2004 - 2005 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 Work Group, the Methods and Models Work Group, the Basic Behavioral and Bio-behavioral Processes Work Group, the Intervention and Prevention Program Work Group, the Development and Learning Work Group, the Neuroscience Behavior & Cognition Work Group, the Violence Work Group and the Gene-Environment Interaction Work Group. The Institute encourages the development of new working groups to address emerging interests of faculty members as well as priority areas for funding. IBR was established at The University of Georgia in 1970. Then-and-now, its missions have been: to encourage trans-disciplinary, problem-focused research by facilitating the exchange of information and ideas across disciplinary boundaries; to enhance the research efforts of individual faculty members by providing services, support, and opportunity; to enhance the ability of both emerging and eminent scholars to further their careers and to obtain extramural funding; to facilitate the development of young scholars and introduce them to grant proposal writing; to enhance the recognition of the social and behavioral sciences as an important component of extramural funding efforts; and to build and expand the infrastructure supporting social and behavioral science research at the University of Georgia.

I. Accomplishments and Strengths

Recognition of Fellows

Several IBR Fellows were recognized by the University for accomplishments this year. Andrea Hohmann received the Creative Research Medal, Gail Williamson received the William A. Owens Award, and Robert Rhoades was appointed Distinguished Research Professor. We are proud that IBR fellows were awarded prizes in every category for which they competed

Research Funding

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 54 proposals totaling $47,057,416 million were generated by Fellows. A number of these proposals were funded. During the current year, 23 Fellow-initiated proposals, totaling $10,641,724 in new funding were awarded! ( 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 $8,980,045 in extramural funds to the University.

 Table 1 presents individual investigators and the money each brought into the University. Donna Alvermann, Nader Amir, James Bason, Steven Beach, Anne Bothe, Gene Brody, Marty Carr, Jody Clay-Warner, Lori Ducharme, Aaron Johnson, Adam Goodie, Andrea Hohmann, Steve Holloway, Hannah Knudsen, Steven Kogan, Thomas McNulty, Velma Murry, Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett, Paul Roman, Robert Rhoades, Dawn Robinson, Ron Simons, and Gail Williamson contributed to this year's successful total of actual dollars received this fiscal year through new and continuing grant awards.

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 $18.5 to $1, indicating that the Institute is extremely 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 . 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 2005-2006, publishing 283 articles, chapters and books with another 126 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 (21), Nader Amir (12), Steve Beach (17), and Richard Marsh (16). IBR faculty furthered their impact at the national and international level by presenting their findings at 376 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 20 IBR Fellows serve on 62 editorial boards. The following Fellows served on three or more boards: Donna Alvermann , Steve Beach , Karen Calhoun, Jonathan Crystal, Lillian Eby, Andy Horne, Jennifer Monahan, Velma Murry, and Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett . Perhaps the key position in the dissemination of research information is that of editor. IBR Fellows report editorship of a total of 16 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: 45 Fellows, including 16 Mentoring Fellows and 3 Adjunct Fellows. In addition, there are a number of Affiliate Fellows (57) 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, Neuroscience Cognition & Behavior area, Community, Ethnicity, & Identity in Context area, Methods & Models area, Development & Learning area, and in the Gene Environment 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.

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 Prevention of HIV Infection among Adolescents and Young Adult Women in the United States and Africa ( Ralph DiClemente , Emory University & Gina Wingood, Emory University ). The Neuroscience Cognition & Behavior Group also sponsored several colloquia including: (1) The Developing Brain: Detection of Motion and Color in Infants ( Karen Dobkins , University of California @ San Diego ); and (2) Molecular & Neural Basis of Pair Bond Formation ( Larry Young , Emory University ). The Methods & Models Group sponsored a colloquium presented by ( Michael Owren , Georgia State University ) on Acoustics, perception, and meaning in primate vocalizations and The Gene Environment Interaction Group presented a seminar on Genomics & Population Health: Developing a Road Map for the 21 st Century ( Muin Khoury , CDC). 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.

Seminars presented by the Methods & Models Group were (1) Optimal Design Software: Power Analysis for HLM ( Maureen Killen , UGA ); and (2) Multi-level Structural Equation Models ( Robert Vandenberg , UGA ); and Adventures in Meta-Analysis ( Open Discussion ). A seminar was offered by the Development and Learning Group on Neural Network Modeling ( Ron McClendon , U&GA). Seminars were also offered by The Community, Ethnicity & Identity in Context Group presented seminars which included (1) Race, Ethnicity, and Social Class are NOT the Same: Diversity within African American Families ( Velma Murry, UGA) ; and (2) Rural Conceptual Effects? Thinking Beyond Impoverished Inner Cities ( Steve Holloway , UGA).

The Seventeenth annual William A. Owens Lecture was held this year. 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 Dan O'Leary of the State University of New York. The title of his talk was Intimate Partner Violenceve. The talk was very received both as an introduction to research in the area of Intimate Partner Violence as well as an introduction to opportunities for cutting edge research and funding.

  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 ). Likewise, to keep Fellows and staff at IBR updated regarding ongoing activities, our inter-departmental newsletter, IBR Analysis, was continued.

To maintain our contact with faculty, staff, and the public, we continue to update our IBR web-site on a regular basis and to expand its offerings. In addition, the Center for Family Research web-site continues to be a model for presenting research to the public.

Continuing Needs

The Institute for Behavioral Research will continue to 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 has already progressed to develop working collaborations with the genetics laboratories both on campus as well as with facilities at other institutions. In recognition of the potential of this new initiative the OVPR awarded funds to conduct pilot research on the use of innovative methods for the collection and analysis of buccal cell genomic DNA.

Centers/Groups Within IBR

The Institute for Behavioral Research has two primary Centers and six ongoing work 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 Director(s) 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 & Jerome Morris ); Neuroscience Behavior, and Cognition ( Andrea Hohmann & Nader Amir) ; Methods and Models Group ( Patrick Horan & Bob Vandenberg); Intervention and Prevention Program Group ( Anne Bothe), Development and Learning Work Group (Mary Carr); Migration & Immigration Work Group (Bob Rhoades) 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 .

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. Sixteen cohorts have now completed the program. A seventeenth cohort is currently participating in the program. Appendix I, Table 4 lists the 2005-2006 cohort. An Eighteenth cohort consisting of two faculty members has been accepted for the 2006-2007 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.

In the coming year, the Program will be directed by Steven Beach and Aaron Johnson with the continuing assistance of 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 163 nominations from department heads. Including the 2005-2006 cohort, the program has been able to accommodate 61 mentees. Men and women are represented about equally and about 28% are minority. Moreover, mentees have come from 16 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 16 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 can be requested 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.

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.

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 $9.0 million in funding when the mentee is PI on a grant, and $11.4 million when mentees serving as a Co-PI on grants are included. The total extramural funding of $19.7 million represents a 73-fold return on investment in the program by the Vice President for Research since 1990.

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 has changed to a grantsmanship model and, in collaboration with IBR, has substantially increased the percentage of faculty in the department with extramural funding. Likewise, the Speech Communication Department has transitioned into a well-funded department with a strong emphasis on extramural funding.

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.

Because funds for the mentoring program were cut in 2004 and have not been reinstated, we have downsized the program to focus on fewer applicants. As an example of the success of the new focused approach, this year Jody Clay-Warner received a $156,378 award from NSF as Co-PI.

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 Recognition

We believe the Institute has the highest quality staff on campus! This exceptional group of individuals, Phyliss Ball, J. J. Bau , Valarie Blyden , Sandy Gary , Cindy Miller , Diana Shelnutt Embler , and Sharron Thompson , is often overlooked but is responsible for making the central office of the Institute run as effectively as it does. Current staffing needs are focused on the Centers and allowing them to expand in an optimal manner.

Accolades are due to the staff within each of our centers as well and these are detailed in the appendices.

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, Ron Simons, 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.

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:

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. Stimulate research activity in areas with high probability of extramural funding.

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.

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 nine 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 five ongoing seminar series.

b. Sponsor six 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.

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

•  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. 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 draws 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 & Jerome Morris ) continues to attract active participation from across campus. The Neuroscience Behavior, and Cognition Group, led by Andrea Hohmann & Nader Amir bridges the gap between behavioral and biological sciences. Our group on Development and Learning directed by Marty Carr is creating a bridge between basic research and applied educational goals. Finally, the Gene-Environment Group continues to be 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 that began eight years ago 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 and remains a popular addition to the mentoring program.

4 . The Institute has continued its collaboration with the Biomedical and Health Science Institute. We offer our support in the efforts of the BHSI to develop cognitive neuroscience. We also remain committed to the development of a college of Public Health at the University of Georgia . We have recently begun to examine potential opportunities to interact with new partners in facing the challenge of poverty in Georgia as well as the new frontier of genetic moderation of public health threats.

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 have continued their role 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.

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. Likewise, we will examine the potential for productive collaborations to focus on problems of poverty and public health.

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

•  Summary of Major Accomplishments

•  Numerous IBR Fellows cited for accomplishments

•  Research funding:

•  Research proposals by IBR Fellows

•  54 new multi-year proposals, totaling $47,057,416, submitted.

•  23 new multi-year proposals, totaling $10,641,274, funded.

•  $8,980,045 from research proposals brought into university during 2005-2006.

•  Research Productivity of IBR Fellows (9 month period)

•  283 articles, chapters and books published.

•  341 presentations at national and international professional meetings.

•  Faculty Involvement and Opportunities Through IBR

•  Thirty-nine faculty members served as Fellows and 57 faculty members served as Affiliate Fellows.

•  7 seminar series held throughout the year.

•  6 colloquia held with internationally recognized scholars.

•  Newsletter distributed across campus twice.

•  Mentoring

•  Faculty Mentoring Program continues to pay dividends: A proposal totaling $156,378 was funded.

•  Departmental mentoring and web-based mentoring continued.

II. Progress in Strategic Goals

•  Five goals delineated

•  Progress made in all five areas.

III. Progress in Assessing Effectiveness of the Institute

•  Programs implemented in recent years continued effectively.

•  Programs continued this year include mentoring departments, and web-based mentoring. In addition, we continued our effort to create and expand an infrastructure for the investigation of gene-environment interactions.

IV. Overall Health of the Institute

•  Good.

•  Needs met:

•  Needs Existing: New services to support social science research and extramural funding.