Purpose: This policy outlines the procedures for the 5-year review of centers and institutes within the college to ensure their continued alignment with the institution’s mission, goals, and strategic plan. Reviews will assess the centers’ and institutes' effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.
Scope: This policy applies to all centers and institutes within the college, regardless of their funding sources or administrative structures.
Centers and Institutes Review Cycle:
| CENTER | DIRECTOR | REVIEW |
| Astrophysics Institute (API) | Seo, Hee-Jong | 2025, 2030 |
| Charles J Ping Institute for the Teaching of the Humanities (PING) | Drogula, Fred | 2024 |
| Law, Justice, and Culture, Center for (CLJC) | Uhalde, Kevin | 2026, 2031 |
| Intervention Research in Schools, Center for (CIRS) | Evans, Steve and Owens, Julie | 2024, 2029 |
| Nuclear and Particle Physics, Institute of (INPP) | Roche, Julie | 2027, 2032 |
| Ohio Center for Ecology & Evolutionary Studies (OCEES) | Roosenburg, Willem | 2026, 2031 |
| Quantitative Biology, Institute for (QBI) | Day, Mitch | 2026, 2031 |
| Ring Theory and its Applications, Center for (CRTA) | Lopez-Permouth, Sergio | 2027, 2032 |
| Contemporary History Institute (CHI) | Holcombe, Gary | 2024 |
| Nanoscale and Quantum Phenomenon Institute (NQPI) | Saw Wai Hla | 2027, 2032 |
Review Process:
- Frequency: Centers and Institutes will undergo a comprehensive review every 5 years.
- Timeline:process follows a strict timeline.
- 1-NOV, deadline to let Center know or Institute about upcoming review
- 15-JAN, completed self-study due in the Dean's office
- 15-JAN, deadline to have a review committee identified and approved
- 1-MAY, complete report due in the Dean's office
- 15-MAY, entire packet due in VPR office, including Dean’s letter
- Self-study: a self-study will be constructed by the director (or designated committee) that explicitly addresses the review criteria elaborated in #4 below.
-
Structure: the self-study should be structured as follows.
A. Summary: The summary should be a single page included as the first page of the self-study document.
1. Name of the Center/Institute
2. Name of current director and department & college affiliation
3. List of affiliated, active faculty with their department & college affiliations
4. Brief mission or goal statement. This statement should be consistent with the goals used when the C/I was established or as modified during previous reviews.
5. Short abstract or summary of plans for the next five years with an emphasis on new areas of activities.
6. Summary table or chart of external and internal funding received by the center/institute for the previous five years.
B. Mission Statement: A detailed description of the center/institute’s purpose and objective(s).
C. Brief History
D. Current activities and status, including:
- Number and role of faculty and students participating and/or number of faculty/students served.
- How these activities meet objectives described in Item 4.B.
E. Planned and/or proposed future activity including,if appropriate, changes in or expansion of the center/institute’s objectives for the next five years; and
F. Funding commitments and needs: Include detailed tables and/or descriptions of funding sources (current and future), showing the amount provided by the university and outside sources for each of the past five years.
- Review Team: A review team* will be appointed by the senior associate dean ( Brian McCarthy
) to conduct the evaluation. The team will typically include:
-
Three faculty members, such that there are:
- Two from within the college (one of whom will serve as chair and POC)
- One from another college within the university
- Preferably one from the previous review for continuity
* Centers and Institutes require VPR approval of committee structure prior to evaluation
-
- Data Collection: The review team will collect data through various methods, including:
- Self-assessment report from the center or institute.
- Interviews with all stakeholders (faculty, staff, and students). These may be done in person or via electronic survey (e.g., Qualtrics).
- Examination of publications, grant proposals, and other documents.
- Site visit (if appropriate).
-
Review Report: The review team will prepare a comprehensive report summarizing their findings and recommendations. Reports should follow a specific structure:
A. Executive Summary of not more than one page highlighting or outlining:
- Findings included in the full report
- Review committee’s recommendations
B. Report of appropriate length and detail to provide:
- Evaluation of current viability of center/institute
- Evaluation of potential future viability
- Evaluation of current and future funding strategies
- Recommendation(s) regarding continuation of the center/institute including, if appropriate, levels of institutional support.
8. Response: Based on the review report, the center or institute will develop a response and corresponding action plan to address any identified strengths, weaknesses, or areas for improvement.
Decision Making: The dean will consider the self-study, review report, and action plan in making decisions regarding the center or institute's continued operation, funding, or potential restructuring.
Appeal Process: Centers and Institutes may appeal the decisions made based on the review process. Appeals should be made directly to the dean.
Confidentiality: Information collected during the review process will be treated as confidential, except as required by law or for the purposes of the review.
This policy may be amended from time to time to reflect changes in the university's priorities or circumstances.
Policy last updated: 15-OCT-2024