Appendix H: Guidelines for Five-Year Reviews of Multicampus Research Units (MRUs)

REVIEW COMMITTEE GUIDELINES 

The Review Process

As set forth in the Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units, periodic reviews of MRUs are necessary to ensure that the research being conducted under the units’ auspices is of the highest possible quality and that University resources are being allocated wisely and in line with University priorities. The five-year review requires that each MRU submit a proposal to be reviewed by an ad hoc review committee established by the Vice Provost for Research from a slate nominated by the Chair of the Academic Council and the Chancellors.

The Review Committee’s Report is expected to provide an objective and balanced critical evaluation of the MRU to be reviewed and answer two key questions. One, does the unit provide a unique service to UC in research, support of graduate education, and public service that would not otherwise be accomplished in its absence? Two, should the MRU be continued for another five years? The information needed to complete the review will be gathered from the MRU Director’s Report and from a site visit to the MRU’s administrative headquarters and, if necessary, to other important locations. Where appropriate, the Review Committee’s Report may simply refer to the Director’s Report rather than duplicate information already provided in the Director’s Report. The Review Committee should become familiar with the section on five-year reviews contained in Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning organized Research Units.

Review Committee Report

The Review Committee’s report is the most important product of the MRU review process and its recommendations will be pivotal to decisions about the future of the unit. The report should address each of the areas identified below and emphasize for each the unit’s strengths and weaknesses. A report from the Director of the MRU detailing information on the same areas will be provided to the Review Committee to assist it in carrying out the review. The body of the Review Committee’s Report should not exceed 20 single-spaced pages, not including appendices.

  1. Introduction and Executive Summary.
    1. Mission of the unit. Include, as an introduction, a concise statement describing the history of the unit, its mission, scope, and any changes that may have occurred in mission and scope over the life of the MRU. Does the unit serve the University in some unique way such that it represents a substantial asset to the University and the citizens of California? Is the unit visible and active on its home campus? On other UC campuses? Is there evidence of effective interaction with related units, e.g., departments, other campus entities, and, where appropriate, national Labs?
  2. Evidence of accomplishment. What are the MRU’s major accomplishments over the over the preceding five year period in the following areas?
    1. Research: Describe the quality and productivity of research accomplished and in progress. What are the major achievements of the professional academic staff (publications, awards, honors, presentations) and administrative support staff? Is there compelling evidence that the MRU has contributed to outstanding research in the disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas in which it specializes?
    2. Undergraduate and graduate education: What are the direct and indirect contributions of the MRU to graduate and undergraduate teaching programs of academic departments of the University?
    3. Recognition for excellence beyond UC: Does the unit have a national or international reputation for excellence beyond UC?
    4. Public service and outreach: Has the MRU made significant contributions to the public and the community external to UC? Does the MRU contribute to policy discussions and development at the State and national levels in areas encompassed by its special research interests?
  3. Budget. Does the unit make cost-effective uses of UC funds (for example, is there an appropriate balance of expenditures for administrative versus research support)? Has the unit been successful in garnering extramural support to augment UC funding? Should additional UC funding be provided, and if so, what needs do you regard as most critical for the unit?
  4. Administration and governance. Does the administrative structure optimally meet the needs of the MRU? Are resources for administration appropriate and adequate? The report should separately address the following administrative issues:
    1. Director: Is the Director an effective leader of the MRU? What are the Director’s strengths and weaknesses? Are there areas in which the Directors should place additional or fewer resources?
    2. Space and resources: Is the space assigned to the unit adequate or reasonable from an overall campus perspective, in terms of footage and location? What specific changes would you recommend, if any? Does the Director have adequate control of space assigned to the unit, and has it been well utilized? Are necessary resources available to the unit and are they adequate?
    3. Personnel: Is there adequate participation of faculty in the unit, both at the host campuses and on other campuses? Is the support staff adequate at the administrative headquarters?
    4. Contract and grant administration: If the MRU administers faculty-generated grants and contracts, are the arrangements adequate and do the research projects receive appropriate levels of infrastructure support
  5. Advisory Committee(s): How effective is the Advisory Committee or committees in providing guidance to the Director? Does the Committee have a role in the MRU’s faculty research competition(s) and in the graduate student dissertation competition, if one exists? If so, are potential conflict-of-interests appropriately managed?
  6. Problems and needs: Are there significant problems or needs that prevent the MRU from fulfilling its mission effectively and what actions should be taken to address them?
  7. Comparison with other units. What are the MRU’s unique contributions to the University that distinguish it from other apparently similar research or academic entities at UC? Is the unit’s continuance as a separate entity justified and what would be lost if the unit did not exist?
  8. Conclusions and Recommendations.

 

CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW COMMITTEE’S REPORT 

  1. Introduction and Executive Summary
  2. Evidence of Accomplishment
    1. Research
    2. Undergraduate and Graduate Education
    3. Recognition Beyond UC
    4. Public Service and Outreach
  3. Budget
  4. Administration and Governance
    1. Director
    2. Space and Resources
    3. Staffing
    4. Contract and Grant Administration
  5. Advisory Committee
  6. Problems and Needs
  7. Comparison with other Units
  8. Conclusions and Recommendations