Skip to Main Content

Minutes of Meeting

Research Council Friday, October 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM

Location: Library Special Collections. Bldg 12, 1st floor, Rm 1300

Meeting Details

Call to Order:

September meeting was cancelled. This is the first meeting of the Research Council. The meeting was called to order by chair, Aisha Johnson, at 2:00 PM.

Members Present:

Lakshmi Goel, CCB (Management); Elinor Scheirer, COEHS (Leadership, School Counseling, & Sport Management); Hope Wilson, COEHS (Foundations & Secondary Education); Aisha Johnson, Library; Jody Nicholson, COAS (Psychology); Dan Dinsmore, COEHS (Foundations & Secondary Education) Christopher Brown, CCEC (School of Engineering); Michele Moore, BCH (Public Health); James Churilla, BCH(Clinical and Applied Movement Sciences); Ching-Hua Chuan, CCEC (School of Computing); Laura Heffernan, COAS (English); John Kantner, Associate Vice President for ORSP (Non-Vote)

Members Absent:

Herbert Koegler, COAS (Philosophy & Religious studies); Kerry Clark, BCH (Public Health); Chris Baynard, CCB (Economics & Geography); Scott Brown, COAS (Art & Design); Courtney Hackney, COAS (Biology); Cara Tasher, COAS (Music)

Others Attending:


Meeting Minutes

  • Approval of the Minutes

    Per FA#14-34, the FA Bylaws was amended to change the name of the Research Committee to the Research Council including its charge (see the link.) (
    The last minutes of the Research Committee can be viewed the following link:
    ( )

    There is no minute approval for the first meeting of the Council. 

  • Introductory Remarks/Old Business

    Welcome and introduction to the members.

    Sending a doodle poll for meeting times to meet last week in October and November.

    Old business to review while considering how rubric aligns with proposal (notes from November 2015 minutes (


    #8 – While the application ‘eval criteria’ mentions this, it is NOT included on the ‘proposal outline’ which applicants are told to follow; now that the time frame has been changed to 1 year rather than just 3 months, this criteria and explanation need to be clearer in the guidelines for future years.

    #11 – Aligns with institutional goals and objectives: While in the application both ‘considerations’ and ‘eval criteria’ mention these 2 , it is NOT included on the ‘proposal outline’ which applicants are told to follow.


    I think that applicants should sign to and AA should confirm that all applicants meet the following as a checklist on cover page:

    1. Meets guidelines (eg. page limit, word counts, faculty eligibility based on previous awards and if they have submitted final reports for previous awards, etc.)
    2. Within the province of research /scholarly activities at UNF (current #4; I recommend adding a question to the cover page that asks applicants to check yes/no to this question and perhaps add a definition from the faculty handbook.)
    3. Aligns with institutional goals and objectives (current #11; I recommend adding a question on the cover page that has applicants check yes or no and enter the goal #s from the strategic plan)
      1. 4 and 11are very similar to me … however I think only 1 of 10 applications I reviewed mentioned institutional goals and objectives.
    4. Results will be disseminated through professional peer reviewed conferences and journals and acknowledge UNF as funding source – yes/no (current I.d. on application; all faculty put the same basic response and of course said yes so I don’t think this needs to be included in the narrative.)


    #8 – revise directions and evaluation as noted above; A quick review and revision to make sure ‘consideration’, ‘eval criteria,’ ‘project narrative’ outline, and reviewer evaluation match would be beneficial. Also, as mentioned at one of our meetings, it think it would be very beneficial to add that requirement that those who are funded serve as a reviewer the year before and/or afterward; both for their individual understanding of the process, but also to help the committee’s work load.

  • New Business

    Summer Scholarship Grants discussion:

    Will be reviewed for award period of Summer B of 2016-Summer A of 2017.


    Discussion: 12 month faculty cannot apply for the grants without being attached to a 9 month faculty

    Would require them not to get stipend, but funding will go funding for research materials – pending Dean’s approval because they may not be allowed to take the time for the research or may not allow them to use the grant funding for a buy-out to reduce teaching requirements. Dean’s approval would need to include a plan to outline it not impacting regular job requirements. 

    Role of grants: Is it to help out newer faculty?  To help tenure-earning faculty.

    Motion (Nicholson): In October 2016, to allow permanent, 12 month faculty to apply for grant on their own, but they are not allowed to get salary, have to get permission from their Dean, and have a research component to their job assignment.

    Motion seconded (Heffernan): 11 in favor, no opposed. 


    Discussion: Faculty brought to council attention that females have been under-represented in previous award. Discussion of systemic issue in University setting and how council can consider this in light of the University mission and council goals. Faculty provided numbers of males and females who have received awards in the past, but council requests the number of male to female faculty in the University during these years and the number of males and females that have applied each year to evaluate this issue carefully.

    Motion (Moore):  To add a requirement to the application that part of funding, if awarded, you must review the next cycle of awards the following year
    Motion seconded (Brown). 10 in favor, none opposed.


    Part of the reason to combine the scholarship and proposal grant was because proposal grant historically had fewer applicants. The same amount of money is available as the previous year.


    Every proposal gets reviewed by two council members and asks winners from last year to aim for a
    3rd reviewer.


    Council President will send the existing rubric around for pre-review. President will get the names of previous proposal and scholarship awardees and email them to request them to review for this year’s round of proposal before it becomes a requirement next year.


    Nicholson and Chuan are not available to review due to applying for scholarship grant.


    Continue from last year that reviewers cannot review someone from their own department.  

    Comments to applicants should be provided – have an area for confidential and public comments that could help applicants in revision of their applicants.

  • Other Discussions/Announcement


  • Adjournment & Next Meeting

    Meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m. Meeting notes will be approved by the committee at the beginning of the next meeting.
    The next meeting time will be at the end of October (date and time TBD).