Views of the Council on Undergraduate Research: 
NSF's Research Sites for Educators in Chemistry (RSEC) Program 
Discussion Draft, March 11, 2000 

[Note: This draft was prepared by a group of CUR volunteers and the CUR National Office for discussion at the National Conference of the Council on Undergraduate Research, June 2000, and at the regional meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, March 2000. Individuals with comments may address them to: CUR National Office, 734 15th St NW Suite 550, Washington, DC 20005 (attention: RSEC comments) or may email them to: cur@cur.org with "RSEC Comments" in the title line. We would especially like to hear from those who are involved in one of the three RSEC sites that have been awarded NSF support.] 

Introduction 

The Council on Undergraduate Research would like to comment on NSF's recent competition in the Division of Chemistry, "Research Sites for Educators in Chemistry" (RSEC). We congratulate the Division and the three award recipients for working to meet the needs of faculty members at primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). The awards will allow many individuals from PUIs to increase their ability to perform sophisticated research, while transferring their research knowledge and skills to undergraduates. Undergraduate students at the home institutions will benefit from professors who are active participants in research, both in the classroom and in research settings. The program provides opportunities for a critical mass of researchers to work together, something often lacking at PUIs. We anticipate lifelong collaborations as a result. This program puts action and accomplishment behind NSF's call for integration of research and education. It meets CUR's own objective of institutionalizing undergraduate research. 

We understand that NSF will not offer the program in 2000, but will evaluate the past competition and its awardees before drafting new guidelines, perhaps in the following year. This "time off" for the program will allow those who were unsuccessful in the first competition to rethink their projects. Organizations such as the American Chemical Society and CUR will use national and regional meetings to disseminate early results of the first three projects, and to encouraging more institutions to apply (or to find other means of accomplishing similar ends). 

CUR has talked with members of our Chemistry Division to learn their views about the RSEC competition. Our sample of opinion includes grant recipients, reviewers, unsuccessful applicants, and individuals (both chemists and administrators) with no connections to the program. Individuals who were involved with a Macro-ROA program at the University of Kansas that served to some extent as a model from which to evolve the new program were also consulted. We would like to report impressions, even where we know they are inaccurate from the viewpoint of NSF, so that NSF and CUR can analyze them to understand the ways the program might be viewed by applicants in a second round. CUR and NSF can work to correct misimpressions through publicity for the program and through revision of guidelines, respectively. We also will share some suggestions for improvement of the program. 

Strengths of the Current Program 

The three consortia chosen to receive RSEC awards in round one exemplify the potential of the program to institutionalize undergraduate research in whole geographic regions and beyond. We are pleased that faculty will have sabbatical experiences, and that some undergraduates will be able to have direct research experiences as well - both on and off their own campuses. Interaction with local industry and national laboratory partners is a plus, and we hope it will lead to ongoing opportunities for industry-sponsored undergraduate summer fellowships and faculty collaborations. We think it is a good feature for participating faculty members to be required to apply for fellowships, as in the University of Tennessee program, because this process ensures that serious thought has gone into the activity at the outset and full advantage of the opportunity will be taken. We like Georgia Tech's emphasis on development of ongoing research collaborations, and the University of New Mexico's effort to include two-year institutions. Most importantly, we like the involvement of partner schools and the emphasis on establishment of research activities back in the home department, which will carry on long after the RSEC grant ends. For example, in the UT program, RSEC Fellows can work and observe politics and procedures in an environment more like their home institution, at the same time as they establish collaborative ties to a major research institution and its resources. When they return to their home institution, they have ammunition to move the campus culture towards institutionalization of undergraduate research --- a key goal for all of us. 

Program Improvements 

We note that program guidelines called for the lead institution of an RSEC to be a research university. It is our belief that some PUIs could qualify for the lead institution role, especially the comprehensive (Masters-granting) universities that have infrastructure in place for administering major programs. Some smaller baccalaureate colleges could qualify, as well. The potential for leadership at these institutions should not be dismissed out-of-hand. It may well be that within a potential RSEC consortium, a PUI has qualifications and dedication that make it the natural leader. RSEC grant proposals that have strong leadership from PUIs will have the PUI perspective as to PUI needs, rather than the perspective of the research university.  

We suggest that the RSEC guidelines require a pre-proposal that describes the qualifications and commitment of the lead institution. NSF should encourage potential applicants to talk with a program officer even prior to submitting the pre-proposal, so the officer fully understands the intended scope of a RSEC project, and can evaluate the lead institution's suitability for the task. Using the pre-proposal mechanism, adjustments can be made to the leadership team before the full proposal is developed. 

The successful RSEC proposals in the first round all were built around strong regional collaborations or potential collaborations. Such a structure provides a mechanism for continuity of the RSEC activity after the grant has ended. We suggest that RSECs also have a component whereby a limited number of faculty members from PUIs can apply to work in the program even though they are not from one of the collaborating or local institutions. This is the model adopted by the Keck Consortium in Geology, a privately funded program at baccalaureate colleges to promote undergraduate research. It allows appropriate research colleagues to participate, especially in fields where national expertise is in short supply. We understand that the University of Tennessee RSEC does have this component - its Fellow applicants are being solicited from a wide area. 

The first three RSECs appear to be broadly based within the field of chemistry rather than focused on a sub-discipline. If this is the only model that NSF is likely to fund, this should be mentioned in the RFP. If NSF were interested in models that emphasize collaborations focussed around specific topics/sub-disciplines, this would be worth mentioning in the RFP. In the future, we would favor this approach, at least on a trial basis (e.g., in the next round the guidelines might encourage national collaborations focused upon a specific research topic as well as regional collaborations). 

Impressions 

In our world of limited budgets, there is always a concern that a new program may take resources from an existing one. Several CUR members have questioned whether the RSEC program takes resources from regular ROA opportunities. They remind us that ROAs are open to participation from faculty members around the country through faculty-initiated proposals, whereas participation in an RSEC is more restricted. They also cite their concern that the two Macro-ROAs, at the University of Tennessee and the University of Kansas, might have been in competition with other ROA funding. 

CUR agrees that it would be unfortunate if ROAs were curtailed in favor of RSEC. As NSF knows, these are two different types of programs. RSECS are more in the line of "systemic reform" for a set of schools in a particular region, and it is hoped that they can serve as models for other regions. ROAs are characterized by timeliness and flexibility, providing a small boost just when and where it is needed. The danger is that RSECs are showier than RUI programs. They are also much more expensive. Some years will be required before we can tally the relative successes of ROA and RSEC, but we suspect that these two types of programs will prove to be entirely complementary --- they solve different problems, and both are needed.  

We suggest that NSF clarify the relationship between ROA and RSEC, so that it is understood that both are valued and funding for them is not in competition. In fact, one could look at the establishment of RSEC as a way to isolate RSEC (formerly Macro-ROA) from ROA to avoid even an appearance of competition. While this fact may be clear to NSF program officers, it bears frequent repeating to the outside community. 

We also hope that NSF - Chemistry will increase its funding of ROAs, as an efficient way of meeting the exact needs of individuals who are using their own initiative to increase their professional capabilities. This will provide a positive signal that faculty efforts to improve themselves will be rewarded. CUR has commented upon the RUI/ROA programs in a separate White Paper.