College of Business and Industry

Peer Review Committee

 

Faculty Grant Criteria

Summary

 

Dr. Crockett asked the Peer Review Committee to rank the criteria used in evaluating Faculty Grant Applications.  Each committee member went back to their department and asked them to rank the four criteria in order to lay the ground work for a discussion at the Spring 06 All College Meeting.  The following is a summary from each department.

 

Paralegal

1. Professional Development - as staying current and striving to be leaders in our professions takes support and commitment.

2. Creative Activity-striving to try new and innovative challenges strengthens us as teachers and the university as a whole.

3. Research - an important activity but already an expectation in the contract.

4. Degree Completion-this is mainly an individual goal and benefits the individual singularly.  Attainment of an advanced degree would be considered at promotion/tenure time and should be an accomplishment the individual achieved over and above performing his/her contractual duties.

 

School of Business

 

1.      Research and/or Creative Research - The dominant theme was that first priority should be given to proposals that suggested meritorious research regardless of faculty degree status. Applications need to be done with care reflecting detailed goals and objectives worthy of a high level professional effort.  All aspects of application questions need to be addressed. 

2.      Growth and Development - remains the major concern.  This may or may not involve a major conference. 

3.      Finally, we are concerned with outcomes that might somehow be evaluated.

 

Mass Communications

The faculty ranked the criteria as follows:

1.      Creative Activity

2.      Research

3.      Degree Completion

4.      Professional Development

 

The faculty felt that each of the above was important.  Some felt that creative activity and research should be considered as one category.

 

Technology

The Department of Technology suggested a two tiered evaluation for each application.  First, the application would be evaluated based on the quality of the proposal. Second, the proposal would be ranked based on the priorities set by the department of the applicant.  To be funded, a proposal would need to be ranked high for the quality of the proposal and its ability to meet the priorities set by the department.

 

1.      Professional Development

2.      Scholarly/Creative Work

3.      Research Leading to Publications

4.      Degree Completion