WELCOME120-Day Study

Large Group Meeting

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Safety First!

Meeting place: Todd Hall steps

2nd Floor Evacuation Map

C. Keane and the 120-Day Study TeamDecember 2, 2014

Opening Comments- 120-Day Study Large Group Meeting

Welcome to the 3nd large-group meeting for the 120-Day Study

• Purpose of today’s meeting is to brief-out participants on initial findings and recommendations, and discuss path forward for remainder of the Study

Meeting Agenda:

8:00 – 8:30 a.m. Check-In and Continental Breakfast 8:30 – 9:00 a.m. 120-Day Study Updates (C. Keane/D. Bernardo, D. Nordquist, E. Pratt)

Subgroup Chair Briefings 9:00 a.m. Research Infrastructure 9:30 a.m. Faculty and Student Engagement and Productivity 10:00 a.m. Break10:15 a.m. Outreach, Engagement and Economic Development 10:45 a.m. Research Themes11:15 a.m. Summary (C. Keane) 11:30 a.m. Adjourn

The 120-Day Study “Day 1 Kick-off” event was held Sept. 16, 2014

Since then, 24 subgroup meetings, a draft report, and other efforts- thank

you for your support!

Co-Chairs: C. Keane, D. Bernardo

120-day Study Organization/Team

ExecutiveReview Group (Deans, Vice-Chancellors, senior faculty, other WSU leaders)

Management and Integration (interim)C. KeaneD. NordquistE. PrattE. AustinAssoc. Deans for Research or College/Campus designees*

Faculty and Student Engagement/Productivity(Co-Chairs: R. Craft, J. Jones)

Research Infrastructure(Co-Chairs: S. Clark, S. Simasko)

Research Themes(Co-Chairs: D. Bender, T. Spencer)

Outreach, Engagement, and Economic Development(Co-Chairs: S. Pappu, J. Tang)

*C. Corbett, D. Field, A. Hossain, J. Krueger, A. Lazarus, T. McElwain, J. Moyer, B. Pinkleton, C. Portfors, D. Sprott, T. Church, P. Whitney

• Set of grand challenges and associated prioritized research strengths reflecting future opportunities matched to current and emerging WSU capabilities

• Priorities to guide:- Research infrastructure and other investments- Execution of workshops and other activities to advance research and scholarship at WSU

• Actionable findings and recommendations, and associated metrics, in key areas to support WSU research enterprise

Key outcomes from the 120-day study- revised to reflect “Grand Challenges”

The study supports the WSU goal of AAU membership via improvement of our AAU metrics.

Grand Challenge Research Themes Draw on Research Strengths

Grand Challenges Theme

Grand Challenges Theme

Institutional Research Strengths

UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTResearch, Scholarship, Creativity, Education, Student Experience, Outreach and

Engagement

• Identify a few (~2-4) WSU “Grand Challenges” and associated research strengths• Grand challenges are of equal priority

• Prioritize the associated research strengths- this will drive major internal investments to advance the WSU research enterprise• Tier 1- “Must have”• Tier 2- “Important”

• Tier 3 research strengths are those not identified as Tier 1 or Tier 2

• Tier 2 and Tier 3 research strengths not identified for major investment should continue to be developed consistent with available resources and institutional/college/department priorities

Goal of the “Grand Challenges” effort within the 120-day Study

• December 2, 2014: Large group meeting/initial subgroup briefings- includes initial list of Grand Challenges

• Experienced outside facilitators (Mark Robison and Mike Diamond of Academic Leadership Associates (ALA)) will lead two 0.5 day meetings to develop and refine the Grand Challenges and associated research strengths• Monday, December 15, 2014: Subgroup level meeting- will include

Research Themes and Management/Integration subgroups, leads from other subgroups

• Friday, January 16, 2015: Provost and Executive Review Group level meeting

• Further information on ALA, developers of the successful USC Strategic Plan, is available at: http://www.academicla.net/

Meeting schedule for ”Grand Challenges” effort

1st Full Group Meeting9/16/14 (“T=1”)

3nd Full Group Meeting12/2/14

Facilitated “Grand Challenge” meetings12/15/14 and 1/16/15

Draft Report 1/30/15(“T=120+ 2 weeks”)

Preparation

Completion of draft report other than “Grand Challenges”

October 22, 2014: 2nd large group meeting- Study Status report

Revised study schedule incorporates facilitated “Grand Challenge” meetings

“Kick-off” meeting

Subgroups brief initial conclusions, findings, and recommendations

Note: “1-time” infrastructure funds (at least $100K) to be distributed via mechanism discussed by Research Infrastructure group

December 3, 2014: Town Hall Meeting – FSHN T101 4-5pm

Thank you again for your continuing effort and support!

Subgroups Have Been Very Active

Research Infrastructure Subgroup• Sept. 12th 2:30-3:30pm• Sept. 25th 2:00-4:00pm• Oct. 30th 1:00-2:30pm• Dec. 1st 3:00-4:30pm

Research Themes Subgroup• Sept. 30th 3:00-4:30pm• Oct. 14th 3:00-4:30pm• Nov. 3rd 10:00-11:30am• Nov. 20th 3:00-4:30pm• Dec. 15th 8:30-11:30am• Jan. 16th 8:30-11:30am

Faculty and Student Engagement/Productivity Subgroup• Sept. 24th 12:00-1:00pm• Sept. 30th 1:30-3:00pm (sub-sub mtg.)• Oct. 8th 12:00-1:00pm• Oct. 29th 12:00-1:00pm• Nov. 5th 12:00-1:00pm• Nov. 12th 12:00-1:00pm• Dec. 3rd 12:00-1:00pm

Outreach, Engagement and Economic Development Subgroup• Sept. 23rd 8:00-10:00am• Sept. 30th 8:00-10:00am• Oct. 7th 8:00-10:00am• Oct. 15th 8:00-10:00am• Oct. 28th 8:00-10:00am• Nov. 13th 8:00-10:00am• Nov. 20th 8:00-10:00amDoes not include all sub-

subgroup meetings, which number many.

Highlights Since Last Large Group Meeting

• 75 days into the Study, 45 days to 120 (draft to be completed by 1/30)

• Todays subgroup presentations!• Infrastructure: Bins… and more bins (and how to manage)• Faculty/Student Engagement/Prod.: Lively back and forth• Outreach, Engagement and Economic Dev.: Each area could

have been its own subgroup!• Themes: Grand challenges vs Research strengths etc. etc.

• Town Hall Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (FSHN T101)• 120 Day Study internal website items collected (nearly 120

postings, including quality control documents)• 120 Day Study public website enhancements

• Roster and Charter postings• Large Group Meeting updates per subgroup• Study Activities and Guiding Documents posted

Report Update

I. Executive Summary

II. About WSU Research

A. WSU Strategic Plan

B. WSU Research Summary

1. WSU Research History & Economic Atmosphere

2. Key Research Statistics

3. College Research Overviews

III. Study Purpose & Organization

Last thing

Draft nearing completion

(refining)

Draft nearing completion

(refining)

Report Update

• Write drafts based on reports

• Review with subcommittees & management & integration group

Work with M&I group to draft with findings

December – January 12

• First Draft of Final Report with challenges – January 30, 2015

• Executive Review

IV. SUBCOMMITTEE Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations

V. STUDY Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations

(Jim Moyer & Paul Whitney)

Sue ClarkSteve SimaskoDec. 2, 2014

Update for Research Infrastructure Subgroup

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Define research infrastructure, identify elements present at WSU, and develop a structure to bin infrastructure elements for evaluation.

2. Within bins identify the barriers that exist to research excellence (technology, physical facilities, staff, and management).

4. Provide actionable recommendations that identify funding opportunities (facilities construction, technology acquisition, and ongoing operations) and changes in management that remove barriers and achieve excellence in research infrastructure.

3. Provide a tiered prioritization of future investments into research infrastructure needed to support WSU “research themes”.

Charges:

STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THIS CHARGE

1. Completed:a. Request from colleges and campuses a list of current facilities, labs,

centers, etc. that would be considered part of university research infrastructure.

b. Distribute items into a bin structure that assigns items of like technology/focus together rather than maintain any current administrative structure.

2. Ongoing:a. Within the subgroup assign bin leaders and subgroup members to

begin investigations into the status of items in the bins.b. Have conversations with stakeholders (associate deans of research,

chairs, center managers, faculty users) about the general status of infrastructure at WSU.

c. Develop a proposal that creates a management structure for continuous ongoing evaluation of infrastructure needs to provide recommendations for investment opportunities to improve research excellence.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

1. Compliance and regulatory issues 2. Pre and post grant award support3. Support for human subjects research (clinical and social

sciences) 4. Small equipment/maintenance of existing facilities5. Access to information about infrastructure capabilities is

fragmented and often what is found is out of date6. Current infrastructure decisions are often ad hoc and lack

overall strategic focus7. Many bin specific items

a. technology exists but is outdatedb. lack of critical new technologyc. lack of technical support personnel

Barriers Identified:

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSConstraints:

1. Infrastructure investment is an ongoing process • requires time to evaluate individual components• requires time to compare needs to strategic focuses• strategic focuses evolve over time• tactical opportunities can arise with short time horizons

2. Infrastructure is not just equipment but also involves people• help with regulatory/compliance issues• administrative support for pre and post grant activities • technical support personnel (both equipment and clinical)

RECOMMENDATIONS1. Establish an infrastructure oversight structure that is

ongoing, renewing, and has broad input from across the university.

A. Establish a University Infrastructure Committee (UIC)

B. Continue to develop and refine infrastructure bins (Focused Infrastructure Groups or FIG Committees?)

2. Establish a small infrastructure investment program (SIIP) with annual budget and process to help maintain and augment current infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATIONS3. VP for Research provides staff support to assist both the

UIC and FIG Committees.• meetings: schedule and record/distribute notes

• handle proposal documents: collate and distribute

• work with FIG committee chairs to maintain the VPR website for infrastructure

Imaging: Biological/Molecular

Analytical Chemistry

Animal Resources

Arts & Humanities

Molecular Biology/Biochemistry

Computing/Cyberinfrastructure

Grant Support

Human Subjects: Clinical Support

Regulatory & Compliance

Libraries & Databases

Materials Research

Nuclear Radiation Center

Plant Resources

Power Engineering

Social Sciences

FIG Committees • Faculty users as members• Review status and maintain list of needs• Can consolidate, expand or refocus as needed

University Infrastructure Committee (UIC)

(Chairs of individual bin committees)

Grand ChallengesStrategic Plans

Workshops and Discussions

Investment Opportunities

Prioritization and Recommendations

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Standing UIC Responsibilities• Annual review of support for infrastructure personnel • Evaluate major infrastructure proposals• Administer small infrastructure investment program (SIIP)• Evaluate/select internal MRI/Murdock type applications• Investigate and recommend infrastructure additions when major capital projects are

programmed

University Infrastructure Committee (UIC)

Recommended Structure• Membership made up of the chairs of individual FIG committees• Chair of the UIC elected from membership of UIC

• responsible for scheduling and setting agenda of the UIC• requires at least 1 year of prior service on the UIC

Suggested Review Criteria for Proposals (major and small infrastructure)• Productivity of the unit making the request (e.g., associated funding, publications, student

theses produce with unit help – match these to AAU and WSU strategic metrics)• Fit of infrastructure item to overall university strategic goals and/or grand challenges• Number of investigators served• Willingness of colleges and/or departments that are served by the infrastructure to cost share

• support of technical positions can be considered part of the match from the units

• Evaluate whether the service can be provided externally for less cost

FIG CommitteesMembership• Faculty users as well as center directors are eligible (should be a mix)• ~8 members recommended (can be more or less depending on nature of the FIG)• Members should come from multiple units (colleges and campuses) as appropriate to the FIG• Fixed term appointments (6 years?)

• Terms should be staggered to avoid massive committee turnover in any one year• Reappointment allowed but must follow at least a 2 (?) year break between reappointment

• Chair is elected from the membership• Requires at least 1 (?) year prior service on the committee• Term is 2 years in length and can be reelected to a second term• If committee fails to elect a Chair, the Chair is appointed by the VPR from current membership

• New faculty for membership are appointed by a committee that consists of the current FIG Chair, the Chair of the UIC (or designee appointed by the UIC), and the VP for Research

Responsibilities• On at least an annual basis, review status of the items within the FIG

• If there is central support for personnel, review and justify continued support for personnel investment

• Maintain an active, prioritized list of improvements to the infrastructure items within the FIG• Serve as a technical review board for the UIC when major items are proposed that create

infrastructure that would be assigned to the FIG• Set prioritization levels for small equipment proposals that arise from the FIG

Small Infrastructure Investment Program (SIIP)• Items <$200,000 in total costs

• Items over $200,000 are considered large and do not compete for this allocation

• Item could be unique, an addition to an existing item, or a repair to an existing item

• Allocation made the SIIP by VP for Research/Provost• Proposals are ranked and funding distributed until pool is exhausted

• Quarterly call for proposals• Proposals are entertained only if the unit making the request is part of the general university

research/scholarly/creative infrastructure • This is demonstrated by the unit’s listing within one of the FIGs

• Proposals should be coordinated and guided through appropriate FIG committees• FIG committees are responsible for ranking multiple proposals from within a FIG

• Funds can be requested for the purpose of internal matches for external proposals• Funds are awarded only if the external request is successful

• Criteria to Evaluate Proposals (same as for major proposals):• Productivity of the unit making the request (e.g., associated funding, publications, student theses

produce with unit help – match these to AAU and WSU strategic metrics)• Fit of infrastructure item to overall university strategic goals and/or grand challenges• Number of investigators served• Willingness of colleges and/or departments that are served by the infrastructure to cost share

• support of technical positions can be considered part of the match from the units• Evaluate whether the service can be provided externally for less cost

Example of within FIG evaluation

Animal ResourcesIncludes various vivariums, barns, and housing facilities, as well transgenic core, animal reproductive services, veterinary teaching hospital.

Current constraints/barriers to excellence• Consolidation of rodent/small animal vivariums to improve efficiencies and provide

better services than individual competing vivariums currently provide.

• Outfit and equip a transgenic animal facility that utilizes the most current technologies (CRISPR) so that WSU based researchers can be leaders in investigative sciences that use transgenic animal models.

• Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) facilities? We don’t have them but should they be developed as part of a strategic investment to enable WSU researchers to compete for research projects that require BSL-3 facilities.

• Impact of the airport realignment on large animal facilities east of the main campus – are there opportunities to enhance current facilities?

Example of within FIG evaluation

Example of within FIG evaluation

Academic and Research Computing

Colleges

College of Arts and Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine (Scheduled)

Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture

College of Education

College of Communication

College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences (Pending)

Carson College of Business (Scheduled)

College of Pharmacy

College of Medical Sciences

College of Nursing

Campuses

Vancouver

Tri-Cities

Spokane

Discussions were held with researchers from all colleges and regional campuses (except where noted)

Academic and Research Computing

Assessment Preliminary Findings

Needs by Theme

Theme College Regional Campus

Redundant Data Storage 100% 100%

Additional Technical Support / User Interface 71% 33%

Upgrade Networks Between Campuses and Upgrade to Internet 2/GigaPop or both 71% 66%

Ability to Transfer HIPAA Data Sets 71% 66%

Ability to Transfer Large Data Sets 57% 33%

Support for Building Infrastructure Upgrades 43% 0%Strategy to Support Research Software, including site license for broadly used software tools (e.g., MATLAB) 15% 33%

Academic and Research Computing

Additional Preliminary Findings

• Strategic growth of academic and research computing resources are constrained by (physical) infrastructure limitations in the WSU/Pullman data center.

• Competitively awarded access to resources at national supercomputer centers (NSF, Department of Energy, etc.) needs to be recorded by OGRD and entered into the on-line annual review system (WORQs).

• Strategies need to be developed for establishing and supporting research gateways to facilitate interactions, collaborations, and information exchange between the WSU research community and the scientific community at-large.

• Pro-active communication and outreach to the WSU research community needed to promote more

efficient utilization of WSU’s cyber-infrastructure resources.

Academic and Research ComputingPreliminary Recommendations

• Develop and implement a WSU/IT Governance Model to provide guidance and set priorities to enable the University to (1) manage and sustain available cyber-resources and (2) plan future cyber-infrastructure investments in coordination and alignment with the University’s mission, strategic plan, and goals.

• Establish an institutionally shared and scalable cyber-infrastructure “ecosystem” to enable access by the university community to leveraged resources and realize economies of scale – and avoid costly infrastructure redundancy and fragmentation.

• Establish five-year strategic and implementation plans for research computing infrastructure, including a robust investment strategy to ensure that the WSU cyber-infrastructure remains responsive to the enduring and emerging needs of the academic and research community.

• Develop quantifiable metrics for benchmarking the WSU computing infrastructure against peer institutions.

• Implement a sustainability model ensure baseline investment for cyber-infrastructure upgrades via extramural funding.

• Develop a transparent WSU-wide communication strategy to more effectively engage the WSU academic and research community to ensure the management and growth of a responsive cyber-infrastructure.

• Promote and forge strategic partnerships at the regional and national level to (1) leverage WSU’s investments in cyber-infrastructure, (2) create opportunities for access to enhanced resources, (3) incubate new initiatives and programs.

COMMENTS?

Rebecca CraftJonathan JonesDec. 2, 2014

Update for Faculty and Student Engagement / Productivity

Subgroup

Rebecca Craft, Co-Chair Chair, CAS/Psychology

Jonathan Jones, Co-Chair Director, CVM/School of Molecular Biosciences

Thom Brown Chair, CAS/Fine Arts

John Browse Regents Professor, Interim Director, CAHNRS/Institute of Biological Chemistry

Todd Butler Chair, CAS/English

Lori Carris Associate Dean, Grad School/CAHNRS/Plant Pathology

Yonas Demissie Assistant Professor, WSU Tri-Cities/CEA/Civil & Environmental Engineering

Brian French Professor, COE/Ed. Leadership, Sport Studies and Ed./Counseling Psych.

Rita Fuchs-Lokensgard Director, ADA Program/CVM/Integrative Physiology and Neuroscience

Michele Hardy Chair, CVM/Veterinary Microbiology & Pathology

Kerry Hipps Chair, CAS/Chemistry

Jim Krueger Regents Prof, Dir of Res, Medical Sciences/CVM/Integrative Physiology & Neuroscience

Brian Lamb Regents Prof, CEA/Civil & Envir Engineering/Laboratory for Atmospheric Research

Andrea Lazarus Clinical Professor/Asst. Vice President for Research, Spokane

Steve Parish Professor, CVM/Vet Hospital

Jim Petersen Director, VCEA/Chemical Engineering & Bioengineering

Amy Wharton Director, WSU Vancouver/CAS/Sociology

Faculty and Student Engagement / Productivity Subgroup

Charge - Faculty and Student Engagement/Productivity Subgroup

• Overall strategy: Develop goals and strategies for enhancing professional development of WSU faculty and trainees, in areas key to advancing WSU research, scholarly and creativity activity. Include items such as recruitment and retention issues, mentoring and training, and recognition.

• AAU metrics: Develop specific goals, strategies and recommendations aimed at increasing faculty and trainee recognition and productivity as measured by AAU Phase 1 and Phase 2 Indicators, and possibly broader indicators.

• Faculty: Identify goals and strategies for recruitment, professional development and retention of the best faculty, and for marketing faculty strengths and successes to external constituencies, including funders and professional societies, and others who confer major awards/recognition.

• Postdocs and students: Develop goals and strategies for recruitment, professional development, and career placement of WSU postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduate students.

• Identify metrics necessary for generating recommendations: Following data collection, generate a series of recommendations.

Charge - Faculty and Student Engagement/Productivity Subgroup (cont’d)

STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS CHARGE• Developed broad list of recommendations for

advancing professional development of:• Faculty: how can we improve recruitment, productivity,

retention? (Oct)• Trainees: how can we improve recruitment,

productivity, and retention? (Nov)

• Rated importance of each recommendation, for faculty, and for trainees (Oct-Nov)

• Developing final prioritized list of recommendations for faculty, and for trainees (Nov-Dec)

RECOMMENDATIONS: FACULTYFaculty Recruitment• Provide competitive salary and start-up for new hires.• Build area strengths by supporting multi-year and cluster hiring

plans within and across units.• Hiring plans should include articulation of support staff (office and

technical) and space needs that will be necessary to adequately support faculty expansion.

• Encourage unit chairs/directors to hire only the best-qualified candidates rather than settling for “place-holders” by guaranteeing that units can re-open a failed search the next year.

• When a strong case can be made for the maintenance of a particular unit research strength, allow chairs/directors to hire “ahead of retirements” by at least one year, so that research/teaching transitions are more seamless, and so that those planning to retire do not feel compelled to delay retirement to ensure the unit retains the faculty line.

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)

• Expand use of targeted hiring of associate and full professors.

• Seek more endowed professorships in all areas of research, scholarship and creative activity.

• Establish mandatory search committee training to decrease unconscious bias in faculty hiring (to increase the likelihood of diverse hires).

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)Faculty Engagement, Productivity and Retention• Develop plan to maintain and regularly update

research/creative activity and instructional facilities, including IT at college and campus levels.

• Increase staff support for extramural grant & fellowship development and submission.

• Enhance data collection and management:• Implement institution-wide annual online data collection system so

that faculty accomplishment and workload can be tracked accurately and efficiently across all disciplines (WORQs MUST BE REPLACED).

• Improve OGRD and sponsored programs grant-tracking system so that PI/co-I contributions (e.g., eREX allocation of credit) can be accurately determined.

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)• Adhere to high T&P standards, and develop workload

flexibility guidelines and additional remuneration programs (especially at the full professor level) to sustain scholarly/ creative productivity across entirety of faculty’s career.

• Increase financial support:• Expand seed grant opportunities, particularly for collaborative and

inter-disciplinary work.• Increase travel support, particularly in areas with lesser access to

grants and contracts (e.g., Arts and Humanities).• Increase doctoral student stipends to national average within

discipline (& guarantee 4-5 years of funding), so that faculty can recruit, train, and efficiently graduate the best students possible.

• Develop campus-level funding to increase visitation of prominent scholars to WSU.

• Seek more endowed professorships (these can be used to retain faculty, in some cases) and endowed doctoral fellowships.

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)• Develop culture that engenders and sustains faculty

engagement with WSU:• Hire, train and support unit & college leaders who

demonstrate BALANCE between expertise in research/scholarship/creative activity and ability to inspire, promote and support faculty.

• Cultivate and promote promising faculty for prestigious external awards.

• Recognize/reward faculty mentorship of trainees (including undergraduates).

• Recognize/reward faculty engagement in interdisciplinary and collaborative work (e.g., across WSU units and campuses, and with external collaborators).

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS: TRAINEES• Make graduate student stipends competitive with

those at peer institutions, within discipline• Boost scholarship support for graduate students

(increase development efforts to provide more graduate scholarships & fellowships)

• Provide funds for graduate student travel to conferences, performances, exhibitions

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)• Recognize/reward faculty who apply for training

grants and other sources of funds to support graduate student and post doc training

• Identify opportunities through certificates & joint degree programs to link STEM & non-STEM disciplines, to enhance or complement primary training emphasis (> increase marketability of graduates)

• Enhance professional development for grad student & post-doc trainees, particularly re: alternative (non-academic) career opportunities, and leadership training

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)

• Broaden training in grant & fellowship proposal submissions for graduate student and post-doctoral trainees (only some trainees reached at present)

• Formalize provision of matching funds (institutional funds) for training grant proposals

• Develop accurate database of graduate and undergraduate student productivity in research, scholarship & creative activity

BENCHMARKING METRICS: EXAMPLE 1• Competitive salary: according to OSU faculty salary

statistics (Jan 2014), WSU faculty salaries average 12.9% below mean of 22 peer institutions

• CVM: +5%• COMS (Med Sci): +4.6%• COP: +1%• COMM: -4%• CAHNRS: -5%• VCEA: -11%• COE: -14%• CAS: -17% (unit range -9% to -38%)• CON: -27%• CCOB: -32%

BENCHMARKING METRICS: EXAMPLE 2• Develop accurate database of graduate and

undergraduate student productivity in research, scholarship & creative activity

What proportion of our undergrads are involved in research/scholarly & creative activity?

• National Survey of Student Engagement (2010): WSU 21% (vs. 27% AAU peers), but only fraction of students take survey

• Enrollment in research courses (IR, 2010): 13% of WSU students, but not all students engaged in research/creative activity enroll in a course

• WORQs report (2010): 767 (~3%) students (working with 298 faculty)

Sita PappuJuming TangDec. 2, 2014

Update for Outreach, Engagement and Economic

Development Subgroup

Outreach, Engagement and Economic Development Sub-group

Current Status (Strengths & Gaps), Recommendations and Quantifiable Metrics WSU Visibility:

Current outreach activities to increase visibility of WSU researchers related to both AAU Phase I and Phase II indicators; identify gaps and barriers.

Support system: WSU mentoring and nomination practices for faculty of different career stages for

Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Fellowships (Phase I indicators).

WSU support system and practices for grant applications (in particular large grants) (Phase I Indicator) and for non-competitive USDA, state and industrial supported research (Phase II).

Barriers for faculty members to participate in outreach and global engagement activities that will enhance WSU Phase I and Phase II indicators

STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THIS CHARGE• Existing data on research expenditures (and other

AAU indicators) of WSU and comparables from AAU peers

• Internal survey created and data collected from all Colleges and central units

• Face-to-Face with Academy Members: Anjan Bose, Guy Palmer, Norm Scott (Cornell)

• Discussions with WSU-Extension, WSUF, CFR, OGRD, Univ Communications, Economic Development

• Discussions with faculty successful in large research grants

SUB-GROUP ACTIVITIESWe invited three national academy members to interact with the subgroup:

• Dr. Anjan Bose, NAE, WSU VCEA • Dr. Guy Palmer, WSU SGAH, NAS, Institute of Medicine• Dr. Norm Scott, WSU Alumnus, former VPR of Cornell University, NAE Chair of Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources of National Academy of Sciences

2011 Peers Comparison

Total R&D Expenditures 304,352,000 250,120,000 548,980,000 515,133,000 689,624,000

Ttl R&D Exp./T-TT Faculty 343,901 : 1 227,589 : 1 328,533 : 1 308,648 : 1 393,172 : 1

Fed R&D Expenditures 113,452,000 109,461,000 232,564,000 303,852,000 288,173,000

Fed R&D Exp/T-TT Facl. 128,194 : 1 99,601 : 1 139,176 : 1 182,056 : 1 164,294 : 1

Natl. Acad. Members 9 9 24 59 22

Significant Faculty Awds. 11 10 13 35 17

Doctorates Awarded 177 301 618 763 578

Doctorates/T-TT Faculty 0.20 : 1 0.30 : 1 0.37 : 1 0.46 : 1 0.33 : 1

Postdoc Appointees 161 246 334 506 324

Postdocs/T-TT Faculty 0.18 : 1 0.22 : 1 0.20 : 1 0.30 : 1 0.18 : 1

Undergrads/T-TT Faculty 27.9 : 1 22.9 : 1 20.5 : 1 19.6 : 1 23.0 : 1

Tenure & TT Faculty 885 1,099 1,671 1,669 1,754

Scopus Articles /T-TT Faculty

2.2 : 1 2.6 : 1 2.9 : 1 3.7 : 1 3.4 : 1

Competencies/T-TT Faculty 1 : 7.7 1 : 8.8 1 : 8.8 1 : 7.3 1 : 7.9

1,022,740,000 238,500,000

755,905 : 1 201,266 : 1

829,885,000 116,965,000

613,366 : 1 98,705 : 1

102 7

40 7

703 322

0.52 : 1 0.27 : 1

1,024 178

0.76 : 1 0.15 : 1

26.1 : 1 22.5 : 1

1,353 1,185

6.5 : 1 1.8 : 1

1 : 4.7 1 : 8.4

Collaboration Comparison – A 5 year look – 2007-2011

Tenure & TT Faculty 885 1,353 1,650 1,099 1,671 1,366 955

Total Articles in SciVal Spotlight 2007-2011

8,805 41,974 16,619 13,606 22,286 28,411 10,086

Spotlight Articles/T-TT Faculty 2007-2011

9.9 : 1 31.0 : 1 10.1 : 1 12.4 : 1 13.3 : 1 20.8 : 1 10.6 : 1

Total Citations 2007-2011 50,463 436,195 106,984 87,743 133,435 228,931 64,824

Total Citations/T-TT Faculty 2007-2011

57.0 : 1 322.4 : 1 64.8 : 1 79.8 : 1 79.9 : 1 167.6 : 1 67.9 : 1

Articles with a U.S. Collaborator 49.0% 57.8% 46.0% 46.2% 45.8% 50.4% 53.5%

Articles with an International Collaborator

26.7% 29.1% 25.7% 31.0% 27.4% 33.8% 28.9%

Articles with NO Collaborator 31.2% 30.2% 38.9% 36.9% 39.5% 31.6% 32.0%

Notable Notable Aspirational Aspirational Legislative/GCS Legislative/GCS

http://ir.wsu.edu/Legislative%20Peers

SciVal Link

WSU VISIBILITY IN RESEARCH - PUBLICATIONS

2011-2013 WSU PUBLICATION ACCOUNTS

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSCollege/Unit Grant

writing support-Capacity

Communications team with distribution channels

Faculty training in communication

Stakeholder Relationship

Faculty support for awards

Representation in advisory boards and panels

Domestic & International Outreach

CAHNRS 5 5 2 5 3 4 5

CAS 3 2 1 3 3 3 2

CCB 1 5 2 4 2 2 5

VCEA 4 2 1 2 2 1 1

COEd 4 3 2 4 4 3 5

CMS 1 2 1 3 1 5 5

CON 3 4 2 4 2 2 2

COPh 3 5 5 (CF)2 (RF)

5 2 4 4

CVM 2-5 3-5 2 4-5 2-5 4-5 4-5

MCC 2 4 4 3 2 1

Central-OGRD 3 2 n/a 3 3 4 (D) 4 (I) 2

Central-IP 4 2 n/a 3 4 2 5

Central-CFR 3 1 3 4 2 n/a (D) 3 (I) 1

Central-EcoDevo n/a 3 n/a 4 n/a 4 (D) 4

Central-UComm n/a 5 4 4 n/a n/a 4

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSFINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS METRICS

Need to create a university wide culture of excellence

*Identify and enhance WSU’s unique strengths*Focus on hiring faculty with long-term goals, not to fill short term gaps*Recognize and reward excellence in annual reviews and showcases*Create faculty “global academy”, senior faculty helping newer/younger upcoming “star” researchers

*High impact publications (1.b.-4, 5, 7; 1.d. -12, 13, 14; 1.d.-Other)*Highly competitive grant funding (1.a.- 1, 2, 3; 1.d. -12, 13, 14; 1.d.-Other)*Prestigious awards (1.b.- 6, 8)*# of Academy Members (1.b.- 6, 8)*Increase in average GPA/Standardized test scores of incoming students (2.a.-Other)*# invitations domestic/international to faculty (1.b.-Other)

Needs better support program for faculty in obtaining funding

*Create a more robust centralized grant writing support and training unit

*Increase in research funding (1.a.- 1, 2, 3; 1.d. -12, 13, 14; 1.d.-Other)

No streamlined process for faculty awards

*Central support system or advisory board/committees for AAU awards/ nominating candidates for academy members*Increased participation of current academy members in the advisory role to mid-level faculty

*Increase in AAU Awards (1.b.- 6, 8)*Increase in faculty participation in national policy setting advisory boards and panels

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSGreater institutional-level coordination and support needed

*Encourage collaborative research and engagement (D&I)* Reward interdisciplinary efforts*Integrate with Extension more to increase statewide initiativesand outreach on research projects*Increase travel funds and support to researchers* Advertise and train people on the use of a searchable research portal to share research expertise between colleges*Training and support on long-term, deep collaborations both domestically and internationally – advanced preparation to go after funding opportunities

*Increased inter-disciplinary research (Funding and Proposals)(1.a.- 1, 2, 3; 1.d. -12, 13, 14; 1.d.-Other)*Increase in Overall Research expenditures (1.a.- 1, 2, 3; 1.d. -12, 13, 14; 1.d.-Other)*# of intercollege brown bags, workshops*# of research collaborations with Extension faculty (3.a. 34, 35 and Other)*Increased domestic & International collaborations (3.c. Other; 3.d. 44-46 and Other; 3.e. 47 & Other)

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSLack of coordination to publicize and showcase faculty research and accomplishments

Streamline the communication channels from faculty member to college to central communications to increase awareness of faculty research -For news outlets to build awareness and public support-Within WSU to build internal collaboration-To administration for identifying outside collaboration and support

*Industry Research Expenditures (3.a. -32; 3.c.-Other)*# of presentations to external stakeholders;*# of stakeholders met with;*# of associations met with;*# of industry meetings(The USDOT requires this type of reporting for their university transportation centers (UTCs), so WSU also perhaps should consider)

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSGeographical isolation (Once people are here the WSU research expertise is much appreciated.)

*Leverage WSU West to network; Increase awareness on campuses of how the Economic Development team can help increase networking and visibility on the westside, nationally and internationally*Leverage events that are already happen on the west side that may relate to WSU research *Use communication channels more effectively* create a permanent physical space with research featured on museum-like posters and displays* add research displays at the WSU West office & Connections storeEg., WSU’s Future of Flight display for the museum in Everett; Also Imagine Tomorrow is a great networking event to get stakeholders here…need more like that

*Industry Research Expenditures (3.a. -32; 3.c.-Other)*# of presentations to external stakeholders;*# of stakeholders met with;*# of associations met with;*# of industry meetings(The USDOT requires this type of reporting for their university transportation centers (UTCs), so WSU also perhaps should consider)

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSPeople on campus are not aware of current commercialization and economic development activities; increased impact on economic development needed.

*Develop faculty and student programs to increase commercialization and economic development activities.*Develop Exchange Programs with Industry*Increase student involvement*Create an economic development council w/representatives from academic units and external partners, like Indiana University’s Council on Regional Engagement and Economic Development

*# Faculty engaged in entrepreneurial projects (2.a.-Other; 3.a.-34; 3.c.-Other)*#Students engaged in entrepreneurial projects & internships (2.a.-20; 3.a.-34; 3.c.-Other)*Annual Economic Impact (3.a.-30; 3.c.-Other)*Industry Research expenditures (3.a. -32; 3.c.-Other)*#invention disclosures*# Licensed patents (3.a.-33, modified)*# Start-Ups (3.a.-31) *Revenue from Commercialization activities (3.a.-36)

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSResearch is defined very differently in every discipline and college

*Benchmark research performance against similar colleges from other institutions as opposed to comparing with other colleges internally

Website information was not up-to-date and information on researchers and programs is difficult to find

*Educate faculty on the value of up-to-date information, *standardize and simplify procedures for keeping web pages current. *Engage experts to develop search engine optimization.

Need to increase outreach and access to non-traditional, underrepresented groups

*Promote and recognize faculty research with minorities and underrepresented groups

*# collaborations with minorities and underrepresented groups (3.b. 37-40; 4.a. -48, 49, 51)

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS• Diversity of programs in some colleges (eg., CAS)

makes it challenging for outreach• WSU general reputation is good• There is much opportunity in that general public

doesn’t know much about WSU. • Stakeholders like our land grant mission • WSU is considered easy to work with by industry

and trade associations• Most can articulate WSU strength areas in

Agriculture, Vet Med and Engineering

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS• Opportunities: There’s been an increase in opinion leaders who understand

the value of our research. This trend is attributed to: • WSU is doing more research and efforts through economic development

and government relations and trade associations that work closely with policy makers. WBBA, Clean-Tech alliance. This stimulated a lot of conversation around WSU researcher.

• WSU has had better engagement with our congressional and legislator leaders around areas of our expertise. This effects government decisions, policy and budget.

• The $ Billion fundraising campaign has greatly increased WSU’s visibility with opinion leaders in the state as they are asked to engage on the development side raising awareness.

• High profile collaborations with Alaska Airlines and Boeings raises public awareness. These are the things that come up in the survey responses.

• Value of private investments and total added value of partnerships.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

• Stories need to go on beyond the ‘receipt of grant’- stories. Articles should describe the science and how it can impact people’s lives. These are the stories that get traction.

• Internationally Specific:• Provide resources – funds to facilitate and support international

work and international travel (e.g. International Research Travel Award)

• Strategic planning and policies that create culture of value and create an “international” strategy and commitment; raise profile of outcomes to faculty from international research/publications/citations

• Look at different means to support international research, e.g. give time release to pursue/grow international collaborations and research enterprise

Don BenderTom SpencerDec. 2, 2014

Update for Research Themes Subgroup

RESEARCH THEMES SUBCOMMITTEECHARGE/GOALS

• Develop “Grand Challenge” Research Themes (Grand Challenges are of equal priority)

• Prioritize the associated research strengths based on the degree to which WSU is well placed to pursue them, including faculty strength, infrastructure, current and future sponsor interest, and maintaining intellectual diversity and creative environment.

• Identify barriers and develop recommendations to improve the research environment

• Provide metrics to assess WSU research plan

STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THIS CHARGE

•Assembled representative subcommittee membership with input from the M&I Committee and Executive Review group

•Obtained input from colleges/units/campuses, as well as individuals across the entire WSU system

•Regular subcommittee meetings with input from Regents professors at one meeting

•Involved Academic Leadership Associates facilitators

•Participated in M&I and (future) Town Hall meetings

• Grand Challenges are ambitious but achievable goals that harness WSU and partner research, scholarly and creative capabilities to solve important national or global problems and that have the potential to capture the public’s imagination

Definition of “Grand Challenge” (WSU modification of Office of Science and Technology Policy statement):

WSU Grand Challenges must beInspirational, multidisciplinary, and inclusive

Characteristics of Grand Challenge Research Themes

Criterion Key question(s)Grand Challenge Is the theme framed (articulated) as a grand challenge,

and not just a topic or subject of inquiry?

Inspirational Is the theme framed in a way that is accessible to non-academics and captures the reader’s imagination? Would a politician or community leader value the search for solutions related to this theme?

Multidisciplinary Is the theme truly multidisciplinary, calling upon intellectual resources from a demonstrably diverse set of disciplines?

Inclusive Is the theme broad enough to include diverse types of inquiry? Is it evident how WSU’s professional fields, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts intersect with the theme?

Non-aligned Does the name of the theme contain words closely associated with one or more disciplines or academic units within the University? If so, the name of the challenge theme should be reworded.

Grand Challenge Research Themes Draw on Research Strengths

Grand Challenges Theme

Grand Challenges Theme

Institutional Research Strengths

UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTResearch, Scholarship, Creativity, Educational Opportunities, Student

Experience, Outreach and Engagement

Currently Identified WSU Research Strengths

College/Campus Theme / GoalCarson College of Business 1. Behavioral Business Research

2. Corporate Governance, Ethics and Stakeholder Relations3. Global Dimensions of Business

College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

Agriculture1. Foods for Health a. Basic plant sciences: Genomics Metabolomics, and Genetics b. Crop production systems and plant breeding c. Food processing systems d. Biologically intensive (sustainable) and organic agriculture2. Animal Reproductive Biology3. Biofuels and bioproducts

Human Sciences1. Individual and Family Development, and Prevention Science2. Apparel design for specific populations, textile characteristics and applications 3. Economics: Agricultural, Behavioral, Consumer, Health, International, Marketing, Supply Chain, and Transportation4. Interior and Landscape Design

Natural Resources1. Water resource management for ecosystem services and health.2. Planning for resilience in the face of changing water cycles due to climate change. 3. The Columbia Basin and Puget Sound: Laboratories for agricultural and urban sociohydrology and economics.4. Environmental and Resource Economics

College/Campus Theme / GoalCollege of Arts and Sciences

Targets for Innovation: A. Development and adoption of clean technologiesB. Climate change and global food & water securityC. Sustaining health and wellbeingD. Decision making and integrated data sciencesE. Economic development

1. Artistic expression and cultural understandng {B,C,E}2. Bioethics {B,C,E}3. Biological basis of addiction {C}4. Chemistry of living systems {C,E}5. Child development and adjustment {C}6. Composition and musical recording {C,E}7. Corrections and public safety {C,D}8. Cultural effects on human adaption {A,B,C}9. Culture and digital technology {C,E}10. Decision making from the individual level to the public policy level {A,B,C,D,E}11. Evolutionary genetics {B,C,D,E}12. Materials Physics {A,D,E}13. Mathematical biology {B,C,E}14. Media representations of culture and gender {C}15. Media and language effects on understanding environmental issues {B}16. Nanoscience {A,E}17. Nuclear Chemistry {A,B,E}18. Plant biology {B,C}19. Statistics. modeling, and mathematical analysis {A,B,C,D,E}20. Sustainability of natural, human. and built environments {B,C,D}

Currently Identified WSU Research Strengths

College/Campus Theme / GoalCollege of Education 1. STEM education

2. Measurement and evaluation 3. Cultural and linguistic diversity 4. Leadership and innovation in teaching and learning 5. Health and wellness6. Cultural studies in education7. Management and socio-cultural studies of sport8. Students with disabilities9. Neuroscience/neuropsychology of education10. Educational technology11. Human-animal interaction

College of Medical Sciences 1. Sleep2. Cancer

College of Nursing 1. Behavioral Health and Addictions2. Community and Public Health3. Educational Innovations and Outcomes4. Patient Care Safety and Quality

College of Pharmacy 1. Genomics/Genetics2. Drug Discovery3. Quantitative Systems Pharmacology4. Multidisciplinary Health Outcomes Research/Epidemiology

Currently Identified WSU Research Strengths

College/Campus Theme / GoalCollege of Veterinary Medicine 1. DNA organization, repair, and chromosome biology

2. Global Animal Health 3. Individualized Medicine4. Immunology and Infectious Disease5. Reproductive and developmental sciences6. Systems Neurosciences7. Tissue Bioengineering and Remodeling

Murrow College of Communication 1. Health promotion, media literacy, applications of new technologies to health promotion and health literacy2. Political communication, e-democracy, civic engagement and public affairs3. Science communication and risk communication4. Media psychology and communication processes and effects

Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture

1. Bioenergy and Catalysis 2. Advanced Materials 3. Power Engineering 4. Air/Water 5. Machine Learning – Smart Environments

WSU Vancouver 1. Neuroscience - in particular, in the areas of hearing and addiction 2. Environmental Science - in particular, in the area of watershed science 3. Math and Science Education

Currently Identified WSU Research Strengths

Status of the Research Themes effort

• Faculty Committee solicited a wide range of input: • 104 survey responses from faculty;• Regent’s Professors;• Committee members from across the University.

• Possible research themes identified to-date reflect these inputs

• Draft materials include broad themes and discussion of the disciplinary and multi-disciplinary strengths that intersect with the themes

Research Themes Survey Word Cloud

• Generated by Academic Research Associates from input provided from WSU academic community via the web

Preliminary Grand Challenge Research Themes from Subcommittee

• Sustaining human health*• Information driven research (aka Big Data)*• Building human capacity through education*• Exotic materials*• Interfacial science*• Water*• Energy• Smart infrastructure• Discovering a brighter future through art and science• ???*Thematic write-ups are available on 120-Day siteNote: To be refined further at 12/15 workshop

• Fueling the Future: Sustainable energy, water, and resources• Healthy Living: Human, animal and environmental health• Independence and wellness for all• Smart Environments: Advanced materials, technologies and

infrastructure• Promoting prosperity and cultural vitality throughout our

communities• Leveraging Diversity: Commonality and difference in a time of social

and ecological change• Creating an educated society that maximizes individual and

community potential

Diamond/Robison ALA Suggested Potential Grand Challenges:

Sustaining Human Health

BARRIERS• Infrastructure

• Lack of quality and functional Core Facilities• Space• Service Center(s) for Computing/Modeling/Big Data

• Increased teaching and advising loads• Lack of support staff• Lack of federal RFP formulation• Credit distribution • Resources• Faculty lines• Lack of Medical School• Cross campus connectivity/Extension services• Mentoring of faculty – depends on department/unit and

highly variable

PLANNED ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

• Merge and/or augment candidate Grand Challenges based on input from M&I group today

• Continue to evaluate Grand Challenges and associated research strengths and barriers• Provide a preliminary list of barriers, findings and recommendations

by December 8

• Produce a refined set of inspirational and inclusive Grand Challenges and prioritize research strengths by at a December 15 workshop facilitated by Academic Leadership Associates

• Finalize documentation of Grand Challenge Research Themes, research strengths and opportunities (prioritized), barriers, metrics and recommendations for improving research environment

PROBLEMS

•Reaching consensus on our subcommittee is a challenge due to the size and intermittent participation

•Input from oversight groups would be helpful in moving forward

•Involvement of outside facilitators should greatly aid our eventual task of identifying and prioritizing research strengths

Thank you again for your continuing effort and support!