1 / 23

The Year in Research: 2009-2010

The Year in Research: 2009-2010. Ulrich Krull Vice-Principal Research. Report to Academic Affairs Committee. Overview of the data & sources Limitations of the data 2009-2010 findings. Data Sources.

elvis
Download Presentation

The Year in Research: 2009-2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Year in Research: 2009-2010 Ulrich KrullVice-Principal Research

  2. Report to Academic AffairsCommittee • Overview of the data & sources • Limitations of the data • 2009-2010 findings

  3. Data Sources • Revenue values & award count numbers come from the Cognos data model, based on data uploaded from the Research Information System (RIS) • The data is accurate as of May 14, 2010 • Annual tenure-stream faculty FTE data was obtained from the Office of the Vice-Provost, Planning & Budget

  4. Pro-Rated Revenue & Award Counts • Research grants tend to be multi-year, with revenue coming to UTM in annual grant award installments • Active award counts are similarly pro-rated, with awards only included up to the designated ‘grant end date’ (not the ‘fund end date’, which is the date by which the funds must be spent)

  5. Data Categories • Councils: All direct NSERC, CIHR & SSHRC funding, including the SIG funds attributed to Departments • GRIP: Infrastructure & salary-support programs, including CRCs, CFI, and ORF • Other: All other external sources, such as industry, government agencies, and council sub-grants from other universities • Internal: Connaught & other U of T funding programs

  6. Administering Units • Faculty have the option to designate any U of T administrative unit (with which they are affiliated) as the ‘home’ of the award • Any awards held by UTM faculty anywhere else at U of T are not captured in the Cognos data as ‘UTM’ awards

  7. Co-Principal Investigators • RIS data is only linked to a sole U of T Principal Investigator • Research revenue (& award counts) for UTM faculty who engage in research as co-PIs is not identifiable in the data • A solution: Co-PIs can request (from the PI) an internal sub-grant that would result in a new fund to be established for the co-PI’s share of the research funding

  8. Non-Funded Research Activities • Not all the research activities of our faculty can be captured through quantitative analysis of revenue dollars & numbers of grant accounts • Some research activities proceed without direct financial support from funders

  9. St. George Comparisons • Per faculty comparisons with St. George can be skewed in favour of St. George when UTM & UTSC researchers administer their awards downtown, but are not counted as St. George FTEs • Status-only researchers, sessional lecturers, CLTAs and others who hold grant awards can also skew the per faculty comparisons, as their research awards are counted, but the PIs are not captured as tenure-stream FTEs

  10. Aggregate Data • Data in the Cognos system does not identify individual PIs, nor individual grant awards • Data is aggregated by sponsor, by administering unit, by faculty, etc. • Lack of PI identifiers in the data prevents data ‘clean up’ to remove specific PI’s awards from the data (ie: status-only)

  11. Cognos Data: Imperfect, But Free • The data, while not flawless, and not a perfect reflection of the research activity of our researchers, is the most accurate, consistent and readily accessible information we have available • For the purpose of having quantifiable UTM research performance indicators, the Cognos data is the most reliable available

  12. 2009-2010 Research Revenue

  13. UTM Research Funding Trends

  14. UTM Active Award Trends

  15. Primary Council Grants

  16. Per-Faculty Funding Sources

  17. Per-Faculty Primary Council Grants

  18. St. George Comparisons • Comparator units were chosen for each UTM department (ie: Rotman for Management; Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology & Physics for CPS) • Only primary Council programs were included in the analysis (SSHRC Standard, NSERC Discovery & CIHR Operating) to create a reasonably equitable basis for comparison • All comparisons are pro-rated & per-faculty

  19. Comparison: Per-Faculty Primary Council Program Funding

  20. Comparison: Per-Faculty Primary Council Program Award Count

  21. Impact of ‘UTM’ Awards Held at St. George • A manual search was conducted in RIS to identify the pro-rated value of awards administered at St. George by the 8 UTM PIs known to hold their grants downtown • 2009-2010: $461,700 • 2008-2009: $792,218 • 2007-2008: $566,259 • The majority of this money was awarded to one faculty member through a SSHRC MCRI

  22. Department-Specific Data • The analysis done for UTM was duplicated for each academic unit at UTM individually, and the results distributed to the Chairs in July • There were a number of interesting findings, including UTM units that are ahead of their St. George counterparts in per-faculty funding and awards from the primary Council programs, including: Economics; English & Drama; and Geography.

  23. Questions? Ulrich KrullVice-Principal Research

More Related