 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2003 - 2004 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 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. Gene Brody was appointed Regents Professor and Steven Beach received the William A. Owens, Jr. Award. Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett was presented with the Georgia Association on Young Children Presidential Citation and appointed to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Board of Examiners. Additionally, Marty Carr served as President of the Women and Mathematics Educations and Andrea Hohmann served as President of the UGA Chapter of Society for Neuroscience. A number of IBR Mentoring Fellows also deserve recognition for their accomplishments this year. Richard Andreatta received a UGARF Early Career Faculty Grant, and Zachary Estes was awarded a Faculty Research Grant from the UGA Research Foundation. Su-I Hou received the Sarah Moss Fellowship Award for Outstanding Junior Faculty, Lillian Eby was nominated for the Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in Work-Family Research from the Center for Families at Purdue University, and Leslie Simons received the Reuben Hill Award for Research and theory from the National Council on Family Relations.
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 theresearch 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. 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 twelve month reporting period in 2003-2004, publishing 182 articles and chapters with another 156 in press. They also have published 9 books and have 3 more in press. This is an impressive amount of intellectual activity, and it has generated National and International recognition for the University of Georgia. 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 (10), Steve Beach (13), Gene Brody (7), Celeste Condit (10), Maureen Davey (6), Lillian Eby (7), Rex Forehand (9), Velma Murry (6), Kimberly Shipman (6). IBR faculty have furthered their impact at the national and international level by presenting their findings at 279 national and international meetings in the past year. 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 25 IBR Fellows serve on 72 editorial boards. The following Fellows serve on four or more boards: Donna Alvermann, James Baumann, Steve Beach, Karen Calhoun, Lillian Eby, 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 32 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. 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: 36 Fellows, including 19 Mentoring Fellows and 1 Adjunct Fellow. In addition, there are a number of Affiliate Fellows (48) 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, Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context area, 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) continued to be available whenever Fellows or other social and behavioral scientists on campus wanted input into revisions of a grant proposal. This vehicle has been instrumental in the success of several mentoring fellows and has been held up as a model for similar potential activities within the BHSI. 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 “Key Developments in Marital Research and Marital
Intervention” with presentations on Learning Sobriety Together:
Marital and Family Treatments for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (William
Fals-Stewart, SUNY Buffalo) and Understanding and Altering the Longitudinal
Course of Marriage (Thomas Bradbury, UCLA). The Center for Research
on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery sponsored several
colloquia including: (1) Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment:
Approaches and Findings (Carl Leukefeld, University of Kentucky);
and (2) Pathological Gambling (Ken Winters, University of Minnesota).
). The Basic Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral Processes Group also
sponsored several colloquia including: (1) Taxometrics Workshop
(Niels Waller, Vanderbilt University & Leslie Yonce; and (2)
University of Minnesota) Motivations in CBT for Anxiety Disorders
(Brad Schmidt, Florida State University). The Methods and Models
Group sponsored a colloquium on Confirmatory Factor Models for
Investigating Method Variance (Larry Williams, Virginia Commonwealth).
Each program was well received and well attended. Importantly,
these colloquia offered a venue of faculty interaction and fostered
new collaborations both within the University and across universities. The Institute for Behavioral Research also co-sponsored the Seeds of Resistance/Seeds of Hope: Cultural-Biological Interface in the Repatriation and In Situ Conservation of Traditional Crops International Conference which featured Bob Rhoades (an IBR Fellow) as one of the keynote speakers. The symposium which was held April 27-29, 2004. This international event drew interest from across the Americas as well as within the United States. 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 entire university community (see Appendix III). To keep Fellows and staff at IBR updated regarding ongoing activities, our inter-departmental newsletter, IBR Analysis, was continued.
Continuing Needs The Institute for Behavioral Research will focus on integrating biological and genetic analyses into the ongoing research efforts of social and behavioral scientists. This is a major effort that will position the University of Georgia for substantial increases in funding over the next five years. Initial work is already underway to develop collaborations with the applied genetics laboratory on campus as well as with facilities at other institutions. To realize the potential of this new initiative, we will require the direct support of the OVPR to fund both pilot research and educational opportunities for social scientists. However, given the clear statement of priorities in the NIH research roadmap, it is a small investment with a large potential payoff. Centers/Groups Within IBR The Institute for Behavioral Research is divided into nine 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 and Velma Murry); Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery (Paul Roman); Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context Group (Velma Murry & Steve Holloway); Basic Behavioral and Bio-Behavioral Processes Group (Andrea Hohmann); Methods and Models Group (Patrick Horan & Bob Vandenberg); Prevention Trial Data Analytic Work Group (Adam Davey); Development and Learning Work Group (Claire Hamilton and Mary Carr); and the Gene-Environment Work Group (Steven Beach). The seminars/colloquia of each of these Centers/Groups and Working Groups are presented in Appendix II. In the coming year, one additional workgroup is anticipated. That is the Intervention and Prevention Program Group that will be led by Anne Bothe. 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 2003-2004 fiscal year the Center had 62 completed research projects. These projects resulted in earned income collected this fiscal year of $781,061, which is a record breaking year (See Appendix II 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: 1998-2000: average of $350,000; 2000-2001: $510,952; and the current year: $687,088; 2004: $781,061. Because of its successful growth from a small cottage industry to a major supplier of research services on campus the SRC will be moving to the Office of the Vice President for Research as of the beginning of the 2004-2005 fiscal year. We wish them continuing success.
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. Fourteen cohorts have now completed the program. A fifteenth cohort is currently participating in the program. Appendix I, Table 4 lists the 2003-2004 cohort. A sixteenth cohort, consisting of one faculty member has been accepted for the 2004-2005 year. 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 Paul Roman and Steven Beach. [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 156 nominations from department heads. Including the 2003-2004 cohort, the program has been able to accommodate 56 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 Executive 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? 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). Funds are set up to facilitate accomplishing the mentees project. It can be used for any research-related expenses, including research assistance, clerical work, summer salary, travel, and equipment. In addition, up to the current year, funds from the OVPR were available to support pilot research and other developmental activities of the mentoring fellows. 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 $6,822,685 in funding when the mentee is PI on a grant. The amount of awarded funds increases to $9,344,408 when mentees serving as a Co-PI on grants are included. 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. For example, the Department of Psychology participated in an IBR supported “Departmental Mentoring” program that helped substantially boost the percentage of faculty in that department with extramural funding. How have the most recent cohorts performed? From the 2000-2001 cohort, Steve Holloway received $140,405 and Joseph Hermanowicz sent in a resubmission of a grant which was 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 two proposals each. Three participants from 2003-2004 cohort (Su-I Hou, Jerome Morris & Leslie Simons) submitted four proposals, totaling $3,417,967 and Maureen Davey received funding from the Georgia Cancer Coalition for $27,767. 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 continues to be a sound program. Unfortunately, the funding used to provide support for the pilot projects of mentoring fellows was cut in the recent funding crisis. Accordingly, we will need to work with Eric Dahl in to create new mechanisms to support this important form of faculty development.
Departmental Mentoring As part of our expanded mentoring efforts, IBR continued its collaborative project this year with the Psychology Department. Seven faculty members (Adam Goodie, Keith Campbell, Jonathan Crystal, Phil Holmes, Lilian Eby, Janet Frick, Zachary Estes) continue to participate in the program. During 2003-2004 proposals totaling $3,431,442, were submitted by these participants. 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. We continue to refine the web based materials and to make them more accessible. Staff Changes This has been another year of changes as well as challenges for the staff at the Institute. Sharron Thompson retired from UGA in June and returned on a part-time basis in August. LaNatalie Gude received a well deserved promotion to Accountant II. Kellie Pless was hired as an Accountant II in July, 2003 and subsequently left her position in January, 2004. This position has remained open due to ongoing budget concerns. However, by increasing efficiency and by shifting some work to our administrative staff we have adjusted well to handle our current accounting needs. Our administrative secretary position is being filled temporarily by Phyliss Ball, but we continue to be short staffed in the administrative area. We continue to examine staffing needs as we approach the new year and are hopeful that we can fill some of our open positions in the near future. 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 continued as co-director of the Mentoring Program. His contributions to this program and to IBR are greatly appreciated! Gene Brody has continued his effort to involve IBR Fellows in his new Center Grant. Likewise his service to IBR is most appreciated! Velma Murry has continued her remarkable grant productivity and her outstanding service to the Institute. Anne Bothe, Gene Brody, Claire Hamilton, Velma Murry, and Paul Roman have done an excellent job in their role as the IBR Executive Committee in guiding the Institute forward and making important decisions about programs, Fellow support, and the Mentoring Program. We believe the Institute has the highest quality staff on campus! This exceptional group of individuals, Phyliss Ball, J. J. Bau, Sandy Gary, LaNatalie Gude, Diana Shelnutt, and Sharron Thompson, is often overlooked but is responsible for making the central office of the Institute run as effectively as it does. Similar accolades are due to staff within each of our centers, and these are detailed in the appendices. II. Progress in Strategic Planning The following goals have been delineated as the heart of our strategic plan. 1. Facilitate high quality interdisciplinary research of faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: 2. Promote grant writing among faculty members in the social and behavioral sciences. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include: 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: 5. Promote the recognition of the social and behavioral sciences within the University, nationally, and internationally. Mechanisms used to achieve this goal include:
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). Our Mentoring Program on the web has provided a guide through the grant writing process for faculty who are not apart of the Mentoring Program and Abraham Tesser continues 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. In 2003-2004 we began a focus on new statistical and empirical methods with an increasing focus on new methods of data analysis such as taxometrics and simulation of non-linear system dynamics, and by an increased attention to gene-environment interactions. It is our intention to develop a sufficient base of expertise that we will be able to offer grant writing work shops in these areas in the 2005-2006 fiscal year. 2. We have initiated several working groups in order to provide research knowledge to the University. The Methods and Models Group, co-chaired by Patrick Horan and Bob Vandenberg continues to attract 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) has flourished and attracts active participation from across campus. The Basic Behavioral and Bio-behavioral Processes Group, led by Andrea Hohmann, continues to bridge the gap between behavioral and biological sciences. Our new group on Development and Learning co-chaired by Claire Hamilton and Marty Carr has also been very successful in creating a bridge between basic research and applied educational goals. Finally, the new gene-environment work group has been very successful in stimulating interest in bridging the gap between bench scientists and social scientists, opening up the possibility of increased collaboration across disciplinary boundaries that have proven intractable in the past. 3. Progress in the arena of service was initiated six 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 remains committed to the Biomedical and Health Science Institute. We are particularly interested in support the BHSI in its efforts to develop cognitive neuroscience. Likewise, we remain committed to the development of a college of Public Health at the University of Georgia. 5. The Scholar-in-Residence program continues at the Institute. 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. In this role, the Director will meet with candidates being interviewed for positions and help present the University of Georgia as an attractive place for those interested in an active research career. 7. Continued 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.
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. Over the next five years we will 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. As part of our effort to facilitate collaboration across disciplines, we will continue to facilitate the development of the Biomedical and Health Science Institute. We will do this by facilitating health-focused research in the social and behavioral sciences and, consistent with the first goal noted above, facilitate research that goes beyond the social and behavioral sciences. In addition, we will continue to develop our affiliation with both the applied genetics lab, explore potential collaborations with researchers at the Complex Carbohydrates Research Center, and develop new connections with researchers in genetics and functional imaging at other institutions. Finally, we will work to continue 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: 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 III. Progress in Assessing Effectiveness of the Institute A. Programs implemented in recent years continued
effectively. IV. Overall Health of the Institute A. Good.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
