back to UPC

University Planning Council

Report on Research Support

Spring, 2000

            In response to the Senate's request that  "the University Planning Council is charged with creating an indicator or indicators of University support for faculty and/or student research and creative activities," we have undertaken an examination of funding for research at Western. Our findings are principally that:

·        Faculty research productivity is increasing at a fairly rapid rate in response to higher expectations and the interests of newly appointed faculty (See Figure #1).

·        The funding of research equipment for new faculty, and for conference fees and travel, have been considerably increased over the last several years (See Figure #2).

·        The funding to support faculty research time is, while increasing, not adequate to meet the demand. (See Figures #3, #4, #5). The UPC recommends that high priority be given to increasing funding for Summer Research Grants (see p. 7).

·        In responding to the Senate's mandate, we suggest the following four indicators of support for research: Figures #1, #2,  #4, #5. By tracking these data over the next several years, we should be able to assess key elements of  research support in relation to the growth in the size of the faculty, and the level of productivity.

Introduction: Research and the Strategic Plan

        The University's Strategic Plan states that (emphasis provided):  " The University exists to promote learning and scholarship of the highest possible quality, and all parts of the institution are justified by the extent to which they support that mission," and further that the faculty are to be, "… committed to excellence in teaching and learning, and actively engaged in scholarship, research and creative activity both to support teaching and for the advancement of knowledge.”  

        Scholarship, research, and creative activity are at the heart of the university's mission. Given the fact that Western does not have doctoral programs and large scale research institutes, resources for research must necessarily be less substantial than those available at "Research I" universities. However, Western does have a large and growing sector of funded research, a considerable investment in Masters programs, and a reputation as a teaching institution that could not be sustained without faculty competent and active in their fields of expertise.

        As will be apparent, Western's faculty are remarkably productive given that we have higher teaching loads than Research I institutions. This increase in productivity, that both responds to and reinforces expectations, comes at a time when the number of faculty has been growing only slowly. It is apparent that for many faculty research has been "added on" to an already substantial teaching load. For these reasons, the question of research resources is especially important and timely.

        In assessing the resource base for research activities, we need to be aware that research is interwoven with the teaching mission of the university, and that funding for the two cannot easily be separated. In the report below, we have considered two categories where the separation is at least somewhat clear: equipment funding and support for faculty time for research. We have not included travel funding, even though it is a major and highly significant component of the resource base, because the separation of research and teaching is nearly impossible in this category. Suffice it to say that the provision for conference fees through the foundation, the departmental travel allocations, and the college and university level travel support funding are all critical to the research mission of the university.

Faculty Research Productivity

        The increase in research productivity is apparent in Figure #1. The number of articles has nearly doubled in four years (from 236 to 423), and the number of books and edited volumes has increased sharply (from 67 to 105) in the same period. Since the number of full time faculty has increased by about 6% over the last four years, almost all of the increase can be attributed to added effort by the faculty and very likely reflects rising standards for tenure and promotion.  In 1998/99, faculty were publishing, on average, nearly one scholarly article per faculty member, up from about .56 per faculty member four years earlier. Even allowing for possible under-reporting in the first years of this survey, that is a remarkable level of current productivity. We recommend that the data for Figure #1 be collected in the most systematic possible fashion, so that we can be sure that it is accurate and comparable in succeeding years. The data on increasing productivity highlights the importance of the level of support for the equipment, time, travel expenses, and professional costs associated with this effort. 

Figure # 1 - Research Productivity / No. of Full Time Faculty *

Funding for Research Equipment

        It is difficult to separate out the funding for research-related equipment from teaching-related equipment funding. A further complication is that, while university level funding can be traced through the BFR, both college and departmental level funding remains obscured by multiple accounting categories requiring a level of examination beyond the scope of this committee. Consequently, it is important to bear in mind that what is represented in  Figure #2 is a lesser fraction of the whole amount expended by the university on research equipment.

        Figure #2: MATCHING, START-UP AND EQUIPMENT-RELATED FUNDS

                                                University Level Funding

        The funding reported in Figure #2 represents mainly the provision for start-up equipment for new faculty as well as matching funds for grants. Also included are funds distributed to colleges for faculty support, much of which is spent on equipment.

        Not reported here is funding at the college and departmental level for equipment used in research exclusively, or used for research as well as teaching. An additional source of research equipment funding not reported here are the substantial amounts invested in research-related equipment when the three new science buildings were constructed. Finally, the funding for technology improvements, whether of  infrastructure or other computer equipment, is only partially reflected here. The $13 million legislatively appropriated project for infrastructure upgrade is a notable example. The problem once again is the dual difficulty of separating research from teaching equipment, and of accounting for all of the college and departmental level funding that goes into technology purchases.

        What can be determined from  Figure #2  is that the provision for start-up equipment from university-level funds has been substantially increased to $250,000 per year -- and that commitment has been continued for FY2000. This will provide welcome relief to other budgets that have been tapped for this purpose. Start-up equipment funding helps a small, but vital, component of the faculty and plays a significant role in attracting good new faculty to Western.

        The question that is not addressed by these data is the longer term provision for enhancing, maintaining, and replacing research equipment apart from start-up or new building funding. Perhaps a part of this need will be addressed by the use of resources at the college and departmental level that were formerly tapped for the purpose of providing start-up equipment.

The data in Figure #2 also demonstrate that funding from "Indirect Costs" has increased substantially over the last 8 fiscal years: from just under $50,000 to over $200,000. This reflects increased grant activity, and is the result of faculty collaboration with the staff of the Bureau for Faculty Research.

Support for Faculty Research Time and Research Expenses

        Given the difficulty of doing sustained research projects with teaching loads as they are at Western, support for faculty research time is a crucial resource. Perhaps this is the portion of research funding that influences most directly whether research activity increases, remains stable, or decreases.

        Sabbaticals are the principal program in support of time for faculty research, though the program also supports teaching-related leaves. The number of quarters of leave granted has grown in direct proportion to the increase in the size of the faculty, since the number is established by state law as a percentage of the faculty. The relationship between Quarters Granted and Quarters Requested has varied. However, the gap between supply and demand may have contributed to a perception that leaves are hard to get, and that, in turn, may have discouraged applicants. In any event, while this is an immensely important program in support of research, we cannot expect it to grow given the state-imposed limits on the number of available quarters.

Figure #3 - Professional Leaves Granted / Requested

        Other sources of funding for faculty research time are indicated in Figure #4. As  Figure #4 indicates, overall funding for research time and expenses has been increasing steadily over the last eight years. It is quite likely that the increase in faculty research productivity recorded in Figure #1 is a direct result of this funding pattern.

                                                                        Figure #4