Annual Report: 1998-1999

Office of University Research

The Office of University Research acknowledges this year's proposal writers and grant winners, more than one hundred faculty members and more than thirty staff members (whose names are shown in the left sidebar). We recognize that the additional work to prepare themselves and then to write proposals to the funding agencies were accomplishments born of diligence and enthusiasm, achievements at the very heart and meaning of university.

The Academic Year 1998-1999 could be characterized as one of the most uncomfortable years on record. The Fall semester began early, cutting into much needed August free laboratory time in the natural sciences especially--a time traditionally reserved for the collection of data from pilot studies.

More than this, however, the faculty bargaining unit found itself embroiled all year in a protracted set of contract negotiations with the System Administration led by the new Chancellor, Charles Reed. The developments during the year and the lack of progress modulated the good humor of everyone on campus. These events and conditions seem to have conspired with other changes in the institution to produce a significant drop in the number of proposals to external agencies.

We have been considering the probable, additional causes of the decline in activity, and it is somewhat surprising to note that most other indicators are stable or nearly so. For instance, the number of applications to and resources for internal grants from the Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee remained about the same as for the past five or more years.

The staffing in the Office of University Research has improved and stabilized just short of 1990 standards. However the Office of Grants and Contracts Administration in the CSULB Foundation has suffered the departure of two key personnel this year, Director Sandy Shereman and her principal assistant, Ali Chu. Both were very much appreciated. Since this office has the pre-award function of budget consultation, there may be a direct impact on proposals and an indirect impact on post-award activities among continuing project directors.

Federal budgets for research and academically-related projects are very much improved, except at the U.S. Department of Education, where Congressional set-asides decimated the FIPSE program. Moreover, the proportion of awards from the several source categories is stable in the proportions shown in the chart below.

With internet communications maturing, never has there been such open and reasonably unfettered access to accurate information regarding federal programs. In general, the external environment for competitive research and academically-related project proposals has only rarely been better. We should look elsewhere for the causes to this year's striking situation.

When the new campus RTP documents are referred to generally, there is the strong sense that scholarship and creative activities have been given greater prominence in the considerations that govern retention, tenure, and promotions. Yet the situation clearly exhibits a declining interest in external-funding means to RTP ends. In fact, this situation seems to be broadly affecting the faculty of other campuses of the CSU, as well. It is in this area of faculty interpretation of institutional mission, therefore, that we believe the local problem is being defined.

The California State University has struggled since 1960 with the role of the "second tier" institution. It has been plain enough to the academic leadership that the teaching mission of the institution is primary, and that the other kinds of activities that produce and are necessary to a university would, of necessity, be relegated to lower priority for State funding.

With a universe of external funding opportunities available for faculty research and other elements of scholarship, for creative activities in the arts, for development, and for service to the community, the decision to focus State funding on teaching did not and does not imply a disinterest in non-teaching activities. It has been understood that research and other activities are funded primarily by the interested parties, namely by the government mission agencies like NSF and NIH, by private foundations, and by enterprise.

It is reasonable and appropriate to think of this multiple-source funding situation as forcing a healthy competition among institutions, a competition in which each can demonstrate its development and readiness for success. In short, in research and creative activities, in academically-related projects, and in student development, the successful competition for external resources is the measure of the vitality and value of these integral pieces of the University. Externally funded components evolve under these rules just as the teaching component evolves under the guidance of accreditation and constant program evaluation.

And yes, the teacher preparation role of the CSU campuses has been re-emphasized. It is nevertheless the case that teacher preparation requires models and experience in knowledge-building research and talent-honing creative activities no less than direct formal instruction. It is the experience with research in college that prepares the public school teacher to understand how best to encourage the curiosity and creativity of the next generation.

We must acknowledge and encourage the research, creative activities, and academically-related projects of the faculty, whether or not the State is able to provide financial support. Moreover, understanding that the quality of the undergraduate and graduate experiences is the result of dynamic processes of knowledge development, we must continue to nurture a vigorous program to obtain external funding.

James R. Brett, Ph.D., Director
Office of University Research
Academic Affairs