VI Criterion - Research Criterion VI
The school shall pursue an active research program, consistent with its mission, through which its faculty and students contribute to the knowledge base of the public health disciplines, including research directed at improving the practice of public health.
Expected Documentation 1. A description of the school's research activities, including policies, procedures and practices which support research and scholarly activities. 2. A description of current community based research activities and/or those undertaken in collaboration with health agencies and community based organizations. Formal research agreements with such agencies should be identified. 3. A list of current research activity, including amount and source of funds, over the last three years. 4. Identification of measures by which the school may evaluate the success of its research activities, along with data regarding the school's performance against those measures over the last three years. 5. A description of student involvement in research. 6. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.
Criterion VI - Research 1. Research Policies, Procedures and Practices
School of Public Health Research Policy The school recognizes research as a primary factor in the pursuit of its mission to enhance the quality of life by improving the public's health. The school is committed to advancing understanding in the disciplines comprising public health and to disseminating research findings to practitioners, academicians, policy-makers, as well as other appropriate groups, and to the public they serve. Research is an integral part of the school's education and service functions. As an academic institution preparing individuals for careers in this interdisciplinary field, the school encourages interdisciplinary research and research with direct application to practice. The school places a strong emphasis on community and believes that community-based research should be done in partnership with the community. The school's research activity is guided by the following principles:
Reflecting the university's status as a Research I institution and the university administration's stated goal of enhancing that status, the school is committed to supporting and facilitating research activities conducted by its faculty and students. As part of a land-grant university in an urban setting, the school places priority on research that furthers community involvement. The school is committed to faculty autonomy in developing personal research agendas. The school's emphasis on research is an important factor in consideration for promotion and tenure. The school encourages faculty participation in interdisciplinary research activities that include faculty in other academic units within the university, faculty outside the university, or collaborators affiliated with public or private agencies and organizations outside academe. Collaboration is fostered through the school's system of centers that serve as loci for interdisciplinary initiatives and collegial, as well as community, partnerships. The school encourages participation in research activities by students as appropriate to their academic program and career interests and provides support through tuition waivers. The school is committed to the protection of human subjects.
2. Community-Based Research Activities
As already noted, the school places a high priority on partnership with the community. Many research projects are community-based, and function with community participation through a range of mechanisms, including community advisory boards, joint research design, joint field work and joint evaluation. The list provided in response to Criterion VI.3 includes a (*) by all research projects that are community-based (including those with community-based organizations), and a (#) by those projects that include formal research agreements with health agencies. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. Of 316 research projects listed, 130 are community-based and 76 are part of formal research agreements with health agencies. Examples of community-based research include the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention, the Community Outreach Intervention Projects, and the Maternal and Child Community Health Science Consortium. These are described briefly in the response to Criterion II.B.2. Formal research agreements with health and municipal agencies exist with the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Chicago Public Schools, the Cook County Department of Public Health, Cook County Hospital, various other county health departments in Illinois and surrounding states, the Illinois Department of Public Health, Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pacific American Health Organization, and the World Health Organization.
77
3. Current Research Activity
Appendix VI.3 is the list of research activity for fiscal years 1995-97. Information provided on this list includes: the division or center where the research is conducted, the principal investigator, the title of the project, the sponsor and the total award.
4. Measures of Research Activity
Research Outcome Measures All measures are per FTE faculty (in this case, we have included faculty from Groups A and B). a. Participation in external funding (see Table VI.4): Grants submitted 1) Number 2) Dollars requested Grants awarded 1) Number 2) Dollars Number of peer-reviewed journal articles, both first-authored and co-authored manuscripts, per FTE (see Table VI.4). We have not included book chapters or conference proceedings in this section. List of journals in which all faculty have published in last three years (see Appendix VI.4). Number of conference presentations (see Table VI.4). c. Research service/recognition Service on national and local grant review committees: SPH faculty have participated in approximately 70 different international, national and local grant review committees. Many faculty are standing members of NIH and/or CDC study sections/panels that meet multiple times in any given year. Examples include: National Institute for Justice, Institute National on Drug Abuse, NIOSH, NIH Study Section on Rehabilitation Medicine, Behavioral Science Panel of NIH Office of AIDS Research, Centers for Disease Control, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, United Nations International Drug Control Program, NIMH Clinical Centers and Special Projects Review Committee, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, National Council for Child Abuse and Neglect, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Bureau of the Health Professions of HRSA, Department of Energy, National Institute on Aging, Army Medical Research Committee-Breast Cancer Section, and Chicago Department of Public Health. Service to journals - editor, editorial boards, reviews: Faculty provide considerable service to their disciplines through manuscript reviews and editorships. Eight faculty have served as journal editors (or associate editors) over the past three years (e.g., Advances in Medical Sociology and Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics). Nine faculty have served on journal editorial boards (e.g., Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, NeuroOncology, and Family and 78
b. Publications
Community Health). Faculty have noted significant participation in manuscript review (e.g., AJPH, JAMA, JASA, AJE, Milbank, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Maternal and Child Health Journal, Social Science and Medicine, American Anthropologist, Journal of Public Health Policy, Ethnicity and Disease, Health Services Research, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journals of Gerontology, The Gerontologist, The Journal of Aging and Health, and Medical Care). Awards received for research - either project specific or career (see Appendix VIII.A.2).
Table VI.4 Outcome Measures for Research Activity
Outcome Measure
Grants submitted* Grants awarded* Research dollars (in millions) requested* Research dollars (in millions) awarded* Peer-reviewed publications* First author/co-author* # Conference presentations (International meetings)
AY 95/96
2.59 1.86 $1.10 0.24 0.77/2.13 87 (6)
AY 96/97
2.30 1.89 $0.81 0.19 0.52/1.24 72 (10)
AY97/98
2.69 1.75 $0.67 0.21 0.46/1.59 110 (14)
* Per FTE faculty member Evaluating these outcome measures has revealed some real strengths and a few weaknesses in terms of our research activity. First, the grant activity measure indicates that we have clearly been successful in writing grants as between 65 and 82% of our grants submitted were actually awarded. However, the number of grants submitted and awarded per FTE has remained constant over the last 3 years while the number of faculty (both headcount and FTE) has increased. We feel these numbers may be somewhat diluted by the new faculty recruits who have been establishing their respective research agendas and have not had quite enough time to begin submitting grant proposals. With respect to research dollars requested and awarded, the downward trend in dollars requested per FTE again may be reflection of the new faculty whose efforts in this regard are at the starting point. It has also become apparent while reviewing these data, that the faculty are submitting proposals for smaller (dollar award) grants. We will emphasize the need to go for larger NIH-type grants and to support the effort of going after such grants, the Dean's Office has identified some "opportunity" funds which will provide seed monies or equipment or other resources to assist those faculty who wish to pursue NIH funding. The positive aspect of these smaller grants, however, is that many of these represent community based research which is fundamental to our mission (See Appendix VI.3). We will work diligently to maintain...