Views of the Council on Undergraduate Research:
NSF’s Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Program
February 23, 2000
K. Elaine Hoagland, Editor  

Introduction

The Council on Undergraduate Research has been asked by officials of the National Science Foundation to provide its views on the Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Program.  This program is currently being evaluated prior to the issuance of new guidelines.  RUI is comprised of three parts: Faculty Research Projects, Research Instrumentation Grants, and Research Opportunity Awards (ROA).  NSF relies upon input from stakeholders, such as CUR, and its own internal evaluators to assess program needs and possible changes.  CUR represents a constituency of primarily undergraduate institutions and their faculty, the primary target of the program.

CUR asked its members how they feel about the RUI program --- its philosophy and its functionality.  Many CUR members have benefited directly from RUI funding, and there is general consistency in the responses that we have received.  CUR members are enthusiastic about the intent of the RUI program.  They feel that it meets a real need and should be retained and strengthened. The program has good “name recognition”, and it seems to work very well in several divisions, especially the Biology Directorate and many divisions of the Mathematics and Physical Sciences Directorate.

There is strong support among CUR members for adequate funding for quality RUI proposals.

General Concerns

CUR has identified a number of concerns that we would like to translate into recommendations for strengthening and improving the RUI program.

Mixed Messages from NSF:  It appears that more individuals and institutions could take advantage of RUI than have done so.  The reasons for this are complex, but they include a feeling that NSF program officers in some directorates discourage submissions under the RUI rubric, or do not fund RUIs at all.  There does not appear to be uniformity across directorates or programs in how the RUI guidelines are administered or how RUI proposals are funded.  For example, there is reported to be different degrees of RUI implementation within the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate.  There is a belief among some PUI faculty that Economics does not award RUIs, while the Political Science program apparently designates ALL proposals submitted by PUIs as “RUI” regardless of how they are submitted.  One reason for the lack of cohesion in the RUI program is the fact that no designated RUI funding exists at the Divisional or Directorate levels, although we understand that within BIO, there are targets for RUI funding and there is designated funding for C-RUI.   As one CUR member put it, “RUI is not a program at all, it’s a mechanism.” The RUI program would have more visibility and cohesion if there were funds dedicated to it in each directorate, if not each division. 

Strengthening the Administration of RUI:  CUR believes that the RUI program requires a strong coordinator, based in the divisional home of the guidelines, with high visibility both within and outside NSF.  This person could work with NSF program officers, could be a central contact person for submitters of proposals, and could also provide interpretation for both NSF and submitters.  This person would help deal with rumors and impressions that often circulate in programs like RUI that are spread over several divisions within a funding agency.  The coordinator could also arbitrate any issues that develop across directorates or between NSF and applicants.   Some CUR members believe that a cross-directorate task force chaired by the RUI coordinator should be charged with assuring that the RUI guidelines are consistently applied across directorates and programs.  The coordinator could also coordinate the collection of data in order to evaluate the program.

Choice of Reviewers:  Some PUI faculty members feel that reviewers do not understand the demands that they face at institutions with very high teaching loads.  They suggest that there be at least one reviewer from a PUI on each proposal.

Directions to Reviewers:  Reviewers of RUI-labeled proposals are supposed to consider the different research environment at primarily undergraduate institutions, specifically higher teaching loads, research activity concentrated in the summer, slower pace for research results and publications, AND significant involvement by undergraduates.  Undergraduates need more attention than do graduate students, and they gain greatly from the experience.  However, many CUR members have seen reviewers’ comments that reflect a presumption that cutting-edge research cannot be done at a primarily undergraduate institution. 

Despite the NSF requirement that all proposals address the integration of research and education, there is still a great need to educate reviewers and panelists (and some program officers) about the realities of conducting research at PUIs, and to affirm that significant, high-quality research can be conducted by those researchers.  It is important that NSF continue to recognize the role that PUIs play in providing undergraduate education to the nation’s future PhD’s in science and engineering, as well as providing a scientific background for our general citizenry.  One CUR member lamented that she worked very hard on the section of the proposal that dealt with the integration of research and education, but not a single reviewer commented upon it.

Research Priorities:  There is concern especially at small liberal arts colleges that priorities for research funding in some programs may not mesh with the types of research typically carried out by researchers at small PUI institutions, thus precluding them from serious consideration.  We cannot verify the validity of this complaint, but we do see a trend:  much of NSF’s research portfolio is moving in the direction of large, multidisciplinary projects.  These projects can sometimes be done by PUI faculty researchers, but often only within a consortium and with considerable administrative and scheduling difficulty.  PUI faculty excel at smaller, more focused and localized research efforts that can be accommodated within the demands of a full teaching schedule.

Visibility.  Annual public announcements would keep the RUI program in focus for potential applicants and college grants officers.  Outreach by NSF and by CUR is needed to answer questions and dispel rumors.  Much of what faculty members hear about the RUI and other NSF programs comes from their peers, and often this information is exaggerated or incorrect.  CUR provides accurate information through our listserv, meetings, and publications.  NSF cooperates with CUR by sending program officers to our April Dialogue and National Conferences, where prospective applicants can talk directly with program officers and with their own colleagues who have been funded by RUI and other programs.  These exchanges are most welcome and should continue.  As program officers participate in forums with PUI faculty, we suggest that they address the question of how much preliminary data are needed to write a successful RUI proposal.  They should also continue to encourage potential applicants to contact them to discuss proposals before they are submitted --- many CUR members are shy about doing so.

Data and monitoring:  There is need for better data on past RUI solicitations and awards, including such things as proposal pressure and how RUI proposals fare in the various directorates and programs.  One of our members attempted to write an article on ROA, but could not obtain information from NSF on the number of ROA awards given over a period of time.   CUR would like to have easier access to summary and comparative data about RUI funding at NSF, which would help our member institutions to assess their own programs, and would help NSF as well.  CUR for its part is planning a major effort to develop indicators that will measure success in undergraduate research at PUIs.   We would like to know how many faculty and students have been affected by RUI.  The RUI data would help in this effort.

Recommended Changes to the RUI Guidelines

There are several things that NSF could do to improve the program when the RUI guidelines are revised.  There are also things that we recommend be conserved. 

Separate Competition:  CUR does NOT support changes that would create a separate competition for RUI grants, which could lead to the perception that research at PUIs is not the same caliber as that at research-intensive universities. 

Award Amount: There is some feeling that RUI awards should be smaller than regular awards.  We do NOT feel that the size of the award should be affected by its RUI status.  Rather, the size should reflect the scope of the project.  The maximum and average size of RUI awards should be evaluated periodically --- perhaps now is the time for an incremental increase.  NSF can assess the funding level better than we can, but we do call for review of the issue.

Program Objectives:  NSF should consider adding a fourth objective to RUI guidelines, which particularly addresses the ROA awards: “… promote the transfer of research and teaching models/programs/activities/successes from PUIs to research institutions, between PUIs, and from research institutions to PUIs.”  PUIs have skills and experiences that can be used to help large research institutions improve their environments for undergraduate education.  Too often, it is assumed that the flow of knowledge in an ROA setting is only from the research institution to the PUI.

Eligibility: CUR suggests that NSF review institutional eligibility criteria.  NSF may want to reflect upon whether the current criteria for eligibility encompass all institutions within a PUI research environment.  We realize that cut-off points will always be arbitrary (e.g., the number of PhD degrees given over a period of time).  However, some CUR member institutions fall between the cracks --- their small PhD programs in a few departments are just large enough to make them ineligible for RUI consideration, although they are classified as baccalaureate colleges in the Carnegie classification system and they are widely considered to be PUIs in terms of academic atmosphere.  Perhaps schools that meet the baccalaureate institution criteria under the present Carnegie system could be given an option to appeal their RUI eligibility to the NSF-wide RUI coordinator, or alternatively, a non-PhD granting department within a school could make such an appeal to the program officer in the appropriate NSF division.

Many PUI institutions offer a PhD in science education.  We feel these PhDs should not disqualify an institution as a PUI for the purposes of RUI grants. 

Institutions that collaborate with nearby research universities on a regular basis may jeopardize their standing as a PUI for the purposes of RUI support, by supervising doctoral research on their campuses.  We suggest that NSF allow such institutions where their eligibility is fuzzy to petition the NSF-wide RUI coordinator for a decision on eligibility, taking into consideration the intent of the RUI program and the predominant academic setting of the institution and department.

Sabbatical Funding:  NSF should change the wording in the ROA portion of the guidelines to read:  “Most frequently, ROA activities are summer OR SABBATICAL experiences.”  One need that is not well addressed by NSF programs is supplemental sabbatical support for PUI faculty.  Sabbaticals are particularly critical as a means for faculty at PUIs to stay current in their disciplines and to vitalize their research and teaching.  However, it is extremely difficult to find sources of funding. Typically, a PUI faculty member who qualifies for a sabbatical leave receives one semester’s salary from the home institution, and must seek a salary stipend elsewhere in order to take advantage of a full year’s leave for research.  CUR would like to work with NSF to provide an explicit path for sabbatical funding within the ROA component of the RUI program.  Such a path could be titled “Small Grants for Sabbatical Research.”  These grants would cover partial salary (i.e., one semester) as well as some expenses.  The awards would be highly competitive, bestowing honor as well as money.  PUI faculty members would be expected to use the money to support research at a research institution, to further his/her research ideas in full collaboration with the faculty at the research institution.

Small Instrumentation:  RUI awards have two thrusts:  faculty research projects and multi-investigator/user research instrumentation.  We suggest that a third item be added:   small instrumentation/lab equipment to support research by several PUI faculty members and their students, in aggregate amounts of $10,000 to less than $100,000.  This type of equipment is in many ways more essential than major instrumentation and is actually harder to fund.  The amounts of money involved are frequently more than the entire departmental budget for some of the smaller research-active PUIs.  Yet the individual prices for minor equipment (pH meters, analytical balances, and FT-IR microscopes for example) are below the cut off point to qualify as instrumentation.  We believe that NSF should have a program to fund such multi-user minor equipment.  Currently, it falls between the cracks of regular research projects, major instrumentation, and CCLI-type educational equipment grants, where use by larger numbers of students in a classroom setting is expected.

Support for MS Students:  Guidelines for RUI Faculty Research Projects should be modified so that proposals may request support for MS students as well as research assistantships for undergraduate students.  However, funding of MS students on RUIs should be justified in the context of their impact on undergraduate education.  MS students are hard to fund from any other source, and are a significant and forgotten component of many primarily undergraduate institutions.  The MS degree is a significant one in many fields, and it is a way for students without financial resources to continue in the scientific pipeline.  MS students also serve as role models for undergraduates.  This is particularly critical for institutions with a large number of first-generation-in-college students for whom graduate study is virtually unknown, including minority groups with few other professional role models on campus.

Starter Grants:  Preliminary data are required to write a credible proposal on many research topics.  Some CUR members have suggested small starter grants for junior faculty or faculty changing research direction to help them achieve this goal.  Seed grants are available from private foundations such as the Research Corporation and the Petroleum Research Fund for chemistry and physics, but are less easily obtained in other fields.  CUR recognizes that there are drawbacks, particularly administrative inefficiency, but this is a concern that we hear repeated, and we feel that it should be voiced. 

There are some federal programs that do manage seed grants along with major grants: NIH (Academic Research Enhancement Awards) and USDA (Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards) both have such grants for faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions in medical and agricultural research, respectively.  The EPSCoR programs of some states also provide funds (administered by the state EPSCoR programs). 

We can think of at least four options for NSF: (a) small starter grants administered by the program officers without formal review (such as SGER); (b) outsourcing the administration of the starter grant program, but retaining a good deal of control over it (such as is done with the Graduate Fellowships); (c) provision of a major grant to another entity that then distributes small grants (as CUR has done in its undergraduate summer research fellowship program, with NSF support under a special REU grant in Geosciences); or (d) awarding an institutional faculty development grant that would enable faculty members on a particular campus to apply for starter grants linked with grant-writing. This fourth option is somewhat similar to the Extramural Associates program for minority-serving institutions run by NIH.  One would then need to track the faculty to see if those assisted through the program did have improved success at obtaining research grants.

Results from Prior NSF Support:  We suggest that NSF clarify the guidelines on Results from Prior NSF Support to explicitly include CCLI instrumentation grants, and perhaps also, support from all grants from the Division of Undergraduate Education.  This would give a clear picture of the proposer’s commitment to advancing the integration of teaching and research.

Administrative Changes:  It is clear that the RUI guidelines need technical updating, for as currently written, they do not take FastLane submission into account.  It would also help in terms of both clarity of guidelines and visibility if there were an NSF - RUI web page having links to other relevant programs and Directorates. There is need to clarify deadlines of RUI versus regular divisional program deadlines; several CUR members have found contradictory information in past NSF solicitations.   A mistake in an NSF publication, which we caught and which was corrected, contributed to the confusion last year.

We thank NSF for its openness and accessibility in listening to comments from the research and educational community, and we look forward to working together to meet the goals of the RUI program.