Attendance: Rathindra Bose, John Day, Howard Dewald, Judith Edinger, Kamile Geist, Annette Graham, Jennifer Hines, Jennifer Horner, Aimee Howley, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, Jody Lamb, Brian McCarthy, Stephan Oechsle, Jim Rankin, Willem Roosenburg, Josep Rota, William Shambora, Robert Staron, Katherine Tadlock, Gary Weckman, and Peter Wickman.
Excused: James Archibald, Catherine Axinn, Joseph Bernt, Gary Chleboun, JoAnn Dugan, Andrew Escobedo, Jan Maxwell, and David Mould.
Guest: Susan Sarnoff.
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes of the November meeting
The minutes from the November 14th, 2008 meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s Report (David Juedes)
A. Graduate Student Contract Grievance Board: David informed members that Jeffrey Giesey (from Engineering) and Robert Lazuka (Fine Arts) have agreed to serve on the Board. David added that two student members have also been appointed to the Board. He also said that since last year’s members were faculty in the colleges of Communication and Business, he sought faculty from the other colleges for this year.
B. Q2S transition: David informed members that he has been in contact with David Thomas of UCC regarding the role of the Graduate Council in the quarters to semesters transition. Since, technically, all graduate programs under semesters will be “new” programs, they will need the approval of the Graduate Council. The program approval forms will flow from the Graduate Council to UCC for final approval. David and David Thomas want to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
C. Process flow for graduate program approval: David informed members that due to the change from Quarters to Semesters, OU is trying to streamline the curricular approval process by using web technology. David reminded members that the Faculty handbook notes that Graduate Council sends recommendations to UCC about “initiation, implementation, and elimination of graduate programs”. He added that it diminishes the role of the Graduate Council when programs are sent to UCC and RACGS for approval without having gone through approval by the Graduate Council. David strongly recommended developing a set of internal guidelines that would detail the review and approval process the graduate level for all curricular items that need to be addressed by Graduate Council. He said that he has submitted a draft of such a document to the Curriculum Committee for review and revision. He mentioned that he has also submitted a draft to Jennifer Hines.
D. Task Force on Centers of Excellence: David informed Graduate Council that the members of the Task Force reviewed and rated the self-studies of all 87 graduate programs. He added that this report was presented to the Dean’s Council in late December. He also mentioned that the Task Force will take into account the recommendations made by the Dean’s Council in their report which needs to be submitted to the Provost by the third week in February. He told members that he communicated (to the Task Force) the consensus expressed at the last Graduate Council meeting that it should have a role to play in the appeals process. Unfortunately, a process could not be worked out at that meeting. However, he added that once the report is complete Graduate Council can review the report and write a resolution to present their views to the Provost. David said that he will send the report from the Task Force to the Planning and Strategy committee.
Discussion ensued regarding the ratings of the programs. David said that there were important issues that came up like the critical mass of faculty. He added that 19 programs have five or less “graduate” faculty, whereas the mean number of graduate faculty per program was 11. Jennifer Horner asked about the critical mass of students should be considered as well. She also asked if the report will list all the scores. David responded that the report will only list the rating of each program and not all the individual scores. David said that two members rated each ratable item and if there was too much of a discrepancy between raters, then a third rater was used. Jennifer Hines added that with the extensive discussion of each program by the Task Force, the report reflects much more than just a list of scores. Kamile said that there is probably a correlation between the low number of faculty and the rating of the program. Rathindra noted that many other things should be looked at, like the resources available to support a program.
David said that individual Dean’s identified around 20% of the programs for an initial reevaluation of their ratings. Judith asked about the rationale of putting all programs together to rate them. David said that this was done based on the charge of the committee and that there were many discussions early on about it. Kamile asked if any decisions about the future of programs were being made at this point in time. David said that the Deans’ Council is doing that at a preliminary level. Rathindra added that the Deans’ Council will send some information back to the Task Force and that that initial goal was to identify Centers of Excellence, but he is not sure how much money is now available at the state level for that now.
3. Remarks by Jennifer Hines and Katie Tadlock
A. Recruitment Enhancement: Jennifer Hines informed members that she met with all Associate Deans regarding allocation strategies for the recruitment enhancement funds they will receive.
B. Contact Manager: Jennifer Hines informed members that a beta version of Contact Manager is now being tested.
C. Quarters to Semesters: In light of the change from quarters to semesters, Jennifer told members that it is a good opportunity to clarify policies about the various grading options available for the research and dissertation courses.
D. Plagiarism Issues for Completed Thesis and Dissertations: Jennifer Hines drew everyone’s attention to the handout in today’s packet that addresses the process that needs to be followed if a completed thesis or dissertation has been notified as a plagiarized document. In response to a question by Jim regarding the option given to the student to correct the problem, Rathindra noted that minor citation issues are easy to fix and can be taken care of at the department level. In response to Jennifer Horner’s question about TAD Services doing a plagiarism check, Katie said that at this point in time, that is not being done. She added that typically a problem is identified when someone informs OhioLINK that a thesis contains copyrighted (or plagiarized) material, and they, in turn, inform Angie about the issue.
Pete said based on this document [the document presented at the meeting] and this process [the process outlined in the document], it does not seem like that there is a place for an accused student to go to for help or advocacy and help with understanding the process. Aimee noted that there is a difference in an improper use of copyrighted material and plagiarism, and she said that this process makes copyright violation extremely punitive. On a related point, Jim Rankin said that one of the tasks for the hearing committee is to determine intent. Jennifer Hines noted that Angie proceeds with these steps outlined in the document with the belief that it was an unintentional mistake. She said that Angie McCutcheon (Director of Thesis and Dissertation Services) will attend the Graduate Council meeting next month to talk about this some more, and about other processes.
4. Remarks by Dr. Rathindra Bose
A. Conflict of Interest Policy: Rathindra informed members that a recent decision about a conflict of interest case caused a faculty member to complain about it. He added that the conflict in his case only stemmed from the faculty member and the Director of the School having submitted a research grant proposal together. David Juedes noted that power to change Conflict of Interest policy regarding faculty resides with the Faculty Senate. Willem clarified that is it noted in the Faculty handbook and was recently revised. David Juedes added that it would probably be beneficial to clarify the policy from the research perspective to take into account multiple Principal Investigators and any possible financial conflict.
B. External Grants for Graduate Students: Rathindra informed members that graduate students are being encouraged to apply for external grants to enhance funding opportunities for them. He said that last quarter 17 applications were submitted and that he is hopeful that our students will be able to benefit from the many grants available.
5. New Business
A. Recruitment and Admissions Requirements Committee (Catherine Axinn):
Joe said that since the committee has not seen the final document, the conflict of interest case was tabled until the next meeting.
B. Planning and Strategy Committee (Hans Kruse): Hans informed members that the committee will review the report drafted by the Task Force on the Centers of Excellence. He added that Curriculum Committee will also be involved in this process.
Hans also said that the committee will also review the document that outlined the formation of the Graduate College to see how things are coming along.
David also suggested to Hans to work with Faculty Senate regarding the membership of Graduate Council, so as to have members appointed before the beginning of the new academic year.
C. Notification concerning MSW offering at Regional Campus: Discussion focused on the procedure to be followed when an existing program is to be offered at a new location (e.g., a branch campus) or by using a different means of delivery. Rathindra clarified that if there is no change in the mode of delivery and the content of the program, but it is being offered at a new location, it does not need to be approved by the Ohio Board of Regents, it is only an information item. Susan said that it would be helpful to have a coversheet that asks these questions, it will ensure that the correct procedure is followed. She said that this is the same program that has been offered on the Athens campus, they are only adding four new locations. She responded to Willem’s question saying that this program does not require a thesis. David Juedes asked about the arrangement with Shawnee State University. Susan said that OU is renting space from them. There was some discussion about how departmental policies and practices vary regarding hiring faculty for the branch campuses.
After some lengthy discussion about procedures, a vote on this item was called. The request to offer the Master of Social Work degree program at several new branch campuses and Shawnee State University was unanimously approved by Graduate Council.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 pm. The next meeting is on February 13th, 2009 from 2 to 4 pm, in Baker 230.
