RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL
November 30, 2000
Members Present: Sean Anderson, Phil Blick, Steve Byers, Karl DeJesus, Deb Easterly, Nancy
Griffin for Kay Flowers, Will Hamlin, Dianne Horrocks, Edwin House (presiding),
Dave Kleist, Jeanne Lancaster for Skip Lohse, Subbaram Naidu (voting for Jon Blotter),
Pamela Park, Beth Stamm, Jane Strickland, Doug Wells, Dan Wolfley
Members Absent/Excused: Barbara Adamcik. John Beck, Jonathan Blotter, Chris Daniels, Frank Harmon,
Richard Inouye, Keith Weber, Paul Zelus
Dr. House declared a quorum was present.
I. It was MSC (10y,0n) to approve Memorandum #130.
A. Will Hamlin reported that the Faculty Research Committee will meet tomorrow for the first discussion
of the 12 proposals received. The final meeting to decide awards will be held December 8.
B. Dr. House reported that the Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee is in process of
reviewing 24 research and 2 dissemination proposals.
C. Karl DeJesus will submit a written report for the Undergraduate Research Committee.
D. Dr. House reported that the Humanities/Social Sciences Research Committee met this week to
consider the eight proposals received.
E. The University Research Committee does not meet during the Fall Semester. No report was given.
F. Dr. House reported that there is no change to the federal initiatives for this fiscal year. He is still
waiting to hear whether the telehealth initiative was funded. He anticipates ISU will receive
$2 million - $2.5 million for this. Eleven new initiatives have been submitted. Cassidy and
Associates will be on campus December 5 and 6 to meet with those who submitted requests. Several
of those who initiated new requests met with Senator Craig yesterday; Dr. House reported that Senator
Craig was receptive to the ideas presented and the meeting was cordial. ISU will probably receive $3.9
million - $4.4 million this year and hopefully will receive increased funding in the future.
G. Dr. House reported that ten nominations for Distinguished Researcher have been received. Dr. House
explained the selection process that will be completed in early March. He commended Dr. Hamlin
for his handling of this competition last year.
III. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. It was MSC (10y,0n) to approve the following changes in the Bylaws of the
Humanities/Social Sciences Research Committee: On page 6, first paragraph, delete the
words “except for current HSSRC members.” Add the sentence, “If a member submits a
proposal to the committee, then an alternate representative will be appointed by the
appropriate department chair to replace the member while the proposals are being
considered.” On page 8, second paragraph change the wording to read, “Research proposals
cannot be approved by the committee unless the committee believes there is a strong
likelihood that the results will be published or disseminated through performances or a visual
The following changes were made in the Guidelines for Proposals of the Humanities/Social Sciences
Research Committee to be consistent with the changes in the Bylaws: On page 1, first paragraph under
eligibility, delete the words “except for current HSSRC members.” Add the sentence, “If a member submits
a proposal to the committee, then an alternate representative will be appointed by the appropriate department
chair to replace the member while the proposals are being considered.”
On page 15, second paragraph, change the wording to read, “Research proposals cannot be approved
by the committee unless the committee believes there is a strong likelihood that the results will be
published or disseminated through performances or a visual event.”
B. It was MSC (10y,0n) to approve the following changes in the Bylaws of the Faculty Research
Committee: On page 3, first paragraph, change “Dean of the Graduate School” to “Chief Research
Officer” (editorial change).
On page 3, paragraph B under Requirements for Proposal Development, add the following: “Items 1-9
should occupy no more than 10 single-spaced pages using standard one-inch margins and easily readable
print (no smaller than 12-point type size). Graphs, charts, and other illustrations are exempt from the
10-page limit, but should be appended to the proposal after the budget pages(s).”
On page 4, paragraph F, change “will not be included” to “will be included”, delete the words “the Director
of” and change “Office of Sponsored Research” to “Office of Sponsored Programs.”
On page 5, paragraph G, change “grand” to “grant” (editorial change). On page 8, below the question
“Have any of the investigator previously received FRC funding?” add “IF ANSWER TO ABOVE
QUESTIONS IS “YES”, LIST GRANT NUMBER AND SUBMISSION DATE OF FINAL REPORT FOR
PREVIOUS FRC GRANT:
_______Previous FRC Grant Number
_______Submission Date of Final Report.
On page 13, add the following:
GUIDELINES FOR FINAL REPORT
A final report must be submitted to the Committee. If a manuscript has not been completed, follow the
directions for Section A below. If the research has been published or a manuscript is complete, submit
a copy of it instead of Section A. Everyone must complete Section B and Section C if applicable.
A. Format for unpublished final report (simple and clear nontechnical language is appreciated).
1. Identify the research by title funding category, FRC grant number (not ISU
account number), and researcher’s name(s).
2. Include an abstract (150 words, single spaced on a separate page).
3. Indicate hypotheses tested or objectives of the project.
4. Describe methods and procedures used in your research.
5. Compare the actual results to the predicted results or conclusions
6. Briefly describe the dissemination of the research (meetings, publications, shows) to date.
Include copies of any written materials or photographs of artistic creations. If no material is
written or no public exposure is planned, please explain.
7. Note whether the project has generated other research funding.
B. Describe the study in lay terms for the general public. This portion should be on separate sheet so
that a copy can be sent to the ISU News Bureau. If this information has already been sent to the News
Bureau, provide a copy as Section B of your report.
C. Explain any significant differences between the proposed budget and the final budget
C. Doug Wells discussed the recommendations that the subcommittee developed for use of
indirect costs going to the library. It was recommended that some additional revisions be
made and discussed at the next meeting.
D In reference to the Promotion Guidelines for Research Faculty, Dr. House reported that the Chair
of the Faculty Senate recommended changing the wording regarding teaching load to “teach no
more than one upper division/graduate level course ( 3-4 credits)” and “teach no more than one upper
division/graduate level seminar (1-2 credits) per year.” Some members of the Faculty Senate also wanted
to eliminate service on committees as part of the service requirement since these are not tenure-track
positions. Concern was expressed because these faculty may be some of the department’s best researchers,
and it would seem appropriate to have them represent the department on research committees and also
on graduate student oral committees. Some members felt it would be better to state that no more than
10% of the Research Faculty member’s time be spent on public service. There was concern about the
rigidity of using a specific number for public service, especially since it may be beneficial to the
University to have these faculty representing us to external agencies and the community. Some felt
the percentage would help protect the research faculty from excessive assignments in the public
service, since their primary function is research. Others suggested that it be decided by the individual
department/college as to how much time should be spent on public service. Dr. House reminded
the Council that Research Faculty are eligible for promotion and are evaluated every year but are not eligible
for tenure. Although research will be the primary activity for evaluation purposes, these faculty may also
do some teaching and some public service. Also, the document as it was originally presented is how
most universities handle research faculty, and we do not want to be at a disadvantage for hiring them. One
member asked, “Why don’t they become tenure-track?” It’s because the source of the money is soft money,
and they are usually given a time limit to start producing their own salary on soft money. This is the wave
of the future for hiring qualified research faculty. It was moved and seconded to accept the addition of the
words “no more than” in paragraph 1, make an editorial change of “fading” to “funding” in paragraph #5 and
change the wording of the second sentence in paragraph #5 to “dependent on departmental preferences,
service may include...”. There was a friendly amendment made that the sentence be changed to read
“Research-related public service will be evaluated by the department.” It was MSC (10y, 0n) to approve
the motion with the friendly amendment. Dr. House will appear before Faculty Senate to explain the
E. The Council discussed the addition of a third criterion to the University Copyright Policy which states that
all work performed under a grant or contract with external funds is “work for hire”. Ms. Horrocks explained
that these awards are made either directly to the University or to the principal investigator through a
grant or contract that is awarded to the University. Dr. House asked Council members to take this back to
their constituents for discussion.
F. Dr. House distributed a handout from the Office of Research Integrity regarding handling
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.