Date

Mar 31, 2014

Attendees

  • David Hostetter, David Bond, Vicki Hanson, Callie Babbitt, Jennifer Schneider, Tandra Miller, Hrushi (grad student senator), James Watters, Eric Hittinger, Andrew Sears, Joel Kastner, Andrew Herbert, Meredith Smith, Manuel Campanelli, Puru Purushotham

Discussion Items

Callie and Vicki will present to the research and graduate education subcommittee to the board next week.  This meeting will focus on the 5 or 6 questions of interest to the task force for their feedback and the elements of a strong research culture. 

Callie will send updated meetings via outlook for the next two meetings.

Callie reiterated her offer to accept new ideas and meet with anyone on the task force.

Callie shared five themes identified by the task force so far.  (see Callie’s slide)

  1. Research at RIT is still a “startup” effort.
    1. Imaging Science Ph.D. goes back to 1992, Al Simone invested $10 million in research.  Is this a “start up?”  The board may have a different view. (Watters)
    2. Context might help.  Starting research is an expensive proposition.  Other universities invest much more on an annual basis. (Sears)
  2. Investment must be strategic and focused.
  3. Identification of strategic strengths must have faculty input and be agile.
    1. We also need to consider areas where we might have an impact in addition to growth. (Sears)
  4. Advancement will require top down support and structure.
  5. Advancement will also require a creative environment.

Other comments:

Do we really need interdisciplinarity in professional programs?  Employers care about skills. Most of our programs are “disciplinary” and this drives faculty hires.  (Herbert)


What specific questions would we put to the board?

  1. What is the relative importance of fundamental research?  Does the board have a shared understanding of research with the task force?  What measures of success would we use for RGE?
  2.  What do graduate programs contribute to RIT?  Why should we pursue and grow them? (Hittinger)
  3. What should our strategy be for research for international students? (Hrushi)
  4. What are the competitive or disruptive threats to RIT graduate education? What does RIT graduate education look like in 10 years? (Bond)
  5. How does research and graduate education enhance RIT’s brand? (Hostetter)
  6.  What is the value proposition for on campus graduate education?  Consider the GaTech online degree.  Would trustees see greater value in employees with research experiences that others do not have?  Does this lead to a valued skill set?  (Watters)


Creative and intellectual environment

What does the idea of research culture mean to you?

Innovation and invention.  Jenn and Manuela suggested that the imparting of skill sets enabling students to innovate and invent is central to a research culture.

Andy shared his experience with running a series of departmental seminar with presentations on research.  This would happen regularly at other universities and may suggest a lack of research culture at RIT.

We have three categories of graduate student: those that want a good job; those that want to invent and innovate; and those that want to do discovery research.  We likely do not have a single graduate culture at RIT.

Simple things could motivate and encourage graduate students.  Physical space also matters, the ability to make contact contributes to culture.

Critical mass is an issue in certain parts of RIT.  Some faculty are the lone researchers in their departments and some students have difficulty finding mentors, models, and colleagues.  Single researchers are more likely to leave.

Looking at RIT from the outside, it is difficult to tell what RIT centers are real and have a critical mass.  You can look at UB and others and get a clearer picture of what the research centers are.

What ideas would make a difference to you?

Strong teams of faculty and students working on interesting problems make it easier to recruit higher quality faculty and students.

RIT needs to identify, articulate and invest in 3 or 4 core areas of strength.  This will create a class system and not everyone will be happy.  What is the best process for doing so?

Does every faculty member need to be involved in research and scholarship?  Not everyone wants to, and it can be difficult for students to distinguish those that do it well.

Discussion of news stories.  Exciting things are happening at RIT and many are not well known outside RIT.

 

Next Steps

Homework: Do we have the right administrative structures to support collaboration in research and graduate education?  What can we change?

2 commentaires

  1. Hi 

    I won't be able to attend the next meeting.

    There are several things that continue to be ignored, or aren't addressed explicitly. 

    Onee problem at RIT is that in many departments and colleges there are huge differences in the incidence of grad students. IN CLA there are a few MS programs. Outside of a few departments there are no grad programs. Probably <1/3rd of CLA faculty ever work with grad students. Yet the vast majority of these folks do research. Thus research and grad education overlap, but one does not equal the other.

    Is our strategic plan to increase faculty 'access' to grad students? for more to contribute to graduate education? If so, there needs to be some kind of more inclusive effort to offer graduate programs. And those offering terminal degrees somehow must tap into a HUGE pool of faculty not involved in graduate education already. There are often meet and greets between colleges, but these tend not to involve graduate students directly.

    Finally, in Esa's diagram often cited in our meetings, I think it's interesting the term 'Graduate Faculty' is used. Not Faculty, but 'Graduate Faculty'. Do these exist? I wonder if we should have some system for designating, training, and maintaining Grad Faculty?

    Andy