Faculty Grants and Leaves
Faculty Research Grants and Leaves:
Purpose of Research Grants & Leaves
To encourage professional development and effective teaching through research and to encourage faculty to make research results available to a public forum for professional or popular consideration. New faculty and new research areas are encouraged in the proposal review process.
Description of Research Grants and Leaves
- The research grant is for research outside the contract year. It will normally include a stipend of $3000.
- The research grant will include a designated amount for relevant and appropriate expenses, payable on presentation of receipts.
- Faculty on eleven or twelve-month contracts are ineligible for research stipends. They may apply for research leaves and for relevant and appropriate expenses.
- Recipients will need to complete their projects or negotiate an acceptable resolution with the Faculty Development Committee, in order to be eligible for any subsequent grant or leave.
- Faculty approved for sabbaticals may submit proposals for appropriate research expenses, but awards will not include any stipend.
- The research leave is a one-semester, teaching-load reduction of up to three (3) hours (requests with appropriate rationale for six (6) hours will be considered in rare instances due to limited funding).
- The research leave will include a designated amount for relevant and appropriate expenses, payable on presentation of receipts.
- A faculty member with an overload contract may not receive a research leave in the same semester as the overload. Faculty on nine-month contracts who have taught an overload during the school year may apply for research grants.
- Applicants for leaves need to include a copy of emails indicating awareness of effect of load and support from the dean of the appropriate school.
The Faculty Development Committee will review the proposals and select those to receive grants or leaves. If any members of the committee have submitted proposals, they will not participate in the review and selection process.
Criteria for Eligibility
- The proposal is for research appropriate to the applicant’s field.
- The applicant must be a returning full-time faculty member.
- The committee will give priority to proposals not already supported by grants that include a stipend, load credit, or other leaves.
- The committee will give priority to new proposals and to proposals from new faculty. Resubmission of similar or identical proposals without indicating how this proposal builds on work from previous years will not be considered.
- The committee will not consider an additional proposal until the applicant has completed previously funded projects or negotiated an acceptable resolution with the Faculty Development Committee.
- The committee will not normally consider proposals related to the completion of a graduate degree.
- The purchase of equipment should be funded by other sources.
Requirements for the Proposal
NOTE: A GFU Proposal Writing Workshop for Research Grants and Leaves is on video (approx. 40 min.) in both the MLRC and the Portland Center Library. The videos are on permanent reserve and are listed under “FDC 101, Becky Ankeny.” At the MLRC this video is labeled “Video 12.”
Body(3 pages recommended)
- Name of faculty member.
- Title of proposal. This refers to the content and purpose of the research.
- Type of proposal. Designate as a “Proposal for a Grant” or as a “Proposal for Leave.” If proposing a leave, designate how many hours of load requested.
- A 100-word abstract that communicates the purpose and significance of the research.
- Literature review.
- Description of methodology.
- Specific audience for finished product that includes possible journals to which it can be submitted and the acceptance rate of the journals.
- Estimate of projected expenses beyond stipend.
- Project schedule, including anticipated date of completion.
- For research leaves, include a statement of awareness of effect on load and support from the dean of the appropriate school (copies of emails are appropriate).
- Up-to-date curriculum vitae, including research grants or leaves received at GFU or elsewhere.
- Relevant section from current Faculty Growth Plan.
- Any additional supporting materials.
Accountability, Timeline for Reporting and Submitting Approved Expenses
Research grant or leave recipients will report to the Faculty Development Committee on the progress of their projects toward completion by August 15 of the year following the award. They will submit evidence of completing their projects by providing the Faculty Development Committee with documentation of any presentation, publication, or performance resulting from the underwritten research. Additionally, recipients may be asked to share their projects with the faculty through an appropriate public venue.
As possible, request any reimbursement for research grant expenses by June 30. All reimbursement for grant expenses must be requested by October 15. Similarly, for fall leaves, request any reimbursement by December 1, with a final date of February 1; for spring leaves, request reimbursement by April 1, with a final date of June 15.
Recipients will be expected to acknowledge GFU support in all publications resulting from the grant or leave. The acknowledgement statement should read, “This project was supported in part by the George Fox University Grant GFUYYYYG##“- or for leaves with “George Fox University Grant GFUYYYYL##.”
Submission Instructions, Dates, and Deadlines
- Call for proposals sent out electronically by October 15, 2010.
- All proposals should be submitted electronically. Please submit all proposals and associated files as file attachments in an email to Karlyn Fleming (firstname.lastname@example.org) in the Academic Affairs Office. For simplicity, you are encouraged to combine all materials into one electronic file.
- Proposals must be received in the Academic Affairs Office by November 19, 2010. No late or incomplete proposals will be considered.
- You will receive a confirmation by email from the FDC Chair that your proposal has been received. If you have not received your confirmation email within a week, please contact the FDC Chair.
- Recipients will be announced in early January.
Thank you for your work to prepare a proposal and for your interest in pursuing funding from the Faculty Development Committee for your scholarship and development as a faculty member of the George Fox University community.
2010-11 Faculty Development Committee
- John Schmitt (A & S)* Convener/Chair
- Marc Shelton (E)
- Mike Magill (A & S)
- Deb Herb-Sepich (SB)
- Jeannine Graham (A & S)
- Terry Huffman (E)
- Kris Kays (BHS)
- Dwight Kimberly (A & S)
- Matt Meyer (A & S)
- Provost Council Rep: Karen Buchanan
Evaluating Research Grant and Leave Proposals
Qualitative Rating Scale Guidelines
- Competence: the applicant’s vita shows relevant competence to carry out the proposed project, or demonstrates the manner in which such competence will be secured from others.
- 3 points Applicant has produced similar scholarly works in the past which have been recognized in peer reviewed settings in the related field
- 2 points Applicant has produced similar scholarly works in the past but without peer review
- 1 point Applicant’s vita shows the requisite training to be minimally competent to conduct the proposed work
- 3 points The proposal introduces something new which will make a significant contribution to the field
- 2 points The proposal will make an incremental addition to present knowledge
- 1 point It is doubtful that the proposal will make a contribution to the field
- 3 points Proposed audience includes the element of external review
- 2 points Audience lacks external review
- 1 point Audience is not clearly identified
- Extractable Abstract
- 3 points Abstract includes statement of context, problem statement, description of methods and procedures, and shows potential contribution of proposed project
- 2 points Abstract has two or three of the above, but is not complete
- 1 point Abstract has one element of the above, but is not complete
- Quality and currency of documentation of the existing knowledge or skill base of the discipline.
- 3 points Proposal demonstrates good awareness of the present state of the discipline and how the proposed project will contribute
- 2 points Proposal includes elements of elements of 3-point response but lacks clarity and completeness in detail
- 1 point The proposal fails to address adequately the current knowledge or skill base of the discipline.
- Materials and methods
- 3 points The proposal describes the materials and methods in sufficient detail that a knowledgeable scholar in the discipline should be able to conduct the study
- 2 points Materials and methods are generally described, but some details are vague or undecided
- 1 point Elements of materials and methods are absent
- Supporting materials
- 3 points The proposal makes clear how the proposed project fits into the personal growth plan of the proposer, how it fits into the relevant academic discipline, and how it fits into GFU scholarship standards.
- 2 points Some elements of a 3-point response are missing or details are vague or incomplete
- 1 point The proposal does not address how the proposed project fits into the personal growth plan of the proposer, how it fits into the relevant academic discipline, and how it fits into GFU scholarship
- Schedule and Expenses
- 3 points Schedule seems reasonable given the scope of the project and the other responsibilities of the individual; expenses demonstrate a thoughtful balancing of necessary expenses to complete the proposed project and good stewardship
- 2 points Schedule is provided but lacks one or more elements of 3-point response
- 1 point Schedule and expenses not present
Final Comment: Any missing material potentially disqualifies a proposal—it implies that the author has not adequately addressed a major area of essential concern regarding the proposed project.