GUIDELINE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW OF RESEARCH CENTERS

AND INSTITUTES

OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

RCSASU 0005

© 2017 Assosa University

Assosa, Ethiopia
 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

2. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................. 1

3. TYPOLOGY OF RESEARCH ENTITIES IN ASU ............................................................................ 1

4. DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................... 1

5. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH ENTITIES ...................... 2

6. PRE-PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ........................................................................ 3

7. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RESEARCH ENTITY ESTABLISHMENT ............................ 4

8. APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH RESEARCH ENTITIES ............................................................... 6

9. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ................................................................... 8

10. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ENTITIES .............................................................................................. 11

11. Dissolution of Research entities ......................................................................................................... 22

12. AUTHORITIES AND OFFICERS ..................................................................................................... 23

ii
1. INTRODUCTION

The way a new research center/institute (here after the word ‘Entity’ is used to represent both in
this document) is created and reviewed in Assosa University (ASU) will depend on the rationale
for its creation. Those entities which are parts of the University, School strategic plan and will be
receiving support from the university should undergo a much more rigorous internal process.
The creation of other types of entities may follow a call from a funding agency. Such entities
undergo the merit review of the funding agency and their existence is dependent upon continued
extramural funding. Thus, this document is developed to set governing guideline for the
establishment of new Entity, and management and review of the existing one.

2. PURPOSE

1) The purpose of this guideline is to devise the processes for the establishment, approval,
administration, and review of Research entities at ASU.

3. TYPOLOGY OF RESEARCH ENTITIES IN ASU

1) The following are types of research entities which could be established in ASU.

a. Research Institute - membership and activities normally within a Research

Directorate (RD) and Community Service Directorate (CSD) and other external
partners

b. Intra-school Research center- membership and activities normally within a single

department, a non-departmentalized staff, or between departments in a single school

c. Multi-schools Research center - membership and activities normally between 2 or

more schools

d. Inter-institutional Research center - membership and activities among multiple

universities or research entities.

4. DEFINITION OF TERMS

1) School: it represents institutes, schools and colleges established and managed by ASU.
2) Faculty: it represents staff recruited for research and/or teaching activities in ASU.

1
5. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH ENTITIES

1) Although research entities may originate in a variety of ways, there are certain principles
and processes that should guide their establishment in ASU:

a. Each Research Entity should have a clearly defined vision and mission that supports
the major research strategic objectives and core academic and community service
vision and mission of the college(s), school (s) and/or departments.

b. Research entities should contribute to the teaching, research, and/or training missions
of the college(s), school(s) and/or departmental faculties. They must contribute to the
intellectual capital of the ASU, and the education of post graduate and undergraduate
students.

c. The mission and activities of a Research Entity should not emphasize on activities
performed traditionally by an existing department or Research Entity on the
university or within the school (s) or departments. Proposed new entities should be
reviewed in the context of other activities that are ongoing within the university to
ensure that overall effort of the university in a given field of inquiry is strengthened.

d. Research entities often, though not always, are interdepartmental in character,

providing opportunities for new relationships on the university, within the Schools,
departments, or broader intellectual communities.

e. Research Entity managers should serve for specified terms as defined in the proposal
for their establishment.

f. A research Entity’s focus should be defined broadly enough to attract the intellectual
and professional participation of a critical mass of school members, students and
other partners to be involved in an Entity’s work and activities in significant and
systematic ways.

g. A Research Entity should not be formed except in circumstances in which several

college/school members plan to be seriously involved in the work of the Entity, and
the Entity’s viability does not depend on the work of a single faculty member.

2
 h. Research entities should be financially self-sustaining, or deemed worthy of core
support or cost-sharing by appropriate university unit (s) at the time of their
establishment.

i. Funding for the establishment of research entities should be designed with sufficient
flexibility to accommodate shifting intellectual priorities or organizational
arrangements over time.

j. All entities should be subject to regular review, with meaningful participation from
impartial outsiders in addition to that of center constituencies.

k. Research entities should generate added value beyond that resulting from the research
of the participating faculty in their separate departments.

6. PRE-PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES

A number of activities should normally precede the preparation and submission of a proposal to
establish a new research center at the University. They are to secure commitments of support
from relevant school directors and department heads, engage appropriate staff and build
sustained staff involvement, define leadership, and identify potential sources of research funding.
In order to ensure this the following activities should be carried out before proposal
development.

1) Assess the alignment of the proposed center with the University goals and priorities set forth
in research strategy; clearly identify the ways in which the proposed center will advance
those goals and priorities.

2) Consider the relationship between the proposed center and current academic units, including
school research entities as well as University research entities; clarify the need for and "value
added" of the proposed center.

3) Engage the appropriate college/school deans in discussion of the proposed center and seek
their support for the proposal, including commitments of space, funding, and administrative
assistance.

3
4) Engage the appropriate department heads in similar discussions and seek their support,
particularly for the participation of department faculty members in the proposed center.

5) Create a working group of investigators that meets regularly; include a broad range of faculty
in the initiative to create disciplinary diversity and enhance interdisciplinary opportunities.

6) Organize a series of luncheon meetings, symposia, or seminars with potential center staff.

7) Demonstrate the entity's potential for attracting research funding from external sources by
seeking/securing awards from foundations or the corporate sector; program project, entities,
or training grants; or other types of awards.

8) Engage the RD and CSD, School Research and Community Service coordinators (SRCSC),
and other members of central administration in discussion of the proposed entity; address the
financial and other commitments that will be needed from central administration if the
proposal for a new entity is approved.

7. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RESEARCH ENTITY ESTABLISHMENT

1) The proposal to establish a new Research Entity should address the following points.

a. Need: It should provide persuasive evidence that new activities or an increased

magnitude of activity could not be undertaken in the absence of the proposed entity;
explain what the proposed Research Entity could do that existing schools or informal
faculty clusters cannot do. It should include statement of objectives and measurable
goals showing how the proposed activities of the Research Entity relate to the
purposes of a Research Entity as outlined in research and community service policy.
The statement should be in accordance with the department(s), school and university’s
priorities and goals.

b. Opportunity: It should describe the combination of intellectual capital, research

environment, and external factors that creates favorable conditions for the Entity's
success. It should have an explanation of why the proposed activities can best be
achieved through the establishment of a Research Entity by showing presence of a
group of school members with established reputations in the field proposed for the

4
 Research Entity, who are willing to collaborate on projects it will sponsor or
undertake.

c. Membership: describe the members of the Research Entity. Normally, a research

Entity should have a minimum of five faculties. The founding members of the Entity
should be listed with their specific roles indicated, if these differ from those of an
ordinary member and curriculum vitae of each faculty member should be attached as
annex in the proposal.

d. Current activities: It should describe interdisciplinary research collaborations already

underway that provide a foundation on which to build the Entity's activities.

e. Structure and Leadership: The proposal should indicate the organizational structure
and describe functions, staffing and operational plan. It should also identify a director
(or managers) and a steering committee; justify these selections.

f. Commitment: It should provide specific details regarding the commitment and

resources being requested and the commitments and resources secured to date from
University or external sources. Indicate identified direct and indirect resources,
including funding, space, services and personnel and their sources, in a detailed
business plan.

g. Time frame: It should describe the proposed time frame for securing the requested
commitments and moving forward with establishment of the Entity.

h. Budget: It should develop a budget by taking into consideration the full array of
programs and activities the Entity plans to undertake. Following are illustrative
examples of items that should be considered in developing the proposed budget.

Contracted start-up reconnaissance and planning support

Workshops/seminars
Faculty and/or steering committee meetings/luncheons
Establishment of infrastructure
Procurement of facilities and supplies
Seed research project funding
5
 Field day organization
Community outreach programs
Promotional materials and/or newsletter
Creation and maintenance of a website
Creation and maintenance of internal databases to share information regarding
funding opportunities and faculty resources and projects
Travel to promote awareness of Entity
Travel for fundraising campaign
Staffing and operations costs
Computer hardware and software and associated costs
Educational and outreach programming and development
Director salary and/or supplement (if relevant)
Area or space

i. Funding opportunities: It should provide information on currently available research,

education, and research training funding opportunities.

j. Benefit and risk of Research Entity: It should include a statement outlining the
benefits of the proposed Entity to the university, government strategies, policies and
society. It should also describe risks that related to reputational, operational,
environmental and legal issues in creating the Entity.

8. APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH RESEARCH ENTITIES

1) The case for the establishment of an Entity should be made in a formal application and
should include the following elements:

a. A strategic plan describing the mission and specific goals of the proposed research
Entity, and long-term objectives that provide appropriate flexibility over time and
short-term objectives with a timeline for their accomplishment that will allow
assessment of the Entity’s success. The plan should point out ASU’s unique strength
(s) that support the proposed Research Entity as well as the particular challenges,
issues, and problems that the proposed Research Entity intends to address. The plan

6
 should speak to the anticipated contributions of the proposed Research Entity to
ASU’s post graduate and undergraduate teaching programs and to ASU’s external
communities.

b. A research plan for the first year of operation compared to subsequent years of
operation: The research plan should include the research areas that will define the
proposed Research Entity where ASU has recognized expertise and should describe
how ASU researchers will be encouraged to participate collaboratively to realize the
research agenda of the proposed Entity. The research plan should describe the
relation of the proposed Research Entity to those units, and describe the contributions
to the field that the proposed Research Entity may be anticipated to make that are not
made by those units.

c. An organizational and management plan describing how the proposed Research

Entity will be organized and managed: The plan should include an organization chart,
a description of the role of the oversight committee(s) and selection of committee
membership, and a description of how the Entity manager will be selected and
reviewed, and their term of appointment.

d. The plan should have projections of numbers of faculty members and students,
professional research appointees, and other personnel who will actively participate in
the Entity for the first year of operation and in subsequent years. Names of college
members who have agreed in writing to participate in the proposed research Entity’s
activities and information about the experience of these core college in
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research collaborations; a signature page for
each individual should be provided with the proposal.

e. Budget estimates (cost share of the partners, balance sheet, expected outputs and
outcomes, etc) for the first five years of operation to meet the strategic objectives of
the proposed research Entity.

f. A business plan having details of mechanisms that will be utilized to achieve

financial security: The business plan should document the sources from which
funding will be obtained to operate the proposed Research Entity and comment on

7
 any commitments made to date. The business plan will inform as to how the money
will be obtained. Unless the Research Entity is being proposed with a finite fund and
thus a finite lifetime, the Research Entity application must include plans for the
sustainability of the Entity.

g. Statement about the immediate resource needs (e.g., space, capital equipment, library
resources) of the proposed research Entity, related commitments for the first year of
operation, and realistic projections of future resource needs.

2) All proposals for new entities will be submitted to the Research Directorate (RD) who
will consult with appropriate school research and community service coordinators
(RCSC), School directors, Department heads and Entity managers in deciding whether
the new Entity will be formally established based on the guiding principles.

9. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES

1) All proposals for new entities of any type should be reviewed by RD, who will consult
with appropriate RCSC (s), College/School deans, Department Heads and Entity
managers as appropriate.

2) All proposed names of entities should be approved by the RD. SRCSC (s) and Dean of
Graduate Studies if any as well as the appropriate school deans (s) should be consulted in
reviewing the potential contributions of proposed entities with regard to enhancing
faculty hiring, research synergies, academic plans, and graduate and undergraduate
learning.

3) Establishment and Approval of Intra-school Research Center

a. An intra-school Research Center can be established within a single department, non-

departmentalized faculty, or between departments within a single school in ASU.

b. Intra-school Research Center seeking establishment will require the approval of the
University Research and Community Service Standing Committee (RCSSC) up on
the recommendation of SRCS Committee. Approval will be for an initial term that
will not exceed five years.

8
 c. Proposals for the establishment of an Intra-school Research Center should be
submitted to the SRCS Committee where the staff initiate the establishment and to
SRCS Coordinator (who will become the chairperson of SRCS Committee) when
CRCSC initiates the establishment.

d. An organizational structure with clear reporting lines and accountability for policy
and management decisions taken by the Research Center will be developed by
SRCSC in consultation with school director/dean and senior faculties/colleges. The
organizational structure and governance of the Intra-school Research Center will
include a steering committee and membership will include department head(s) or
their delegates. The duties and responsibilities of the Center Manager will be
negotiated between the coordinator and the school director/dean. The SRCSC will
consult the RD on the proposal before making a decision to approve the establishment
of the Research Center.

e. After deciding recommendation of the establishment of the Intra-school Research

Center, the SRCSC will advise the School Council and report the establishment of the
new Center to the RD for approval by RCSSC, and for confirmation of the center
approval by the University Senate and the University Board via the University
President.

4) Establishment and Approval of Multi-School Research Center

a. A multi-School Research Center is established between two or more schools of ASU.

b. Multi-School Research Centers seeking establishment require the approval of the

Senate on the recommendation of the RD in consultation with the Research and
Community Service Vice-President of the university. Approval will be for an initial
term that will not exceed five years.

c. Proposals for the establishment of a Multi-school Research Center should be

developed by consulting SRCS Committee and submitted to the RCSSC through RD.
This submission should include an assessment of the priority that should be accorded

9
 the proposed area of interdisciplinary research within the context of the university’s
strategic plan.

d. An organizational structure with clear reporting lines and accountability for policy
and management decisions taken by the Research Center will be established by the
RD in consultation with the appropriate SRCSC. The organizational structure and
governance of a Multi-school Research Center will include a steering committee
which comprises representatives from all participating schools including the requisite
school directors (or delegates), RD (or delegate), and other relevant stakeholders.

e. After approval of the Multi-school Research Center by RCSSC, the report of the
establishment of the new Center will be sent to the Senate and University Board via
the president.

5) Establishment and Approval of Inter-Institutional Research Centers

a. An inter-institutional research Center is established by ASU in collaboration with

other institutions or universities.

b. Inter-institutional Research Centers seeking establishment require the approval of the

Senate on the recommendation of RCSSC. Approval will be for an initial term that
will not exceed five years.

c. Proposals for the establishment of an inter-institutional Research Center should be

prepared by experts designated by Research Directorate and collaborators in
consultation with the University President. The finalized proposal should be
submitted to RD to submit it to ad-hoc committee of the partners. The reviewed
proposal will be submitted to RD to undertake an assessment of the priority that
should be accorded the proposed area of interdisciplinary research within the context
of the university’s strategic plan.

d. An organizational structure with clear reporting lines and accountability for policy
and management decisions taken by the Research Center will be established in
consultation with the RD (or delegate) by participating institutions.

10
 e. The organizational structure and governance of an inter-institutional Research Center
will include a multi-institutional steering committee with representation from all
participating faculties, schools, RD or its delegate, and other relevant stakeholders,
and other committees as required.

10. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ENTITIES

1) The review should provide a clear assessment of strength, weakness and guide to future
direction of the entity.
2) During review of research entities, the following evaluation points should be considered.

a. Changes from prior year. An assessment of changes from the prior period/year in the
center's status with regard to the basic characteristics of a successful university
research center outlined above. A summary of progress toward the objectives cited in
the prior year's annual report.

b. Objectives. Updated short- and longer-term objectives.

c. Quantitative benchmarks. In an Entity's initial annual report, a listing of

quantitative benchmarks should be accompanied by retrospective tables providing
historical performance. In subsequent annual reports, the Entity's current year
performance with respect to its quantitative benchmarks should be added to the data
compiled for prior years. In the evaluation the following benchmarks should be
considered.

i Faculty/college represented by Entity publications (number; index of

quality/impact); citations of Entity publications; intellectual property disclosures,
patents, licenses, start-ups; Entity faculty who are members of the national
academies or comparable bodies; Entity faculty awards from professional
societies, and other Entity faculty honors/recognition
ii Collaborations: involves both Internal (departments/schools represented by
faculty involved in collaborative research) and external (academic institutions,
industrial partners, federal laboratories, other external entities involved in
collaborative Entity research)

11
 iii Education: which involves educational programs leading to a degree, courses
which are part of a degree program, training programs, and other educational
programs, including symposia and colloquia for internal and external audiences
iv Funding: includes externally funded research awards administered by Entity, total
Entity award activity (including awards to Entity-affiliated faculty/college that are
an integral part of the Entity's program but are administered by the department),
research funded by the university or Entity funds, research expenditures, and
research proposals submitted
v Resources: which includes infrastructure, diversity of funding sources, amount of
discretionary funds and personnel
vi Tangible return to ASU: Such as fiscal return, support for students/fellows
(doctoral, postdoctoral, undergraduate), shared research facilities, intellectual
property, facilities and assets, etc
vii Outreach: Like industrial/external relations programs, educational outreach
programs (e.g., high school students, teachers, farmers, STEM) and service to
society etc

d. Publications. Includes listing of publications that are a part of the Entity's programs.

e. Awards and proposals. Includes summary of the Entity's research awards and
proposals.

3) Reporting lines of research entities

a. Directors of research institutes report to RD or may have a dual line of reporting to

RD and respective SRCSC.

b. Intra-school research center managers typically report to SRCSC and school director,
but SRCSC may recommend an alternative reporting structure, such as a ‘liaison
committee’ or advisory board. Managers of interdisciplinary entities report to the
SRCSC and the school in which the center manager has his/her primary appointment.

c. Multi-school research center manager should report to RD with a copy sent to

relevant SRCSC.

12
4) Annual Review of Research entities
a. The measurements for a given Research Entity should be crafted appropriately for
that Entity’s mission and opportunities, depending on both the type of Entity and the
area of scholarship.
b. The annual review should evaluate the ‘return on investment’ for research entities and
examine the area of scholarship, funding prospects, and contributions to regional
economic development.
c. At the end of each fiscal year, each Entity should prepare a report which will form the
basis for a five-year evaluation. The report should be submitted to the officer to
whom it reports by June 1 (according to Ethiopian calendar) with a copy to the RD.
The report is based on data from July 1 through June 30 (according to Ethiopian
calendar).
d. The annual report should contain the following narrative report and data report.
i Narrative report includes general narrative, research narrative and organizational
and management structure. General narrative includes a short statement
highlighting the main activities in which the Entity engaged during the review
period and how those activities relate to the mission, goals, and objectives of the
Research Entity and to the challenges/issues/problems central to the work of the
Entity. The general narrative should also address how the Entity contributed to
ASU’s graduate and undergraduate programs and to ASU’s external communities
for the period under review. Summary of any significant trends in research
undertaking and publication during the review period should be included in
research narrative section. Describing any changes that have been made during
the review period on organizational and management structure is mandatory
ii The data report should include information about the following points.
Participating Research Personnel: involves tables on which the Entity should
list names of all who actively participated in Entity activities during the review
period (including ASU Senate faculty, other academics, professional/technical/
research/staff, administrative and support staff, graduate students, undergraduate
students, and advisory committee members).

13
 Publications: List of publications resulting from Entity participants, including
books, journal articles, and reports. Publications listed should include those that
have resulted from programs administered through the Entity. But, it should not
include publications that have resulted from individual researcher of the programs
who may be affiliated with the Entity. Listed publications should identify those
authored jointly as a result of collaborations between or among members of the
Entity.
Knowledge and technologies transferred: List of technologies generated or
adopted and transferred to the end users. Include list of appropriate trainings
delivered and outreach activities conducted by the Entity.
Distinguished Awards: List of prestigious awards from professional
organizations/industry/etc received or held by participants in the Entity.
Events Sponsored by Entity: Details related to events sponsored by the Entity for
the period under review.
Space: Description and amount of space currently occupied by the Entity for
both its administrative and research functions.
Sponsored Funding Proposals and Awards: List of proposals that have been
submitted for external funding by the Entity and an indication of their funding
status. The proposal list should include only those projects where the intellectual
content was a result of Entity collaborations, not proposals that were possible
simply because of the availability of Entity facilities and/or equipment.
Funding available: Sources and amounts (on an annual basis) of all funding that
supports the Entity’s programs, including income from the sale of publications
and from other services.
The Entity may provide any other information deemed relevant to the evaluation
of the Entity’s effectiveness, including updated five-year projections of plans and
resource requirements or business plans where feasible. Data should be
transferred to the five-year summary table.
e. Procedure of Annual Review
i The manager should submit entity`s annual report timely.

14
 ii The annual review of research entity will be carried out by steering committee
which includes entity`s approval body, Research Entity manager, the officers to
whom the Entity reports, school directors representing the Research Entity and
RD.
iii First annual meetings should be held to discuss on the information provided in the
annual reports, and then field evaluation will be carried out to confirm the
practical existence of the contents in the report. Hence, the member of the review
committee will be decided on the success and failure of the Entity.
iv The review should assess the progress made in the previous year with respect to
the Entity’s strategic, business and budget plans.
v A record of the discussion and any recommendations for action will be made and
attached to the annual report.
5) Five Year Review of Research Entities
a. Five-year research entities review principles
i Five-year reviews of entities should be conducted to provide an in-depth
evaluation of the Entity’s programs and goals, to ensure that the research being
conducted under the Entity’s auspices is of the highest quality, and to assess that
campus resources are being wisely allocated in line with campus priorities.
ii Reviews should utilize the descriptive data provided in annual reports for the past
five years in order to assess the quality and the adequacy of personnel, the
adequacy of space and budget, the Entity’s success in meeting its purpose and
objectives, the Entity’s return on investment, the research accomplishments of the
Entity, future plans for maintaining financial viability and for making necessary
changes in operations to meet the needs of the field.
iii All research entities must establish a rationale for continuance, in terms of
scholarly or scientific merit and university priorities at five-year intervals.
iv To begin a review, an Entity should develop a formal proposal and self-
assessment for its continuance, support funds, and space in the context of current
school and/or University needs and resources.
v The proposal and self-assessment should include all the information required of
proposals for establishing entities. It should assess the accomplishments of the

15
 Entity in the past five years, its specific contributions to research, graduate and
undergraduate education, and public service; and the consequences if the Entity
were not continued. It should comment on the effectiveness of its administrative
and governance structure and any identified problems. It should present an
updated business plan for the next five years of operation as well as a plan for
programmatic changes to enhance the reputation and contributions of the Entity to
teaching and research at the campus level and in the national and international
arenas. It should also consider whether the Entity should merge with another
similar Entity or be closed up.
vi Five-year reviews will typically include a site visit by an external ad-hoc review
committee which will base its appraisal and written report on the annual reports
and documentation provided by the Entity as part of the preparation for the five-
year review.
vii The performance of each Entity manager will be reviewed at the time the Entity is
being reviewed, following the same procedure as for the Entity review. If the
Entity is to be continued, the decision to continue the appointment of the manager
is made by the official to whom the Entity reports.
b. Five Year Research Entity Review Procedures
i The RD in consultation with the officer to whom the Research Entity reports
develop the review schedule for each Entity and assign the responsibility for
conducting the five-year review, including the establishment of an external ad hoc
review committee which will base its appraisal and written report on the Research
Entity reports, background data, and a site visit.
ii The review will be initiated by RD twelve months in advance of the expiry of the
current term.
iii The review will include an evaluation of the performance of the Research Entity
against the objectives and goals set out at the time of its establishment or previous
review.
iv At the end of Research Entity’s term, the RD will recommend a formal review
and recommendation for continuation or closure of Research Entity’s in a timely

16
 fashion to facilitate orderly implementation of the recommendations, including
those that may affect the staffing of a Research Entity.
v A panel shall be established for the review, consisting of one internal and two
external members appointed by the RD in consultation with the director (or
equivalent) of the Entity and the appropriate school directors. The RD will
appoint the chair, who will normally be an external member.
vi No panel member shall be associated directly with the Research Entity either as a
participant or as a school affiliate.
vii Prior to the review of the Research Entity, in consultation with RD, the Entity will
prepare a self-assessment report. The review will include an evaluation of the
performance of the Research Entity against the objectives and goals set out at the
time of its establishment or previous review.
viii The panel shall satisfy itself that the self-assessment report has included
contributions from the Research Entity’s, school members, staff, students, and
other internal and external stakeholders as appropriate.
ix The panel shall prepare a detailed report on the Research Entity and its activities,
and make a recommendation on its continuation or closure or a conditional
continuation of the Entity not to exceed two years. During that time a further
review of the Entity’s activities will be conducted under the direction of the RD.
A Research Entity can be given only one conditional continuation.
x The panel report shall be forwarded to the RD who will in turn communicate it to
the director (or equivalent) of the Entity for a written response to any issues raised
in the report.
xi The RD shall make a recommendation regarding the Research Entity’s
continuation, as well as any terms and conditions that are appropriate, taking into
account the panel report.

 The panel report, together with the recommendation of the RD, shall be
forwarded to the chair of the University Research Committee for
consideration by the committee.

17
  The RD will prepare a letter to the president after summarizing the findings of
the review committee and the comments of the Research Entity by responsible
managers(s), and recommending continuation, discontinuation, reorganization
or merger of the research Entity.

 The RD will report the decision of Senate on the continuation or closure of the
Entity to the University Board, the Entity manager and/or SRCSC(s).

xii In the case of organized Research Entities, University/SRCS Committee, Chair of

Graduate Council, and other related officials, including the appropriate
director(s), will participate in the five-year review.
xiii The RD will work with the Research Entity under review to ensure assembly of
all review materials.
xiv The RD will administer the external review, including gathering the report of the
external committee and responses to that report from the Entity and participating
campus committees and administrators.
c. Review Materials development.
i Background materials, including the self-assessment, are prepared by the Entity in
coordination with the Office of school research and community service
coordination.
ii Entity Profile should include:

 Summary Table of Annual Reports for the Past 5 years

 Detailed Reports from Annual Reports for the past 5 years

d. Self-Assessment report preparation

i Mission. A concise statement detailing the mission and goals of the Entity and
any projected changes if the Entity is continued.

ii Evidence of accomplishments. Focusing primarily on the preceding five years, but

considering also the lifetime of the Entity, evaluate the Entity’s success in meeting its
stated mission and goals. While the preparation of self-report the following issues
should be considered:

18
Research:

 Describe the quality and significance of research accomplished and in

progress.
 Comment on significant trends within the disciplines represented in the unit
and relate these to current research specialties in your Entity or on campus.
 Comment on how the Entity benefits the university in general and school
academic programs in particular.
 Comment on the continuing productivity and influence of Entity participants,
locally as well as nationally and internationally. Comment on evidence of
their prominence in the fields represented in the Entity.
 Comment on the Entity’s collaborative/interdisciplinary work, its quality, and
its impact on Entity research efforts and the campus.
 Describe the possible sources and availability of extramural funds to support
the Entity’s research. Are your participants sufficiently active in the pursuit
of extramural funds in light of funding possibilities? How does the extent of
annual extramural research funding compare with similar units nationwide?

Graduate Education: describe the contribution the Entity makes toward graduate
education at ASU.

Undergraduate Education: What contribution does the Entity make toward

undergraduate education at ASU? Is there any evidence that the Entity helped
contribute to job placement rates or graduate/professional school enrollments for
undergraduates after graduation?

Public Service: Describe the Entity’s contributions to public service. How does the
Entity interact with other similar units in other institutions? Are there other
relationships the Entity could be exploring? What are the impediments, if any, to
doing so? Are there other services that the Entity provides to the community, state,
and nation, such as distribution of research information of policy significance and
recognition by non-University groups or governmental agencies?

19
 Administration and Governance: Describe the administrative structure and
functioning of the Entity, including campus location and reporting lines (include an
organization chart for illustration). How has the administrative structure affected the
Entity in meeting its mission and goals for the past 5 years? Are any changes
needed? Describe the Entity’s advisory and/or governance committee(s). What is the
role of the committee(s), how often does the committee(s) meet, and how well does
the committee(s) function? Are any changes needed to improve the committee(s)
structure?

Problems and Needs: Describe any constraints which prevent the Entity from
functioning at a more optimal level (e.g., if more space is needed, describe the needs
and benefits of additional or new space). Describe other resources that are needed by
the Entity (e.g., capital, equipment, staff) and, if provided, the benefits that the Entity
and ASU would accrue. Assess the adequacy of the Entity’s resources (e.g., space,
personnel, equipment, finances) in light of its capacity to fulfill its mission and goals.

Projections for Next 5 Years: Describe the Entity’s plans for the next 5 years,
including plans for external fundraising through sponsored projects, gifts and
endowments, and plans for program changes to enhance the effectiveness of the
Entity. It should be clear how the Entity’s plans for the future will evolve from its
present situation.

Justification for Continuance: If the responsible officer feels the Entity should
continue to exist, he/she should explain the unique contributions to ASU research that
the Entity provides, the benefits to the University and to the community, and any
other arguments for continuance that are not addressed elsewhere in the report.

e. Selection of the External Review Committee

i Approximately six months prior to the review, the Entity manager and appropriate
SRCSC(s) should submit to the RD the names of distinguished scholars in the
field.
ii The RD may also submit the names of scholars from others with disciplinary
expertise in the Entity’s field(s) of research. These scholars may either serve or

20
 nominate colleagues nationwide whom they deem most suitable to conduct such a
review based on their professional stature in the field(s), administrative
competence, and perceived impartiality of judgment.
iii The nominees should have had no recent close involvement with the Entity under
review.
iv The RD sends the list of nominees to the Entity for comment.
v The RD evaluates the comments and invites the reviewers to serve.
f. Site-visit by External Review Committee
i Approximately one month prior to the site visit, the review materials, including
five-year summary data and self-assessment, are forwarded to the External
Review Committee by the RD along with a cover letter detailing the Charge to the
Committee and the review schedule.
ii A site-visit should be conducted during a regular academic session and requires
the presence of all members of the External Review Committee for the entire
schedule.
iii The External Review Committee contributes an expert outside assessment of the
overall review process. On the first day of the site visit, the Committee typically
meets with the RD, SRCSC(s), Research Entity manager, directors of other
research entities, the Entity Advisory Committee, and individual Research Entity
participants and students. On the second day, the Committee typically meets with
additional PIs/participants, Heads of affiliated departments, and center
administration staff. Directorate of Research and Community Service hosts a
working lunch for the Committee and arranges an exit interview with the RD,
University President, and appropriate director(s). The External Review
Committee schedule should also allow discretionary time for the Committee.

g. External Review Calendar

i Selection of external review committee, development of review materials
including background data and Research Entity proposal and self-assessment
should be completed six months in advance of site visit.

21
 ii Review materials are forwarded to external review committee with a cover letter
from the RD detailing the Charge to the Committee, and the review schedule will
be accomplished before one month of the site visit.
iii External review committee submits written report after one month following the
site visit.
iv Entity director and advisory committee chair submit response to report after two
months following site visit.
v Report and responses are reviewed by appropriate advisory board (research
committee) and manager after three months following site visit.
vi RCSCPO and other participating administrators, including SRTTC(s) and
RTTPO, meet with the Entity manager to discuss on the results of the review and
to determine the appropriate plan of action for the future after four months
following site visit.
vii RCSCPO submits summary and recommendation to the university president with
copies to the research Entity, and appropriate SRTTC after five months following
site visit.
viii The University President confirms on status after six months following site visit.
h. External Review Committee Report
i The External Review Committee Chair is responsible for coordinating the writing
of the report, which should be submitted within one month of the site visit.
ii The report should contain evaluation of the quality of the Entity as compared to
its plans.
iii Concrete suggestions for improvement or close up of the Research Entity should
be included.

11. Dissolution of Research entities

a. The recommendation for dissolving an Entity, including research institutions, may follow
a five-year review of the Research Entity or other process of review as established by the
University.

b. The entity will closed up if it is proved through annual and/or five-year review that the
entity has not achieved its mission, goals and objectives; or/and it is incapable of

22
 supporting itself financially. Moreover, the entity will be immediately terminated if the
university confirmed through evidence that it operates in contrary to the mission of the
university.

c. After Entity review, RD in consultation with the appropriate SRCS Committee (s), SRCS
Coordinator, Department heads and/or Entity Director/managers may recommend a
request for dissolution to the University President. If approved, the RD will inform SRCS
Coordinator and/or responsible body to take the action.

d. The phase-out period for an Entity which is to be disestablished should be sufficient to

permit an orderly termination or transfer of contractual obligations. Normally, the phase-
out period should be at most one full year after the end of the academic year in which the
decision is made to disestablish the unit.

12. AUTHORITIES AND OFFICERS

Approval Authority: University Senate

Designated Executive Officer: Research Directorate Director and Community
Service Directorate Director

Procedural Officer: Research Centers Co-ordinator of the University

Parent Policy: Research centers and Institutes Establishment and Review Policy
Effective Date: October 2017
Supersedes: NEW
Last Editorial Change: NEW

23