The University is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge of humankind and the universe in which we live, and to the education and intellectual development of its students and constituents to the end that they may be better informed, better adjusted, and more useful members of the society. The development and maintenance of a program which provides intellectual stimulation and purposeful goals, and assures continuing relevance to the problems and concerns of the day necessitates continuous probing into new areas of understanding and persistent attempts to push back the frontiers of knowledge in all fields. Research, scholarly work, and other forms of creative endeavor are essential for the continued intellectual growth of the University faculty and for the sustenance of stimulating and challenging teaching programs.
The NCSU Research Policy Manual also provides a great deal of information on almost all factors involved in dealing with research issuesfrom seeking research support to the administration of research activities on campus.
In general, the response to the Self-Study Survey of Faculty indicates that faculty assess their research at NCSU very positively. Over 83 percent agree that faculty demonstrate high levels of competence in research. A majority of faculty feel that they have sufficient time for research, although the proportion (65 percent) is somewhat less than the proportion who judge their time for teaching to be sufficient (70 percent). Viewed from the opposite perspective, 30 percent of faculty do not have sufficient time for research.
Chapter 6 of the Faculty Handbook details both the faculty's rights and responsibilities with respect to research: "It is the policy of The University of North Carolina to support and encourage full freedom, within the law, of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication for all members of the academic staffs of the constituent institutions. Members of the faculty are expected to recognize that accuracy, forthrightness and dignity befit their association with The University and their position as men and women of learning" [4.4.6.1].
Eighty-six percent of respondents to the Self-Study Survey of Faculty said that NCSU provides protection for academic freedom in research.
The Faculty Handbook stipulates that each faculty member must have periodic performance evaluations. A standard part of that evaluation is an evaluation of that faculty member's research effort. In addition, every faculty member submits a yearly summary of professional accomplishments. This report is used to determine salary increases and advancement toward promotion. Although the form of this report varies from department to department, a part of this report generally details research accomplishments.
The faculty attitude and perceptions survey showed that three-quarters of the faculty feel that the University rewards and supports research. A similar proportion feel that workload decisions give adequate credit for involvement in research and that the criteria for evaluation of faculty performance in research are clear. There is even more widespread agreement that recognition is provided in the following ways: 86 percent said that promotion and tenure policies and decisions adequately reward research; 82 percent said that excellence in research is adequately recognized; and 82 percent said that NCSU's environment supports research.
Although research activities are generally given appropriate consideration in matters of salary, promotion, and professional security, a standard, universitywide reporting form for all specified activities would help ensure equity of consideration for research among departments and colleges.
Recommendation 7.3: NCSU should provide faculty with a standard, universitywide form to report accomplishments associated with efforts in teaching, University service, outreach and extension, and research. This form should be organized to parallel requirements for promotion and tenure.
Year County extension SPA EPA Total ---- ---------------- --- --- ----- 1987-88 925 3,280 2,497 6,7021988-89 944 3,443 2,566 6,953
1989-90 960 3,470 2,593 7,023
1990-91 897 3,389 2,749 7,035
1991-92 861 3,378 2,678 6,917
Assistant Associate Named
Year professor professor Professor Chair Total
---- --------- --------- --------- ----- -----
1987-88 330 408 516 36 1,290
1988-89 305 421 529 48 1,303
1989-90 312 439 531 44 1,326
1990-91 305 448 557 43 1,353
1991-92 283 454 575 45 1,357
In 1991-92 the faculty were divided within the colleges and schools of the University as follows:
Assistant Associate Named
College or School professor professor Professor chair Lecturer* Other** Total
----------------- --------- --------- --------- ----- -------- ----- -----
Agriculture & Life Sciences 75 112 216 19 10 27 459
Design 8 16 15 0 11 1 51
Education & Psychology 20 39 21 0 18 16 114
Engineering 35 58 89 10 23 32 247
Forest Resources 6 23 25 3 1 8 66
Humanities & Social Sciences 79 100 75 1 178 53 486
Physical & Mathematical Sciences 29 53 94 2 5 34 217
Textiles 10 8 11 4 1 7 41
Veterinary Medicine 21 45 27 0 0 17 110
* Includes both lecturers and visiting lecturers
** Includes positions such as visiting and adjunct full, associate, and assistant professors; instructors; and emeritus faculty
Between fall 1987 and summer 1992, there was a 26 percent increase in the number of articles published by NCSU faculty, a 28 percent increase in books published, and a 500 percent increase in patents granted (from 4 to 24 patents per year). This was accomplished during a period when tenure-track faculty increased only 6.8 percent. Thus, by these measures, research productivity per faculty-research program is increasing. If such increased levels of productivity can be maintained and if publications are of high quality, it is clear that NCSU is progressing toward its stated goal of preeminence among Research I universities.
Information from 1991-92 indicates that, on the average, each faculty member is publishing at least one article or book per year, and many are publishing more frequently. Because many different disciplines are represented on the faculty, and each discipline may have its own publication standards, it is expected that publication rates may differ among disciplines.
Year Articles Books Patents---- -------- ----- ------- 1987-88 3,411 96 4
1988-89 3,418 106 7
1989-90 4,314 79 16
1990-91 4,619 109 23
1991-92 4,613 134 24
Total 20,402 524 74
College or school Articles Books Totals Average/faculty* ----------------- -------- ----- ------ ---------------* Faculty numbers include assistant, associate, and full professors; named chairs and other faculty; but not lecturers.Agriculture and Life Sciences 1,760 33 1,793 3.99
Design 38 3 41 1.03
Education and Psychology 134 9 143 1.49
Engineering 1,108 25 1,133 5.06
Forestry and Natural Resources 103 4 107 1.65
Humanities and Social Sciences 290 40 330 1.07
Management 57 14 71 2.95
Physical and Mathematical Sciences 539 2 541 2.55
Textiles 91 2 93 2.33
Veterinary Medicine 493 2 495 4.50
In some colleges (i.e., College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the College of Forest Resources, and the College of Textiles) the portions of faculty time allocated to research, teaching, and extension are specified clearly because of the way in which the position is funded (e.g., 50 percent research and 50 percent teaching). In a majority of colleges, however, most faculty have a full-time commitment to teaching, which can be modified through the purchase of "release time" for research activities with external funds. In such cases the balance between teaching and research is carefully evaluated by the department head so that all essential instructional activities are carried out.
The standard, universitywide reporting form recommended earlier in this chapter should specifically prompt the faculty member to list effort devoted to each activity (outreach and extension, research, service, and teaching). The form should form the basis for the periodic performance evaluation of the faculty member by the departmental administrator, allowing him or her to evaluate the various kinds of activities more equitably. Modifications made to reallocate faculty time among the specified activities should be documented in writing and be provided to the faculty member. The standardization of the form should facilitate decisions on professional advancement made at higher administrative levels.
In 1993 NCSU was one of thirteen universities selected by the National Science Board/Government Industry University Research Roundtable for a study on stresses on researchers and the conflict that might exist between research and teaching. The focus of NCSU's input was communication pathways in the University and how to improve communication between the faculty and the administration (see self-study library for a copy of the NCSU report).
If NCSU is to achieve preeminence as a research university, the college and University administrations must make every attempt to support off-campus scholarly activity. Because of budgetary problems, during the 1991-92 academic year there was a substantial decrease in the number of off-campus scholarly assignments at NCSU. During 1992-93 the number of off-campus scholarly assignments returned to a level equivalent to 1988-89. The colleges average approximately 1.7 percent of their faculty on off-campus scholarly assignment in any given year. Over the past six years, the School of Design has averaged a 4 percent rate, which is significantly higher than the average per college. The College of Education is significantly below the average.
Assistant Associate
Fiscal year professor professor Professor Lecturer Other Total
----------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ----- -----
1987-88 3 3 8 1 2 17
1988-89 8 9 17 0 4 38
1989-90 0 11 5 1 2 19
1990-91 4 10 10 2 1 27
1991-92 3 2 2 0 1 8
1992-93 4 16 16 0 2 38
Total 22 51 58 4 12 147
Average number of off-campus Off-campus scholarly assignment
College or school scholarly assignments per year rate per faculty (%)
Agriculture & Life Sciences 4.83 1.05%
Design 2.17 4.25%
Education and Psychology 1.00 0.88%
Engineering 3.33 1.35%
Humanities & Social Sciences 8.00 1.65%
Physical & Mathematical Sciences 3.00 1.38%
Veterinary Medicine 1.33 1.21%
Management (1992-93) 5.00 4.80%
Forest Resources 4.00 7.02%
Textiles 0.80 1.95%
One off-campus scholarly assignment every seven years is a standard for first-class research institutions. If this standard were achieved at NCSU, the average number of faculty on off-campus scholarly assignment per year would be 242 rather than 29. It is important, therefore, that such assignments be recognized as a normal activity available to all tenure-track facultynot an extraordinary privilege. A reasonable short-term goal is 60 percent of the standard, which would mean a quadrupling of off-campus scholarly assignments from the 1992-93 level.
Recommendation 7.4: By 1998 NCSU should at least quadruple its number of off-campus scholarly assignments from the 1992-93 level.
NCSU's policies regarding research-supported summer salaries stipulate that a nine-month appointee may receive, without special approval, up to two ninths of base salary for compensation of scholarly activities in the summer. Additional summer salary must be approved by the department head and dean. Before consulting for a company or external agency for pay, the faculty member must file a "Notice of Intent to Engage in External Professional Activities for Pay," which must be filed with the individual's department head. Approval is routinely granted to full-time faculty for consulting up to one day per week. These policies are published in the NCSU Research Policy Manual [6.5.4; 6.5.5].
The following table shows total expenditures for research, research training, sponsored University extension activities, and research facilities at NCSU for the six academic years from 1987-93. The data are broken down according to source: federal, state and other funds. "Other" funds include industry contracts, industry grants, and private grants; industry funding is the predominate source.
Year Federal State Other Total---- --------- ------- -------- --------
1987-88 $36.234 $58.367 $30.819 $125.528
1988-89 $45.011 $78.156 $34.763 $157.930
1989-90 $52.850 $80.595 $36.214 $169.659
1990-91 $56.835 $82.074 $42.185 $181.094
1991-92 $68.794 $88.153 $44.516 $201.463
1992-93 $77.152 $97.809 $54.851 $229.812
The amount of funds expended has increased rapidly in the last five years. This increase is due to a combination of faculty efforts directed primarily toward funding through individual or group contracts and grants, and by increases from the state of North Carolina. The following table shows how NCSU ranks in each expenditure category according to figures reported by the National Science Foundation. During the past six years, NCSU's national ranking moved up and then dropped back slightly. Such fluctuations can be attributed to the state's budget shortfall and to the fact that the rankings are extremely sensitive to small changes in the total research and development expenditure.
Overall research and
Year development expenditure Industrial
---- ----------------------- ----------
1987-88 33 10
1988-89 32 5
1989-90 31 4
1990-91 36 6
1991-92 36 9
1992-93 36 8
Research expenditures are generally considered to be a relevant measure of current activity, but a better measure of an institution's future activity is awards. The following table gives awards for externally funded research, and for total external funding. Awards to sponsored programs from state, federal, and industrial sources have increased significantly in the last six years, with a 53 percent increase in 1992-93 alone. This increase is due, in part, to the activities of new faculty who are building significant research programs.
Year Research Total---- -------- ------- 1987-88 $47.358 $54.426
1988-89 $52.209 $60.437
1989-90 $57.508 $65.431
1990-91 $62.820 $69.191
1991-92 $69.086 $80.036
1992-93 $112.611 $211.722
Acquisition of funds through federal and private contracts and grants will not endanger continued state support, and because of the cost-matching requirement for many grants and contracts, may actually increase state support. Also, the data shown in table 7.11 are for research expenditures only, and the continuing budget from state appropriations is much larger and contains support for all academic programs [6.5.8].
The most highly developed policies and procedures regarding externally funded grants and contracts at NCSU are for financial accounting. The financial accounting structure works at several different administrative levels. At the department level, departmental or college bookkeepers make entries on expenditures. At the college or school level, the associate dean for research provides oversight, and the colleges or schools usually administer the salary records. At the university level, the Office of Contracts and Grants keeps the books for each externally funded project, and purchasing is administered by the NCSU Purchasing Department, which operates under the rules of the state of North Carolina. In that adherence to contract guidelines has generally been good, this system has worked well. It is, however, sometimes cumbersome for individual principal investigators, who must work within guidelines issued by several different organizations at several different levels, and who must have approval from multiple organizations for most fiscal action.
Virtually all external funding at NCSU is in response to either solicited or unsolicited proposals from individual principal investigators. Proposals are reviewed by the associate dean for research in each college, and fiscal approval is required by the Office of Contracts and Grants. In addition, adherence to the University and funding agency guidelines for externally funded research is reviewed by the office of Sponsored Programs, which is in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research, Outreach, and Extension. Issues on intellectual property are handled by the Director of Technology Administration, who is also in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research, Outreach and Extension. After appropriate review and approval, proposals are submitted to the respective agency not by the principal investigator, but by the University. Again this system has worked well at protecting the University and the principal investigators.
The NCSU Research Policy Manual states that "restrictions on publication of the results of research are incompatible with the basic concept of an educational institution as a source of knowledge. Short-term restrictions of usually not more than six months' duration but not more than twelve months may be permitted in the interest of actual or potential patent considerations, or to provide lead time to an industry or organization which has financed the research. Long-term permanent restrictions should be undertaken only for exceptional or emergency reasons" (p. 9). Special attention is given at all levels of University administration and by the faculty to protect the right of faculty and research assistants to publish, and to ensure that graduate students' theses are not restricted by sponsor requirements on confidentiality.
Unit or college or school State Federal Foundation Miscellaneous State Federal Other Totalsappropriations appropriations support funding projects projects projects
Agriculture & Life Sciences $33,375,515 $6,069,739 $2,159,788 $3,389,992 $748,732 $10,284,320 $5,330,660 $61,358,746
Cooperative Extension Service $14,444,164 $7,393,509 $1,090,178 $4,066,061 $586,160 $1,434,016 $742,947 $29,757,035
Design $133,726 -- -- $11,587 $11,563 $485,077 $11,440 $653,393
Education & Psychology $270,113 -- $140,927 $107,231 $254,511 $894,028 $937,068 $2,603,878
Engineering $8,021,834 -- $1,545,604 $910,562 $1,312,239 $13,479,648 $7,142,205 $32,412,092
Forest Resources $2,656,674 $638,071 $291,771 $2,106,154 $312,789 $1,281,376 $917,481 $8,204,316
Humanities & Social Sciences $552,352 -- $12,679 $63,687 $142,837 $473,251 $238,042 $1,482,848
Management $28,678 -- -- -- $12,713 $131,649 $32,543 $205,583
Physical & Mathematical Sciences $4,651,750 -- $278,173 $1495,435 $109,828 $4,549,058 $1,681,491 $12,765,735
Textiles $2,609,895 -- -- $230,476 $6,047 $619,826 $1,179,930 $4,646,174
Veterinary Medicine $2,109,643 $27,617 $11,573 $1,361,276 $105,095 $1,899,466 $2,186,556 $7,701,226
Finance & Business $63,839 -- -- $180,613 -- -- -- $244,452
Provost Office $212,353 -- $125,759 ($1,300) $284,552 $9,788,736 $122,625 $10,532,725
Research, Outreach and Extension $3,023,577 -- $33,604 $1,179,584 $2,137,254 $1,275,426 $104,385 $7,753,830
Indirect Cost Reimbursement $9,701,667 -- -- -- $273,071 $8,068,888 $3,097,299 $21,140,925
Total $81,855,807 $14,128,936 $5,690,056 $15,101,358 $6,297,391 $54,664,765 $23,724,672 $201,462,958
Generally the University retains rights to royalties from patents. As with financial accounting, this system can sometimes result in a rather cumbersome procedure for proposal submission.
North Carolina State University has in place and carries out policies to ensure that all research funded by external sources is related to the purpose of the institution. There is no apparent conflict in the balance between research and instruction caused by externally funded grants for research. In fact, there is continued encouragement in all sectors to secure additional, appropriate external funding to support research.
Also, very strict guidelines ensure that the University safeguard its prerogative to control its own activities and to ensure that material that results from research supported by external funds can be published by investigators in a timely manner [6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.6, 6.5.7].
Some faculty are concerned that matching funds for certain grants or types of grants are not readily available from college and University administrations. They see this as a constraint to the seeking of additional research grant funds.
Recommendation 7.5: NCSU's colleges and schools should communicate information on matching-fund allocations for each college or school to the faculty annually.
Historically, the state of North Carolina has required that 30 percent of all indirect costs be returned to the state, but in 1991-92, because of a state budget shortfall, a total of 50 percent of indirect-cost funds were returned to the state. In 1992-93 the return to the state was 20 percent, and in 1993-94 it is projected to be 15 percent. In addition, 5 percent of all indirect-cost funds is retained annually by the General Administration of the University of North Carolina.
Prior to academic 1990-91, a total of $1.2 million per year in indirect costs were returned to NCSU's colleges and schools. The remaining funds were retained by administration. Currently, the goal is to have 58 percent of indirect-cost funds attributable by grants that generate full overhead receipts (47 percent) retained at the university level and 42 percent returned to the colleges. The amount returned to each college and school is based upon the amount of indirect-cost receipts generated by that college or school. In some cases, however, the NCSU administration has provided some funding from indirect-cost funds even to colleges that have generated little or no overhead receipts.
The NCSU administration must spend some of the funds it retains on specified items in accordance with the provisions under which indirect costs are negotiated with federal granting agencies. For example, 15 percent must go to Physical Plant for building use allowance, operations, and maintenance, and 9.5 percent is used for administrative costs.
Table 7.12 shows the dollar amount of indirect-cost receipts allocated to each college or administrative unit for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94. The total amount allocated to each college is relatively small in relation to the research budget of each college, and the colleges spend a majority of these funds for equipment, administrative cost, and utilities. A comparison of table 7.12 with tables 7.8, 7.10, and 7.11 shows that the total amount of indirect-costs receipts is also small relative to the overall University budget for sponsored programs.
At present, neither the NCSU administration nor the colleges, taken as a whole, depend on indirect-cost receipts from sponsored programs to support their regular operating budgets.
Unit or college or school 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94------------------------- ------- ------- ------- Administrative and general -- $726,083 $1,240,806
Facilities -- $1,982,745 $1,050,000
Research-grant administration -- $1,389,445 $1,521,061
Library -- $378,750 $448,000
Agriculture and Life Sciences $246,720 $438,000 $905,011
School of Design $18,160 $20,200 $38,310
Education and Psychology $22,960 $48,800 $80,999
Engineering $16,360 $779,200 $1,557,031
Forest Resources $10,680 $56,400 $141,548
Humanities and Social Sciences $18,400 $16,400 $32,468
Management -- -- $18,873
Physical and Mathematical Sciences $207,000 $340,800 $801,209
Textiles $40,680 $71,800 $292,983
Veterinary Medicine $105,720 $190,000 $477,220
Recommendation 7.6: The NCSU administration should make its procedures for determining how indirect costs are allocated to colleges a matter of record, published annually, and accessible to the
faculty.
Recommendation 7.7: NCSU's college and school administrations should make their procedures for determining how indirect costs are allocated to departments a matter of record, published annually, and accessible to the faculty.
A preliminary report on this topic has been prepared by the vice-chancellor for research, outreach, and extension for fiscal year 1993-94 (see self-study library). This first, preliminary report represents a positive step toward fulfilling the intent of recommendation 7.6. In future reports, inclusion of an estimate of the amount of indirect costs that are forgiven by the University would demonstrate the continuing willingness of the University administration to work with granting agencies and faculty to ensure that the maximum amount of research funding reaches individual faculty projects.
Although individual research programs may be able to survive the absence of a well-developed and supported universitywide infrastructure for research, such an infrastructure, which includes all administrative support for planning and implementing research programs, is critical to the success of NCSU faculty, students, and staff in research, and critical to NCSU's goal of achieving overall preeminence as a research university. The support (fiscal and otherwise) needed for the continued functioning and development of the research infrastructure must come from many levels within the University, but is centered in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research, Outreach, and Extension and within the college administrations.
In 1989 the Research Operations Council completed an internal study on the NCSU research infrastructure, The Research Infrastructure at North Carolina State University. To gather data for the report, in 1988 the Office of University Planning interviewed approximately 125 faculty members, department heads, and research center directors. The University Research Committee and its designated subcommittees compiled the issues raised in these interviews and submitted a report to the Research Operations Council for incorporation in the NCSU research infrastructure report (see self-study library). This report made several key points:
Recommendation 7.8: The NCSU University Research Committee should conduct a formal reassessment of the University research infrastructure with input from additional faculty, students, and administrators, where appropriate.
As an initial step in this reassessment, which should occur in academic year 1994-95, the issues identified in the original 1989 research infrastructure report should be examined critically to ascertain whether solutions have been proposed or implemented and whether closure has been reached on these issues. The principal effort of the assessment, however, should address what changes, if any, will be needed in the university-level and college-level infrastructures for research as research activities continue to increase in magnitude and in breadth among the various disciplines across the University. The assessment should address the relative levels of infrastructure development for traditional areas of strength (e.g., engineering, agriculture, textiles) and emerging areas of strength (e.g., humanities and social sciences, education, management) in research. The assessment should also address the feeling among faculty that their input into administrative decisions is much too limited, and that channels for communication throughout the University are inadequate. The assessment report should contain specific recommendations for improving the University research infrastructure, addressing them to the provost, the vice-chancellor for finance and business, and the vice-chancellor for research, outreach, and extension. These recommendations should be formally acknowledged, discussed by the University Research Committee and the vice-chancellors and provost, and acted upon by the appropriate University and college administrators.
The significant increase in funding and expenditures for research at NCSU over the past six years has occurred during a period of relatively stagnant or actual decreases in levels of funding for new facilities, equipment, and support services. The administration's response has been to address administrative issues first. Following this has been attention and expenditures on safety and handling hazardous materials. This effort has barely kept up with research needs, and will continue to require attention. Attention to support for research facilities, equipment, and support is lagging. Many NCSU faculty feel that research facilities, equipment, and services will very soon begin to limit the continued growth in research productivity at NCSU. This situation threatens NCSU's aspirations to preeminence as a major research institution.
In the 1992 self-study survey of faculty, the faculty indicated that although research is adequately recognized at NCSU, it is not always supported adequately. In order to improve research, most faculty feel that a range of additional resources are somewhat to very important. In the fall 1992 self-study survey of faculty, respondents labeled the following scarcity of resources at NCSU as "important" or "somewhat important."
89 percent indicated the need for additional continuing-support funds88 percent indicated the need for more competitive faculty salaries
75 percent indicated the need for additional research space and facilities
72 percent indicated the need for greater access to research equipment
69 percent indicated the need for additional graduate students
60 percent indicated the need for additional faculty.
The top two items were considered to be "very important" by over half of the faculty responding to the survey.
Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the faculty are dissatisfied with the current level of support in their own departments for research. On the self-study survey of faculty, faculty in large numbers said that departmental resources were inadequate in the following categories:
44 percent indicated that facilities for research were inadequate43 percent indicated that support services for research were inadequate
44 percent indicated that seed money for new faculty for research was inadequate
52 percent indicated that resources to attract faculty who are highly competent teachers and researchers were inadequate
56 percent indicated that resources to retain faculty who are highly competent teachers and researchers were inadequate
46 percent indicated that research labs are inadequate
74 percent indicated that library materials are inadequate
36 percent indicated that computing resources are inadequate
35 percent indicated that instrumentation resources are inadequate.
Recommendation 7.9: NCSU should review space-allocation policies and funding mechanisms to ensure equity in line with mission and, where needed, provide additional space and renovate existing space at levels necessary to maintain and improve high standards of research
excellence.
Recommendation 7.10: NCSU should develop a long-range plan for renovating existing research space so that the quality of current space does not deteriorate.
The traditional approach to adding facilities at NCSU has been to obtain one-time state expenditures for buildings for long-term and multiple use, e.g. teaching, extension, and research. In the past five years, several buildings, to be paid for by the state, have been planned. However, because of the state budget shortfall, only a building for the College of Textiles on Centennial Campus has been built. Three additional buildings, Research I, II, and III have been built with external funds. At present, the University charges research contracts for the use of these buildings. The charge ($33 per square foot) is substantially higher than that for surrounding off-campus facilities of equal quality ($12 to $14 per square foot).
Recommendation 7.11: NCSU should build additional leasable research facilities on the Centennial Campus and lease them at a reasonable and competitive rate.
One possible solution to the lack of state funding for buildings and facilities is to construct needed buildings with non-state-appropriated funds. In the past few years, however, NCSU has experienced several problems with the timely construction of new research facilities that have been financed with non-state appropriated fundsin particular, the ABB building on the Centennial Campus and an animal facility financed by Burroughs-Wellcome. One impediment to timely construction of these facilities has been the requirement that the NCSU Physical Plant be an interface during construction. The involvement of the Physical Plant has resulted in construction delays and significant cost increases. The Physical Plant needs to be evaluated, with particular attention paid to cost, validity and financial accountability of estimates, reliability of work schedules, employees' understanding of their importance, and coordination with safety inspections.
Recommendation 7.12: NCSU should arrange for an external university group to evaluate the policies and operations of its Physical Plant division.
Furthermore, if NCSU is going to construct buildings with non-state appropriations, it must address the question of how to fund the maintenance (including janitorial services) of those new buildings.
Recommendation 7.13: NCSU should address how to fund long-term maintenance of capital improvements made with both state and non-state appropriations.
Recommendation 7.14: NCSU should seek additional continuing funding in the amount of several millions dollars per year for the purchase and maintenance of research equipment.
Recommendation 7.15: NCSU should make new funds for purchase and maintenance of research equipment available to colleges on a competitive basis annually.
NCSU has two offices directly involved with research activities: the Office of Sponsored Programs (pre-award processing and management), which is under the auspices of the vice-chancellor for research, outreach, and extension; and the Office of Contracts and Grants, which is under the auspices of the vice-chancellor for business and finance. This creates duplication of services and hampers communication between the principal investigators and the offices that manage policies associated with external grants and contracts. The self-study survey asked faculty to rate only the performance of the Office of Contracts and Grants. Forty-six percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the Office of Contracts and Grants, and 23 percent said they were dissatisfied. Of those who expressed an opinion, however, almost one third expressed dissatisfaction.
NCSU has not fully addressed issues concerning research-support facilities and personnel. Technical and support staff have not been as well supported with continuing funds as have administrative and safety personnel. All personnel are employed under the state of North Carolina policies and regulations. Many technicians and other technical support personnel are paid from short-term external sources, but must be hired under policies developed for hiring people with sources of continuing funds. This has presented some administrative and fiscal problems. However, the Department of Human Resources at NCSU is aware of these problems and is currently developing more flexible policies.
Recommendation 7.16: NCSU's Department of Human Resources should expand hiring policies that allow more flexibility in hiring personnel with funds from short-term, external sources (such as contracts and grants) and better communicate such policies to faculty.
The most dramatic example of NCSU's attempts to cope with funding problems in support services is the recent history of the D.H. Hill Library. Although D.H. Hill recently opened a new wing, which added to its available floor space, it did not enjoy a concomitant increase in its budget for books and journals. In fact, D.H. Hill's budget for books and journals has remained nearly constant for the last decade, in spite of the fact that the cost of journal subscriptions has risen dramatically during this period. To keep within budget, D.H. Hill has been forced to decrease its number of scholarly journal subscriptions. In November 1992 the director of Libraries announced that there "has been a 60 percent reduction in book acquisitions and a cancellation of 28 percent of our journal subscriptions over the last five years." Another 2,000 subscriptions may be canceled next year, reducing the total journal collection to 44 percent of its level five years ago.
Prompted by concerned faculty and students, along with reports of the Phi Beta Kappa and self-study committees, the chancellor established parameters of support aimed at positioning the NCSU Libraries in the top fifty among academic libraries in North America. To achieve this goal, the University will pursue three strategies: increased support from the state budget, increased internal reallocations of the University budget, and the building of a significant library endowment. The chancellor expects that these strategies will result in a 30 percent increase in the Libraries' overall budget, increasing its share of the total NCSU budget from 2.2 percent to 3 percent, and improving its Association of Research Libraries ranking to the 50th percentile. The 1991-92 ARL statistics show progress in these directions: The NCSU Libraries' ranking has improved by three places (from 101 to 98), and its percentage of the University's general and educational budget has increased from 2.2 percent to 2.3 percent.
Improvement of the NCSU Libraries has been identified as the number-two priority in NCSU's 1993-95 change-budget request (the number-one priority is an increase in faculty salaries), and the chancellor has requested an increase of $2 million in the Libraries' budget for collections and services. The governor of North Carolina has made university libraries a priority in the budget he submitted to the General Assembly.
Clearly, the NCSU Libraries are essential for the continued success of research, outreach, and extension activities at NCSU. Just as clearly, current levels of support are not adequate to maintain and improve this significant resource.
Recommendation 7.17: NCSU should raise the budget of the Libraries to at least 3.0 percent of the gross institutional
budget.
Recommendation 7.18: NCSU should earmark sufficient funds from the existing University budget to stop any further reduction in the serials collection and to maintain the number of monographs and serials purchased at a level appropriate for a Research I university.
NCSU is a node on the Internet international computer network. Many research offices and laboratories have direct connection to the network for local, national, and international computer communications.
In association with the NCSU Computing Center, the research administration and the Office of Sponsored Programs provide the SPIN database of funding opportunities to faculty and administrators via a campus server. SPIN is designed to identify external support for research, education, and development projects and is currently being used by faculty in all the colleges and schools of the University. The research administration and the Office of Sponsored Programs also have electronic access to the Federal Register and the Commerce Business Daily via the NCSU Gopher server, and plan to make these funding-information resources available campuswide in mid-1993. The research administration is preparing for the time when proposals will be submitted electronically on campus and to various granting agencies.
Administrative oversight of centers, institutes and laboratories is provided by the vice-chancellor for research, outreach, and extension through the Office of Research, Outreach, and Extension. In December 1992, after two years of development, this office published Procedures for Creating and Managing Research and Public Service Centers, Institutes and Laboratories (see self-study library). This document provides universitywide guidelines for planning, establishing, and overseeing operations; and reviewing research and public service CILs. These policies provide the basis for the effective and equitable administration and oversight of NCSU's centers, institutes, and laboratories.
As described by "UNC Administrative Memorandum 145" (see self-study library), planning and authorization for CILs must come from the UNC General Administration, after a recommendation by the NCSU chancellor. Operational oversight of each CIL is the responsibility of an administrative dean, who is generally the dean of the college that provides the greatest resources to the CIL. Each CIL is required to submit an annual report and to submit to periodic technical evaluations and financial audits. CIL directors are recommended by the administrative dean, in consultation with the CIL faculty, and is appointed by the chancellor. Each CIL is subject to review every five years by the vice-chancellor for research, outreach, and extension and the Research Operations Council Executive Committee. At the time of review, the CIL can be disestablished if it is determined that it is no longer viable.
