CASA Research and Development | SIU

Home
Southern Illinois University

CONTACT

SIU.EDU

CASA's Research and Development

College of Applied Sciences and Arts

2017 Summer Research Support Guidelines

Overview

The Summer Research Support (SRS) was created in 2013 by the Office of the Dean in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. The program is designed to (1) increase productivity in research, innovation, and creativity, (2) further develop CASA’s unique strengths and opportunities in applied and inter-disciplinary research, and (3) grow and diversify CASA’s extramural research funding.

Instructions (Updated 02/28/2017)

1. The Principal Investigator (PI) of the proposal must be a tenured, tenure-track, or non-tenure track faculty in CASA. Preference will be given to junior facultyIf funded, the PI will receive a half month salary for summer research. In order to provide research opportunities to as many faculty as possible, recipients of summer funding are asked to not submit the year after their award, but wait until the following year.

2. The proposals are evaluated based on their intellectual merits and broader impact on CASA’s vision and mission, Strategic Plan, and CASA@2020 Initiative. Faculty can request a copy of the CASA@2020 from the Research Committee Chair or the Dean’s office. Proposals with the following attributes are highly encouraged:

  • Have potential to generate results to secure external funding (significant considertation will be given to this point).
  • Have potential to generate result for publication on a top-ranked journal.
  • Reflect and help implement CASA strategic goals and actions.
  • Integrate research with education.

3. The recipients must submit a report of their research results (two pages minimum) before Monday, August 15, 2017, and must present at the CASA Research Symposium in Fall 2017. The report should provide a summary of the research conducted, the results/findings, and conclusions with expected future work.

4. The proposal should have the following two parts:

  • Part I: The Cover Page – This page should include research project title, principal investigator (PI) name and contact information.
  • Part II: The Proposal – The research proposal should have a project title and project description, including how the project will help implement CASA’s strategic goals and actions, how the project will integrate research and education, how the results will be published, and be utilized to seek external funding.

5. Please note that the Research Committee is conducting a blind review process, so the cover page (with PI’s name and contact information) will be removed by the Dean’s office staff before sending it to the Research Committee for review. The second part of a proposal should NOT include any identity information of the PI.

6. Page Limit: Please prepare your proposal to include the following sections within two pages (not including the cover page and references).

Project Title: A concise name for the research project.

Project Description: It outlines the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures, and expected outcomes. It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the prior work, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project:

  • What will be the expected outcomes of this project?
  • How will the results of the project be utilized to seek external funding?
  • How will the project integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding?
  • How does the project support CASA Strategic Plan (2013) and CASA@2020 Initiative resulting from the proposed activity?
  • What is the timeline of this research?

References Cited (this part is NOT counted in the 2-page limit)

Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. If the document is available electronically, the website address also should be identified.

Submission Deadline:

Please submit your proposal electronically via email to mnemet@siu.edu before March 15, 2017. 

Awarding Date: The awarding decision will be sent out before April 28, 2017.

CASA Research Committee

Chad Schwartz (Co-Chair), Karen Johnson (Co-Chair), Jennifer Sherry, Seung Hee Lee, Tom Imboden, Matthew Romero, Sean Boyle, Marcea Walter, Jose Ruiz, Donald Morris

Ex-Officio Members: Andy Ju An Wang, Tom Shaw, Mary Nemetsky, Michael Behrmann

Summer Research Support Rubric 

  • A value between 1 (Poor) and 4 (Excellent) will be awarded for each criterion.
  • The sum of scores will be added as the final score.

Project Title: ____________________________________

Criterion

Poor (1)

Fair (2)

Good (3)

Excellent (4)

INTELECTUAL MERIT AND BROADER IMPACT
The proposal must address one or more of the following:

Potential for Publication

Not clear

Defined but not reachable

Good result for conference publication

Excellent result for journal publication

CASA Strategic

Goals/Actions

No connection to CASA strategic goals/actions

Related to, but in indirect fashion

Good connection with foreseeable contribution

Significant contribution to CASA strategic goals/actions

External Funding (emphasis placed here during evaluation)

Not possible to seek external funding based on the result of the research

The research result is minimal for an external funding proposal

The result is good for an external funding support

The result is excellent to be submitted to an external funding source

Integrate Research with Education

No impact

Fair impact

Good impact

Excellent impact, perfect integration of teaching with research

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Merit and Impact (consider only if items above are ranked 3 or 4)

Proposal addresses one item

Proposal addresses two items

Proposal addresses three items

Proposal addresses four items

Project Description

Project is difficult to understand for people both inside and outside the field of research.

Project is difficult for people outside of the field of research to comprehend

Project is understood by people outside of the field of research with some effort

Project is easy to understand to people both inside and outside of the field of research

Background and Prior Work

Proposal  does not present a background or prior work

Background or prior work are partially described

Proposal presents background and prior work, but lacks specific details

Proposal presents the background or prior work

General Plan of Work and Activities

Plan of work or Activities are not described

Activities are poorly described and may not be suitable for the research timeline

Activities may not be clearly described but appears to be suitable for the research timeline

Activities are clearly described and are suitable for the research timeline

Research Timeline

Timeline is not described or is not suitable for the activities described

Timeline meets most of the activities proposed

Timeline appears to be suitable for all the activities described but may not be clearly presented

Timeline is clearly presented and is clearly suitable for the activities described

Methods and Procedures

Provides no discussion of the methods or procedures

Provides only superficial explanation about the methods

Discusses the methods or procedures to be used in the project, but lacks specific details

Discusses the methods or procedures with specific details

Expected Research Outcomes

Proposal does not discuss research outcomes

Provides only superficial explanation about the research outcomes

States results but does not provide specific details

Presents expected research outcomes with specific details

General Writing Mechanics

Poorly written, poor transition sentences, contains major spelling/grammar errors, lacks organization

Fairly written, lacks clarity, difficult to follow, some level of organization, contains some spelling / grammar errors

Well written, almost free of spelling / grammar errors, generally clear, easy to follow

Very well written, free of spelling / grammar errors, clear arguments and well organization

Proposal Guidelines

Not following the guidelines

Partially following the guidelines

Adheres to most of the guidelines

Adheres to all the guidelines

Total Score: ________________