Research Messenger
Volume 1 Issue 3
December 13, 2006
Results of the University Grants Program
My thanks to the many who contributed to evaluating the 150 applications we received for internal funding from the University Grants Program in its first year as an integrated system.
I'll use this issue of the RM to describe the outcome in statistical terms. Letters to the applicants will be sent next week.
What was Available:
The UGP combined income from its three components, the discrete programs that were once administered independently. The contributions were:
- Research, Scholarship, Creative Activity (RSCA) from the Chancellor's Office – $ 230,000.
- Faculty Development Program (FDP) from SDSU's General Fund budget – $ 100,000.
- Grant-in-Aid (GIA) from the Research Foundation – $ 107,500.
Plus a $10,000 infusion from the Adams Endowment – $ 10,000.
TOTAL AVAILABLE – $ 447,500.
What Was Requested
We received 150 applications from nine units: the seven colleges, plus IVC and the library. The largest number, not surprisingly, came from Arts and Letters. The percentage from each college is shown below. Applicants made requests totaling $1,118,982, almost precisely 2.5 times the funds available.
How Decisions Were Made:
College committees rated and ranked each proposal from their units, forwarded their recommendations to the Deans for affirmation or revision (universally the former), and these were sent to the Office of Research Affairs. The proposals, in rank order by unit, were sent to members of the University Committee on Grants and Lectureships, who undertook the monumental task of collating ranks across the units, with some discretion to make professional judgments in the process. Members were requested to provide a ranking of the top 100 proposals, figuring that those rated in the bottom 50 would not be discussed further. This is similar to, but more lenient than, NIH's triage process, designed to focus the reviewers' efforts on the most competitive applications. Generally, the unit's ratings were honored by the UGLC.
Ratings from the UGLC were reviewed by the Vice-President for Faculty Affairs (Bonnie Zimmerman), the Director of Research Affairs (Camille Nebeker), and me. The recommendation was that 60 proposals (40%) be funded with the available resources. In an effort to provide a few additional awards, we instituted some limits on the budgets. First, summer salaries were capped at $5000. Secondly, course releases were limited to one for the year. Finally, requests for student assistants were reduced by 5%. These three actions released enough funds to permit us to make five additional awards. Thus, there will be 65 grants (43.3% success rate).
How Awards Were Distributed:
across ranks -- One purpose of these grants is to permit untenured faculty to develop the scholarly credentials to earn tenure. This, combined with the fact that a majority of the applicants were untenured resulted in a distribution skewed toward the young. Forty-six (71%) of the awards went to assistant professors, 10 (15%) to associate professors, and eight (12%) to professors. One award (2%) went to a lecturer.
across units – Our analysis indicated that it was a disadvantage to apply from a large college. CAL, COS, and PSFA were all underrepresented in the award list recommended by the UGLC. Since this discrepancy was not based on academic criteria but rather on the selection process, we sought to correct it. All five awards made from savings on budgets were in these three colleges. The final distribution was as follows:
| CAL | CoS | PSFA | CoEd | CBA | CoEg | HHS | IVC | lib | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| percent applications | 28 | 21 | 16 | 10 | 08 | 06 | 05 | 04 | 01 |
| number of applications | 43 | 32 | 24 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 1 |
| percent awards | 25 | 20 | 14 | 12 | 09 | 08 | 06 | 05 | 02 |
| number of awards | 16 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
We recognize the importance of these awards in maintaining SDSU's scholarly activity, and continue to review the ways in which they are made. The change to an integrated system was a concern for many, and we trust that the data above provide reassurance that procedures were objective. If you have suggestions for improving the process next year, please feel free to share them with me.
Tom Scott