Sign up

Case study: applying the theory of planned behavior as interventions to increase sponsored project proposal submissions from liberal arts faculty.
Abstract:
In the current economic climate, many colleges and universities face similar challenges: the need to increase external sponsorship for research activities and the need to benefit from additional indirect cost recovery. Preparing funding proposals for submission to sponsors is a faculty behavior that can be modified by applying behavioral theory to develop and institute interventions for shaping the desired behavior. The Theory of Planned Behavior readily lends itself to research management methods and techniques that target critical factors influencing intentional behavior. This case study explains the theoretical rationale for the behavioral interventions instituted, describes the measures and methods, and reports on the successes achieved over 10 years.

Keywords: proposal development, research administration, planned behavior

Article Type:
Company overview
Subject:
Universities and colleges (United States)
Universities and colleges (Research)
Research administrators (Analysis)
Research grants
Author:
Hartmann, Anita
Pub Date:
03/22/2011
Publication:
Name: Journal of Research Administration Publisher: Society of Research Administrators, Inc. Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business; Business, general Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 Society of Research Administrators, Inc. ISSN: 1539-1590
Issue:
Date: Spring, 2011 Source Volume: 42 Source Issue: 1
Topic:
Event Code: 310 Science & research; 360 Services information
Product:
Product Code: 8220000 Colleges & Universities; 8520100 Research Personnel NAICS Code: 61131 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools; 54171 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences SIC Code: 8221 Colleges and universities
Organization:
Government Agency: United States. National Science Foundation
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number:
261080591
Full Text:
Introduction

The effects of economic turmoil have not spared many institutions. Tough economic times call for prudence in reducing costs, as well as creativity in increasing revenues. An organization's ability to move direct costs, such as faculty salaries, to sponsored projects, as well as to increase recovery of indirect costs, is critically dependent upon a principal investigator's intentional deliberate behavior to write and submit funding proposals. Senior officials in education, industry, and government

represent the group of research administrators most often charged to develop policies and devise strategies for the increase of funding proposals.

Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is a powerful model with practical application to a variety of situations to predict and influence human intentions to perform a range of desirable behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Evidence from narrative and meta-analytic reviews support its efficacy as a predictor of intentions and behavior capable of explaining 20 percent or more of the variance in prospective measures of actual behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001). This theoretical model is particularly applicable to a variety of intentional human behaviors that are of importance to research management.

Theoretical Model

The Theory of Planned Behavior is a derivative of Ajzen and Fishbein's earlier Theory of Reasoned Action, in which they tried to estimate

discrepancy between a person's attitude toward a behavior and the actual performance of that behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Subsequent research indicates that behavior may not be voluntary or under control. Recognizing that human behavior can be both deliberative and planned, the initial theoretical model was refined to include the element of perceived behavioral control and published as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The theory explains that the best predictor or immediate determinant of a behavior (i.e., whether a faculty member will prepare and submit a funding proposal) is the intention to act or not to act. This critical decision point of intending to act is influenced by three factors:

1. Attitude toward the behavior, which reflects the individual's evaluation of the behavior, its personal value and desirability, and the perceived benefits or rewards for performing the behavior.

2. Perception of subjective norm: Intentionality is also influenced by the individual's perception of the social pressure to execute, or not to execute, the behavior.

3. Perceived control over the behavior, which is a person's perceptions of his or her ability to perform the behavior. An individual's perceived control is influenced by experiences with the behavior and ability to overcome associated obstacles.

TPB predicts that a potential principal investigator (PI) is more likely to intend to pursue external funding for projects, and will actually follow through to write and submit a funding proposal, when that person:

a. believes that submitting funding proposals is a desirable and valued behavior:

b. sees other similar people successfully writing and submitting proposals: and

c. perceives they are able to write and submit proposals, that obstacles can be overcome.

Case Context

The University

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) is located in the interior of Alaska, approximately 75 miles from the Arctic Circle. UAF is the main campus, and the research university, of the statewide University of Alaska system; UAF is the only doctoral-granting institution in the State of Alaska. UAF was originally founded in 1917 as the Agricultural College and School of Mines. Today, UAF is America's northernmost Land, Sea, and Space-grant institution, and in 2009 was named as one of the West's best colleges by the Princeton Review. UAF holds an RU/H Carnegie classification, and research expenditures at UAF have increased substantially from $56.4 million in FY97 to over $107 million in FY09. UAF ranks first out of 50 universities in the amount of research funds awarded from the National Science Foundation (websites of UAF and NSF).

The College

This context differs dramatically at UAF's College of Liberal Arts (CLA), whose faculty tend to view the College as a predominantly undergraduate teaching institution. This derives from the tact that the College provides a broad liberal arts undergraduate education with strengths in circumpolar teaching and research emphasizing Alaska Native peoples and languages; the College also bears a heavy general education service mission to provide over 68 percent of courses that meet core curriculum requirements for all UAF baccalaureate degrees. However, the College of Liberal Arts is one of the largest colleges in the University of Alaska statewide system, and is comprised of nearly 400 employees that include over 150 potential principal investigators, who are also all members of the faculty union, United Academics. The College's 28 academic units offer 20 undergraduate degree programs, 11 master's degree programs, and 4 doctoral programs.

Problem Statement

Given the College's self-concept as a teaching college, and institutional identity as a service provider to the other degree programs, there was very little sponsored project activity occurring prior to the year 2000, as can be seen in TabLe 1.

In the Spring of 1999 the Dean of CLA realized that the College needed "to get this turned around." To meet that challenge, he implemented a plan to launch an Office for Research Development that included assigning one unrepresented faculty (this author) to serve as director, with two years to "prove up" by showing positive change and momentum. There was no provision for additional staff or budget beyond the director's salary and benefits. Two initial goals were set: increase recovered indirect costs to the College and increase sponsored project activity to 10% of College-wide overall faculty capacity.

Methods and Measures

Measures

The situation was approached from a cognitive psychological perspective, since this was a well-defined problem. All the necessary information was spelled out in the problem statement and there were clear criteria to determine when the goal had been achieved. As shown in Figure 2, a working-backwards heuristic via means-end analysis was used to break down the difference between the initial state and the goal state, to identify the most important differences, and then to find an operator that would tend to reduce that difference (Solso, MacLin, & MacLin, 1998).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Indirect costs are enumerated as the total dollars distributed to the College of Liberal Arts in each fiscal year as the unit's proportional share of the institution's facilities and administration cost recovery and distribution procedures for UAF-sponsored programs (UAF OSP website).

Numbers of new awards are counted in the fiscal year in which they are awarded regardless of fiscal year in which the project is proposed. Depending on timing of submission relative to federal review cycles, and the number of revisions and resubmissions that may be requested, the award event may lag the initial proposal event by up to 3 years.

New dollars awarded reflects the total dollar value of the new award that is enumerated in the fiscal year of the initial award.

Number of new proposals/submissions is the number of external funding proposals submitted in each fiscal year. In this particular case, external is broadly interpreted to mean external to the College of Liberal Arts, and includes university and statewide system internal competitions, many of which have federal sponsors such as Alaska EPSCoR/NSF and Alaska INBrE/NIH.

New proposals are written by eligible principal investigators, who are most often faculty, but may also be graduate students or staff, depending on the sponsor's eligibility guidelines. The most critical assets for the conduct of research and sponsored projects are the time and effort expended by faculty, whose expertise and interests match the sponsor's program requirements (Ebong, 2001). Universities and colleges typically identify teaching, research, and service as the components of their mission and the prime responsibility of the faculty (Darling & Hensley, 1992). Since a university's most important asset to achieve the mission is its faculty, the number of faculty represents the capacity available to achieve the mission. How the primary objectives of the institution are met is significantly dependent upon how faculty effort is allocated among the tripartite mission components. Since most other resources are fixed, particularly at a publicly funded institution, faculty and staff time are the only resources that can be changed significantly to improve performance (Plater, 1995; Sink, 1985).

Developing sponsored projects in a primarily academic unit requires understanding the distribution of faculty resource capacity. In this case, while the total number of faculty is tallied, the total number of faculty workload units available for allocation was a more useful measure of resource allocation (see Table 2).

Methods

Within the constraints of a one-person office and no additional budget, interventions were designed and implemented to deliberately target the three factors that most influence the critical decision point:

1. To change attitude toward the behavior using public and private rewards: Since attitude toward a behavior reflects the individual's evaluation of the behavior, its personal value and desirability, and the perceived benefits or rewards for performing the behavior, the following interventions were implemented.

a. Monthly research newsletter

A monthly, one page, double-sided, black & white research newsletter was launched that listed every proposal submitted by PI name, and every new award. This was distributed to the College, and at the monthly Chairs' Council, the proposing departments and faculty were individually and publicly thanked for making the effort and congratulated for their success.

sample proposal entry: PSYCHOLOGY (named person) NSF First Annual Televideo Conference of the Arctic: Sex and Culture Behavioral Science Research

sample award entry: ALASKA NATIVE LANG CTR $ (named person) $397,328 National Science Foundation Alor-Pantar Languages: Origins and Theoretical Impact (Euro-BABEL)

b. "Spiritual bouquets"

Successful leadership involves encouraging the hearts of others (Custer, 2009). To send a message to the PI that would speak to the human spirit, saying that "you are valued and your efforts are appreciated," floral note cards were obtained suitable for either gender. At the end of every month, faculty who prepared and submitted a proposal of any size and to any sponsor received a personalized handwritten note card thanking them for their efforts and wishing them continued success in their research and scholarship.

Similarly, when a proposal was funded, another handwritten card, including a note from the Dean, was sent to the PI. Academic life can be busy, tough, and often just plain draining, so when something good happens, like a proposal being funded, it's something to get excited about and to celebrate. The intent of the notes was to let the faculty member know that the institution, and the Dean, have heard the good news, care about the success however large or small, and are celebrating along with the faculty PI.

Similarly, when a project was not funded, the disappointment was shared. The focus is on rewarding the desired intentional behavior (prepare and submit proposals) not necessarily on the outcome (grant funded or not). This is particularly important when a faculty has invested considerable time and effort to write a proposal. A follow up note of encouragement was sent out to let faculty know their effort was appreciated, that there is confidence that an appropriate sponsor will be found for their important work, and that their project will be kept in mind as new opportunities become apparent.

c. Public recognition via public display

A large wall-mounted locked display board is in the main hall at the entrance to the Dean's suite. This is an area of high foot traffic by all UAF students, parents, guests, and donors. From the end of May until the beginning of September, the display showcases College of Liberal Arts sponsored projects for that year. The display includes a note of thanks and praise from the Dean, as well as graphical presentation of progress on key metrics. Each year the display is organized around a theme, such as gardening. At the time of this writing, the grants manager had a proposal funded that would convert this bulletin board to an electronic bulletin board, allowing for substantial additional content, including audio and visual.

d. Dean's public recognition (reception and certificate)

After a change of college administration, the new Dean became aware of a small pot of Dean's discretionary private money and was convinced to hold a faculty appreciation reception during Academic Excellence Week in the Spring. Initially, the faculty were invited to a recognition tea with home-baked cookies in a large classroom. Their behavior was revealing, and included tentative peeking in the doorways and asking each other what this was all about. As faculty awareness and productivity grew, receptions were moved to the campus pub on a Friday afternoon with high-end hors d'oeuvres paid for with private monies and a no-host bar (total cost less than $300). Among the various recognitions for teaching excellence and scholarship, such as publishing a book, the Dean also gave out a certificate of recognition to each faculty member who had received a new grant during the previous 12 months. The bulletin board display also includes an encouraging word from the Dean.

2. To change perception of subjective norm

Since intentionality is also influenced by the individual's perception of the social pressure to execute or not to execute the behavior, the following interventions were implemented:

a. Welcome letter for new faculty and new department chairs, with tips for encouraging faculty to prepare and submit funding proposals.

Faculty Senate policies specify that academic department chairs will be elected from the faculty. The College has 28 elected department chairs, of whom approximately one-third in any given year are new to the role. Each newly elected chair receives a congratulatory letter that includes:

--welcome to the new role and where to find description of department chair duties

--a brief paragraph on what the department chair signature means when signing a sponsored project proposal transmittal form

--articulation that sponsored projects are a vital component of the discipline, of developing junior faculty, growing the program, and providing another revenue source

--"attached are a few articles that previous chairs have found helpful"

This letter also functions as the cover letter to a packet of helpful articles assembled for this purpose (Boyer, 2001; Gordon, 2004; Sterner, 1999).

b. College-wide statistics regularly published in the newsletter

Each monthly issue of the college research newsletter also features year-to-date statistics in one column on the front page. Under the image of an enthusiastic and encouraging screen bean, the data report number of new proposals submitted, new dollars sought, new awards received, new dollars awarded, and the College's recovered indirect costs. The data also include the number of sponsored projects on which the college is a collaborator, as well as that total dollar effort to the university. Lastly, the data include the quarterly summary of the College's restricted funds: number and type of contracts, as well as total revenue.

c. Faculty workload allocation profile

Near the beginning of the Spring semester, at a College-wide meeting of the Chairs' Council, each department chair is presented with a graphic depiction of the College's overall faculty workload allocation trend for the previous six academic years (such as enumerated in Table 3), as well as their own individual departmental trend for the same period. These serve as a point of discussion between the Dean, who assigns the faculty workloads, and the chair, who recommends a faculty member's proposed workload to the Dean. In the past 10 years, four different deans have lead this discussion: however, the consistent message has emphasized the goals of preserving teaching capacity while simultaneously converting more scholarly work to sponsored projects.

3. To change perceived control over the behavior

Since perceived behavioral control is the person's perceptions of his or her ability to perform the behavior, and with knowledge that an individual's perceived control is influenced by experiences with the behavior and belief in an ability to overcome associated obstacles, the following interventions were implemented.

a. Wrote Grants for faculty development efforts

To avoid deserved criticism of "do as I say but not as I do," the Director wrote a successful President's Special Projects fund grant to support the College of Liberal Arts' Academic Researchers Maximizing Yields (A.R.M.Y.) project. In addition to supporting a local daylong grantsmanship workshop, the grant supported the purchase of over 100 copies of a how-to grants manual (Bauer, 2001: 2003). Each participant at the workshop received a copy of the manual, as did each department. A second successful funding proposal permitted two substantial orders, and consequently each newly hired faculty has received a personal "Welcome!" copy of the manual. Tucked into the new faculty's copy is a bookmark from the Office of Research Integrity (IRB/IACUC contacts), and business cards of the college proposal development specialist, as well as the Associate Dean to contact for assistance in getting started or to answer additional questions about the process.

b. Resources for individualized study

The CLA Research News contains at least four current websites for individualized study or online tutorials. The basic ones include: UAF's Office of Sponsored Programs page for "How to Write a Proposal" (UAF OSP website); the National Science Foundation's link to "How to Prepare Your Proposal" (NSF website); the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services link to helpful tips for "Writing Your Application" (US DHHS website); and various online tutorials, such as The Foundation Center's. "Proposal Writing Short Course" (The Foundation Center website). Each site is prescreened for relevancy of content to liberal arts faculty before being published.

c. Administrative support

The number of new proposals and new awards gradually increased to the point where the faculty's need for administrative support exceeded the capacity of a one-person office. At this same time, the University of Alaska successfully competed for a third-phase NSF/EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) award that included a focus on building capacity in social science research (Alaska EPSCoR, EPS-0701898). Since the majority of the social sciences at UAF are housed within the College of Liberal Arts, so too would be the administrative burden resulting from this capacity-building effort. NSF Award #EPS-0701898 included partial support for a Grants Management Assistant, based centrally in the UAF College of Liberal Arts Dean's office, to support the growth in social science research. The additional full-time technical support has been integral to the successes reported here.

Concomitant with the NSF/EPSCoR award, the fourth International Polar Year (IPY) launched a massive international research effort estimated at over $1.5-billion and involving 63 nations. In the U.S., the National Science Foundation alone awarded 389 IPY research grants for nearly $160 million. Of those, 122 projects involved activities in Alaska, many of which were led by faculty from the University of Alaska. Of these, five awards totaling over $1.5-million were based in the UAF College of Liberal Arts. Moreover, in 2009, UAF faculty successfully competed for four federal stimulus awards (ARRA funding). The increasing volume of proposals and awards, and the increasing complexity of large international collaborative projects, necessitated upgrading the assistant position to Grants Manager.

Results

One serendipitous benefit is improved timeliness of award letter receipt. Faculty began bringing in their award letters almost as soon as they receive them because they wanted to be on the list to be recognized at the Spring reception, the monthly newsletter, and the Summer public bulletin board.

As can be seen in a comparison between Table 1 and Table 3, the average annual number of new proposals increased by 10 percent; however, faculty were now pursuing much larger funding proposals, and the average annual number of new awards has nearly doubled; indirect cost recovery to the College has reached historic highs.

As seen in Table 2, the goal of increasing the overall College capacity allocated to sponsored projects to 10 percent or greater took several years to achieve and was finally realized in academic year 2008-2009. As also seen in Table 2, teaching capacity was not only preserved but actual teaching effort increased from an overall 46 percent faculty effort allocation to an overall 55 percent. The leadership of a strong dean contributed to the increase in teaching capacity alongside an emphasis on research mission and necessary reduction in faculty service obligations.

Discussion

As predicted by the theory of planned behavior, management interventions deliberately targeted to address the critical factors that influence intentional behavior have been successful. The goal of increased indirect cost recovery to the College continues to be achieved, necessitating modifications to the annual targets. The goal of increasing overall College capacity allocated to sponsored projects was achieved more slowly and is being sustained at a productive level. The goal of preserving teaching capacity has been reached, and overall teaching capacity has increased.

Conclusion

In the current economic climate, many colleges and universities face similar challenges. All need to increase external sponsorship and to benefit from additional indirect cost recovery. The theory of planned behavior readily lends itself to management methods and techniques that target the critical factors that influence intentional behavior. Such methods may be implemented readily in a wide variety of research settings; however, the particular interventions developed will differ according to the resources and opportunities of the institution and the particular needs of its researchers. As has been found by others who study researcher behavior (Cole, 2007), this case illustrates that understanding the research faculty's intentional behaviors is critical to the success of institutions that want to achieve university research missions, to support research and new faculty, and to expand the knowledge in all disciplines in society.

Author's Note

Portions of this work were supported through funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Award #EPS-0701898: the University of Alaska Foundation Award, University of Alaska President's Special Projects fund: a BP and ConocoPhillips grant, supporting University Research and Instructional projects: and the State of Alaska.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Alaska EPSCOR Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. Social Science Component http://www.alaska.edu/epscor/focus/social/ NSF Award #EPS-0701898.

Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.

Bauer, D. G. (2001). The "How-To" grants manual: Succesful grantseeking techniques for obtaining public and private grants, 4e. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger series.

Bauer, D. G. (2003). The "How-To" grants manual: Successful grantseeking techniques for obtaining public and private grants, 5e. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger series.

Boyer, P. G. (2001). Grant performance of junior faculty across disciplines: motivators and barriers. The Journal of Research Administration, II(1), 19-23.

Cole, S. S. (2007). Researcher behavior that leads to success in obtaining grant funding: A model for success. Research Management Review, 15(2), 16-32.

Custer, T. J. (2009). Encouraging the heart: Being a positive leader during stressful times. NCURA Magazine, July/August, 36.

Darling, J. R., & Hensley, O. D. (1992). The strategic planning process for university research. In Hensley (Ed.) Strategic Planning for University Research. Texas Tech University Press.

Ebong, I. D. (2001). Faculty time and effort: Analysis for research development. The Journal of Research Administration, II(1), 11-18.

Gordon, B. (2004). A development program for junior faculty submitting National Institutes of Health grant applications. The Journal of Research Administration, XXXV(I), 12-16.

National Science Foundation. Funding-How to prepare your proposal, http://www.nsf.gov/funding/preparing/ Page updated 22-Dec-2009; accessed 30-March-2011.

National Science Foundation. Funding Rate by State and Organization from FY2009 to 2010. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp

Plater, W. M. (1995). Future work: Faculty time in the 21st century. Change, 27(3), 22-33.

Sink, J. D. (1985). Academic research: The faculty's role and responsibility. SRA Journal, 16(24), 19-27.

Solso, R. L., MacLin, M. K, & MacLin, O. H. (1998). Problem-solving. In Cognitive Psychology (5th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sterner, A. (1999). Faculty attitudes toward involvement in grant-related activities at a predominantly undergraduate institution. SRA Journal, 31(1), 5-21.

The Foundation Center (2011) Proposal Writing Short Course. http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/tutorials/shortcourse/ This online short course in proposal writing was adapted from The Foundation Center's Guide to Proposal Writing, 5th ed. (New York: The Foundation Center, 2007), by Jane C. Geever, chairman of the development consulting firm, J. C. Geever, Inc. Accessed 30-March-2011.

UAF Center for Research Services. Research. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://www.uaf.edu/uaf/research/. Page updated by Jenn Baker 1-Feb-2011.

UAF Office of Sponsored Programs. Facilities & Administrative (Indirect) Costs: F&A Policy. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://www.uaf.edu/osp/policies-and-procedures/facilities-administrative/ Page updated by Courtney Sanborn, 2-Feb-2011.

UAF Office of Sponsored Programs. How to Write a Proposal. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://www.uaf.edu/osp/proposals/. Page updated by Courtney Sanborn, 3-Dec-2010.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Writing Your Application. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm Page updated 21-June-2010 by content manager GrantsInfo@nih.gov.

Anita Hartmann, PhD, CRA

Associate Dean College of Liberal Arts

University of Alaska Fairbanks

314 Cooper Dr., Suite 404

Fairbanks, AK 99775-6280 USA

Tel: (907) 474-7231

Fax: (907) 474-5817

Email: amhartmann@alaska.edu
Table 1. Summary of sponsored project effort and success prior to
applying interventions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior.
A five-year average was calculated using Microsoft Office Excel
2007 averaging function: p (average number of proposals) = 50;
p (dollars sought) = $4,435,416.67; p (new awards) = 14.8
(rounded down to 14 whole awards), p (new dollars awarded)
= $698,958.33; p (ICR to college) = $39,204.

Fiscal        New      Dollars      New      Dollars          ICR
Year     Proposals      Sought    Awards     Awarded    to college

FY96         64      $3,600,000     19     $  120,000      $36,100
FY97         57      $4,100,000     16     $  140,000      $33,520
FY98         60      $6,750,000     16     $1,600,000      $24,638
FY99         21      $2,200,000      5     $   95,000      $46,620
FY00         48      $5,800,000     19     $1,750,000      $59,128

Table 2. Summary of the allocation of the college's faculty
resource capacity to the tripartite mission components. Note that
the increase in sponsored activities did not reduce teaching
efforts; teaching allocation actually increased. The goal was to
preserve teaching capacity, reduce service commitments, and to
increase sponsored projects by converting unsponsored research
activities into sponsored projects.

Academic      Capacity    Capacity      Effort
Year         # Faculty     # WLUs    % research

1999-2000       111        2855.5       22.19%
2000-2001       111        3248.5       23.21%
2001-2002       111        2858.5       22.25%
2002-2003       139        3732.5       21.09%
2003-2004       141        4097.0        16.0%
2004-2005       143        4250.0        18.0%
2005-2006       136        4026.0        19.0%
2006-2007       121        3722.0        23.0%
2007-2008       121        3722.0        23.0%
2008-2009       136        4213.2        27.0%
2009-2010       130        3602.0        28.0%

Academic        Effort    Teaching     Service
Year        % sponsored    % WLUs       % WLUs

1999-2000        3.41%        --           --
2000-2001        5.61%        --           --
2001-2002        4.44%        --           --
2002-2003        5.32%        --           --
2003-2004         5.0%      46.0%        27.0%
2004-2005         4.0%      50.0%        25.0%
2005-2006         7.0%      47.0%        26.0%
2006-2007         6.0%      47.0%        24.0%
2007-2008         6.0%      47.0%        24.0%
2008-2009        11.0%      54.0%        19.0%
2009-2010         8.0%      55.0%        18.0%

WLUs = faculty workload units

Effort = % WLUs allocated to the activity

Table 3. Summary of sponsored project effort and success after applying
interventions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. A ten-year
average was calculated using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 averaging
function: [Mu] (average number of new proposals) =_ 56 (56.2 rounded
down to 56 whole proposals); [Mu] (new dollars sought)
= $12,638,678.90; [Mu] (new awards) = 26 (26.6 rounded down to 26
whole awards); [Mu] (new dollars awarded) = $1,861,198.10;
[Mu] (ICR to college) $147,491.96.

Fiscal        New       Dollars      New      Dollars          ICR
Year     Proposals       Sought    Awards     Awarded    to college

FY01        39       $ 8,225,000     19     $7,100,000     $ 96,431
FY02        37       $ 3,800,000     28     $2,800,000     $110,954
FY03        59       $ 9,300,000     23     $  387,793     $105,831
FY04        56       $36,800,242     27     $  789,226     $147,929
FY05        78       $30,296,876     32     $  422,254     $178,512
FY06        74       $ 8,248,992     49     $2,252,243     $141,720
FY07        66       $10,243,324     14     $1,153,541     $ 86,936
FY08        57       $ 5,308,933     34     $1,797,568     $170,876
FY09        40       $ 8,354,417     17     $  732,455     $227,770
FY10        56       $ 5,809,005     23     $1,176,901     $207,958
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.