Docstoc

incentives

Document Sample
incentives Powered By Docstoc
					                             NCSU CCTRP



URC Perspectives on Faculty
  Incentives for Research


    Jim Riviere, Chair URC
                                 NCSU CCTRP

    Incentives for Extramural
             Funding
 Identified as a critical issue by many
  members of URC
 Exacerbated by current budget crisis
 We are still in the discussion stage
 Goal is to foster dialogue
                                 NCSU CCTRP

       Why is this an issue?
 Many faculty “hear the call” for
  increasing extramural funding at
  NCSU and improving our national
  ranking
 Grant applications and management
  consume a great deal of professional
  time not directly related to research
 Presently, there are few if any NCSU
  incentives for faculty to be successful
  in this endeavor
                                          NCSU CCTRP

   URC feels this is particularly acute with
    senior faculty where there are no
    “automatic” triggers for potential salary
    adjustments (e.g. promotions).
   The “tails of the distribution” of outstanding
    and under-performing faculty are covered
    by existing procedures
     Modus Operandi for “super-stars” is to get a
      competitive offer from another university and
      negotiate a better situation. RISKY!
     Post-tenure review covers “under-performers”
                                NCSU CCTRP


 Problem is with faculty five years
  beyond last promotion where no
  automatic reward system exists
 Sense of URC that investment in new
  research programs takes precedence
  over existing programs
 This is also tied to infrastructure
  needs of older faculty whose original
  equipment obtained in start-up
  packages is now vintage
                                            NCSU CCTRP

                   Solutions?
   Institute positive incentives (e.g. salary
    increases) for outstanding post-tenure
    reviews
     This would require assuring post-tenure review
      is uniformly applied across all colleges
 Add additional “steps” for senior faculty
 Expand “metrics” of research productivity
    since level of extramural support is not sole
    indicator of successful research
     Publications, Editorships, Awards, etc.
 One faculty advocated “negative salary
    incentives”
                                           NCSU CCTRP

    Solutions Applicable to All Ranks
   Direct financial Incentives (e.g. % of F&A, %
    of salary recovery) back to faculty
   Excellent review of pros and cons in
    January 23rd issue of SCIENCE
     Ranged from $3,000 to $30,000 / year / 100K base
      salary
     80/125 surveyed US Medical Schools offer
      incentive
   Major negative is that approach targets
    research to sources paying F&A at a
    detriment to some other mission oriented
    areas and overall academic value system
                                  NCSU CCTRP


 Directed financial support (reduced
  F&A, equipment, extra space) for
  specific “hot” faculty
 Reduced teaching loads
 Increase endowed professorships
 Increased research awards
 University Research Academy with
  financial incentive as long as faculty is
  a member of the academy
                                      NCSU CCTRP


                Conclusions
   If research enterprise is to grow, attention
    needs to be paid to a broadly applicable
    incentive program
   URC is focused on those areas that can help
    strengthen the research arena, fully
    realizing that there are other potential
    impacts of any such program
   Bottom line: a research incentive program is
    required if we are to compete at the next
    level!
                     NCSU CCTRP


Day 1 Wrap Up
          See you in the AM

				
DOCUMENT INFO