Research Conference Report
Prepared for MFA Colleagues
by Tim Goater, May 17, 2001
“Supporting Research in an Emerging Small University Environment”
SUMMARY:
I summarize the conference here and then present details of the interesting agenda and informative discussion further in the document. A presentation on applying for research grants by Laurent Messier, a program officer of the SSHRC, has been summarized as a tip-sheet and is attached.
The third annual BC University College Research Conference was organized by Okanagan University College. It was held at Gray Monk Estate Winery, a spectacular location overlooking Lake Okanagan north of Kelowna. Thirty people attended the conference, primarily from the five University Colleges (Kwantlen, Fraser Valley, Caribou, Malaspina and Okanagan (OUC)). Deans from each of these institutions participated in the conference. Most of the faculty participants were from OUC. In addition, a research officer or technology liaison director represented the institutions. The Malaspina contingent consisted of David Drakeford (Dean of Science and Technology), Tim Goater (Biology Department), Liz Hammond-Kaarremaa (Research Officer)) and Marilyn Hutchinson (Technology Transfer Centre Director). The meeting was chaired by Derek Muggeridge, Dean, Faculty of Science and Associate Vice-president of Research, OUC.
In a nutshell, the conference was centred on the role and importance of faculty scholarly activity at institutions whose vision and focus is teaching excellence. Specifically, what is the role of faculty research at University Colleges, and how can research at such be promoted and conducted without adequate support and infrastructure? A challenging question indeed! The overriding message to me was that scholarly activity is judged to be an essential and enriching component of a faculty member’s life at all of the University Colleges. In essence, as institutions it is clear that we are all on the same page on this issue, experiencing the same growing pains and yet excited by what the future may hold. I was encouraged that Malaspina is ahead of the others in many of the issues and yet, came to realize that we still have work to do in several areas. The requirement of space to conduct research activities at the institutions and obtaining the blocks of time necessary were identified as the critical constraints in conducting scholarly activity. Many argued that to succeed requires creativity and a renewed vision and commitment.
As one of the few faculty members from outside OUC, I was particularly interested in the presentations of OUC faculty members spanning several disciplines including fine arts, social sciences, biology and forestry. They all shared their positive and negative experiences with obtaining research funding in their pursuits of scholarly activity. These were excellent and I urge interested readers to read about their creative solutions to the problems we all face. The keys to their success seem to be a never say die attitude, to nurture collaboration with other colleagues, and to involve undergraduate students in their research activities.
The afternoon’s panel of Marvin Krank (Dean, Faculty of Arts and Education-OUC), Skip Bassford, President UC of the Fraser Valley), Wayne Welsh (VP UCFV), and Derek Muggeridge discussed the topic “Doing research at a small university without adequate support and infrastructure”. All stressed that scholarly activity is integral to faculty teaching excellence and that opportunities to conduct scholarly activity should take advantage of our “natural laboratories”; that is, to respond to the unique needs of the community and special environments where our respective institutions are situated. All also acknowledge the challenges of space and time that University Colleges face. They offered solutions that are required in order to promote faculty scholarly activity, to recruit and retain faculty interested in research and to reward faculty for conducting scholarly activity.
The meeting began with welcoming comments from Peter Ricketts, Vice President, Academic – OUC). He introduced the challenge. At the universities there is a need, desire and an integration of research into teaching. He argued that the UC model was visionary but that there was no mandate to do research. He stated that the UC legislation was flawed and that we are in a state of transition. Thus, the conference’s theme was a timely one.
Dr. Ricketts introduced the guest speaker, Laurent Messier, a Program officer from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). He provided an update on the role of SSHRC, basically to advance knowledge by funding innovative research in over 30 disciplines in the humanities, education, business and social sciences, that will help us understand our rapidly changing world. Much of the information can be obtained from the website at http://www.sshrc.ca. He identified the 4 key fundable activities of SSHRC, namely basic research, targeted strategic research, training and communication. 70% of the total SSHRC budget is directed to training and employment of students. Thus, SSHRC grants must stress opportunities for training of future researchers. There is a 40% success rate of SSHRC grant applications. Dr. Messier also mentioned that high teaching load is taken into account for University College faculty when reviewing grant applications.
Dr. Messier also stressed that the most successful applicants:
· are those that engage the imagination of peer reviewers.
· present a challenging and exciting research topic.
· establish a sound conceptual framework and are exceptionally clear, organized and logical.
· demonstrate productivity from previous grants
· write a clear rationale for generalists and the methodology for specialists
He acknowledged the problems that first-time grant writers face and stressed the importance of the mentoring process by relying on colleagues to review the proposal. New scholars who received their highest degree within five years and have not received a research grant from SSHRC, are assessed 60% on their research program and 40% on their publication record. Regular scholar’s track records count for 60% and their research program 40%. Further tips for applying for research grants were stressed by Dr. Messier and are summarized by Liz HK and myself, Tim Goater at the end of this document. Many of these tips apply to all research grant applications.
The OUC researchers all stressed their infrastructure limitations, especially those associated with time and space. All are successful researchers because they have established linkages with colleagues and share resources. For example, Dan Durall (Forestry) has fostered collaborative ties and obtained research funding with the Ministry of Forests. Jeff Curtis (Biology) stressed the importance of wanting to teach at a small institution and to be aware of the many potential collaborative opportunities for scholarly activity locally available. Both emphasized the blocks of time necessary to conduct research and both involve undergraduates in their research efforts. They have found solutions through a workload reassignment, one that has a provision for scholarly activity and a reduced teaching load. Dr. Curtis suggested a further improvement to free up research time would be to timetable classes so as not to ‘fracture your time’. Dixon Sookraj and Mary Anne Murphy (Social Work) also stressed the importance of collaborative research with community partners. Dr. Murphy stressed the importance of sabbaticals in faculty rejuvenation and provided many examples of how her research collaborations are responsive to the social and economic needs of the Okanagan region. She also emphasized the importance of institutional support of research skills conferences and workshops. Such workshops are invaluable in linking researchers with each other and in providing links to research support. Reed Early shared his experiences with starting up a “Research Seminar Series” that provided faculty with research skills. All acknowledged that this was an excellent idea to be followed at all institutions.
Suggestions for developing your research include:
· you have to build towards your research goal
· make yourself aware of opportunities
· share access to common infrastructure
· deal with local problems
· develop links with other institutions
· look at your local area and how you fit in and see if there is start-up money to get your research going
· timetable to allow for research
· provide help to answer your community’s questions
The panel of Marvin Krank, Derek Muggeridge and Skip Bassford dealt with the topic “Doing research at a small university without adequate and infrastructure”. Dr. Bassford mentioned that the UC’s are not small, but are different and in transition. They afford a unique perspective to respond to the region’s needs; in effect , a ‘regional comprehensive university’. Dr. Krank stressed the importance of collaborative interdisciplinary projects and clearly defined the major impediments to research at the UC’s. He emphasized the importance of defining ‘research’ broadly and taking advantage of the ‘natural laboratories’ available in the local area. At OUC major impediments to research included teaching intensive workloads, lack of space and resources and poor faculty access to current computers. Fostering collaborative partnerships and the recognition by the community that research is fundamental are two key elements to success. Dr. Krank also argued that it is vital to celebrate faculty successes much better and that a system of recognition and rewards be established. The issue of tenure and promotion was debated. Dr. Muggeridge acknowledged that AUCC membership was a major milestone for the UC’s. He argued that new legislation is required, one with direction that emphasizes teaching excellence, while promoting and recognizing research excellence.
Much of the ensuing round table discussion revolved around each institution sharing what they are doing with respect to promoting faculty scholarly activity. For example, Colin James (Dean of Science, Health and Human Services-UC Caribou) mentioned that UCC celebrates faculty research success by publication in local newspapers. Moreover, UCC have established faculty teaching and research recognition awards. The issue of faculty titles was debated. UCC currently uses assistant, associate and full professor designations, while OUC uses ‘college professor’. David Drakeford provided an up-date of research activities at Malaspina. He mentioned the unique opportunities students have to conduct independent research in courses such as Biology 491. He also commented on the importance of establishing a research office, an important stepping stone at Malaspina.
It was decided that the next BC University College Research Conference will be held at the University College of the Fraser Valley.
The meeting ended with a wine tasting and tour and dinner at the Gray Monk Winery.
Successful applicants address items in seven areas in their research proposal:
1) Preparation and presentation. Successful applicants:
· provide an excellent summary
· make sure the research groundwork has been done, ie. Thorough literature reviews, verification of sources, have talked to potential reviewers
· invest time in the organization and logical flow of their proposal
· ensure no errors, typos or fact. Get a colleague to read it. Proof-read many times!
· use clear, unambiguous language. Have someone else from another discipline read it. It needs to be clear enough for a generalist to understand it.
2) The Research Program. Successful applicants:
· present a research program
· inspire confidence
· present a challenging research topic that sparks the interest & imagination of the review committee
· clearly establish the need and novelty of the proposed research
· explain the significance of the research
· prepare their application with the assessors in mind. They anticipate questions and provide the answers.
· provide a balance between realism and ambition
· explain how it builds on their last work, and/or the field
· address how their research will contribute to the development of new theoretical or methodological approaches
3) Statement of Objective and Framework. Successful applicants:
· present clear and focused research questions
· articulate a conceptual framework
· situate the research within the context of literature and current debate
· present differences in a positive and constructive manner
· define terms and concepts
· attach a comprehensive, accurate literature review
4) Methodology. Successful applicants:
· explain carefully how the research will be carried out and justify it
· describe methodology in specific terminology
· explain the work plan, the sequence, anticipated analysis and interpretation of results, they describe the potential pitfalls and the way around them.
· ensure that the objectives and the methodology are synchronized
5) Curriculum Vitae. Successful applicants
· ensure that publications are organized in a logical manner
· are not inflated, i.e. do not include articles over 6 years old unless significant
· demonstrate productivity from previous grants forcefully, add excerpts from peer reviews of your research
6) Budget and Training of Students. Successful applicants:
· ensure their budget is reasonable and justified
· need to itemize their budget logically in order to explain what is needed to accomplish the research
· use students creatively. Explain the role of, and benefits to students
7) The Team (if there is one)
· Make sure the roles and contributions of each team member are clear.
In summary, wise grantsmanship involves keeping 6 words and questions in mind:
· Clarity (Is your proposal clear, well-organized and fun to read?)
· Significance (What is the importance and scope of the proposed research?)
· Approach (What approach will be used to address the research problem?)
· Novelty (Is your proposal innovative?)
· Team (Do you have evidence of past productivity?)
· Environment (How supportive is your institution?)