Revised November 30, 2006

R(1)

ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
SUPPORT FOR FACULTY RESEARCH

I. OBJECTIVES OF THE SUMMER RESEARCH PROGRAM

Significant faculty research is a key component of the activities of leading business schools. To encourage research efforts, the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University has a program for sponsoring research. The Research Program Committee and Academic Unit Heads provide advice and assistance to the faculty in participating in this activity and to the Dean in its administration.

The objective of the Summer Research Program Committee is to promote scholarly research among faculty members of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. Any member of the faculty who holds a faculty appointment in the Robinson College of Business spanning the academic years prior and subsequent to the summer for which funding is requested is eligible to apply for the resources of the Summer Research Program, except new faculty members who have guaranteed summer funding under the terms of their hire. It is the intent of the Committee both to encourage less experienced researchers to develop a pattern of research endeavor early in their academic careers, and to reinforce the continued efforts of productive established researchers.

The Research Program Committee (RPC) evaluates proposals for summer research support from faculty members and makes recommendations of the Committee’s ratings of proposal quality to the Associate Dean. A subcommittee (AUHC) of the RCB Executive Committee consisting of Academic Unit Heads and the Associate Dean or other Dean's designee with corresponding responsibilities evaluates the priority of faculty members who have submitted proposals for summer research support, based on their research productivity given stage of career and other relevant factors, and makes recommendations of the Committee’s ratings of applicants’ priority. The average quality score and average priority score are combined with equal weight to produce an overall score; those overall scores are rank ordered to determine which faculty members will receive summer research support, subject to budget constraints determined by the Dean/Associate Dean for the total number of course releases that can be awarded for that summer. Normally, proposals will be funded for summer term for 10% of the faculty member's academic year salary.

The purpose of a research project may be either basic or applied; the methodology may be either theoretical, qualitative empirical, or quantitative empirical; the research project may be at any stage, early to late, as long as its resulting manuscript has not been accepted for publication. No hierarchy is implied by this listing. All types of research projects compete for available resources on an equal basis.

II. POLICIES GOVERNING REGULAR RESEARCH GRANTS

A. Proposal Deadline

Research proposals are submitted to the Research Program. The deadline for submission is the first Monday in February.

One month before the deadline, the Associate Dean will send a reminder memorandum to departments, institutes, and other interested entities of the College to potential researchers. Each department and institute's Research Program Committee member should also remind faculty of their unit about the deadlines. The proposer is responsible for assuring that requests arrive at the Research Program Office on time.

B. Submission Procedures

1. The proposal must be prefaced by the following (see blank copies attached)

• Form A: Proposal Evaluation Worksheet. (Goes to RPC) Note that the faculty member’s name should not appear on Form A or on the proposal itself, as proposals are "blind" reviewed by the RPC.
  
  
• Form B: Proposal Identification Cover Sheet. (Stays in Research Program Office) This transmittal sheet links the proposal title to the name and department affiliation of the faculty member so proposals can be "blind" reviewed.
  
  
• Current vita: (Goes to AUHC) Any publications ranked as "Premier" in the department's list of "target academic journals" should be so noted, as well as interdisciplinary publications ranked as "Premier" in any other RCB department’s list of "target academic journals."
  
  

2. The body of the proposal must not exceed six double-spaced typewritten pages (12 point Times Roman or equivalent) including references and figures. Reasonable appendices such as questionnaires or letters from data providers may be included and do not count against the six page limit.

3. The proposal must contain the following sections, clearly labeled with section headings:

(1) CONCISE STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTION

(2) IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION

(3) METHODOLOGY

(4) WORK ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE; WORK REMAINING TO BE DONE

(5) EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION

(See Appendix 1, Suggestions for Preparing Proposals for Research Program Committee Funding.)

4. For a project to be eligible for support, it cannot have been funded previously by the Summer Research Program and the final manuscript should not have been accepted for publication already.

5. Grants will not be awarded for the writing of textbooks or classroom materials per se, or for projects that are otherwise funded, or for the writing of doctoral theses.

6. Number of copies of proposal to be submitted: 10.

C. Reporting Requirement

Before taking any new grant for research, the researcher must submit to the Research Program Office a report of sufficient quality to warrant use for the purpose specified in the request for support; i.e., a manuscript for submission to a refereed journal; a model/system appropriate for further use; etc. A subsequent grant will not be awarded until an earlier one has been satisfied by an accepted written report. An interim working paper may be accepted if it is accompanied by a credible plan for later publication. The Summer Research Program reserves the right to reject reports that it believes do not meet acceptable standards. The Research Program Office is to be notified about the ultimate utilization of the manuscript. If a paper is published, a single reprint should be supplied to the Research Program Office for its files.

In rare cases the Associate Dean may recommend adjustments to an existing obligation where complete justification is provided and where circumstances warrant.

Publications arising from research funded by the RCB should carry the following notation:

"This research was supported, in part, by a research grant from the
Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University"

III. REVIEW PROCESS FOR SUMMER RESEARCH PROPOSALS

A. Quality Assessment by Research Program Committee

Once the proposals reach the Research Program Committee, each member of the Research Program Committee examines the proposals on their merits and evaluates them on the basis of the criteria and scoring procedures outlined below. The Evaluation Worksheet (Form A) contains the space for a member of the Committee to evaluate the proposal's quality and priority.

Quality is assessed on a 100 point scale. A Committee member who has not had adequate opportunity to review a proposal, or is not comfortable doing so, is expected to abstain from voting on that proposal. Scores of 90 or above indicate that, based on familiarity with the specific research area and methodology, the Committee member is extremely confident that the proposed research would be an outstanding contribution to the field. Scores of 50 or below indicate that, based on familiarity with the specific research area and methodology, the Committee member is extremely confident that the proposed research would be very unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to the field.

Committee members are encouraged to provide written comments for all proposals, and are required to provide comments for proposals rated above 90 or below 50. (Common weaknesses may be indicated by checkboxes.)

Each Committee member forwards the completed Evaluation Worksheets (Form A) promptly to the Chair. The Chair reviews the quality scores and comments of each member of the Committee, summarizes the scores and comments, and promptly reports back to the members the results of the individual evaluations. The Research Program Committee meets together to discuss the results and to resolve disagreements based on factual misunderstandings. After the discussion, the Committee members will re-rate the proposals as desired, by secret ballot. The Committee rating at this point will be treated as final. The final overall quality score for each proposal is defined by the average of the voting Committee members’ quality scores, after the highest and lowest scores have been deleted.

B. Priority Assessment by Academic Unit Heads Committee

The priority score for any faculty member’s proposal depends on the proposer's overall research productivity relative to rank and seniority. Priority scores range from zero to 1.0. Researchers who are judged exceptionally productive relative to their rank and seniority might receive a score of 1.0.

Proposals leading to premier refereed journal articles and externally-funded research grants and contracts are sought by the Committee. Members of the Academic Unit Heads Committee receive the current vita of each proposing faculty member, along with the journal quality lists. Each AUHC member assigns a priority score to each faculty member.

Each Committee member forwards the completed Priority scoring sheets promptly to the AUHC Chair. The AUHC Chair reviews the priority scores and comments of each member of the Committee, summarizes the scores and comments, and promptly reports back to the members the results of the individual evaluations. The Academic Unit Heads Program Committee meets together to discuss the results and to resolve disagreements. After the discussion, the Committee members will re-rate the faculty members’ priorities as desired. The Committee rating at this point will be treated as final. The final overall priority score for each faculty member is defined by the average of the Committee members’ quality scores, after the highest and lowest scores have been deleted.

C. Awarding of Research Grants

Proposals are ranked according to the product of their average quality and average priority scores. The Associate Dean will determine the cutoff for funding on the basis of the availability of resources.

The Associate Dean notifies the author of each proposal whether or not that proposal has been approved for funding (subject to satisfaction of any outstanding reporting requirements). Copies of this notification are forwarded to the Dean, the Research Program Committee Chair, and the chair of the researcher's department.

IV. INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROGRAM COMMITTEE

In accordance with Section VI of the RCB bylaws, members of the Research Program Committee are elected by the Faculty. Each Department, or Institute, elects one member for a three year term. They act as liaison between the Committee and faculty researchers in their department, to provide guidance and encouragement in preparing internal and external proposals. Department Chairs and Committee members are encouraged to support a mix of proposals from their units, and to consider these proposals in terms of their unique contributions to the discipline and business community, and the quality of the research process.

Members of the Committee serve in a College level capacity once the proposals reach the Committee. In this capacity they are expected to be objective rather than serving as advocates for proposals submitted by their departments.

When a proposal is submitted by a Committee member, that member shall not be present during any discussion of his/her proposal, nor shall he/she vote on that proposal.

Each year, the Dean appoints a faculty member to chair the RCB Research Program Committee, from among those faculty members elected by their departments and institutes to that Committee.