November 9, 2012
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, November 9, 2012
3:00 p.m.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History
Chancellor Holden Thorp and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding
Twitter hashtag: #FacCouncil
Agenda
3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
- Chancellor Holden Thorp
3:15 Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
- Provost Bruce Carney
3:25 Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period
- Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill
- Related Documents:
3:30 Update from the UNC System Strategic Planning Process
- Prof. Rachel Willis, member of the Faculty Advisory Council to the Strategic Directions Committee
3:50 Reports Received by Title
- Faculty Grievance Committee Annual Report (Filed by Prof. Jill Moore, Chair)
- Faculty Hearings Committee Annual Report (Filed by Prof. Kevin Stewart, Chair)
3:55 Faculty Research Committee Annual Report
- Prof. Kerry Bloom, Chair
4:00 Presentation and Discussion of Faculty Research Data Stewardship Task Force Report, Spring 2012
- Prof. Gary Marchionini
4:15 Reports and Discussion: Faculty Athletics Committee Annual Report and Faculty Athletics Representative Annual Report
- Prof. Joy Renner, Chair, Faculty Athletics Committee
- Prof. Lissa Broome, Faculty Athletics Representative
- Mr. Bubba Cunningham, Athletics Director
5:00 Adjourn
Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council
November 9, 2012
The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened November 9, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.
The following 61 Council members attended: Bachenheimer, Bhardwaj, Boettiger Cooney, Boulton, Boxill, Bulik, Bunch, Cavin, Chambers, Champagne, Chenault, Collier, Copenhaver, DeSaix, Engel, Ferrell, Friga, Garbin, Gilland, Giovanello, Grabowski, Heitsch, Hodges, Houck, Howes, Ives, Kang, Koomen, Kramer, Kurtz-Costes, Lee, Leonard, Linden, Lund, Maffly-Kipp, Mayer-Davis, McMillan, Milano, Moon, Moracco, Moreton, Nelson, O’Shaughnessey, Palmer, Parker, Parreiras, Patel, Paul, Persky, Pertsova, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Schoenbach, Shields, Stenberg, Swogger, Toews, Wang, Waterhouse and Watson.
Call to Order
Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
Chancellor Holden Thorp congratulated Prof. Myron Cohen and Prof. Terry Magnuson on their election to the Institute of Medicine. He said that twenty-two members of our faculty are now in the Institute of Medicine. The chancellor noted that Prof. Cohen will be the December commencement speaker and urged the faculty to attend. Chancellor Thorp also congratulated Prof. David Nicewicz (Chemistry) who has received one of sixteen Packard Fellowships for Science and Engineering awarded this year.
The Chancellor thanked everyone who attended the forum hosted by the Chancellor’s Search Committee and said the search for provost will continue to be put on hold, as well as the vacancy in the Office of Development. The provost search will resume toward the end of January , 2013, but the new chancellor will be selected first. He explained that it is important that the fundraising campaign start soon even though the new chancellor might set up a different fundraising committee. Dean Kristen Swanson has agreed to stay on as chair of the Provost Search Committee. Dr. Lowery Caudill will chair the search for vice chancellor for development.
The chancellor commented on the work of the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions. He emphasized the importance of balancing the number of students with the capacity to educate them. For the past ten years, enrollment has grown exponentially. He believes that most people at Carolina do not want to dramatically increase the number of undergraduates here. The committee has decided to set a goal to reach 32% college attainment, which he thinks is reasonable.
The chancellor spoke about a proposal by General Administration that would shorten the length of time students have to drop a course without having a “withdrawn” notification on their transcripts. He said that he and Chancellor Woodson of North Carolina State spoke out against the proposal at yesterday’s meeting of the Board of Governors, and that the Faculty Executive Committee has gone on record as supporting our current policy which allows students to drop a course without transcript notation through the eighth week of the semester. He said that it is his view that educational policies of this nature are the business of the faculty and that the Board of Governors should not involve itself in policies of this nature.
The Chancellor commented briefly on the challenges Carolina faces as they are outlined by Prof. Lissa Broome in her annual report as faculty athletics representative’s report. He specifically drew attention to the last paragraph: “This is a challenging time for our University. I hope that we will band together as the University receives the remainder of the review reports, develops processes to respond to their findings and suggestions, and works to ensure academic integrity. The University needs the faculty’s guidance, participation, and constructive criticism. At the same time, I ask that you not engage in stereotypical behavior towards student-athletes, allowing the transgressions of some to color your view of the vast majority of student-athletes who are fine students and excellent representatives of our University. In my view, we need to concentrate on fixing the problems we have found, develop controls to ensure they won’t happen again, engage in the coming discussion of how to find the appropriate balance of academics and athletics, and most importantly to move on to educate and support all of our students, including those who also play intercollegiate athletics.”
Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) asked what the mood has been like in the UNC Strategic Directions Committee meetings. Chancellor Thorp replied that there is a lot of collegiality; but also a lot of rhetoric. He said they had an excellent presentation on the non-economic benefits of a four year degree and said we need to continue to stress the value of a liberal arts education. He believes the first action taken by the committee to set a degree-attainment goal is optimistic, but also realistic.
Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) raised a concern about the naming of “Kenan Plaza,” the area south of the Stone Center that was developed along with the Genome Sciences Building. He said that the Athletics Department did not contribute to the funding of the project, but has claimed the right to name it. Chancellor Thorp responded that he was unaware of the concern and will look into it.
Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
Provost Bruce Carney noted that the university has a naming committee [the Buildings and Grounds Committee] that could take up the issue that Prof. Copenhaver raised.
The provost that the proposed change in the drop/add policy was first brought to his attention in August and he is hopeful that the proposal does not pass. He said that the tuition increase last year generated $13.7 million for salaries, courses, students, and libraries. There will be a less expensive tuition increase for students this year. The students participated and made recommendations on the tuition increase.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period
Prof. Jan Boxill (Philosophy) said that the Chancellor’s Search Committee has been a learning process. She thanked the faculty who went to the search committee’s public forum. She directed the faculty to www.chancellorsearch.unc.edu and invited them to email their comments to chancellorsearch@unc.edu. The committee has read all of the emails submitted.
Prof. Boxill said that the add/drop policy is distressing because admissions officers in graduate and professional schools look closely at undergraduate transcripts and may be negatively influenced by seeing several withdrawal notations. She pointed out that a large percentage of our undergraduate students go on to seek graduate or professional degrees. The Faculty Executive Committee drafted a statement in opposition to the proposal.
Prof. Boxill invited the faculty to participate in public forum for faculty on the strategic planning process recently initiated by General Administration and to fill out the survey online. She emphasized the need for faculty to be engaged in the planning process and shared governance.
She reported that the honor system reforms that came out of last year’s Honor System Task Force are being worked on and that she anticipates a decision soon as to whether the campus will adopt Turnitin software.
Update from the UNC System Strategic Planning Process
Prof. Rachel Willis (American Studies), member of the Faculty Advisory Council to the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions, gave an overview of the five-year planning process and urged faculty to send comments to the Faculty Advisory Council. She emphasized that UNC is required to have a five year planning process. The UNC Tomorrow planning process initiated by President Erskine Bowles took place over a period of two years. The current effort is expected to be completed in less than four months. This means that there is less opportunity for broad faculty input than was the case for UNC Tomorrow.
Prof. Willis drew attention to three documents: 2013-2018 Strategic Planning Overview (Appendix A), “UNC Our Time, Our Future” (Appendix B), and the Faculty Advisory Council Roster and Functions (Appendix C). She asked that the faculty pay careful attention to the fourth goal, “Maximizing Efficiencies,” and the fifth goal, “Ensure an Accessible and Financially Stable University,” on the “UNC Our Time, Our Future” document. She explained that “maximizing efficiencies” can refer to the work of the faculty and shared governance in running the university. She added that Governor-elect Pat McCrory and the newly elected General Assembly will need help understanding accessibility and financial stability since many education issues will be new to them.
Prof. Willis noted that the Strategic Directions Committee has already addressed one goal under “Strengthen Academic Policies,” which is about setting a goal for degree attainment.
Prof. Willis explained the limits of faculty input in the process. The Faculty Advisory Council acts in an advisory capacity to an advisory board that will make recommendations to President Ross who will advocate for resources to implement that plan. The outcome of the planning process will depend on a balance of what the state needs, can afford, and what the legislature will allocate.
Prof. Elliot Moreton (Linguistics) commented that he felt like he wasn’t equipped to answer some of the questions on the survey in the absence of reliable research data. He asked what the faculty could do to give helpful data to the Faculty Advisory Council. Prof. Willis responded that faculty might not be experts on all aspects of higher education, but faculty opinions are informed. She urged faculty to communicate what each department does to recruit, retain, and matriculate students through the system, as well as what services to the larger community these departments provide. She said that the benefits of higher education and production are hard to enumerate but there are resources that point to the production of global leaders and services that enhance the quality of life in North Carolina. She is working on pulling narratives together for the committee.
Prof. Paul Friga (Business) suggested it might be helpful to identify key themes and gather data around those themes. Prof. Willis replied that the faculty advisory group is organized around globalization, interdisciplinarity, and technology. She said there isn’t time for a systematic data collection. She believes the committee needs to hear about broad achievements in respective disciplines.
Invited Guest: Dr. Lynn Blanchard, Director, Carolina Center for Public Service
Dr. Lynn Blanchard gave an overview of the new Public Service Awards process. To increase the number of nominations submitted, the Carolina Center for Public Service is requesting that faculty submit names of nominees for the awards committee to follow up with the nominee. The center oversees three awards: the Robert E. Bryan Public Service Award, the Office of the Provost Engaged Scholarship Award and the Ned Brooks Award for Public Service.
Dr. Blanchard explained that the center works with faculty as well as students, especially through the Faculty Engaged Scholars Program. Faculty members spend two years doing engaged research on the road around the country and the world. The Center also provides APPLES Course development grants and holds workshops on the skills and practices of engaged scholarship. On Dec 7th, a panel will discuss the status of promotion and tenure with regard to engaged scholarship. Dr. Blanchard invited the faculty council to attend.
Reports Received by Title
The Faculty Grievance Committee Annual Report, filed by Prof. Jill Moore (Government), and the Faculty Hearings Committee Annual Report, filed by Prof. Kevin Stewart (Geology), were received by the council. There were no questions or comments.
Faculty Research Committee Annual Report
Prof. Kerry Bloom (Biology) briefly explained the charge of the committee and invited council members to contact him if they had any questions about the report’s contents.
Presentation and Discussion of Faculty Research Data Stewardship Task Force Report, Spring 2012
Dean Gary Marchionini (Information and Library Science) presented the Faculty Research Data Stewardship Task Force Report (Appendix D). He explained that the task force was set up to address the issue of managing digital research data and in response to the implementation of a policy for mandatory data management plans for faculty research projects. The task force has been charged with examining issues such as data ownership, maintenance, preservation, access, storage, and replication.
Dean Marchionini noted that the task force designed and issued a survey to the faculty and found three major concerns regarding setting policy. First, he said faculty identified the need to respect disciplinary boundaries and diversity of data sets. Second, the creators of data should be the stakeholders involved in determining data management policies, and third, the university must provide educational and promotional support for good data stewardship. Dean Marchionini said that he believes faculty and creators of data should have input on how data is collected and preserved. He called data production and gathering, a “public good,” and explained that as a public university, UNC-CH and its faculty should be committed to providing access to their data to the public.
Additionally, Dean Marchionini said the task force is looking into the idea of creating a registry where data sets could be tracked. The task force also raises the question of whether good data stewardship should be taken into account during the promotion and tenure review process.
Faculty Athletics Committee Annual Report and Faculty Athletics Representative Annual Report
Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health), Prof. Lissa Broome (Law), and Director of Athletics Bubba Cunningham took questions from the council members on the annual reports of the Faculty Athletics Committee and the Faculty Athletics Representative.
Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) asked what we can be done when a student-athlete is admitted under the special admissions process and becomes of failing. Prof. Broome responded that the academic support center works with students to become successful students.
Mr. Cunningham said that coaches must be involved in helping students succeed. Coaches must know if their players are really trying to succeed academically.
Prof. Renner explained that some teams build in an academic culture, but there is still a struggle with students not wanting to admit they are struggling.
Prof. Shielda Rodgers (Nursing) asked if we doing student-athletes a disservice to admit them if they aren’t qualified. Prof. Broome explained that the goal is to admit only those who are qualified to do the academic work and that the university tracks students’ progress during their time at the university. She said that the NCAA is raising the initial admissions standards for student athletes in 2016 and initiating a “red shirt” program in which athletes who do not meet the higher academic eligibility standards will have to sit out while they improve their academic performance.
Prof. Renner added that the motivation to do well can mean a lot more than initial SAT scores for students who are admitted to Carolina.
Director of Admissions Steve Farmer explained that the university does not admit anyone whom we don’t think can excel academically.
Prof. Emeritus Jonathan Howes (Retired Faculty Association) asked Prof. Broome to clarify last sentence of the Faculty Athletics Representative report that asks faculty not to engage in stereotypical behavior toward student athletes. Prof. Broome explained that the committee has heard anecdotes about student athletes being reluctant to identify themselves to faculty for fear they will be retaliated against or told that they weren’t welcome to take certain classes because of their attendance at athletic events. Mr. Cunningham said that it is getting increasingly difficult to attract students because of a perceived hostile environment to student athletes.
Prof. Emeritus Don Boulton (Retired Faculty Association) asked if we could look toward other universities for how to form a different culture. Prof. Renner said that we are learning from issues at other universities and other universities are learning from us to improve the culture.
Prof. Broome said that Dr. Hunter Rawlings will be addressing the two cultures when he visits in the future.
Prof. Steve Bachenheimer (Microbiology & Immunology) asked what kinds of questions are being asked about the Title IX review and if it is a part of the exit interview process. Prof. Renner explained that the Faculty Athletics Committee has been looking at the questions and process. They are now partnering with the Odum Institute to improve the survey and develop a new instrument. The data will reside with Institutional Research. Participation has dropped off on the survey to under 50%. They want 100% participation so the online survey will be required and then there will be an interview component. The committee will also hold a focus group with student athletes. The Odum Institute is providing training for interviewers.
Prof. Broome said she served on the Title IX committee and they examined data from past years. She said there has been a tremendous upgrade in facilities for women’s sports. The facilities disparity has virtually been eliminated. There are a few recommendations that are going to be contained in the upcoming report.
Mr. Cunningham said that the rowing program is the only team without a place to change. The report also includes a recommendation for a new locker room for volleyball.
Prof. Boxill said that there is also an academic Title IX report.
Prof. Kristin Reiter (Public Health) asked about the possibility of developing an orientation for faculty to teach them about policies affecting student athletes. Prof. Renner said that an informational video is being put together for faculty to help educate faculty about how athletics works and who they can reach out to. There are a few policy changes that are happening, which has delayed the video.
Mr. Cunningham said that it is the end of the fall semester is worst time on campus for absences because of the number of teams that are playing right now.
Prof. Eliot Moreton (Linguistics) asked about amending the language in the undergraduate bulletin about giving a reasonable opportunity to student athletes to make up work. He asked what counts as reasonable and who will make the determination about what a reasonable opportunity is. Prof. Renner responded that most of the time reasonable accommodations can be made, but sometimes there are odd cases. She said that the Faculty Athletics Committee is currently discussing how to draft guidelines for what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, detailed discussions of the issues involved should be going on at the department level.
The Chancellor thanked everyone for participating in the forum.
Special Report of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards
Prof. Joseph Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, moved that the Council go into closed session to consider nominees for Distinguished Alumna and Alumnus Awards to be presented on University Day 2013. The motion was adopted.
On behalf of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards, Prof. Ferrell presented five nominees. Each nominee was approved.
Adjournment
Prof. Ferrell moved that the Council return to open session. The motion was adopted. Having completed its business, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Appendix A: 2013-2018 Strategic Planning Overview
The University of North Carolina
2013‐2018 Strategic Planning
Historical Context for the University’s Strategic Planning
The University of North Carolina Board of Governors has engaged in strategic planning and evaluation since the Board was created by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1972. Long‐range planning for the University is among the fundamental duties assigned to the Board by state statute. The Board adopted its first long‐range plan in 1976, under the administration of President William Friday, and thereafter has periodically revised and updated a five‐year plan. The most recent plan was approved by the Board in 2006 with its “Supplement to Long‐Range Planning 2004‐2009.” Further updates were superseded by the Board’s adoption of the 2007 report of the UNC Tomorrow Commission.
From the outset, long‐range planning has been guided by a set of strategic directions recommended by the President and adopted by the Board of Governors. These strategic directions serve as the foundation for current and future priorities, resource planning and allocation, existing and future programs, review and refinement of academic missions, and strategic planning by UNC constituent institutions and affiliated entities. Further, the strategic directions reflect the University’s deep commitment to help North Carolina respond to changing state needs and economic challenges through the efficient and effective fulfillment of its three‐part mission of teaching, research, and public service.
Strategic Planning for 2013‐2018
UNC President Tom Ross and the Board of Governors are working collaboratively to define the University’s strategic directions for 2013‐2018. To better inform that effort, President Ross and Board Chairman Peter Hans have appointed the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions (“Advisory Committee”). Composed of Board members, chancellors, faculty leadership, and government and business leaders from across the state, this special committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the President to help assess the current and future workforce needs of the state and to recommend degree attainment goals that are responsive to those needs and changing state demographics. The Advisory Committee will review and evaluate relevant data and available information in order to make a consensus recommendation to the President by January 10, 2013.
The primary scope of work for the Advisory Committee shall be focused on recommending whether and to what extent the state should embrace higher education degree attainment goals, along with strategies accompanied by reasonable objectives, timelines, and metrics. The Advisory Committee may also consider recommendations related to higher academic standards and competencies required for a globally competitive workforce. To help inform its recommendations, the Advisory Committee’s work also will include a high‐level analysis of the University’s budget, including relevant metrics and historical trends.
Operations of the Advisory Committee
President Ross will lead the Advisory Committee and be responsible for preparing agenda materials, administering meetings, and ensuring that its charge is fulfilled. To that end, the President also has appointed a Strategic Directions Committee to gather and synthesize data, draft documents, and otherwise support the work of the Advisory Committee and guide and direct the larger strategic planning process. That Committee is chaired by Board of Governors member Fred Eshelman and includes selected General Administration staff and UNC chancellors.
The UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions and the Strategic Directions Committee are public bodies. All meetings of the committees will be noticed and open to the public, in accordance with the state’s Open Meetings Law. All documents generated in the course of the committees’ work are public, consistent with the state’s Public Records Act.
Appendix B: “UNC Our Time, Our Future”
North Carolina’s long-term economic competitiveness will depend on its ability to develop and retain the talent needed to drive innovation. The bar of global expectations is rising, and economic data clearly demonstrate that more highly educated workers earn more on average and are less likely to be unemployed. The University of North Carolina is committed to help increase educational attainment levels in North Carolina, in accord with our State’s changing workforce needs and shifting demographics. Success will require that we adapt to serve students of varying ages, backgrounds, and educational pathways. In this era of limited resources, it also will require a heightened focus on performance and accountability.
1. Set Degree Attainment Goals Responsive to State Needs
- Work with business and other State leaders to develop degree attainment goals (by level and field) that are responsive to current and future workforce needs and the State’s changing demographics.
- Assess degree offerings in the context of current workforce requirements and anticipated State needs.
- Develop and implement a plan to increase graduation rates among community college transfers, individuals with some college credit, and those seeking to earn a new or different degree. Also improve access and support for veterans and active military personnel.
2. Strengthen Academic Quality
- Continue to strengthen standards for admission and University polices governing satisfactory academic progress.
- Increase the focus on preparing graduates with the core competencies needed to succeed.
- Improve academic advising to reduce enrolled time to degree.
- Identify most effective ways to assess and assure student learning.
- Enhance use of technology in the classroom and in distance education opportunities.
3. Serve the People of North Carolina
- Leverage UNC expertise and resources to make North Carolina more globally competitive.
- Expand applied and translational research, particularly in areas that align with the State’s economic strengths and priorities. Help campuses streamline and grow the commercialization and/or translation of University research.
- Provide improved preparation, support and professional development for PK-12 teachers.
- Help meet the growing healthcare needs of the State through research, training, and outreach.
- Utilize cultural resources to strengthen North Carolina’s creative economy.
4. Maximize Efficiencies
- Continue ongoing academic program review to eliminate unnecessary duplication and low-productivity programs.
- Develop cost-effective tools and collaborative strategies to broaden convenient access to online courses and other distance education programs across the University and State.
- Encourage and implement more shared services in areas where costs can be reduced and services improved.
- Strengthen space utilization practices
5. Ensure an Accessible and Financially Stable University
- Continue to embrace the State’s Constitutional mandate of low tuition and fees.
- Implement a balanced approach to enrollment and performance-based funding.
- Identify appropriate, viable, and sustainable sources for financial aid.
- Enhance private fundraising, other external funding support, and private partnerships.
- Develop plan to address current and future capital and repair and renovation needs.
Appendix C: Faculty Advisory Council Roster and Functions
FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL – advisory to the UNC Strategic Directions Committees
Chair: Catherine A. Rigsby, Professor of Geological Sciences, ECU, and Chair of the UNC Faculty Assembly
Council Members:
1. Susan Cannata, Professor of Literature and Composition, UNCP
2. Georgie Donovan, Assistant Professor and Associate Dean of Libraries, ASU
3. Vidyaranya B. Gargeya, Professor and Director of the MBA Program, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, Bryant School of Business and Economics, UNCG
4. David A. Green, Professor, School of Law, NCCU
5. Scott Imig, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership, UNCW
6. Trudy F. C. MacKay, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished University Professor of Genetics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, NCSU
7. Purificación Martínez, Associate Professor of Spanish, ECU
8. Erin McNelis, Associate Professor, Department Mathematics and Computer Science, WCU
9. Brian Sims, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, NCA&T
10. Eddy M. Souffrant, Associate Professor, Ethics, Department of Philosophy, UNCC
11. Rachel Willis, Bowman and Gordon Gray Distinguished Associate Professor of American Studies and an Adjunct Professor of Economics, UNC-CH
12. Linda Wilson-Jones, Professor and Director of Research Initiatives, FSU
Overview of Council Function
• Faculty Advisory Council will be the main conduit for faculty input to Working Group.
• This Council, chaired by Catherine Rigsby (Chair of the UNC Faculty Assembly), will work in cooperation with the full Faculty Assembly Executive Committee to provide faculty input into the work of the UNC Strategic Directions “Working Group”.
• Rigsby (or her designees) will attend all Strategic Directions working group meetings and will make all working group public documents and data available to the Council and to the faculty at large.
• The Council will report to the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee, who will work with the Chair to ensure that there is transparency in the process and that there is ample opportunity for input from faculty on all of the campuses.
A major conduit of information exchange with the campuses will be Faculty Assembly’s Senate Chairs group. There are 4 Faculty Chairs on the Council and a campus Faculty Chair is on the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee. The Faculty Chairs will be responsible for communicating the activities of the Council and the Working Group to their respected campuses and for funneling information and input back to the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee
Appendix D: Research Data Stewardship Task Force Highlights
Presentation by Prof. Gary Marchionini
1. Why?
• Recognition that data reuse and preservation increasing important
o Academic integrity
o Legal and ethical guidelines
o Electronic records and tools (e.g., data mining) Nature (2008); Science (2011)
o NIH data sharing policy (>$500K grants); NSF data management plan mandate (all proposal); NEH data management mandate
• UNC as world-class research university should lead by supporting faculty and develop policies
o Provost and Vice Chancellor for Research initiative
2. UNC Data Stewardship Task Force
• January 2011-February 2012
o Principles, recommendations, implications/policy, implications/infrastructure
o Environmental scan (agency and publisher mandates, other institutional policies/studies)
o Interviews (23 researchers, convenience sample)
o Campus survey (pilot tested, 2,765 of 11,746 responses—23.5%)
o Progress and Leadership models
3. Survey Results
• Wide variety of data types (40% handwritten, bio, or physical specimens), handful exceed 100 TB, few more than a PB, 75% use some kind of digital data that require management
• Majority self-archive (73% use hard drives, USB, etc.) 25% use repositories or archives
• Researchers want control and responsibility for their data, nobody chose ‘university’ rather than themselves or both
• Researchers generally unaware of services, policies, and standards (70% unaware of NSF or NEH policies), about 1/3 were aware of archives, less than ¼ aware of help with data management plans
• Many challenges exist (e.g., half cite time to make data available or confidentiality as strong constraints/burdens; only 10% had funding for long-term data storage
Implications: respect diversity of needs across disciplines; allow researchers to have some authority over access and control of their data, expand education and promote data stewardship
4. Principles
• Research data is a public good; preservation and access within regulatory and legal constraints is part of UNC’s public entity function
• Researchers are responsible for specifying data life cycle plans that comply with pertinent law, funding agencies, and research community practices
• UNC is obligated to support creation, maintenance, and execution of life cycle plans by affiliated researchers
5. P1 Recommendations
• Whenever possible, research data should be shared openly in a timely fashion
• UNC personnel will value, cite, and share research data
• UNC will support a culture and the practice of data preservation and sharing as a public good
• UNC will establish data ownership policies
6. P2 Recommendations
• UNC will provide training, templates, and consultation on data life cycle plans
• Research community repositories and UNC department or institute services should be leveraged and supported
• Researchers will define parameters of stewardship consistent with community practice and principle 1 constraints (e.g., embargos, metadata specification, rights, handoff control)
7. P3 Recommendations
• UNC will provide training and consultation at campus and/or department or institute level (e.g., metadata, management, storage, security, dissemination, data transition)
• UNC will provide data registry services for data deposited in public repositories
• UNC will ensure that data repository services are available to support data stewardship plans
• UNC will develop a funding model to sustain research data stewardship
8. What Next?
• UNC Task Force on Genomic Data
o What data should be saved? For how long should the data be saved (along with the reasons for the recommendation)? How can we better coordinate a data pipeline on the UNC campus? With whom (if anyone) should UNC partner? What are the possible funding models? What governance model is recommended for making the key decisions that will be needed going forward for these data?
o Corbin Jones, Chair
• Faculty Council Roles
o Raise awareness
o Discuss data as a creative work product: implications for P&T
o Consider rights and responsibilities
o Consider data legacy after personal use and lifetime
Thank You! Questions?
gary@ils.unc.edu
http://ils.unc.edu/~march
Storify
[View the story “UNC Faculty Council 11/9/12” on Storify]