 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2002 - 2003 Annual Report Of Institutional Progress I. Accomplishments and Strengths II. Progress in Strategic Planning III. Progress in Assesing Effectiveness of the Institute IV. Overall Health of the Institute The Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) is an umbrella organization composed of the Center for Family Research, the Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery, the Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context Group, the Methods and Models Group, the Basic-Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral Processes Group and the Survey Research Center. IBR was established at The University of Georgia in 1970. Then-and-now, its missions have been: To facilitate the exchange of information and ideas across disciplinary boundaries; to enhance the research efforts of faculty members; to enhance the ability of both emerging and eminent scholars to obtain extramural funding; to facilitate the development of young scholars; and to increase the recognition of the social and behavioral sciences across campus. I. Accomplishments and Strengths Recognition of Fellows A number of IBR Fellows deserve recognition for accomplishments this year. Donna Alvermann was appointed to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Planning Committee for the 2007 Reading Assessment Framework and Martha Carr was the elected President of the Women in Mathematics Education. Robert Rhoades was recognized for his research as he received the University of Georgia’s William A. Owens, Jr. Award for outstanding research in the social and behavioral sciences. In addition, he was also selected as a Fulbright Scholar for 2003. Ron Simons received the Iowa State University Alumni Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Research and Abraham Tesser received the International Society for Self Identity Career Award.
Research Funding: Another Record Breaking Year! An important goal of IBR is to stimulate funded research and its Fellows are extremely active in generating proposals. This year was no exception as 48 proposals totaling $36,921,517 million were generated by Fellows. An additional 49 contracts, totaling $ 687,088 were submitted by the Survey Research Center. Altogether there were 97 submissions for $37,608,605. A number of these proposals were funded. During the current year, 10 Fellow-initiated proposals, totaling $6,584,666 were funded! In addition, the Survey Research Center had 49 contracts funded for $687,088, an 8% increase over their previous high record! In total, IBR had 59 funded proposals for $7,272,754. (see Appendix 1, Table 1). The more usual way of accounting is to only look at the funds that actually have come to the University in the present fiscal year. These include the current part of multiple year awards granted in the past and in the current year. From this perspective, the Institute brought in $9,663,901in extramural funds to the University. When combined with SRC income of $687,088, a total of $10,350,989 was brought in during the 2002-2003 year. This is a record high for the Institute and represents a 16.5% increase over the previous record high (achieved last year)! It is important to point out the growth in extramural grant funds over the past 19 years. Four data points will serve to illustrate this growth: 1984: $5,000; 1999: $3.5 million; and 2001: $5.6 million; 2003: $10.3 million. Table 1 presents individual investigators and the money each brought into the University. Paul Roman, Gene Brody, Aaron Johnson, Velma Murry, Ron Simons, Rex Forehand, and Beth Kotchick were particularly successful this year. One indicator of the success of a research
institute such as IBR is the ratio of extramural dollars generated to state
funding. The ratio this year was 19.1to 1, indicating that the Institute
is quite successful on this measure!
Research Productivity Research funding is the most dramatic and easily documented index of IBR’s current functioning. However, it is not as important as the research that is actually carried out at the Institute. The work conducted by IBR Fellows is of high quality and is having both scientific and applied effects. It is not easy to completely document this aspect of IBR functioning. One available set of indices of research functioning is a count of various achievements. Although such counts are admittedly indirect and imperfect criteria, they remain important because they are objective and clearly reflect an important part of what we mean by research productivity. The numbers associated with each Fellow’s achievements are shown in Appendix I, Table 2, and the detail underlying these numbers is shown in Appendix II. It is important to note that the figures reported in the appendices are for only nine months rather than one year. IBR Fellows have been quite productive for the nine month reporting period in 2002-2003, publishing 139 articles and chapters with another 134 in press. They also have published 7 books and have 7 more in press. Several Faculty Fellows have been extremely productive. Refereed journal articles, books, and book chapters are the usual criteria for judging productivity in the social sciences. This year the people who have been most productive in terms of these activities are (numbers in parentheses indicate number of articles plus books plus book chapters published): Donna Alvermann (7), Steve Beach (7), Gene Brody (10), Jonathon Crystal (6), Rex Forehand (9), Richard Marsh (7), Velma Murry (6), Paul Roman (6), and Ron Simons (8). IBR faculty was also creating a national and international reputation for themselves and the University of Georgia as 259 national and international presentations were made at meetings. Another index of influence on the research establishment is membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals. Again, IBR Fellows have an outstanding record. A total of 23 IBR Fellows serve on 63 editorial boards. The following Fellows serve on four or more boards:James Baumann, Steve Beach, Karen Calhoun, Rex Forehand, and Abraham Tesser. Perhaps the key position in the dissemination of research information is that of editor. IBR Fellows report editorship of a total of 10 journals or issues of journals. In summary, IBR Faculty Fellows are productive
individuals and they are having an impact on the national and international
scene. In summary, IBR Faculty Fellows are productive individuals and they are having an impact on the national and international scene.
Research Dissemination and Faculty Involvement If the Institute is to facilitate faculty research, there must be some contact between the Institute and the faculty. Therefore, faculty involvement is one index of the success of the Institute. There are a number of ways of assessing this criterion. The first way is by the number of Fellows associated with the Institute: 37 Fellows, including 8 Mentoring Fellows. In addition, there are a number of Adjunct Fellows (45) who participated in seminars and conferences. Another way of reaching faculty is by providing opportunities for them to share their research with one another in order to learn about the research of people inside and outside the University and stimulate interdisciplinary opportunities. To meet this need, IBR has a number of seminar series. The general IBR seminar series was continued and its activities are summarized in Appendix I, Table. 3. There was also a series of seminars in the Family area, in the Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context area, in the Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery area, Basic Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral area and in the Methods and Models area. Finally, a Pink Sheet Review seminar series (chaired by Steven Beach) was available whenever Fellows or other social and behavioral scientists on campus wanted input into revisions of a grant proposal. Another way of disseminating research and reaching the faculty is through a series of colloquia with internationally recognized presenters. These presentations are open to the entire university community. The Center for Family Research sponsored a colloquium on “Research on Prevention of Childhood Conduct Problems: Clinical High-Risk versus Public Health and Universal Strategies” (Ron Prinz, University of South Carolina). The Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery sponsored a number of colloquia including: (1) “The Typology of Heroin Users” (Miriam Boeri, Georgia State University); (2) “Management Issues in Therapeutic Communities” (Tim Carroll, Georgia Tech University) and (3) “Turning data into information: Using benchmark data from substance abuse treatment centers to anticipate and address initial issues in the field” (Ron Hunsicker, NAATP). The Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context Group sponsored a Colloquium on “Effect of adversity on children’s outcomes in young adulthood” (Margaret Ensminger, Johns Hopkins University). The Basic Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral Processes Group sponsored a colloquium on “Scientific integrity and the publication process for sensitive topics” (Scott Lilienfield, Emory University). The Twelfth annual William A. Owens Lecture was held. The lecture recognizes the founder of IBR, William A. Owens, with a lecture presented by a nationally known figure in the social and behavioral sciences. This year’s lecture was given by Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The title of his talk was “The Role of the Behavioral Sciences Within the Broader Scientific Enterprise.” The Institute for Behavioral Research also co-sponsored the World Food Day Symposium which featured Bob Rhoades (an IBR Fellow) as the keynote speaker. The symposium which was held October 14, 2002. To keep the University of Georgia faculty and administrators aware of what is occurring at the Institute for Behavioral Research, two issues of our newsletter, The Independent Variable, were circulated to the whole university community (see Appendix IV). To keep Fellows and staff at IBR updated
regarding ongoing activities, our inter-departmental newsletter, IBR Analysis,
was continued.
Space The Institute acquired some of the space needed in Barrow Hall to accommodate Paul Roman’s growing research enterprise. Gordhan Patel is providing renovation money for this space. Wyatt Anderson and Chuck Kutal were particularly helpful in facilitating this growth. Steps were also taken this year to insure increased space for Gene Brody and Velma Murry’s grant-supported research, housed in the Nichols Building. Centers/Groups Within IBR The Institute for Behavioral Research is divided into five Centers or Groups, each of which is headed by a Director. Much of the success of the Institute is based on the activities that occur within the Centers/Groups. The Centers/Groups are organized around coherent themes of research (e.g., Behavioral Health, Family) or methodological issues. The Directors are responsible for facilitating the research and grantspersonship of each member of the Center/Group. This occurs, in part, through an ongoing Seminar Series sponsored by each Center/Group, annual colloquia with internationally recognized speakers, and meetings with Fellows about research, grant ideas, and feedback on grant proposals. The Directors of the Centers/Groups at the Institute for Behavioral Research during the past year are as follows: Center for Family Research (Gene Brody); Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery (Paul Roman); Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context Group (Velma Murry); Basic Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral Processes Group (Nader Amir and Steven Beach); and Methods and Models Group (Patrick Horan). The seminars/colloquia of each of these Centers/Groups and Working Groups are presented in Appendix III. One additional unit within the Institute,
the Survey Research Center (SRC), under the direction of Jim Bason, is
different from the above-mentioned Centers/Groups. The SRC serves the research,
teaching, and service needs of the University and larger community by providing
access to a wide range of expertise and assistance in all aspects of survey
research. In the current year, the Survey Research Center provided services
to university administrators, faculty, committees, and state clients, while
continuing to play an active role in the support of faculty and departments
offering courses in the methodology and social science research. During
the 2002-2003 fiscal year the Center had 49 completed research projects.
These projects resulted in earned income collected this fiscal year of
$687,088, which is a record breaking year (See Appendix III for the report
from SRC). The growth in dollars generated by the SRC deserves recognition.
Four data points can be used to delineate the growth in contracted dollars:
1986-1988: average of $100,000; 1998-2000: average of $350,000; 2000-2001:
$510,952; and the current year: $687,088.
The Faculty Development (Mentoring) Program The Institute for Behavioral Research, in conjunction with the Vice President for Research, established the Faculty Mentoring Program in 1990. Twelve cohorts have now completed the program. A fourteenth cohort is currently participating in the program. Appendix I, Table 4 lists the 2002-2003 cohort. The purpose of the program is to facilitate the research development of faculty members with a special emphasis on extramural funding in the behavioral and social sciences. Each participating faculty member is formally paired with two senior faculty members who serve as mentors. The mentors make themselves available to provide consultation concerning grant writing. In addition, the Institute for Behavioral Research provides a series of seminars concerning research funding in the social and behavioral sciences. The mentoring fellow, in addition to his/her usual research, completes a proposal that is submitted for extramural funding. The Program is directed by Steven Beach and Paul Roman. [See Table 5 in Appendix I for a list of program “milestones” (i.e., the program syllabus)]. The IBR Executive Committee is responsible for choosing mentees, planning meetings, working with mentors and mentees, and providing feedback on grant ideas and proposals. Who Does the Program Serve? Since its inception in 1990, there have been 139 nominations from department heads. Including the 2002-2003 cohort, the program has been able to accommodate 50 mentees. Men and women are represented about equally and about 28% are minority. Moreover, mentees have come from 14 different social/behavioral science departments within seven different Schools and Colleges across campus. Who Serves the Program? The mentors are drawn from among the most talented social scientists on campus. Persons who have some overlapping interests with a mentee and who also have a record for being able to attract extramural funding are invited to participate by the IBR steering committee. Like the mentees, mentors are well dispersed on campus: The mentors, most typically current IBR Fellows, have come from 14 different departments. What Does the Program Cost? The program is funded by the Vice President for Research ($20,000 per year) and other resources are provided by the Institute for Behavioral Research (administration), the mentee’s department (course release or release from other obligations), and the mentor (time). A fund is set up for each mentee to facilitate accomplishing the mentee’s project. It can be used for any research-related expenses, including research assistance, clerical work, summer salary, travel, and equipment. Is the Program Successful? The success of the program may be measured in several different ways. First, one may ask if the program is successful in helping faculty submit proposals for extramural funding. This is the most basic index of success, because it provides an estimate of the program’s success in overcoming barriers to grant writing that stand in the way of others in the social and behavioral sciences. In addition, once a grant proposal has been written, it provides a foundation for future submissions and allows mentees to more easily continue submission of grant proposals in the future, whether through IBR or through their home department. On this index of success, the mentoring program has been very successful. Over 90% of former mentees have submitted proposals through IBR, and several have submitted proposals through other avenues. A second index of success is the amount of extramural funding awarded to mentees as a direct result of their mentoring program involvement. In this regard, our mentees do surprisingly well but it takes time and rewritten proposals. As has been noted in previous Annual Reports, first awards typically have come in approximately three years after the initial participation in the program; however, in the last two years, awards are being received much sooner. It is also noteworthy, but perhaps less surprising, that the larger awards seem to take more time. To date, the Mentoring Program has resulted in $6,013,681 million in funding when the mentee is PI on a grant. The amount of awarded funds increases to $8,444,951 million when mentees serving as a Co-PI on grants are included. This does not include awards to former mentees whose funding is housed outside IBR. A third, more distal, index of success is the extent to which the mentoring program has helped change the climate among social and behavioral science departments to be more supportive of grant writing activities, particularly with regard to supporting the grant writing efforts of junior faculty. This index is harder to quantify than the first two, but may be as important in that support from departments is critical if the initial successes of the mentoring program are to be translated into long term gains in extramural supporting the social and behavioral sciences. It appears that the climate has already changed in several departments. How have the most recent cohorts performed? The participants from 1999-2000 submitted 7 proposals, totaling $3,019,072. One individual, Randy Hammond, had two proposals funded ($72,394). Four other participants had one grant each funded: Anne Bothe ($1,078,384); Hui-Chin Hsu ($143,456); Andrea Hohmann ($144,800); and Kimberly Shipman ($144,800). The proposal by Anne Bothe is the largest grant ever funded through the Mentoring Program! From the 2000-2001 cohort, Steve Holloway received $140,405 and two other participants (Jody Clay-Warner & Joseph Hermanowicz) have sent in resubmissions of grants which were not funded. In the 2001-2002 cohort Jinkook Lee submitted two proposals; Adam Davey and Jonathan Crystal had one grant each funded and Keith Campbell submitted several proposals. Two participants in the 2002-2003 cohort (Maureen Davey & Tina Harris) also submitted one proposal each. In sum, the Mentoring Program appears
to be on track in reaching out to a broad cross-section of researchers
in the social and behavior sciences and helping guide them to view submission
of grant proposals as both possible and desirable. It appears to be useful
in providing a structure that focuses energy and attention on the challenges
inherent in submitting an initial proposal for extramural funding. In addition,
the Mentoring Program has expanded in recent years to attend to the process
of resubmission and responding to initial grant feedback (e.g. Pink Sheet
Review seminars). The program appears to be useful in helping young faculty
overcome obstacles to grant submissions and perhaps to begin to view themselves
in a new light. Across a number of indices, the Mentoring Program appears
to have been a sound investment by the Office of the Vice President for
Research.
Departmental Mentoring As part of our expanded mentoring efforts, IBR continued its collaborative project this year with the Psychology Department. This project, supported by the Dean of Arts & Sciences (Wyatt Anderson), and initiated jointly by Garnett Stokes (Psychology Department Head), involved mentoring of the Psychology Department. Seven faculty members (Adam Goodie, Keith Campbell, Jonathan Crystal, Phil Holmes, Lilian Eby, Janet Frick, Zachary Estes) participated in the program. To date, 8 proposals totaling $2,510,820, have been submitted by these participants. Jonathan Crystal’s proposal ($556,800) was funded in 2002. Adam Goodie has received encouraging feedback about a resubmission. Other proposals are very nearly ready for submission. IBR’s experiences with mentoring the Psychology Department suggest that departmental mentoring is a viable route for increasing grant submissions if a department makes a unified decision to change their academic climate. Web-Based Mentoring As part of our efforts to promote grant writing, we have placed materials for self-guided proposal development on our website (www.ibr.uga.edu). This will provide faculty who are not part of the Mentoring Program or who are in a department not being mentored to guide themselves through the grant writing process. Sandy Gary deserves credit for this major undertaking. Staff Changes This has been a year of tremendous change in staffing at the Institute. Rex Forehand stepped down as Director and was replaced by Steven Beach. Both our part-time secretary and part-time accounting assistant left for other positions after many years of involvement at the Institute and are missed. However, LaNatalie Gude’s full-time accounting position has become permanent. Sandy Gary was promoted to the position of Administrative Manager and Diana Shelnutt was promoted to be the head of IBR accounting. Both promotions are well deserved! These changes were made in anticipation of Sharron Thompson’s retirement and move to part-time status this summer as of August 1. In addition, we are hiring a new accountant and will have new part-time secretarial help in the new fiscal year. We continue to examine staffing needs as we approach the new year. Recognition of Special Contributors to the Institute Beyond the Center/Group Directors, a number of individuals have made special contributions to the Institute this year. Paul Roman co-directed the Mentoring Program. His contributions to this program and indeed to the governance at IBR are appreciated! Gene Brody has done a monumental job at involving IBR Fellows in his new Center Grant. Likewise his service in IBR governance is most appreciated! Velma Murry has continued both her remarkable grant productivity as well as her outstanding service to the Institute. Anne Bothe and Claire Hamilton have joined the IBR Executive Committee. In this role they join Gene Brody, Paul Roman, Velma Murry, and Steven Beach in guiding the Institute forward and making important decisions about programs, Fellow support, and the Mentoring Program. The Institute truly must have the highest quality staff on campus! This exceptional group of individuals, J. J. Bau, Sandy Gary, LaNatalie Gude, Diana Shelnutt, and Sharron Thompson, is often overlooked but is responsible for making the Institute run as effectively as it does. II. Progress in Strategic Planning The following goals have been delineated as the heart of our strategic plan. 1. Facilitate high quality research of faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: (a) Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration among social and behavioral scientists from various departments across campus. (b) Sponsor seminars and conferences with internationally known speakers and provide a Visiting Scholars Program where faculty from other universities can spend sabbaticals. (c) Create a research environment where faculty members are free to explore innovative ideas. (d) Provide typing and duplication services for IBR Fellows. 2. Promote grant writing among faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: (a) Create an environment where faculty members (Fellows) at the Institute are encouraged to write grants. (b) Provide information on how to put together grant budgets. (c) Provide seminars on grant writing and funding opportunities for Fellows. (d) Provide feedback on grant proposals written by Fellows. (e) Provide grant writing seminars and colloquia for all faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. (f) Promote grant writing of faculty members who have not yet been successful in obtaining extramural funds (i.e., Mentoring Program). (g) Mentor departments in grant writing. (h) Provide bookkeeping on all grants funded to IBR Fellows. (i) Encourage change in university’s crediting of grants. 3. Dissemination of research to UGA faculty. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: (a) Encourage more faculty to affiliate with the Institute. (b) Sponsor seven ongoing seminar series for faculty. (c) Sponsor national colloquia and nationally recognized speakers for all faculty on campus. (d) Provide twice yearly newsletter on research by faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences for all UGA faculty and administrators. 4. Increase the service role of the Institute to the social and behavioral sciences and the University as a whole, as well as agencies outside the University. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: (a) Offer seven ongoing seminar series. (b) Sponsor four colloquia by internationally recognized speakers and sponsor visiting scholars on campus. (c) Provide grant writing workshop for all members of the social and behavioral sciences. (d) Continue the Mentoring Program to teach novice faculty members the skills in grant writing. (e) Provide support and assistance with grant writing to various units on campus (e.g., School of Social Work). (f) Mentor departments in grant writing. (g) Reach beyond the University to share UGA research findings with agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 5. Promote the recognition of the social and behavioral sciences within the University, nationally, and internationally. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: (a) Nominate and facilitate applications of faculty members for UGA Creative Medals. (b) Nominate and facilitate applications of faculty members for the William A. Owens Award in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. (c) Endorse nominations of faculty members for Research and Regents Professorships. (d) Provide services (e.g., secretarial) and space to allow Fellows to contribute to their profession by assuming journal editorships (e) Provide travel money that allows Fellows to present at national and international meetings. (f) Bring distinguished Visiting Scholars to campus for presentations and for long term (i.e., up to a year) visits.
III. Progress In Assessing Effectiveness of the Institute The administrative staff in the Institute for Behavioral Research constantly engages in an ongoing assessment of the Institute’s effectiveness in reaching the goals that have been delineated above. In addition, outside evaluators have been brought to campus to assess the effectiveness of the Institute and identify areas to target for improvement. As a result of the assessment process, several ongoing programs are offered and several new programs have been implemented during the current year or in recent years. (1) A three-hour Grant Writing Workshop, co-sponsored by the Office of the Vice President for Research, initially was offered twice during the 1996-97 year (Winter Quarter & Spring Quarter) for faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. Announcements were sent to all departments representing the social and behavioral sciences and 39 individuals attended one of the two workshops. In 1997-98, we tailored the workshop in the following ways. First, we offered the workshop through the New Faculty Orientation Program. Second, we moved beyond new faculty and offered the workshop to all faculty in the social and behavioral sciences. Twenty individuals attended the workshop. Formal evaluation of the workshop by participants resulted in uniformly high evaluations (mean ratings of “Very Satisfied”). We did not offer the workshop in 1998-99 as the demand for such information had been met. In 1999-2000, we presented the workshop to 35 faculty members. In 2000-2001we decided to stimulate grant writing by bringing in speakers from CDC (Ileana Arias) and NIMH (Della Hann). Last year we brought in a speaker from NIH (David Mineo). This year we expanded our Mentoring Program on the web and are working with Abraham Tesser to provide one on one mentoring to faculty in Social Work, Arts & Sciences, and the College of Public and International Policy who might not otherwise benefit from IBR’s Mentoring Program. (2) We have initiated several working groups in order to provide research knowledge to the University. The Methods and Models Group, chaired by Patrick Horan, began as a working group, was formalized two years ago, and has attracted a number of participants from various colleges (e.g., College of Business, College of Family and Consumer Sciences) across campus. The Community, Ethnicity, and Identity in Context Group (Velma Murry) continues to flourish and attracts active participation from across campus. Nader Amir and Steven Beach successfully began the Basic Behavioral and Bio-behavioral Processes Group which continues to bridge the gap between behavioral and biological sciences. In the coming year this group will be led by Andrea Hohmann. (3) Progress in the arena of service was initiated three years ago and continues in the form of a Pink Sheet Review seminar, directed by Steven Beach. This seminar provides individuals (both Fellows and faculty outside of the Institute) who submitted grants, but were not funded, with feedback and direction for resubmission. This seminar has been very successful. (4) The Institute has been strongly committed to the Biomedical Sciences and Health Initiative. Steven Beach serves on the steering committee. (5) A new program, Scholar-in-Residence, was implemented last year. This program is utilized with retired but active faculty (formerly IBR Fellows) who are still contributing to the scholarly literature and involved in grant writing. A Scholar-in-Residence will be provided with office space (when space is available) and some support in exchange for active participation in the Institute (e.g., grant writing, scholarly production, attending seminars) and mentoring of younger faculty members. Abraham Tesser, Patrick Horan, and Maureen Killeen serve as Scholars-in-Residence. (6) The IBR intends to continue its service role to departments in the social and behavioral sciences during the next several years. We will work to develop programs to assist departments in the recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty members. This year we facilitated recruitment in the Sociology Department as a faculty member agreed to come to the University of Georgia if membership in IBR was assured. (7) More statistical assistance to faculty in the social and behavioral sciences was provided by a new branch of the Survey Research Center. Patrick Horan, J. J. Bau, Kathie Shinholser, and Jim Bason constitute this unit of SRC. (8) Rex Forehand and
Steven Beach worked with Gina Smith (Associate Vice-President for Research)
and several deans to change the crediting of grants to departments and
centers/institutes a change that has now gone into effect.
IV. OVERALL HEALTH OF THE INSTITUTE The major changes and new initiatives that have occurred in the past year have been delineated in the preceding sections. Our goals are to continue to serve the social and behavioral sciences and the University as a whole by facilitating high quality research, grantspersonship, and knowledge resulting from research shared through our various seminar series, conferences, and Visiting Scholars Program. With the much appreciated cooperation of Deans and Department Heads, the Institute continues on a productive course. IBR Fellows continue to be highly visible and active researchers. Each of the units within the Institute is working well. Extramural funding, research productivity, and the quantity and quality of seminars and conferences are at an all time high. However, even with success, there exist needs. Three needs are evident. First, although we have been fortunate in attracting a high quality staff and improving salaries, there is still a substantial way to go. A year of freezes on pay raises is an important set back in this regard. Second, as extramural funding continues to grow in the Institute, the workload of the staff to facilitate the preparation of the grants, work them through “the system,” and, of particular importance, keep up with expenditures has grown. To hire additional accounting staff we have been forced to cut funding for other services. Third, the Institute provides funds for key projects initiated by Fellows. In recent years, IBR’s budget for Fellows was not increased at all. However, during this same time, the raises of IBR Fellows were much higher than average, resulting in a shrinking personnel budget. Accordingly, our pool of available money to support Fellow initiatives has lagged behind current needs. Three goals that we will continue to develop over the coming years are as follows. First, we hope to expand our scope beyond the social and behavioral sciences. For science to progress, cross-disciplinary efforts much occur. The IBR provides a unit for interdisciplinary research within the social and behavioral sciences; however, there are other sciences that can facilitate our efforts (as we simultaneously facilitate their efforts) to address societal problems and develop methodologies to solve these problems. A second goal is to facilitate the Provost’s Biomedical and Health Sciences Initiative. We will do this by facilitating health-focused research in the social and behavioral sciences and, consistent with the first goal noted above, beyond the social and behavioral sciences. A third goal is to facilitate
the efforts of the departments that constitute the social and behavioral
sciences. A goal of the Institute is to make the social and behavioral
sciences at the University, both within and outside the Institute, the
best they can be. One way to accomplish this goal is to work with departments
to facilitate their efforts. This may be by enhancing recruitment efforts
or providing outside speakers who are national recognized. Although we
already have been involved in some of these activities to facilitate efforts
of departments, we will attempt to enhance these efforts over the next
several years. V. Summary I. Summary of Major Accomplishments A. Numerous IBR Fellows cited for accomplishments B. Research funding: Record breaking year
C. Research Productivity of IBR Fellows (9 month period)
D. Faculty Involvement and Opportunities Through IBR
E. Mentoring
II. Progress in Strategic Goals A. Five goals delineated B. Progress made in all five areas III. Progress in Assessing Effectiveness of the Institute A. Programs implemented in recent years continued effectively. B. New programs successfully implemented this year include mentoring departments, web-based mentoring, and SRC statistical consulting unit. IV. Overall Health of the Institute A. Excellent B. Needs met: Additional accounting person C. Needs Existing: New services to support social science research and extramural funding.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
