College of Arts and Humanities

Peer Review Committee Guidelines – 2006-2007

September, 2006

 

1.         Timeline for Faculty Grants and PRC Activities:

 

Preproposal                                                                                                                              Deadline Date

       Submission of application to the Peer Review Committee Chair                                     October 24

       Feedback Submitted to proposers from PRC Chair                                                         November 17

 

Final Proposal                                                                                                                          Deadline Date

       Submission of application to the Peer Review Committee

       (via the Dean’s office with a copy to your Department Chairperson)                             January 19

 

       PRC’s Recommendation due to the Dean                                                                       February 2

       Dean’s recommendation due to the Vice President                                                         February 5

       Applicant receives notification of award                                                                         March 23

 

2.    CAH PRC Meetings 

      

·         We will have up to two meetings scheduled in the fall semester to discuss the pre-proposals and up to two meetings scheduled during the spring semester to discuss final proposals.  You will be contacted at the beginning of the Spring semester to submit your Spring schedule so that we can establish that semester’s meeting times.

 

3.    Directives from past years:

 

A.   Student funds as well as faculty salaries or stipends will not be covered by faculty grant funds -- these funds are to be used directly for the development of a faculty member.  Salaries for students will be awarded (depending on availability) from the CAH Dean’s Discretionary Account – not 19A monies.

 

B.    The proposals shall be reviewed and judged based on their quality and merit without prejudice due to:

·         Scholarly vs. creative activity

·         Research vs. professional development

·         Department or program

 

4.    Office of Academic Affairs criteria for reviewing proposals and preproposals:

   

A.    Merit of the proposal

B.     Likelihood of project completion

C.     Potential for facilitating professional growth

D.    Potential for enhancing faculty effectiveness

E.     Value of project to the department and/or institution

F.      Success of projects supported by previous grants (where applicable).

G.    Frequency and recency of prior institutional grant support may be a factor.

 

5.           Preproposals

The committee will meet to discuss preproposals without assigning any ranking.  Each proposal will be discussed individually and assigned specific suggestions, encouragements, and criticisms from the committee members that will be summarized and dictated by the chair into a letter sent to each preproposal applicant, with the ultimate goal being the improvement of each proposal.

 

       6.    Final Proposals

Each member will rate each proposal utilizing the Office of Academic Affairs criteria listed above, assigning each one a number from 1-10 (poor – excellent). After discussion of the proposed projects, committee members will be allowed to re-assign their previous number if they so desire. The final score assigned to the proposal will be the average of the assigned scores.  The committee will draw up a list ranking the projects as determined through this process which constitutes the Committee’s recommendation to the Dean.

 

7.    Additional proposed procedures for the PRC:

  • If a member of the committee is a grant applicant, this committee member will be excused while the committee discusses their proposal.  During the Final Proposal stage, the committee member will not be allowed to discuss their proposal with the committee, provide a rating or vote on funding levels of his/her own proposal.

 

  • A listing of grants awarded to each faculty member from the College of Arts and Humanities (including both faculty leave time and PRC grants) for the past 5 years will be given to each committee member.  Committee members should consider this list when assigning their ratings (as per Office of Academic Affairs Criteria), but the significance of this factor shall be left at the discretion of each member.

 

  • Members of the committee may advocate on behalf of proposals submitted by their department colleagues.

 

  • Preproposals and proposals will be hand-delivered to your office in advance of the PRC meeting.

 

  • If you cannot attend a PRC meeting, please complete your rating and comments and send to Linda Motzko at least one day prior to the meeting date.

 

  • A chair will be selected for each year. This can be done at the 1st meeting OR at the final meeting in preparation for the following year.

 

6.    Members of the CAH Peer Review Committee for 2006-7

Kenyon Williams—Music, (Chair)

Zhimin Guan—Art and Design

Theresa Hest—Communications Studies, Film Studies, and Theatre Arts

Katherine Meiners—English

Henry Chan—History

James Kaplan—Languages and Cultures

Chang-Seong Hong—Philosophy