first three meetings predominantly (although not exclusively) addressed a specific constituency of the campus: junior faculty, senior faculty and administrative staff. The attendance at each meeting ranged from 15 to 20 people. These people were divided into three discussion groups. Prior to the meeting, each group was provided with an agenda and a list of specific questions for discussion. After an orientation period, the groups, each with a facilitator, met for several hours. Then each facilitator presented the charge to his/her discussion group and the results of its deliberations to the entire assembly. Following these presentations, an open-ended discussion ensued.
A thorough summary of the discussion at each of these three meetings was prepared and distributed to the attendees for comments. The comments were collated and a single set of recommendations was prepared and circulated to the participants. The initial participants were invited to a final meeting to assure cross-communication among the various entities and to discuss the complete set of recommendations. This document is the result of those efforts. It begins with a summary of the recommendations to Case Western Reserve University and to the funding agencies. The discussion and rationale follow the list of recommendations.
Recommendations for CWRU (President's Office)
Recommendations for CWRU (Provost's Office)
Recommendations for CWRU (Deans' Offices)
Recommendations to Agencies
During the sixties and seventies, private research institutions such as Case Western Reserve had the opportunity to build substantial programs which were largely dependent on federal, state and industrial financial support. These funds have been used to expand the faculty and support staff, to construct laboratories and buildings, to design curricula, and to provide aid to students at all levels while simultaneously underwriting research in the basic sciences, engineering, and other fields. Through this mechanism we have built a program that is the finest in the world. Unfortunately, many of the sources of funds used to seed and support these efforts are becoming scarce and this scarcity is threatening to undermine the accomplishments of the past decades. As a first priority, Case Western Reserve must establish a formal strategic planning process to adapt to the changes in the funding environment.
This formal strategic planning process should exist at both the management center (which is how CWRU budgets for each school) and university levels, and should promote communication between these levels. The departmental level may be the best level at which to plan for changes in external support priorities, since the individual investigator has the closest contacts with funding agencies and the best understanding of changes in technology and priorities. The university's response in terms of resource allocation is often at a much higher level, with little connection to the individual investigator. This presents a conflict and is further rationale for a formal process involving multiple inputs.
Decisions about the largest and broadest priorities (e.g., funding for the Biomedical Research Building or the Macromolecular Science Building at CWRU) can be made on a university-wide scale. In addition, CWRU needs a university-wide strategic planning committee, with the authority to recommend new research directions, review obstacles to progress in current research activities, and recommend choices among competing priorities. Such a committee would represent sponsored and unsponsored research in all management centers.
While it is difficult for an institution to take a long-range view in periods of stress, it is especially important to do so to make sure that limited funding is used to support the best ideas and opportunities. Faculty are willing to participate in planning and to accept investment in areas other than their own - they too want a strong institution - if they know that their own disciplines will be evaluated fairly. A university-wide plan must clearly communicate a timetable for investment.
A number of factors should be part of any planning process for research priorities:
This last idea will help strengthen undergraduate teaching and contribute to campus life. Any planning should take the form of a dynamic, continuous improvement process rather than the creation of a five-year plan. This brings an important degree of flexibility to the process. Planning implies the flexibility to choose among several alternatives. Unless resources are available, choices become quite limited.
Despite being faculty-driven, decisions about research priorities require substantial input from the senior administration - and ultimately from the Board of Trustees - because they frequently require long-term commitments of funds and/or debt. Capital requirements for many research settings are so great that one unit can no longer fund them. Deans are frequently asked to commit matching funds to a number of proposals without any sense of how many will be funded.
A university-level commitment to research should be widely communicated (similar to CWRU's well-known commitment to provide excellent teaching and student services). This would remove the perception that there seems to be no rational method for allocating university research support. Individual faculty frequently feel that matching funds are allocated early in the fiscal year ('first come, first served') and other resources seem to be distributed in order to 'put out fires' rather than to address research priorities.
Case Western Reserve University needs linkages at a higher level between departmental plans and resource allocation decisions. Such a process could conceivably present a conflict between strategic planning, which identifies specific areas of research focus, and the promotion and tenure system, in which all faculty are expected to do independent research. When strategic planning identifies specific areas of research focus, collaborative research will often be a priority, yet faculty are rewarded primarily for independent/individual efforts. This point is addressed below in the discussion of 'interdisciplinary' activities.
The infrastructure that supports research is vital, but the quality of the existing research infrastructure at CWRU varies. The chemical and radiation safety offices are well managed. Safety costs should remain included in overhead: charging costs directly to the department could compromise safety. It is important to plan for mandates (such as safety issues or the hepatitis vaccine) that cannot reasonably be expected to be covered by direct costs. CWRUnet is considered a useful investment in the research infrastructure, though there are continuing concerns about the limited faculty involvement in planning and using the network. Other services receive mixed reviews, including building services, the libraries (though they are improving), the machine shop, and chemical stores.
Graduate students are also an element of the research infrastructure. Departments need institutional support for graduate student funding in order to remain competitive in attracting top students. Lack of such support means discontinuity in research. Some federal agencies are pursuing direct funding of graduate students, a widely applauded, cost-effective method to promote graduate education and research. Institutional support for undergraduate student aid has been used to improve the quality of the student body at that level, but a similar effort has not been made at the graduate level. Faculty would like to see some sort of tuition incentive which would improve student quality at the graduate level as well.
The university and the sponsoring agencies need to clarify the relationship between research and education and to recognize that much learning takes place outside the classroom. The educational impact of dissertation advising and independent study should be better recognized and emphasized. The university should also acknowledge that it attracts students at all levels in part because of the research done here. There is a strong correlation between good research and good teaching.
The processes by which sponsoring agencies establish research priorities and requirements affect the priorities for investments in research and education at each university. Universities need support for graduate education and basic research, yet funded research is increasingly project-oriented. Funding priorities are moving from high-risk/high-return academic research toward focused, product-driven projects that are safe but provide only incremental advancements. Faculty recognize that sponsoring agencies are also practicing survival techniques in response to financial constraints, and believe that CWRU must recognize that federal funding will not continue to increase as it has in the past.
Agencies need to offer greater long-term stability in funding patterns, avoiding shifts in priorities every few years which pose problems for universities that may have built substantial research capacity in response to earlier priorities. Further, it is critical for both the institutions and the agencies to plan for interruptions in support and to provide temporary bridge funds to ensure continuity of progress in research laboratories and in related educational programs.
It was repeatedly noted that faculty, universities, and sponsors all need to come to terms with the real costs of research. Sponsors are frequently 'shopping for bargains,' and do not want to be the 'first dollars in' when matching funds are expected. There is also much misunderstanding and misperception concerning indirect costs and the allocation of indirect cost recovery within the university. This is another example of the need for improved communication.
Getting support for 'good science' in a short-term and applications-oriented environment is perceived to be a problem. It might help to get CWRU faculty to serve on government advisory panels or study groups. We must maintain a presence at federal meetings and seminars. Involvement in such activities varies by department, and there is currently no organized effort to promote it.
Administrators often imply that research 'loses money,' undermining faculty morale and encouraging a sense that research is not fully supported by the administration. While not all research covers its full costs - the average overhead recovery is about 33 percent, while the indirect cost of doing research approximates 60 percent of direct expenses - research is important to the character of the institution, and the university's current operations could not be supported without it. Since overhead does not support the full cost of doing research, commitments to undertake research must be managed. Research support leverages other funding for valuable academic activities, yet faculty sometimes sense that they are 'blamed' for the extra costs of research rather than credited for bringing in research funding. Universities and agencies need to acknowledge that research represents a diverse portfolio of activities (of scale, time, payoff) across the institution. The university needs a healthy mix, and small initiatives are still important. Different kinds of research also need different management and processing mechanisms.
It should be noted that the distinction between research and research funding needs to be maintained. The stresses associated with conducting research are almost exclusively associated with research funding, and funding is used by some units within the institution as a measure of the strength of a researcher's program. Other units use the level of publications, considered by many faculty to be more appropriate. The number of publications and the amount of research funding don't always correlate. While external support is desirable, it is not an end in itself. It is a means to continue scholarship, but not a substitute for quality indicators.
Supporting agencies should play a greater role in responding to calls for accountability by Congress and the public. Agencies have participated in shaping the existing research culture but are perceived to be unwilling to defend it. At the same time, universities have helped to engender mistrust, often because faculty have not consistently complied with agency requirements. We must be more diligent about complying with the terms of awards (technical reports, financial status reports, etc.). Implementing the Sponsored Projects Management System would aid compliance efforts here and would contribute to better stewardship of grant support as well. We must clarify the lines of communication among the agency, university, and investigator to maintain a clear image of what agencies will support and what institutions will agree to.
The management of external funds is perceived to be a problem at CWRU. 'Control' seems to be something that happens at the end of the award period, at reporting time, while it should be an ongoing process. Good management requires real-time data and analysis, and will only result from investments in infrastructure: staff training, appropriate equipment, appropriate information systems. These have yet to be made, and this is perceived as an area of vital concern by faculty and administrators alike.
The Federal Demonstration Project has be a helpful partnership between universities and agencies. It should be continued and expanded.
There are a number of research-related steps CWRU could take that would improve the quality of undergraduate education. One large class of activities revolves around providing innovative rewards to faculty for teaching. One suggestion is to make special incentives - a $5,000 bonus, a new computer, one year's tuition for a graduate student - part of the existing (or additional) teaching awards. It is perceived that teaching is not a real part of the tenure review in many units of the institution - a perception that must be changed. Many faculty expressed the belief that good teaching is not rewarded in most departments, while research funding (as distinct from research scholarship!) is rewarded. Since a tenure decision is not made only at the departmental level, clarifying this situation would be a university-wide effort. We could provide ongoing and objective review of teaching by pairing junior faculty with teaching 'mentors,' and by asking professional educators (i.e., education faculty) to evaluate faculty teaching. Mentoring could become an important part of the review of senior faculty, and it could become an expected component in renewals for federal funding.
Institutions and agencies should cooperate to identify sources for funding of undergraduate research. Summer stipends for faculty or student stipends could be made available to reward faculty who encourage undergraduate research. The continued availability of funds to improve undergraduate laboratories contributes to the quality of undergraduate education, but there should be incentives for faculty to get outside funding for undergraduate laboratories and/or teaching innovations. The institution could simplify the process of writing proposals for this funding by organizing standard institutional information in a single office and making it available to all units.
Research sponsors could help universities improve the quality of undergraduate education by providing funding for undergraduate research programs, particularly for minority students; integrating funding of research grants with education; requiring teaching of results, and expecting evidence of doing so to be included in progress reports; expanding the work-study program, and coupling it with undergraduate research.
Industry should be approached for funding for undergraduate laboratories or for courses covering special topics that businesses want the graduates they recruit to have studied. Undergraduate education can also be integrated with industry through cooperative education programs or through advisory committees for courses (though there are concerns, noted below, about too much industry influence on curriculum content).
The university should consider integrating research and teaching as a way to prepare undergraduates to interact more effectively with society at large. CWRU might look at a pre-career model of undergraduate education, oriented toward the university's existing strengths in research and professional education. One way to have a career focus and to integrate research and undergraduate education would be to establish as a project as a graduation requirement that every student participate in solving a real-life problem, interdisciplinary in nature. This could become a hallmark of the institution.
Case Western Reserve University is the home of many research centers, each composed of individuals capable of working in an interdisciplinary environment. It is widely recognized here that most research problems are multi-faceted, requiring many sets of skills to solve. Nonetheless, there was a vocal minority opinion expressed by faculty that researchers should establish themselves independently before tackling collaborative projects.
If CWRU wishes to nourish interdisciplinary research, it needs a top-level university-wide commitment to this goal. Currently there is no financial inducement to do interdisciplinary research and, within many units of the institution, significant financial penalty from the department and management center perspective. There should be a reward (or at least no penalty) for interdisciplinary research in tenure considerations. Special resources (money, equipment, management) are often needed to foster such initiatives, and a commitment to finding these would be vital as well.
Forces that encourage interdisciplinary research include certain funding mechanisms (NSF centers, materials research groups, technology reinvestment programs, SCOR, program project grants, industry); society's needs, which usually require an interdisciplinary response; the quality of science; and the intellectual interests of faculty members. The university needs to foster an environment for transferring research to meet society's needs. One could envision teams of faculty sponsoring the teams of students referred to above in completing their graduation requirement of an interdisciplinary problem-solving experience.
To support interdisciplinary research and education, CWRU should examine the management center system for opportunities to remove barriers such as the current formulas for tuition distribution, the handling of indirect costs among collaborators, and the current system of recruiting graduate students (though the Biomedical Sciences Training Program shows that an interdisciplinary training program can succeed).
Collaboration strengthens both the discipline and the institution, so the tenure system must be prepared to deal with interdisciplinary issues. There needs to be a structure to govern junior faculty participation in interdisciplinary research, for example: center directors should support the careers of the junior faculty involved with their centers, and should be responsive to their department chairs. Independent and interdisciplinary research are not mutually exclusive; the university should encourage both, and the departmental structure can evolve as necessary. A campus-wide index of faculty research interests made available on CWRUnet (such as already exists within some units of CWRU) could establish greater opportunities for collegial interaction. In addition, it would promote technology transfer by increasing the awareness of expertise within the university concerning patents, copyrights, and related matters, and improving faculty liaison with these processes.
Agencies should assign a higher priority to proposals for interdisciplinary research without necessarily targeting specific areas. Improved communication among sponsoring agencies would also help. They could also provide continued support for center and program project funding, where interdisciplinary research is fostered, and could improve mechanisms to link basic research proposals with Small Business Innovative Research grants where product transfer takes place.
The existing tenure, funding, and reward systems all encourage faculty to take an entrepreneurial/individual approach to research, which sometimes conflicts with a sense of community and shared fate. Faculty identify more with colleagues in their own disciplines and with their national professional associations than with faculty in other disciplines. Other factors limiting the coherency of the community include limited resources, both real and perceived; the lack of a well-communicated, short-term and long-term strategic plan; and the inconsistencies in resource allocations across the university. The relative lack of women and minority faculty contributes to a special sense of isolation in these groups.
Despite internal and external drives toward competitiveness, there are strong reasons to foster a sense of community. Certainly many sources of support, and, in fact, many research problems, require collaboration among faculty from various disciplines. In addition, it is an appropriate example to set for the young people that we educate.
There are numerous ways to encourage a sense of community but most of them begin with an 'education' component . . . teaching faculty about their colleagues. One example of this activity at CWRU is the 'Spotlight on Women' lecture series. The lectures are widely advertised and so create visibility for the researcher and her research; they feature only the best researchers; they are deliberately at a level accessible to non-specialists; and they foster an awareness of one another among the participants. It is easy to extend this concept to other arenas. Some units within the university hold a 'research day,' and this concept could also be extended.
Another way to foster a sense of community is to reward activities that contribute to it. Reward interdepartmental collaborations in the tenure process, for example, or make mentorship an evaluated responsibility of department chairmen. The latter has the added benefit of boosting the careers of junior faculty. Long-term research planning at the university level that builds on the efforts of faculty working groups and compensatory mechanisms to soften the inequalities of the management center system would also contribute to the sense of shared fate in the well-being of the institution.
A final recommendation for improving a sense of community among scholars on campus involves focusing on a common educational theme: undergraduate education. This theme could serve as a way to unite faculty in a common endeavor. The interdisciplinary project as a graduation requirement, referred to above, is an example of a unifying activity.
Specific attention to the community of underrepresented minorities has resulted in increase retention at the undergraduate level. In fact, our retention and graduation statistics for minority students are often better than institution averages. Nonetheless, by increasing the number of faculty mentors, by recruiting from communities with excellent high schools and substantial minority populations, and by seeking funding from agencies like NIH for undergraduate research programs and fellowships we can improve the environment for minority faculty and students at CWRU.
The changing nature of research and the changing funding environment have brought the university into new relationships with the state, industry, the financial communities, and foreign public and private organizations. A number of observations were made about relationships with the state of Ohio:
It was noted, however, that Ohio has led nationally in the formation of some new kinds of research relationships with public and private universities (the Edison and Regents' Research Challenge programs are examples).
Relationships with industry often depend on contract-by-contract negotiation, and frequently are based on informal contacts with individual investigators. Industrial relationships are riskier, involving issues of confidentiality, proprietary rights, unrelated business income, and conflict of interest. Indirect cost recovery is frequently a point of contention, and there is concern that investigators could shift from an academic focus to one of short-term results in order to get more industrial funding. The university's internal processing of industrial contracts is also cumbersome, even with guidelines in place.
Industry offers many attractive possibilities, including collaborative research and teaching. Faculty sometimes teach graduate courses to a company's employees, for example. Faculty are often asked to design product tests, becoming intermediaries between industry and regulatory agencies.
There are concerns that research will become more product-oriented and that industry needs will begin to affect the curriculum (universities want to produce thinkers, not technicians). Such changes could eventually compromise academic freedom. Despite these drawbacks, relationships with industry offer an area of funding opportunity and facilitate technology transfer.
The university also has a role in helping small businesses build scientific knowledge. Such firms often have good entrepreneurial ideas but lack staff members with an understanding of technology and science. The state of Ohio is now consciously supporting research, yet the state has relatively little expertise in choosing among project proposals. Faculty again are in a position to serve as advisors in evaluating alternatives.
CWRU should become more aggressive in seeking patents as a source of much-needed discretionary income. Technology transfer continues to be a promising but underused link between basic research and industry.
Philanthropic organizations (e.g., foundations, the World Health Organization) are another source of support for research and education. There are a number of disadvantages to relationships with such organizations, including lower levels of funding, low or no overhead recovery, and a focus on tangible products rather than basic research. Faculty also tend to prefer proposals to agencies that will fund salaries. These organizations are a potential source for new funding, however, and it would be helpful if the university's development office could offer more information to faculty about how to enhance relationships. Research ties to such organizations might also help with other kinds of fund-raising.
Foreign public and private organizations are an area of opportunity, but there are significant issues concerning federal regulations and ownership of technology, as well as intense competition for overseas funding.
There was strong endorsement of the White Paper prepared by the Research Committee of the Faculty Senate during the 1992-1993 academic year. The most important and least costly ideas to implement immediately are strategic planning and better communication between faculty and administrators.
The need to think about how to build and use reserve resources for contingency funding is also a crucial but longer-term issue. The White Paper does not address the need to consider the issue of research faculty who are not on a tenure track, but this is an important consideration. Another important consideration omitted from the White Paper is the lack of any incentive mechanism as regards the distribution of indirect recovery. This is viewed by both faculty and administrators alike as vital to both research and education. Further, it has important implications for the success of interdisciplinary activities on campus.
The recommendations and other comments summarized here represent an informal yet thoughtful consensus among a diverse set of CWRU faculty and staff. We are prepared to discuss these matters formally or informally, internally and externally, to see that they are addressed.
Finally, we appreciate the opportunity to help build greater understanding of the importance and the difficulties of academic research at CWRU and nationally.
Next Chapter - Continuing Education
Previous Chapter - Electronic Learning Environment
Table of Contents
![[Toolbar]](/pix/ribbon.gif){kind=small}