What is Needed for Research Support on Campus?Chair — Louise Forsyth
More than ever before, participation by faculty members and graduate students in active programs of research across all disciplines is essential for the intellectual and fiscal health of the U of S as a major post-secondary institution. Funding and policy directions of the federal government make it clear that excellence in research at the national and international levels is essential not only for the value of the research itself but also for teaching and, increasingly, for continued operating support. Changes in federal funding agencies offer new and exciting opportunities for research and scholarship. We can benefit from and influence current funding and policy directions in order to protect our own scholarly activities, values and priorities, but only if we agree to be active participants in an increasingly competitive environment. As an institution we need to be much more pro-active. As individuals within this institution we need to become more engaged in and committed to research productivity over the long term. The goal of this roundtable discussion was to generate dialogue and gather information on what is needed to provide effective and sustained support to those who are engaged in research, scholarship and artistic activities at the U of S. Participants in both the morning and afternoon sessions were from a diverse range of backgrounds: researchers and academics from many disciplines (e.g., natural sciences, social sciences, the humanities, and fine arts), administrators (e.g., President McKinnon, Associate Deans, Department Heads), representatives from funding agencies (e.g., HSURC, SSHRC, NSERC), administrative support staff and technical support staff. It is important to note that the overall tone of the roundtable was enthusiastic and positive. Although a number of serious challenges were identified, participants were also able and willing to focus on identifying potential solutions or strategies to target these challenges. Clearly, the University community is engaged in the process that has started with " Building Research Success at U of S" and we recognize that a number of individuals are already engaged in exciting activities. It was generally agreed that to create a climate that will foster "research intensiveness" we need to continue the forward momentum in developing and committing to a firm, realistic, and attainable plan of action. Only this way will we be successful in reversing years of decline in the collective attention to the nurturing of a research culture at the U of S. Our success will require a commitment to action from all levels of the University. In other words, the responsibility for creating a positive research climate is not solely in the hands of administration and is not solely the responsibility of individual researchers and scholars. Rather, a fundamental shift in the perspective of each and every member of the University community is absolutely vital for our future success as an institution. Secretaries, clerks, technicians, faculty, students, and administrators must find ways to work together to find solutions to many of the challenges that prevent us from achieving excellence in our work. The issues that emerged from the discussions can be summarized around four major themes: time, money, space, and energy and vision. Each of these themes will be discussed in the following sections. First, we will present the issues that were raised by participants that are related to each theme. Then, we will identify some of the solutions that have been proposed. We will summarize the report with our recommendations for future action.
One of the most consistent themes to emerge from the roundtable was a concern for the lack of quality time available to: (a) apply for funding, (b) maintain an active program of research, and (c) publish results in a timely manner. Concerns were expressed regarding the demands for time from teaching and administrative duties required from faculty members at the U of S. Several persons expressed concerns that the number of committees at the University is too large and that too much work is expected from individual members of the committees ("There are too many opportunities and too few people to take advantage of them"). Other individuals perceive discrepancies between departments in the minimum expectations for teaching responsibilities. The expressed view was that some departments require a minimum of three credit units while others expect their faculty (including new faculty) to teach between 12 to 18 credits. Whether these discrepancies are real or imagined, justified or historical, the perception of a lack of "fairness" in terms of a level playing field to participate in research and scholarly activities across the University must be addressed. These teaching and administrative demands will clearly impact on individual and departmental research activity. Although one could argue that applications for standard grants could be prepared during the summer when, for most, we are relieved from regular classroom teaching, this is often a time of year when graduate student supervision becomes more intense, research activities increase, and national and international scholarly and research organizations hold their meetings. It is crucial to address this issue immediately given the current flood of funding opportunities coming out of Ottawa. At the present time, new opportunities for research grants are being announced on a regular basis. The deadlines for application to these opportunities are often almost immediate and many of these opportunities have recently arrived at the most teaching-intensive time of the year. Moreover, many of the funding opportunities require community collaborators or partners. Finding these partners, or even engaging current partners in the grant-writing process, takes an extraordinary amount of time. Finding ways to help faculty who are interested in pursuing these opportunities to find the time to submit competitive proposals should be a main priority of departments and colleges. A number of creative suggestions for addressing issues related to time were raised. First, two members of the roundtable separately suggested that departments should review their curriculum to identify ways to streamline graduate and undergraduate programs in ways that will release faculty and students to become more active participants in ongoing research on campus and in the community. It was suggested that departments follow the example of the College of Graduate Studies and Research that has recently implemented changes that will have a direct impact on the amount of time spent on teaching. Several individuals noted that very often individual preferences for teaching particular classes impede the department’s ability to streamline their curriculum. It will be important for departments to closely and carefully examine their teaching priorities. Another suggestion was to review the standards for tenure, promotion, and merit. It was suggested that some people will simply not put in the time to actively engage in research or to apply for external funding simply because they do not feel that these activities are considered meritorious. Again, while there may be individual differences in the strength of this perception across the various colleges and departments of the University, a clear statement needs to be made from the senior administration regarding its position on this issue. This statement needs to be reinforced by the College Review Committee. Finally, several persons recommended the implementation of a voluntary mentoring program. Although many individuals arriving at the University have already developed a program of research and may have established mentors within their respective fields, for many this will be their first academic position. Learning how to properly balance teaching, administrative work, and research should be a priority. Departments need to insulate newer faculty from the demands of administrative work until their research programs have been securely launched. To some extent, as mentioned by Brock Fenton, this will involve protecting newer faculty from themselves in terms of making excessive commitments before their research is firmly established. Another aspect of the mentoring program could involve establishing a University policy regarding preliminary examination of grant applications. Again, although some individuals clearly arrive at this University with a well-established support network for their research, many individuals are entering departments in which the opportunities for active engagement in scholarly discourse about their research is lacking. Simply finding someone to proof-read a grant application can require an immense amount of time and energy. The Office of Research Services should work toward establishing and maintaining an active roster of academics who have (a) achieved some measure of "success" in obtaining external funding; and/or (b) who have served on funding agency grant review committees. In addition, the involvement of faculty members who would be interested in proofreading and editing grant proposals (i.e., they would not necessarily be "experts" in the field of study) would serve to improve the presentation and effectiveness of grant proposals. Regardless of what mechanism is ultimately adopted, the University should develop a policy regarding the previewing of grant applications before the VP Research signature is obtained. Lessons can be learned from other universities that have adopted such proposals and advice from these other institutions should be sought before developing our own policy.
The roundtable discussions revealed that many of the issues and concerns raised throughout the workshops are caused in whole or in part by the fact that the entire University is under funded. Currently, as a major university there is an alarming absence of sufficient support staff, technical staff, technical resources, equipment and space. It is generally agreed that without a major re-investment in basic infrastructure support, any plans for building research success at the U of S is at high risk for failure. It became clear that many of the recommended changes may not necessarily require more funds but will require a reallocation of financial expenditures. For example, it was recommended that the University develop more creative ways of using funds made available by retirements of senior and generally more highly paid faculty. These funds could be used to raise the salary floor for new faculty to make the U of S more competitive with other universities for the most promising junior candidates. Remaining funds could then be used to provide the basic infrastructure support to ensure that the individual hired has the best opportunities to establish him/herself in his/her area of research. Some people also recommended allowing departments the freedom to hire senior faculty to raise the profile of the department and to provide adequate mentoring opportunities for junior members. There was extensive discussion concerning the lack of, or inadequate organization of, funding for persons who are "between grants". Several persons commented on the frustration experienced when a grant application is deemed meritorious by the federal agencies but monies are not available to fund it. It was recommended that the University develop a more flexible program and stated policy for funding individuals who achieve this status in the process. Concerns were expressed regarding the fate of mid- and late-career faculty. Mechanisms should be in place to provide faculty who have interrupted their research and scholarship with an opportunity to renew their investigative programs. Seed funding for new projects by these faculty members should become a priority for the University. Providing opportunities for all members of the academic community is essential to ensure a positive, collegial climate that will foster research success. On a more basic level, the need for greater support for researchers once funding is acquired was identified. For example, researchers often need assistance with managing accounts; dealing with purchasing, personnel, and the overabundance of forms takes a great deal of time and energy away from the project at hand. Again, this will require a monetary investment or, at least, a re-examination of the administrative priorities within the University. Several persons stated that the Office of Research Services (ORS) needs to give more day-to-day support for individual researchers. While the shortage of staff at the ORS was acknowledged, several persons felt that too much effort from this office was being directed at a narrow range of research activities on campus. A more visible connection between ORS and researchers and scholars across the various disciplines is a vital aspect of developing a "culture" of research on campus. Thus, it is important for ORS to find a balance in terms of the support it provides for individual and team researchers regardless of whether they are applying for modest funds or are putting together a major research initiative for one of the new granting agencies (e.g., the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and 21st Century Chairs). Researchers often need assistance in identifying research opportunities, making sense of the evaluation criteria, and writing effective proposals. Given the current emphasis on team- and community-based research, it is essential for the ORS to be in a position to help faculty identify potential research collaborators on campus and in the community. This is particularly true for faculty who are new to the community. Since the ORS is often the first contact that new researchers seek upon arrival, it is important for this office to be prepared to identify their research needs, goals, and ambitions and to help them find ways to satisfy these in a friendly, interested, and supportive manner. Finally, a number of recommendations were made that, if adopted, would have a direct impact on creating a research culture on campus. Given the relative isolation many researchers and scholars experience by virtue of being "one in a pile of many", it is essential that the University create opportunities to develop and maintain national and international collaborations. The current structure for travel support is inadequate and under funded. The University must realize that traveling in and out of Saskatoon is extremely expensive and may be a major hurdle in attracting top quality researchers and scholars who have active programs of research that involve extensive travel. Greater support should be available to those scholars who bring the reputation of the U of S to national and international conferences as presenters. The University should also significantly enhance the funds available for visiting speakers, colloquia, and research collaborators. It is important to bring visiting scholars to Saskatchewan to demonstrate to the broader research community the vigorous research culture that we aspire to create. The expenses involved in these ventures should be viewed as part of a larger public relations campaign. In summary, participants of this roundtable were clearly sympathetic to the financial situation of the U of S and recognize that our situation is not much different from the situation of other universities across Canada. However, it became clear that we can not passively accept any more budget cuts that threaten the very foundation of this institution. Clearly, a vision for research on campus needs to be developed and marketed to governments and to the community to increase support for a financial re-investment in the health of this University. We must develop an aggressive campaign to enhance the profile of the University within the government and the community. The financial needs of this institution are great and real. Responsibility for communicating these needs to the public lies at our own doorstep. We simply cannot continue to rely on traditional forms of funding. Thus, there is a need for a range of aggressive fund-raising campaigns. We need to celebrate the successes we achieve and to let the public know that we are spending their hard-earned money well.
Evidence of the poor physical state of the University can be easily observed all around us: the hasty evacuation of the Physical Education building, the repairs needed to our historical Administration building, inadequate lab space in Thorvaldson, declining library resources across the campus, antiquated office furniture, and larger numbers of students in small classrooms. In addition, several persons identified inadequate computer, technical, and administrative support as major challenges to building research success at the U of S. There was a clear consensus for the need to reinvest in the basic infrastructure available for research in terms of buildings, equipment, and personnel support. A recommendation was made for an assessment of the overall University infrastructure (e.g., libraries, computing facilities, etc.) that persistently brings negative attention to this university. It was pointed out that we will lose the best faculty and students if they cannot find the basic structural support they require to conduct their programs of research, scholarship or artistic activities. In addition, if we do not provide a "place" for students within their respective colleges or departments, it is unlikely that they will develop a strong sense of allegiance to this institution. Their allegiance is absolutely vital since at some point in their careers they may serve as U of S "ambassadors" and should provide major contributions to fund-raising endeavors in the form of leading campaigns and through financial contributions. In addition, people mentioned the need to facilitate better communication among faculty across the various colleges. It is important for individuals to feel that they have a space/place to which they belong and that they feel part of a vibrant, engaged community in which their contributions are recognized and valued.
The single most recurring theme throughout both sessions of the roundtable focused on the need for clear, strong leadership at the U of S. We need leaders who are willing to take risks, who are prepared to listen to their colleagues and who will invite dissenting opinions but, ultimately, who will lead the way in creating a shared vision of success for this institution. Departments need to have clear messages from administration regarding their individual expressed aspirations and goals. Members of the community expressed strong feelings of discouragement and disillusionment. Leaders from all levels at the University must recognize these feelings and must take action to create a renewed sense of vigor and energy. A key component to creating a climate for the evolution of a research culture on campus is communication. We need an active, engaged, and communicative community and communication must be occurring at multiple levels. We need to identify and break down barriers to collaborations across disciplines and colleges. We need leaders who will be sensitive to and recognize the valuable contributions of disciplines that fall outside of the traditional "big science" paradigm. And, it is important for the University as a community to recognize and celebrate the successes of individuals and teams regardless of the discipline. The pianist who has a major performance, the author who wins a provincial award, the artist who has a major installation, and the social scientist who, working collaboratively with a community group on an urgent social policy issue, produces an insightful report, give us as much reason to be proud as the scientist who wins a large research grant. The leaders within our community must clearly articulate and demonstrate these values when formulating policies and in their planning exercises. Another important component to developing a research culture at the U of S lies in our hiring practices. Faculty positions within departments and colleges have been under attack from the government budget cuts and the priority determination "taxes" imposed upon us. One consequence of this situation is the development of a climate of fear — fear of losing positions if they are not filled when the money is available. The current need is for practices in hiring and retention to reflect, in real terms, the University’s stated academic priorities. There appeared to be strong consensus at both sessions regarding the need to hire effectively and to ensure that each new person hired is well supported (personally, professionally, and resource-wise, with start-up research funds, knowledgeable advice, reduced teaching and administrative responsibilities available). As mentioned earlier, this could take the form of using money made available through retirements of more senior, more highly paid faculty to increase the salary floor offered to new faculty and to promote their success when they get here. The need to pay attention to retention is as important as the need to hire highly qualified faculty in the first place. Another aspect of retention concerns the need for a critical mass of researchers on campus in various areas. Some persons expressed concern for the lone-wolf researcher — the expert in his/her field who was hired to fill a teaching need but who is unable to find colleagues with whom to engage in meaningful research and scholarly endeavors. Keeping such persons will become increasingly difficult if they develop a sense of isolation and alienation from the community. A related aspect of hiring is the need for our leaders to take actions to improve the student pool at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Concern was expressed regarding the quality of education received by undergraduate students during their years at the secondary level. Even when they do not need formal remedial classes, they increasingly require special attention and extra time from professors already struggling with larger classes, inadequate availability of teaching assistants, and reduced teaching-support resources. The current campaign to keep high achievers at the secondary level in Saskatchewan must be strongly supported by the University, along with enhanced initiatives to attract top students from other provinces. In addition, there is a need for collaboration and sharing of research projects with the secondary sector in order to enhance the quality of secondary education in the province. With regard to graduate students, several persons mentioned that graduate programs at the U of S are insufficiently supported and developed in many academic areas of the University. Teaching and supervision at the graduate level are, too often, an unrecognized overload activity for which faculty receive no direct remuneration and which are often viewed as stealing time away from their own programs of research, scholarship, and artistic activities. While it is recognized that graduate teaching and supervision can be one of the most rewarding experiences of an academic career, this is only true insofar as the mechanisms to encourage and support mentoring relationships between faculty and graduate students are in place. Finally, graduate student funding support has been growing increasingly inadequate over the past decade. University research cannot be carried out without high-quality graduate programs. Graduate students make vital contributions to the University's teaching function. As junior scholars they play an integral role in bringing renewed energy and vision to research thereby ensuring the success of research programs. In summary, there is clearly a need for renewed energy and vision at the U of S. Although key persons including the President, the Vice-Presidents, Deans, Department Heads and managers must lead the way, the energy cannot be sustained without the committed efforts of all individuals in the University community. We need to work together toward creating a nourishing environment that will foster the success of individuals and, ultimately, of this institution. We must re-examine the formal procedures on campus for recognizing excellence and ensure that those individuals who have dreams and aspirations for creative, innovative projects are supported and encouraged in their endeavors. What is unavailable to us as a community financially may be gained through instrumental support and encouragement.
A number of recommendations were submitted by the working committee and appeared to receive endorsement from the participants of the roundtable discussion. These include (in no particular order):
|
