MEMORANDUM
TO: DOUG BAKER
FROM: WORKING GROUP #3: Linda Arthur, John Brown, William Budd, Larry Cohen, Annabel Kirschner, Noël Sturgeon, Alex Tan, Harry Turtle.
DATE: 7 MAY 2003
SUBJECT: WHITE PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS
Working group # 3 addressed three questions and some of the suggested actions are as follows.
1. How do we foster and reward interdisciplinary scholarship and research (and teaching)
-
There needs to be some 'umbrella' office, perhaps at the Vice-Provost level, to coordinate, recognize, evaluate, and reward current and future interdisciplinary activities. We are reluctant to suggest the hiring of another administrator at this time, but we're hopeful that an existing administrator could oversee an Office of Interdisciplinary Activities, henceforth called OIA. [Initial cost of support-staff reassignment of duties. Since Interdisciplinary programs involve both research and teaching, Provost Robert Bates needs to serve as lead administrator through Jim Petersen or Ken Spitzer for research, and Doug Baker or Jane Sherman for academic activities. Priority #1].
-
Develop an organizational chart that demonstrates linkages between the current interdisciplinary units, and require proposals for future such units to include information on how that new unit will fit into this chart. [Cost is minimal. Administrative structure named in number 1 above can be used. Priority #3].
-
The OIA should initiate a thematic review of existing 'Centers', 'Institutes', and 'Programs or Laboratories' where their staff, activities, or strategic plan is primarily Interdisciplinary in nature. There is a current review process being carried out by the Faculty Senate's Research and Arts Committee (Chaired by Nancy Shrope). At least one member of each review team should be from a unit external to WSU. [There are too many units (approximately 250) to review in a timely manner with current resources. Even if cost were approximately $1,000 per review to include an outside reviewer for each unit reviewed, and perhaps we could budget for 5 reviews each year, it would take 50 years and $250,000. We would suggest that some less active interdisciplinary units be closed, without review. Administration could use existing Faculty Senate Research and Arts Committee, but they would need to prioritize the units to be reviewed. Priority #4].
-
The thematic review process should have an economical and structural objective. Addressing the question, are there some existing interdisciplinary efforts that could be combined to allow 'core' facilities to be shared? [Actually targeting a cost savings by creating shared core facilities. Administration could use existing Faculty Senate Research and Arts Committee. Priority #5].
-
The University should establish an annual 'team excellence award' for groups involved in successful interdisciplinary efforts. There should be three team awards recognizing research, teaching, and outreach efforts. The current Sahlin Awards are given to individuals, whereas these team awards would recognize a group of collaborators. [Cost would be three new awards of $2,500 each given as discretionary funds to be used by participants of the winning interdisciplinary activity being recognized. Administration of award selection would be the responsibility of existing award selection committee used to select Sahlin award winners. Priority #6].
-
Washington State University should host one 'cutting edge' seminar per semester where the presenters develop their topic to 'inform' the public about the quality of interdisciplinary activities being conducted at this institution and to explain how these activities influence other disciplines. Thus these seminars will expose fellow researchers to potential interdisciplinary collaborations within the University. Perhaps the recipients of the annual Office of Research Awards could be expected to present one of these seminars as a stipulation of accepting the award. The winners of the previously mentioned, 'team excellence award' could give one of the seminars too. [No or minimal cost. Administrative structure named in number 1 above can be used. Priority #7].
-
The University is encouraged to consider interdisciplinary activities in their capital improvement plans, so that groups involved in interdisciplinary activities can be housed near each other, perhaps in 'precincts.' Also the University needs to provide a central meeting spot for faculty, perhaps serving refreshments, and with adequate space where multiple conversations can take place simultaneously. [Meeting place for faculty is minimal compared to long term capitol investment in interdisciplinary precincts. Planning needs to be at the Office of the President and Provost level. Priority # 2 because of the need for long term planning].
-
Some disciplines are so much in demand that the University cannot afford the salaries needed to retain these individuals. The University ought to develop a system where researchers and practitioners can have release time form the University for two years on 'leave without pay' and be welcomed back into the academic setting. This fostering of entrepreneurs would need to be buffered by the University's need to serve the public too. Perhaps the University could actually hire two faculty members for the same key position and allow them to rotate in and out of that position during their career. [Cost neutral by hiring two individuals for one position. Policy implementation would be at the Provost level. Priority #8].
2. How should we revise the promotion and tenure guidelines to recognize collaborative scholarship?
-
Evaluation of truly interdisciplinary activities of a faculty member requires input from both the chair of that individual's discipline and the administrator of the interdisciplinary unit involved. Faculty members involved in interdisciplinary activities should have Directors of Interdisciplinary Units (Centers, Institutes, or Programs) involved in their 3rd year, tenure, and promotion review process. [No cost. Policy change implemented by the Provost Office, perhaps Frances McSweeney can write the policy. Priority #5].
-
The OIA should identify external reviewers that are themselves involved in interdisciplinary activities at other universities to serve as adjudicators of tenure and promotion cases at WSU. [No cost. The list could be developed and maintained by the Office of Interdisciplinary Activities. Priority #6].
-
The system used to produce the Provost Decision Data must be compatible with all systems used within individual colleges to document annual activities. [Some initial cost, but we are duplicating our efforts now at several levels, so eventually this will save money. Frances McSweeney seems to be the person that will oversee the initiation of the new system. Priority #2].
-
We need to include the concept that interdisciplinary activities are not just for facilitating research, these activities also enrich teaching and outreach activities too. [No cost. Implementation would be through the Provost's Office. Priority #3].
-
If an individual faculty member is working well with another unit, collaborating on a multiyear interdisciplinary project, there ought to be a mechanism to allow that individual to relocate to that other unit for a period of time without endangering his/her tenure or promotion portfolio. [No Cost. Implementation at the department level, but policy change needs to be at the Provost level. Priority #4].
-
A clear, concise statement is needed from the Provost that interdisciplinary activities are valued at Washington State University. Involvement in interdisciplinary activities is not required, but it is valued. [No cost. Another policy statement that will need to come from the Office of the Provost. Priority #1].
-
An accepted pattern of how to evaluate multiple authored manuscripts should be established. Many units assume that the first author has made the greatest contribution to the research, whereas the last author represents the laboratory leader that was responsible for funding and overall supervision for the project. Additional meaning might be assigned to sequential authors listed between the first and last author listed on the manuscript. [No cost. May need to be implemented at the Dean level, not higher. Priority # 7].
3. How do we develop model agreements for sharing of cost recovery among units participating in interdisciplinary work?
-
Interdisciplinary collaboration facilitates extramural funding of proposals, especially those submitted to federal agencies. When these interdisciplinary efforts are funded there needs to be a fiscal system to distribute the Indirect Cost Recovery funds fairly. [No cost. Office of Research (Jim Petersen). Priority #1].
-
The current REX from seems to provide a means to document equitable division of Indirect Cost Recovery funds on the Pullman campus. There may need to be a more formal means of communicating how these funds should be distributed to interdisciplinary team members at branch campus or Research and Extension Centers. [No cost. Office of Grant and Research Development. Priority #2].
-
Informational retrieval systems used within colleges, or to provide Provost Decision Data should be capable of identifying the exact amount of funding available to each member of a multiple-year and multi-discipline team member during a calendar year. This will assure that ICR funds are shared in an equitable fashion. [Minimal cost. Administered through the new Provost Decision gathering method selected by Frances McSweeney. Priority #3].
BACK TO TOP