To: Myke Gluck, Chair, Doctoral Program Team
From: Sub-Team B (Research Collaboration): Laurie Bonnici,
Antoinette Graham, and Greg Reid, Charles Conaway, Chair
Subject: Draft for approval or suggestions for improvement before forwarding it to the Doctoral Committee as our recommendations
Date: December 5, 2000
CHARGE AND ACTIONS:
Our Sub-Team was asked to consider the Research Collaboration requirement for the doctoral program and make recommendations to the Doctoral Committee. Based on a preliminary set of questions, we met and had a through discussion of the apparent intent, current and recent practice, practicalities in implementation, and implications of the requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1- The requirement for two terms of Research Collaboration (6 semester hours) should be retained. At least one of these should have been completed before a student's Academic Program Committee permits a student to sit for the first of the preliminary exams.
2- Students should be encouraged to work with two different faculty members, but this is not a requirement.
3- At least one of the collaborations must be done with a faculty member within the School, but the second may be with another faculty member with doctoral directive status elsewhere in the University.
4- "Research" should be defined broadly, but at least one of the collaborations should include elements of research design, data collection, and data analysis. It may be either relatively "pure" or "applied", but course development activities are specifically excluded.
5- The substance of the collaboration is critical to the determination of its satisfaction of the requirement and is independent of financial considerations (i.e., whether or not compensated with salary, tuition waivers, etc.)
6- It is not necessary that a collaboration involve every aspect of a piece of research, as most likely span a time longer than a single academic term. If a student wishes to continue beyond the term, that is a matter for individual decision and will not effect the satisfactory completion of the requirement.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION:
1- A quasi-contractual agreement should be prepared by the collaborators. This document should indicate explicitly that it is the joint intent to meet the research collaboration requirement. It should mention the following elements:
a- The term and time requirements: (Fall, Spring, or a Summer session) and that there not be less than 135 hours of quality effort on the part of the student.
b- The general goal of the research and expected progress by the end of the term.
c- The expected role of the student.
d- The nature of the interaction between the parties ( regarding schedules, deadlines, communication, etc.)
e- Criteria for what, if any, credit will be given to the student as the results of the research work is made public.
f- Acknowledgement that the grade will be S or U and the criteria applied for the determination of which it will be.
2- The student's Academic Program Committee will have broad discretion in determining the appropriateness of any collaboration as meeting the requirement, with the Doctoral Committee having final determination (along the lines of its oversight responsibilities for approval of preliminary exam questions).
3- Faculty members should be encouraged to list opportunities for collaboration in a database designed for this purpose which will be available to doctoral students. The Administration will see that new items are added promptly and that non-current items are removed promptly.
4- LIS6911r must be registered for by the student for 3 semester hours for each collaboration.
SUB-COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER MATTERS TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE:
1- The overall effect of various new requirements on those already made on doctoral students; with a view of what constitutes a reasonable amount of time in the program, requirements for an additional number of mandatory seminars, a "minor", a "publishable" paper, two research collaborations, teaching responsibilities, a multi-part preliminary exam, preparation and defense of a proposal, and the preparation and defense of the dissertation.
2- What, if any, adjustments should be made in consideration of students who have a maximum term of leave, external financial support, etc. to complete their work? This might most directly effect students from abroad who are being supported by their governments, but it is of potential importance to all doctoral students.
3- What, exactly, does "publishable" mean in the requirement for the preparation of a "publishable paper" prior to permitting the taking of the first of the preliminary exams?
4- There is a noticeable variation between the stated entry requirement for an introductory statistics course and the apparent practice of many, if not most, students arriving without it and being granted a waiver. Either the requirement or the common practice should be changed, as they are inconsistent.
A copy of the Sub-Committee's minutes is attached.
Submitted by Charles Wm. Conaway, December 5, 2000.
=============================================================
Sub-Team B work (Research Collaboration)
Charles Conaway
Laurie Bonnici
Greg Reid
Antoinette Graham
Notes from 11/9/00 Meeting
RE: Research Collaboration and DIS, and related requirements
Charles, Laurie & Greg,
Please feel free to make corrections on these. I'll take the blame for any misconstrued thoughts or other misunderstandings. Although I've tried to identify the source of content, the wording is mine alone.
*****
Dr. Conaway's schedule of discussion was based on the following email sent earlier to committee members:
1- What is the definition of Research Collaboration? How is it distinguished from a DIS?
2- What are the acceptable patterns? One with each of two faculty? One continued to a second term with the same faculty member? One faculty member, two distinct projects? Or ...?
3- As a practical matter, when the faculty established this as a policy, the term was ill-defined. Minutes of meetings typically only list actions taken, thus it is unlikely that they will be helpful to us in attempting to establish intent (or multiple intents); therefore, we should feel free to propose whatever seems reasonable to us in the way of definition (and, of course, make clear what we think the intent is and how it should be achieved).
4- Although the requirement has been on the books for some time, its implementation seems to be rather erratic. Those of you who have been here for longer than a year, should be prepared to share your own experience (and those of your cohort) with those of us who haven't yet been involved. What seems to have worked well, badly, or not at all?
5- Although I don't advocate it, we should not be constrained in our thinking about whether the requirement might by eliminated, waived under specified conditions, done with someone not a member of the School's faculty, etc.
6- Of course, "research" is also an ill-defined term, with faculty involved in a variety of teaching activities, development work of various sorts, policy matters, etc. Do we want to define it loosely to include making literature reviews, recommendation of policy statements, developing Web courses, or only tightly involving some data collection and analysis?
7- We should also give some consideration to how to implement the policy and the practicalities of matching up the collaborator pairs effectively. [My belief is that we tell the administrators what we want done and then it is their responsibility to carry it out to our specifications, without the complaint that we can't do (or figure out how to do) effectively.]
8- Though somewhat heretical in a program that is founded on the notion that we are preparing researchers, we might also wish to look at whether the original intention might have included a method of providing "free" high quality labor to support faculty research agendas, whether a doctoral student should have to pay tuition for the experience, whether compensation might be paid for this work, what credit a doctoral student might expect in terms of by-lines for research products, if (or how long) this requirement will extend a student's degree program, to what degree does it support or detract from course work, TA work, prelim taking, proposal writing, or conducting one's dissertation research, etc. How does, or might, this mandate relate to the "publishable paper" mandate?
*****
CONDENSED MEETING DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
(a longer version follows)
The committee does not want to waive the Research Practicum requirement but would like to have a clearer definition of what is "research" and who makes this determination. Does "research" include data analysis? Teaching and course development? Should a student's committee decide what is or isn't research?
There was general feeling that an RP project could reasonably flow into two semesters and that a student should be able to get credit for the second half, although it was acknowledged that a student would benefit from the experience of working on different projects with different faculty members.
DIS projects were distinguished from RP projects because they produce a tangible deliverable. RP is more hands-on, ideally a true collaboration, and the process has value over and above its outcome.
Students should be encouraged to become involved with research projects within the School, but should they do so in another School, it might not be unreasonable to specify that the guiding faculty have doctoral directive status.
It was agreed that there is currently a balance between the number of research projects and the pool of available students. Some projects are not making it to the database. It is obviously important that the benefits to the students and to the faculty be equitable. Issues such as fair monetary compensation and byline credit need to be addressed.
There was discussion about the current workload imposed on students, and plans for possibly increasing it in the future, and how this would impact students both in terms of stress and the length of time needed to finish, especially foreign students who are given a specific timeframe for completion of the program.
The committee recognized the need for clarification in the Guidelines of what is meant by the requirement for a "publishable paper" -- its definition and the hardships imposed by authorities outside of the student's control in trying to get a work published. Dr. Conaway recommends that this issue be handled by a different committee.
Other questions that arose:
Should doctoral students be allowed to have master level programs from the School be applied to their coursework?
How could the statistics requirement be clarified and more fairly administered? (Dr. Conaway recommends this be handled by another committee.)
Team B should resolve what it can and be prepared to make recommendations by the end of November.
*****************************
LONG VERSION OF MEETING DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS ...
Note: Laurie is working under the "old" guidelines. Greg and Antoinette are under the current guidelines.
C: Research Practicum requirement -- Can it be waived? Right now the requirement is clear and unambiguous. Can it be contracted into one term?
There was general agreement that the requirement itself not be waived.
L: This requirement is only in the new guidelines. Knows of a couple people who felt they were providing free GA services, although one got on a published paper. There is a difference with DIS projects. RP projects can take longer than one semester, and the students don't want to abandon them.
Greg is an example of a student voluntarily continuing on a project after the semester ended, without compensation or further credits.
G: Is his review work with Dr. Gluck considered true "research"?
C: We need to define the question of what is "research."
L: Ruth Hodges is doing content analysis with Dr. Burnett. A couple students (Portia and Ruth) are in their second semesters of research while working on different aspects of the same project.
In Laurie's experience, DIS is more bookwork and intellectual. RP is more hands-on, reality-based, with true collaboration, and actual research with traditional steps (lit review, theory, test/method, execution, etc.).
C: Master students can do hands-on. We need to make clear the distinction between Interaction vs. Collaboration.
G: DIS involves a deliverable.
C: Yes, like an annotated bibliography, but more than just something for the files, e.g. a webpage, a tangible product.
L: DIS, yes -- you end with (for example) a written lit review or oral history project. RP sometimes NOT a hardset deliverable, even given a timeline. RP is a process, not a product.
C: The RP process is still beneficial even if abandoned.
*****
It was acknowledged that Dr. Gluck thinks it's important that students experience a different faculty member for each research semester.
C: Current requirements are for six hours, conceivably two terms of RP. Could the faculty member be from outside of the School?
L: An outside person should have doctoral directive status.
C: And inside? It would be preferred but maybe shouldn't be specified since it could limit the pool.
G: Perhaps it should be left up to the student's committee.
C: Possible recommendation: Encourage research collaborations with faculty within the School, but that it is possible that it be done with a qualified faculty member elsewhere in the University. Leave silent the preference for doctoral directive status within the School.
L: Perhaps use as a model the guidelines in place for doctoral directive standards for one's committee.
C: Doctoral directive faculty have access to data, etc. Not aware if doctoral directive status is required for outsiders. [NOTE: Tony is making inquiries and will let the committee know ASAP.]
L: Would it be limiting to the student if his/her research project is done with someone lacking doctoral directive status?
C: Must Insiders be full-time and tenure-tracked? Perhaps tenure-track should be specified as a requirement.
*****
C: Does "research" include data analysis? Teaching and course development?
L: Could mislead students. We're preparing academic researchers and instructors, so research should be research -- with a certain looseness (theory, for example, being acceptable because it is preparing for research). Course development is producing a product for the School.
C: Application doesn't advance knowledge, just organizes it. College faculty members basically define what "research" is.
G: The committee could determine what it is, with loose guidelines.
C: Committee shouldn't have the power to say that something is NOT research.
L: Should follow some sense along a Research Methods procedure. You know what's not included.
C: e.g., production activity, teaching instruments. No statement should be made regarding methods or the importance of the target.
G: Otherwise we may restrict people or projects. Restricts growth.
******
C: Is the supply and demand of research projects and students in balance? What means are there to connect up both sides?
It was estimated that as many as 26 research slots would be needed each year, based on Greg's second year class size. Some projects utilize multiple students. At the moment, there is no apparent shortage of students for research projects, although this could change in the future.
[Laurie announced that better communication has taken care of the problem of LIS web content being modified by the School's technical staff.]
It was acknowledged that many projects are never added to the database.
C: Is the current system unfair to students, as it benefits the faculty?
Laurie has confidence in the faculty, and hopes that students will work on research projects even if they aren't of particular interest. There was general agreement that faculty are not taking advantage of doctoral students.
Question: What of funded projects? Should some of that money trickle down to the student collaborators?
C: There's the matter of internships. The student gets a salary plus tuition waiver. The kind of work is not what's important, it's something else. They are independent -- receiving payment or having tuition waived doesn't change the nature of the collaboration.
L: It would encourage faculty to seek grants so they could hire qualified students.
C: If there is a genuine collaboration, all partners have contributed and should be acknowledged in any publication that comes from it. It would be hard to set up guidelines for this since non-tenured faculty don't want to share credit. Tenured people don't mind sharing credit.
Greg described how members of his class had to sign an actual research contract. Other members of the committee were unaware of such an instrument. [NOTE: Tony is checking into possible contract requirements and forms and will get back to the committee.]
Q: Should this contract specify a sharing of collaborative credit?
C: Perhaps one could include phrases such as "in the event" and "equitable consideration for research," etc.
L: The stress of taking coursework and working on research projects simultaneously is good experience for students who will meeting stressful challenges once they become faculty.
C: We must look at the total load of requirements and mandates, and have reasonable expectations of the number of years of training. Some other activities pull students away from their dissertations and purpose. At what point is the student being abused by impeding obligations necessary to graduate? Perhaps minimum pay and maximum schooling is in the best interest of administration, but is it fair to the student? What about foreign students who have a specific timeframe (e.g., three years) to complete the degree?
Q: There is talk about raising the current requirement of four seminars for Ph.D. students to six seminars. Is this reasonable in light of the other requirements (e.g., residency, publishable paper, research practica, etc.)?
L: Bumping up the coursework requirement will affect everyone. There is talk of requiring two courses per semester in order to fill classes which are now not getting a minimal enrollment.
It was noted that requiring two courses per semester would have students taking classes that were not directly related to their interests and goals.
C: Some people think wide exposure in all areas is good, others think coursework should be directed toward the dissertation subject. Conaway prefers a broader scope.
L: But that AND the other requirements -- minor courses and research collaborations -- is overwhelming to the students.
C: We must consider the effect of adding more requirements. We may have to drop an old one every time a new one is added.
G: There could be conflicts in the second year when students start working on their RP requirements.
*****
Q: What exactly is meant by the "publishable paper" which is now required? Publishable by whom? Must it be useful? It's ill-defined.
Discussion followed about the frustrations involved with getting a timely response from journal editors, which could negatively affect a student's academic progress.
C: Conaway suggested that this issue be taken up by a different committee.
*****
There was brief discussion as to whether LIS master-level courses could be taken by LIS doctoral students.
There was discussion about the statistics requirement currently in place, and how there is inconsistency with the way it is specified and how it is actually applied. It was recommended that another committee investigate this problem.
*****
CONCLUSION
Team B will prepare a report by the end of November in the basic format of:
"We have considered ..."
"This is the way it is ..."
"We recommend that ..."
"This is sound ... this should be changed ..."
... and recommend what should be passed on to other committees.
Definitions of certain terms in the Guidelines must be clarified.
Sub-Team B must be prepared to deal with the resultant questions and get things ironed out before January/February's faculty meeting.
_______________
Antoinette Graham
11/10/00
ADDENDUM
11/10/00
Text of email message from Dr. McClure:
If you (or others) want to do a PhD research practicum with the
me/the Institute, Greg is correct, there is a procedure you need
to go through on the School's website at "Research Collaboration
(Research Practicum) Tracking System" under Graduate Programs.
You need to get a password from Joyce above to do this.
If you are interested in taking a DIS or some type of an
Independent study/special projects with me then we would
have an agreement as to what you would do, how done, etc.
which we would negotiate and then write up. Typically
the letter of agreement would have these components:
Name of DIS or Independent Study
Learning Objectives
Overview of Project Activities
Project products
Evaluation Criteria
Communication Activities with the Instructor
There may need to be other things in the agreement depending
on the nature of the DIS, but we can discuss those as needed.
*************
Agenda Posted by Charles Conaway (conaway@lis.fsu.edu) on 12/13/2000 at 08:22:08