Date

April 21, 2014


Attending: 

Callie Babbitt, Vicki Hanson, Peter Hauser, Meredith Smith, Andrew Sears, Jennifer Schneider, Laurence Sugarman, Andre Hudson, Manuela Campanelli,Eric Hittinger, David Bond, Ryne Raffaelle, John Ettlie, Jennifer Santoru, Puru Purushotham, Bruce Austin, Elizabeth Kronfield, Pengcheng Shi, Joel Kastner, Linda Underhill, Andy Herbert, Harvey Palmer, Tandra Miller

 

General Discussion

RIT investment in research. Ryne started the meeting with a summary of faculty hiring and research data.  RIT has hired 747 faculty from 1997 to 2013, and 103 of them have won an award over the past 19 months.  This data is preliminary and required further analysis.  It does not separate tenure track faculty or junior from senior faculty. 

 

Ryne also analyzed NSF HERD data to rank RIT against like universities.  RIT has a lower ratio of total to institutional research expenditures (the average is 4:1, RIT is 3:1).  Institutions that realize $100M in annual awards are investing (or spending from institutional funds) $25 - $30M annually.  A discussion of the elements of institutional expenditures followed.

 

A further discussion of investment in research followed.  Most of the investment described is by formula: policies to support graduate students and to return F&A for example.  RIT’s staffing for sponsored research is comparable and generally leaner than peer institutions.

 

Graduate student feedback.  Callie reported on a discussion with graduate students following the Graduate Research Symposium luncheon.  About half of the students intended to enter academia, and about 40% indicated an interest in industrial careers.  Some felt they would benefit from more experience in teaching, and career counseling.  Some felt that RIT is very undergraduate centric in services offered to students.  The task force observed that RIT’s graduate programs are very heterogeneous and this variation across programs may lead to these sentiments.

 

Puru asked if undergraduate education quality corresponded with the quality of graduate programs.  Is investment in research and graduate programs a strategic consideration for undergraduate programs?  Intuitively, one can argue that the research and graduate education RIT has conducted since 1999-2000 has enhanced its reputation and led to increased selectivity and quality in undergraduate programs.

 

Subcommittees Reports

Vicki asked for reports from the three subcommittees:

 

Goal 1: RIT will make focused investment to grow strategic areas of research excellence

The process for determining the areas is as important as the areas themselves.  It is important to revisit them periodically (every 3 – 5 years) through a sustained process.  The group envisioned a series of white papers from faculty routed through deans to support areas and investment ($2M to $5M). Commitment over the course of the 5 year period is essential but investments should not be made in perpetuity.  The white papers should be reviewed by a cross college, interdisciplinary, unbiased group. 

 

Focus area suggestions:

  • downstream agricultural products and services,
  • access technology and inclusion,
  • global health and security (threat and vulnerability detection and avoidance)
  • advanced manufacturing and design

 

Each provides opportunities for a variety of faculty to engage and appears to have global impact and strong narrative.  The question about “non-stakeholders” in these areas was discussed.  Also, the task force considered appropriate measures of success for these areas.  They should be self-sustaining after five years, ultimately.  Metrics should be part of the proposal and design of the area. 

 

The idea of “weigh the beans, don't count the beans” was inspirational within this group and relevant to Goals 2 and 3. 

 

Goal 2: RIT will create strong structures for sustaining investments for RIT research success

Eric described a similar proposal process with 3 – 5 year timelines.  The process would integrate faculty hires and research space.  The elements were very similar to Goal 1.

 

Puru asked 1) if RIT was efficiently pursuing available funds in these areas of research and 2) how RIT can drive excellence without instituting a mandate and yielding mediocrity.

 

The group suggests that each strategic area have physical space allocated.  The space should be central and reflective of RIT’s priority.

 

These areas are envisioned as cooperative areas for everyone, including undergraduates. 

 

A full report from this group is available here.

 

Goal 3: RIT will create a culture that supports research and graduate student success

Group 3 shared their report on the wiki.  Linda’s comments represent a useful summary. 

 

Andy observed that specific locations for people to run into each other and engage in discussion, including a faculty club and graduate student club.   Serendipitous collaborative space would yield returns.

 

RIT lacks a designation for graduate faculty.  People should have some qualification for mentoring graduate students.  Discussion of research methods education.

 

Harvey suggested that this discussion was more in the realm of continuous improvement and not strategic planning.  This is something everyone agrees on and we should just do as a matter of course.

 

Conclusion

Callie and Vicki will begin to put this information in the tabular format for the Strategic Planning Steering Committee.  Callie offered to put this on the wiki and to meet with any subgroup during the week.