RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL
Memorandum No. 110
February 26, 1998

Members Present:

Tebbs Adams, Jonathan Blotter, Richard Brey, Renee Bunde, Carol Stenson for Steve Daley, Leonard Hitchcock, Dianne Horrocks, Rudy Kovacs, Mark McBeth, Jeff Meldrum, Sarah Patrick, Lin Sherman, Dan Wolfley, Edwin House (presiding) Members Absent/Excused: Ron Balsley, Frank Harmon, Richard Holmer, Richard Inouye, Allen Jackson, Dave Kleist, Tom LaHann, Ralph Maughan, Kevin Moore, Paul Zelus,
 
I.             It was MSC (9y, 0n) to approve Memorandum No. 109, with clarification made as to whether duplications were from the members present or members absent/excused section.
  II. REPORTS A.     Faculty Research Committee - The Call for Proposals is out with a deadline of April 13, 1998. Jeff Meldrum has distributed the call to each dean along with a copy of the current guidelines and a memo requesting that any copies of earlier guidelines be destroyed. This committee will be reviewing files for the selection of Outstanding Researchers tomorrow.

B.    Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee - The Call for Proposals as well as new guidelines have been distributed. The deadline is March 18, 1998. The committee will make decisions on the ASISU Scholarships on April 10.

C.    University Research Committee - The Call for Proposals is out with a deadline of March 31, 1998. This committee meets in the spring. Released time for faculty is one of the categories included. This committee awards about 80% of the funds for moderately-priced equipment. In the past, some faculty have written grant proposals requesting as much as $23,000 for a multi-user piece of equipment and other accessories. One needs to make a good case if writing this type of proposal.

D.    RTSEF Competition - The Call for Proposals is out with a deadline of March 31, 1998. Dr. Lawson funded three of these proposals last year. The Research Coordinating Council will review these proposals and submit recommendations; Dr. Lawson will then make the final decision. The guidelines for this competition had to be changed to reflect that these funds can only be awarded for writing grants. People writing proposals for this competition need to have the granting agency that the proposal is to be sent to in mind. Proposals can be sent to more than one agency.

E.    HSSRC Guidelines for Proposals - The ad hoc committee met and approved the guidelines developed by a subcommittee for this competition. When the bylaws have been approved by this committee, they will be presented to RCC for approval. RCC did authorize this committee to proceed with the guidelines as presented.

F.    HSSRC Competition - The Call for Proposals is out with a deadline of April 13, 1998. Dr. Stenson requested that the College of Education be represented on this committee. She maintained that education is a social science. The HSSRC ad hoc committee already forwarded a recommendation for specific membership to RCC and requested approval; the request only included membership from specific departments within the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Kovacs stated that President Bowen made the decision as to who these funds are designated for. Dr. House explained the reason for this funding--that President Bowen designated these funds to faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences to replace the State Board of Education Specific Research Grant Program (SRGP) funds. The new requirement that proposals demonstrate potential for economic development in the SRGP competition eliminates most proposals by faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences. The Faculty Senate has given this committee permission to proceed. Dr. McBeth said the College of Education is able to do research related to economic development such as technology training, work force training, etc. Dr. House said he could put Dr. Daley’s letter (requesting that the College of Education be represented on this committee) on the agenda for RCC to discuss before finalizing the membership of the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Committee. Dianne Horrocks suggested that this be addressed later this semester. If additional members are added to the committee, they will only miss one competition. Anyone can apply for Faculty Research Committee Grants, University Research Committee Grants, Specific Research Grants, and Technology Incentive Grants. Ms. Horrocks pointed out that the Specific Research Grant Program does not exclude anyone.

G.    Technology Incentive Grant Proposals - The institutional deadline for these proposals was February 23, but the Office of Sponsored Programs will accept proposals for a short period beyond this deadline to accommodate those needing more time. Dianne Horrocks said to call Deb Easterly if anyone is still planning to work on one of these proposals. The State Board of Education deadline for these proposals is April 1.

H.    Technology Incentive Grant Review Committee Meeting on March 3 - After this committee meets and reviews the proposals, it will give feedback to writers for improvement. Dr. House reminded faculty they must address the cost/benefit ratio for these proposals. One criteria of these grants makes it possible to develop more efficient ways to instruct via technology.

I.    FICA and Unemployment Insurance - In a recent Internal Revenue Service ruling, it was determined that students attending at least half-time would no longer be required to have FICA and Unemployment Insurance deducted from their earnings. Eligibility is related to the number of credits a students is taking. Dianne Horrocks requested that those writing proposals contact the Office of Sponsored Programs if they have a questions concerning whether or not to put fringe benefits in the budget.

J.    Other - None

 

III. COUNCIL BUSINESS
  A.     Good/Bad Practices in Research. In the last two years, Dr. House has received three allegations of research misconduct . The ISU Policies and Procedures for Research Misconduct has been approved by the Federal Government, and Dr. House requested that all University personnel follow this policy. Dr. House explained the difference between research misconduct and good versus bad practices. The definition of research misconduct includes 1) intention to deceive, 2) plagiarism, and 3) violation of implied or explicit trust.

Arguments such as who should be first or second author on a paper or the submission of a manuscript in which the last draft has not been seen by one of the co-authors are examples of bad practice, but not research misconduct. These types of issues should be settled within the department or college of the parties involved. University Counsel recommends adding another section to the policy that addresses good versus bad practices. Dr. House will bring a draft to the next Research Coordinating Council meeting. Dr. Patrick volunteered to help with the draft.

B.     Dr. Patrick said the Institute has changed a great deal since 1981 and would like to apply for Research Center status for the following reasons: 1) Currently 90% of the funding comes from soft money and she would like hard dollars to hire staff, and 2) The Institute now has a group of individuals working on collaborative research and related papers. They will be working with environmental groups and with partners such as the University of Idaho, Boise State University, North Idaho College, and state agencies such as The Department of Health and Welfare. Many of the projects are multidisciplinary.

Dr. House clarified that the terms "center" and "institute" are interchangeable. Whether or not a unit meets the criteria for a research center is what is important. There are two levels to this category. In Level I, the center receives title only. In Level II, the center can ask for base funding from the University. Research Centers at Level II are usually the ones eligible for this title because they are competitive in the State Board of Education Research Center competition. Dr. House requested that Dr. Patrick submit a proposal to RCC requesting the Institute for Rural Health Studies be considered for Level II Research Center status. Dr. Patrick will then be invited to make a presentation, and RCC will vote on the request. Dr. House informed the Council of what a director of a Level II center can expect from the University--1) base funding, and 2) lines of authority (department, college, and some are independent of any other unit). Anyone requesting Level II research center status should list their expectations regarding base funding, reporting line (the Dean of Research), and staffing. Dr. Patrick asked if Council members could foresee any problems with the Institute asking for Level II status. The response was that the Council could not foresee any problems.

C.     The proposal to assist Bannock Regional Medical Center with services is in the negotiation stage. Currently, a draft of a Memorandum of Understanding is in progress. Dr. House reported that he is also working on a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Pocatello.
 

       D.     Other - None.
Adjourned at 4:15 p.m.