Program Description and Guidelines
RATIONALE
Life University is proud to recognize the achievements of faculty and staff through institutionally funded programs that promote, encourage and reward excellence in research, scholarly and creative/entrepreneurial activity. By research, scholarly, and creative works we are referring to that systematic process of experimentation, investigation, innovation, and creative production, the significance of which is validated by peers and the results of which are disseminated to audiences inside and outside the academy. These activities are central to the Life University mission, the institution’s strategic priorities for growth and efforts to sustain a vibrant and engaged community of faculty and staff who advance knowledge and influence standards of practice across diverse disciplines and professions.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Research, Scholarly, and Creative Works, or RSCW, is one such internal program that is designed to stimulate an environment and culture of inquiry, innovation and excellence. The program provides opportunities for faculty and staff, across both colleges and within all academic, administrative and support units, to compete for tier-based awards based on achievements in one of three categories: research, scholarship, or entrepreneurial/creative works. In addition to a nominal cash stipend, the awards provide an opportunity to highlight work that the campus community has deemed exceptional, exemplary, or commendable. The program’s objectives include the following:
• Increase faculty and staff engagement in research, scholarly and creative activities.
• Recognize campus community stakeholders – at every level of the organization – who have made significant impact in their fields and/or specialties.
• Encourage excellence in the scholarship of discovery, scholarship of integration, scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.
• Raise the visibility of Life University as a place for innovation and excellence among broad audiences inside and outside of the academy.
Contingent upon the availability of funding, awards are given annually during a campus-wide ceremony. Awards are made on a project basis and range from $2,500 (for projects judged as having exceptional significance), to $1,500 (for projects judged as having exemplary significance), to $500 (for projects deemed to have commendable significance). The program is administered by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). Applications are reviewed by a cross-representational committee of faculty and staff. Final award decisions are made by the Vice President of Academic Affairs.
ELIGIBILITY:
RSCW is open to faculty and staff – at every personnel level and professorial rank – who are in good standing with the university and who submit a complete application package by the posted deadline date and time. Additional eligibility guidelines are included below:
• Awards are made on a project basis, with an application submitted by the Principal Investigator (PI) or Project Director (PD) of record – as reflected on published documents. Submissions are limited to ONE project per PI/PD per category (see below) per academic year.
• All projects, irrespective of type, must have been presented, published or received peer acknowledgement (inclusive of external grant support) during the academic year in which application for award consideration is made.
• Applicants may not submit for the same or variation of a project that has previously been awarded funding.
• Finally, if an applicant has any outstanding financial obligations to the university or has been placed on probation, the individual will not be eligible to apply to the program until those issues have been satisfied.
TYPES OF PROJECTS:
In keeping with the Boyer (1990) model of research and scholarship, projects that applicants have undertaken and are submitting for award consideration must fall into one of the following categories:
- Category I: Research/Discovery… inclusive of basic, applied, or clinical research, with a special emphasis on multi-disciplinary efforts, the goal of which is to test existing paradigms and/or develop knowledge and standards of practice.
o Example(s):
- Study that examines the role and impact of telehealth technologies in providing access to care to an under-served, rural community in southwest Georgia.
- Collaborative study involving researchers, practitioners and educators in neurochemistry, nutrition, and psychology to explore how sound influences the perception and enjoyment of food.
- Case Study series examining non-operative treatment/interventions in the management of neuromusculoskeletal disorders in the neck and upper extremities of baseball, basketball, and tennis athletes.
- Project examining the use of educational technologies on student engagement and learning in an introductory statistics course.
- Category II: Scholarship… broadly defined to include:
o Published analyses that use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate knowledge and make connections within and across disciplines;
o Analyses that address and can be applied to real-world challenges.
o Analyses that undertake evidence-based approaches to the study of teaching and learning.
• Master series workshop, presented at the national meeting of the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), on methodologies for workplace optimization in small organizations.
• Paper at annual Lilly Conference that presents findings from year-long study examining the impact of “flipped classroom” with enrollments of 100+ on student engagement and learning outcomes.
• Chapter in textbook on the history of African American and Latina women in the chiropractic profession.
Category III: Entrepreneurial/Creative Work… that takes an innovative approach to developing or delivering a product, service, solution or creative work.
o Example(s):
- Instagram video to teach elementary-school-aged children about chiropractic care which received recognition by the National Education Association (NEA).
- Documentary screenplay at the Bucharest International Film Festival which received a juried prize.
- Mobile app that helps users practice mindfulness to relieve stress and increase healthy emotional habits which made it to Finalist at the Edison Award™ for innovation.
[These examples are for illustration purposes and do not constitute a full, exhaustive or complete list of possibilities. More detailed information on the Boyer model and definition of scholarship as applied to Life University can be found in the Life University Faculty Handbook (2016), pp. 67-59; 93-64. Accessed at https://www.life.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FACULTY-HANDBOOK-2016-11-30.pdf ].
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES:
Notices of availability and calls for applications are published in Life News, on the CETL website and campus-wide announcements through Blackboard during Week 10 of Spring Quarter and Weeks 1, 3, and 5 of Summer Quarter. Completed applications are due electronically by Week 6 of Summer Quarter.
Applications
A complete application packet must include the following items:
Part I: Application Cover Sheet (one page)
- Project Name and Description
- Journal Impact Factor (if applicable) - The journal impact factor measures the frequency in which a journal’s articles are cited for a particular year. This factor lends credence to the importance of the journal and establishes its rank.
The impact factor can be calculated by dividing the last two years of the number of articles cited by the total number of articles published. a/b=impact factor
- Peer Review Type – Peer review is the assessment made by experts in your field as to the merits of your academic work. This process is essential to determining the work’s readiness for publication.
Examples of peer review include: single blind peer review, double blind
peer review, open peer review, collaborative peer review, third-party peer review, post-publication peer review, and cascading peer review. In-depth explanation of each type of peer review can be found here.
- Category Applying For
- Name, Email and Phone Number of person making submission
- Department/Program/College of person making submission
- Role (Primary author, Co-author, Lead researcher, co-researcher, lead developer, co-developer, etc.)
Part II: Statement of Impact (two-page limit)
A brief narrative explaining:
• Intellectual Merit
o The objective of the work and its relevance/significance/potential to advance knowledge and/or influence unique and exciting ideas in the discipline/profession.
• Rigor
o description of the organization or group which published, presented or acknowledged the work and the process used to judge the work
o description of the publication or conference/gathering where the work was published or presented, and the process used to judge eligibility for presentation or publication.
• Relevance
o to the mission of Life University
o to society more broadly
Part III: Appendices
- Two (2) letters from colleagues supporting the quality of the research, scholarly or creative/entrepreneurial activity. Letters should be from colleagues in the field, and preferably, external to the institution.
- Electronic copy of the publication or program where research, article, or project appeared, was recognized, and/or took place.
- Electronic copy of the notice of grant award, if applicable.
- Signed statement of Authorship and Percent Contribution from Collaborators on the Project.
REVIEW PROCESS
Applications will be reviewed by an Awards Committee composed of a cross-representation of faculty and staff from academic and administrative units. Applications will be reviewed against a set of published guidelines and metrics which assess Intellectual Merit, Rigor and Relevance as applied to the funding category. Tabulated scores will determine whether the application meets the exceptional standard (11-12 points), the exemplary standard (7-10 points), or the commendable (0-6 points) standard.
The review process is as follows
1. CETL issues Call for Applications.
2. Applicant submits Application Packet – electronically.
3. CETL reviews applications for completeness, compiles and distributes application packets to members, along with the voting rubric.
a. RSCW Awards Committee Members
i. Faculty Development Committee – 1 representative
ii. Research Advisory Council – 1 representative
iii. Staff Council – 1 representative
iv. CoC and Clinics – 2 representatives (one each)
v. CGUS and SHS – 2 representatives (one each)
vi. CETL Director (provides budgetary/process information as needed; non-voting)
4. CETL convenes Awards Committee to assess and vote on applications and make recommendations for awards. Applications in each category will be ranked as having:
a. exceptional significance… 5 awards at $2,500 each
b. exemplary significance … 10 awards at $1,500 each
c. commendable significance … 15 awards at $500 each
2. CETL submits list of Committee recommendation to Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) for review.
3. VPAA makes final approval, in consultation with Director of CETL
4. CETL processes awards.
a. Information submitted to Finance/Payroll
b. Awardees Notified
c. Awardees’ direct supervisor notified
5. Awardees recognized at annual event and in campus communications.
TIMELINE
• Call for Applications – Week 10 of Spring Quarter, and Weeks 1, 3, and 5 of Summer Quarter.
• Deadline for Electronic Submission – Week 6 of Summer Quarter
• CETL Identifies Members for RSCW Awards Committee – Week 7 of Summer Quarter
• Applications Sent to Committee for Review – Week 9 of Summer Quarter
• Committee Members Assess Applications and Submit Rubrics – Due Week 3 of Fall Quarter
• Committee Convenes, Reviews and Makes Recommendations – Week 4 of Fall Quarter
• Deans review/approval – Week 6 of Fall Quarter
• VPAA reviews/final approval – Week 7 of Fall Quarter
• CETL Director processes awards – Week 8 of Fall Quarter
• Supervisors notified – Week 9 of Fall Quarter
• Awards Presented at FSDP – January FSDP
The total number of awards made during each review cycle will be based upon availability of funding as identified through the annual budgeting process.
|