New Business —

Celka Straughn presided as chair. 

Minutes. The meeting notes from November 8, 2024, were sent before the meeting and were approved with no changes.

1. GRF review
   1. Updates and preparing to send out questionnaire and cover letter to deans/directors
      1. Celka to move forward and send out with cover letter.
   2. GRF recommendations – still not approval from Provost and Chancellor 
      1. Shelly spoke with Provost and there were no concerns.
      2. Shelly follow up with Provost and Jill
2. Charge 5 next steps 
   1. (5.1) The amount of funding that KU allocates to the GRF is decreasing, which is concerning, given the expectations of high research productivity. In addition, the budget has undergone two cuts since 2019. Explore a comparison of KU’s internal research funding (possibly including strategic initiatives, Research Rising, and other special funding opportunities, KU Endowment funding) to peer universities.
      1. KUCR data to examine comparison.
      2. Have 2023 AIRE data now https://aire.ku.edu/research-comparisons for peer data.
         1. Institutional funding – ratio to all funding for an institution – normalize to total funding - Shelly will share numbers.
         2. Midwest is perhaps most useful comparison group.
      3. research expenditures increased in part due to KU Med
      4. hard separate data between PhD and MA students
      5. decrease with GRA (PhD) – and need have considered as research workforce and that grow programs, think along with postdocs.
         1. push credit hours impacts PhD students – hence view of program growth with Mas.
         2. instructional needs drives TT hires, not research growth
      6. The library collection budget remains flat despite other growth.
      7. role of centers that take more of the funds rather than departments and faculty.
      8. How to separate out Lawrene and KU Med
      9. also, AIRE data - https://aire.ku.edu/expenditures from the AIRE fact book
      10. challenges with loss of research faculty
      11. facility concerns (not under KUCR – have advisory role and working to make more active role)
          1. considerations for 5–10-year plans for investment and growth
      12. institutional commitment to funding research
          1. Many institutions count (but not KU) as faculty EFT for research not bought back by a grant (faculty salaries) - this is a large commitment that is uncounted.
   2. Discussion on the charge (5.3) Investigate the process by which KU solicits funding from KU Endowment to support the research mission of faculty. 
      1. Any useful KUCR data?
      2. Useful AIRE data? E.g. For TT faculty comparisons - https://aire.ku.edu/faculty-and-staff (tab faculty and academic staff) and https://aire.ku.edu/research-comparisons
      3. ? Are we partnering well with endowment to tell research stories and raise funding?
         1. This is changing to be more useful and grow partnerships for raising research funds through endowment.
         2. KUEA for gifts
         3. Previously KUEA more undergraduate focus – bringing centers more into focus, and to raise funds for graduate students.
         4. See more integrated efforts for Lawrence campus research and KUEA, work with KUCR and Center directors.
         5. Note: Library faculty not generally included among TT – note in report that different positions that contribute to research that generally are not included in various metrics, e.g., not TT scholarly output
         6. Look at what AAU counts as scholarly output – and what excluded.
   3. In general, with data – consider who not included.
   4. Better communication and sharing with deans/chairs and KUCR and how research is counted.
3. Other items for discussion
   1. Increasing research perception across campus – e.g., law school
   2. Intentional mentoring around research
   3. With One KU Med and this committee – for research impacts
      1. Internal supports for research – beyond GRF – and with strategic areas and how to grow.
4. Celka and Suzanne will propose spring semester dates.

Najarian concerns -for spring agenda – how we value certain research from equity and justice point of view.

-e.g., experiences for faculty who have gone to KUEA for funding guidance, but gap in understanding of story that telling

-myopathy – narrowness of value of stories

-start dialogue of how ensure more equity in valuation and evaluation of differently positioned (social) faculty for diversity of stories through research

-e.g., NAGPRA

-limited povs for understanding breadth of research and beyond canons

-predisposed to deficit discourses (subjugation) - as opposed to innovative and creative community solutions to issues (self-sufficiency) 

            -justice for research subjects

-impacts faculty retention

Meeting adjourned.