Policies and Procedures

Institute for Interdisciplinary Research in Education and Human Development:
Operating Document
11/6/2012

            The University of Georgia has experienced an ever-increasing emphasis on research and scholarly productivity.  While there has been ongoing success in generating programs of research, to date the necessary infrastructure in the College of Education (COE) to promote increased abilities for interdisciplinary research has been lacking. The Institute is designed to assemble the significant strengths of faculty members across colleges and disciplines at the University of Georgia in the areas of education and human development in order to provide professional development growth opportunities for existing faculty, to prepare future researchers to engage in interdisciplinary research, to attract leading-edge researchers to join the UGA faculty, and to increase the opportunities for receiving extramural funding. This document describes the COE Institute for Interdisciplinary Research in Education and Human Development (Institute) a unique organization within the COE, designed specifically to meet this need.

            The following items are presented below:  The purpose of the Institute including the rationale and need for this organization at the COE; the goals and the advantages of establishing the Institute; a description of the operating policies and procedures of the Institute, describing the administrative unit in which the Institute is housed including the reporting structure, the defined review process, and the measurable outcomes that describe how the Institute is evaluated; the services that the Institute will provide; and the initial facilities that house the Institute.

Purpose of the Institute

The Institute focuses on encouraging development of interdisciplinary grant and contract proposals in the COE by actively helping develop teams of researchers with converging research interests and helping develop COE-wide research initiatives that can address some of the complex problems facing education and society.

• The purpose of the Institute is to encourage the development of interdisciplinary teams of researchers in education and human development and to help them obtain external funding for their research.

The focus on interdisciplinary research teams stems from the increasing complexity of research problems and priorities that are being supported by funding agencies.  Many agencies have funding programs specifically focused on disciplines within the COE and have recognized the need for teams of researchers from multiple disciplines to address these problems.  These agencies are encouraging collaborative multidisciplinary efforts among interdisciplinary teams of researchers who are interested in focusing on these kinds of research efforts.  The Institute will help organize teams of researchers to focus on addressing some of these problems and then help them seek external funding to support their research efforts.

Organizing such large-scale collaborative efforts should enable researchers in the COE to respond more effectively to funding initiatives by major funding agencies.  In addition, it should enable COE researchers to be at the table, when development of these funding initiatives is being discussed.  At the same time, the Institute also helps individual researchers find funding for their research interests, and will mentor new researchers seeking external funding.

Goals of the Institute

            The Institute is designed to stimulate the formation of and support for interdisciplinary efforts of researchers within the COE across UGA colleges.  These groups may take the form of small teams of researchers, larger study groups or even research and development (R& D) units.  The objective is to bring together these interdisciplinary teams in order that the COE can become proactive in influencing research funding initiatives as well as in increasing the success of COE researchers at obtaining external funding for their research.

• The Institute will continually seek to develop and support the infrastructure needed for large-scale interdisciplinary research groups in the COE.
• The Institute will work to provide mentoring for developing scholars for the purpose of helping them secure external funding for their interdisciplinary research.
• The Institute will endeavor to increase the visibility of the COE and its researchers in the community of scholars both at UGA as well as the rest of the scholarly world.
• We need to be more efficient in our ability to respond, comprehensively as a college, to significant funding opportunities, particularly those requiring collaboration across administrative units.

Interdisciplinary research is a critical class of activity that brings together scholars and researchers from multiple disciplines within a college as well as from departments across the UGA or from around the world.  Such interdisciplinary activity is only possible when there is support within an organization that enables scholars and researchers to work together informally as well as formally, to develop and prepare proposals and then support their funded work. The COE laboratories and centers have become relatively successful in their particular niche areas, but we need the capacity to pursue opportunities that involve cross-center (and cross-departmental) initiatives without having to “invent” such collaborations only when an opportunity presents itself.  It is often too late to organize a strong effort to meet a proposal deadline of a funding agency when the necessary infrastructure or organizational support is not already in place.  As an example, many of our faculty are well-suited to respond to research initiatives and federal RFPs. However, the infrastructure needed to support writing a proposal to establish a large R&D unit takes substantial time and planning to put in place.  By the time a funding initiative is announced, it is often too late to organize a strong effort.  Yet this kind of interdisciplinary research is increasingly being called for by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Educational Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Health. We need an organizational structure in place to foster the development of interdisciplinary teams of scholars well in advance of the RFP being announced.

• The second gap is in our ability to respond proactively, as a college, to influence research initiatives and to provide outcome data necessary to address research issues at the state and national level

To the extent that the college is better able to articulate who and what we are and how we’re organized to support shared interests, we will be better able to act proactively in laying the groundwork for related initiatives (e.g., participation in state and national initiatives and funding panels, discussing funding initiatives with federal agencies, developing proposals for funding to foundations, etc.).  The “footprint” made by the Institute is the combined work of a number of centers, as well as of individual interdisciplinary teams of scientists and researchers all working to study these larger problems.  The Institute will be exponentially greater than any one center by itself [e.g., from several $1 or $2 million dollar centers to one overarching education Institute of $10 million] even though the work being done within individual centers is also quite broad [from occupational research to assessment and evaluation, from advances in instructional technology, etc.].

• A central benefit of the interdisciplinary Institute in the COE is the increased potential for external funding for faculty research.

This would have a direct impact on increasing faculty research productivity and would have a positive impact on graduate student support.  For most departments, ongoing research funding would facilitate recruiting of both graduate students and faculty.  Researchers realize that an interdisciplinary institute can be of great help in finding funding opportunities, developing proposals and managing funded research.

Academic departments are often more focused on research specific to their disciplines, and often are not as well-positioned to handle pre-award support as is necessary in the highly competitive field of interdisciplinary externally-funded research and development.  Major successful R&D Centers around the country have established highly focused, well-defined pre-award support services.  The Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Center for Study of Children, Youth, Families and Schools in the Teachers College at the University of Nebraska are particularly strong in this regard.  Each maintains a staff with the necessary expertise for assisting researchers in developing interdisciplinary proposals for each of the agencies that fund research in areas their faculty work in.  The success of the Center for Study of Children, Youth, Families and Schools at the University of Nebraska is more recent, but is the direct result of a substantial investment by the University of Nebraska and the UNL Teachers College in the development of the Center, thereby enabling it to organize efforts focused on increasing the amount of externally funded interdisciplinary research by UNL faculty and researchers.

Similarly, the responsibilities for project administrative support that arise post-award are often underestimated.  The demands of managing budgets for interdisciplinary grants o that cut across non-academic year time frames from multiple funding agencies, for example, are presently borne by individual units (i.e., departments, labs, centers, etc).  Likewise, external funding related issues relative to personnel, purchasing, negotiating agreements with funding agencies, subcontracting to other institutions, etc. require specific knowledge and training.

• An important function of the Institute will be to provide those engaged in external funding activities with administrative support for their respective grants—and to offset these costs across multiple grants and contracts across each of the participating R&D units.   

There are important economies of scale to be realized within the COE. The Institute would handle the part-time or temporary staffing needs of individual units and projects more efficiently by aggregating them into multiple positions.  The individual R&D units, study groups, and teams of researchers could expand and contract in an orderly manner as needed, and still retain some institutional continuity and knowledge along the way.  New initiatives could emerge in response to changing foci of faculty research interests and funding agency priorities. The Institute could accommodate changes in one project by moving research staff to other projects.

Revenue-Producing Courses to be offered by Institute

            Consistent with the second goal of the Institute of mentoring for developing scholars for the purpose of helping them secure external funding for their interdisciplinary research, the Institute will offer revenue-producing instructional programs.  The Institute offers a range of high quality instructional and educational programs in the form of workshops and short courses on methodology designed to help researchers be more successful in securing external funding.  These consists of in-depth high quality graduate-level education and training opportunities across a wide range of topics both for those who are working toward becoming social scientists as well as for those who are seeking continuing rigorous high quality graduate-level training.  Topics will include current as well as newly developed methods and techniques.  The Institute will bring in top scholars from the COE as well as institutions both here and abroad to discuss their work and present the latest research in their respective fields.  The primary vehicle will be in the form of summer workshops as well as short-courses offered throughout the year.  Examples of potential courses across research methodologies are given in Appendix C.  A current listing of workshops is given on the Institute website.

In addition, the Institute sponsors a conference each year that provides an opportunity for researchers to advance research practices relevant to education and human development. As an example, July 2010, the COE Office of Research and the Georgia Center for Assessment (an R&D Center in the Institute) sponsored and hosted the 75^th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society (http://projects.coe.uga.edu/imps/). The Psychometric Society is an international nonprofit professional organization devoted to the advancement of quantitative measurement practices in psychology, education, and the social sciences. The society publishes the journal Psychometrika, which contains articles on the development of quantitative models of psychological phenomena, as well as statistical method and mathematical techniques for the evaluation of psychological and educational data. These conferences will provide increased opportunities for interdisciplinary contacts and projects to develop.

Operating Policies and Procedures of the Institute

            Administrative Unit. The Institute is located administratively in the COE Dean’s Office and reports to the Associate Dean for Research.

            Appointments in the Institute.  The Director is appointed by the Dean of the COE.   The appointment of the Director will be reviewed annually by the Dean.  As part of the Defined Review Process (described below) the Advisory Board (described below) provides an annual review to the Dean of the performance of the Institute.

            Advisory Board.  The Institute has an Advisory Board that with the following responsibilities:  Recommend policies for the Institute, provide an annual review of the Institute Director, and recommend spending priorities for infrastructure support.  Members of the Board are nominated by the Director from among the Directors of the R&D units in the Institute, the Chairs of Study Groups in the Institute, and from other scientists based on their interest in and service to the Institute.  The Board will meet at least once each year.  Appointments to the Advisory Board are made by the COE Dean. Initial appointments to the Advisory Board are for a three-year period.  There is no set number of members of the board.  The initial members of the Advisory Board are listed in Appendix D.

           Three-Year Review Process.  Centers or institutes created after December 2009 are expected to undergo an initial review by the administrative unit, to be completed by the end of the third year of existence.  The Institute has an external review at least once every seven years.  Institutes are expected to summarize progress toward stated goals and demonstrate added value.  In the case of Institute, this reflects progress toward the overarching goals of 1) increasing interdisciplinary research and 2) obtaining external funding for that research.

• During each review, the Institute will address any changes to resources, commitments, or operating agreements.

• Each review report will include a statement that continuation of the Institute is either recommended or not recommended. If continuation is not recommended, the Dean of COE will decide whether to invoke the process for dissolution.
• The annual report for the Institute (described below) will be made available to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

           Annual Review of the Institute.  To ensure that the Institute is fulfilling its objectives of supporting and increasing interdisciplinary research, the Institute will be reviewed annually by the COE Dean.  As part of this review process, the Institute produces an annual report of all research and funding efforts in the Institute, including the scholarly productivity of the faculty participating in the institute.  The annual review of the Advisory Board is provided to the COE Dean as part of this review process.

           Measurable outcomes to be included in the review include increases in the following:

• The number of R&D units, Study Groups, and individual research projects in the Institute,
• The number of interdisciplinary funded grants related to education and human development,
• The research productivity of fellows in the Institute (to include indicators of scholarly activity such as numbers of journal articles published, conference presentations, invited presentations, books and book chapters, technical reports, software, and other indicators of scholarly activity),
• The number of grant and contract proposals submitted,
• The number of grant and contract proposals awarded,
• The amount of external funding received.

           External Program Review.  An external review of the Institute is to be conducted not less than every seven years.   Members of the external review panel are to be appointed by the COE Dean.  The objectives of the External Review will be to determine whether the Institute is meeting its goals of supporting and increasing interdisciplinary research within the COE.

            Sunset Clause for the Institute.  If the Dean of the COE determines the Institute has not maintained a consistent level of performance on the measurable outcomes (noted above), at the discretion of the Dean, the Institute will be dissolved.

           Sunset Clause for R&D Units within the Institute.  If an R&D unit does not maintain its external funding at a level sufficient to cover the administrative costs of running the Center, the Director of the Institute may recommend to the Dean of the COE one of the following:  that the unit be absorbed into another R&D unit, become a Study Group (described below), formed into individual research projects or be completely disbanded.

Participation of tenure-track faculty in the Institute will be voluntary.  R&D units (described below) may elect to affiliate with the Institute as many individual investigators with  department approval.  There are two types of faculty participation in the Institute:  Faculty may participate with a joint appointment in the Institute and an academic department or faculty may participate with a full-time appointment in an academic department and with research time bought out by funds in a grant or contract housed in the Institute.

Faculty with the former type of appointment will be appointed in accordance with University of Georgia System Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 7, “Tenure-track faculty who participate in centers/institutes will be appointed to departments or schools in accordance with normal appointment procedures with the exception that search committees will be formed jointly of department/school and center/institute faculty.  Both entities must agree on the employment of a new tenure-track faculty member. Non-tenure track faculty with time budgeted in a center/institute as well as in other units will have their promotions and merit raises managed in a manner determined at the time of appointment.”

Faculty with the second type of appointment will have a regular full-time appointment in an academic department but will have some part of their budgeted time in the department paid for by a grant or contract housed in the Institute. Current COE tenure-track faculty in this second category, who have their research time paid for by grants or contracts that are housed in the Institute, are listed in Appendix B by their academic department. Evaluation for promotion, tenure, and salary increases will continue to be supervised by the academic department head.

Affiliated Faculty are tenured or tenure-track faculty, or other classifications, whose lines and departmental homes are outside of the Institute, but whose research is vital to the mission and research programs of the Institute. The application comprises a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and, if requested, appropriate supporting documents, e.g., list of active grants, copies of publications. The application will be reviewed by the Institute Advisory Board or its designate. In addition, Dean’s Office approval will be required if any amount of budgeted time is moved into the Institute.  That portion of the research budgeted time moved into the Institute will be evaluated annually by the Institute Director. Faculty with other budgeted time in other units (i.e. teaching, service) will be evaluated jointly with the Department Head. If no budgeted time is moved into the Institute, then Dean’s Office approval will not be required.   Affiliated Faculty status is granted for a period of up to three years upon positive review of an application in which evidence of relevant research service is demonstrated. Affiliated faculty will be officially listed in Institute publications.  Faculty may begin work as an Affiliated Faculty and can become a Fellow after receiving a grant.

Institute Fellows:  Fellows are expected to be actively involved in either a Center or a Study Group in the Institute.  Fellows will be expected to have an active grant in the Institute or to submit a grant proposal through the Institute.  Fellow status is awarded on an annual basis and is renewable.  [We need an application process for Fellow status. IBR’s application process is described toward the bottom on the following page: http://www.ibr.uga.edu/join/fellows.html]

Affiliated Centers: Affiliated Centers are pre-existing research and development (R&D) centers whose faculty lines and departmental homes reside outside of the Institute, but whose research is vital to the mission of the Institute. This status is temporary for a period of up to three years and is awarded based on the expectation that the center will move into the Institute within that time frame. At the end of three years, the affiliated status either can be reevaluated for possible extension for an additional three years or a decision made to drop the affiliated status.  The application comprises a cover letter, mission statement, and, if requested, appropriate supporting documents, e.g., list of active grants, copies of publications. Affiliated Center status is granted upon positive review of an application in which evidence of external funding for relevant research is demonstrated. This application will be reviewed by the Institute Advisory Board or its designate.  These centers will be officially listed in Institute publications.  Upon recommendation by the Associate Dean of Research and the Institute Director and approval of the COE Dean, an Affiliated Center can be considered as a regular Institute Center.

Affiliated R&D Centers may become Institute Centers upon a positive review of an application in which evidence of external research funding is demonstrated.  This application will be reviewed by the Institute Advisory Committee or its designate. Affiliated centers normally become Institute centers by virtue of a maturing R&D program. The designation as an Institute Center changes the status of the center to a COE-level center.  This status is considered permanent unless the center loses funding at which time it would be deactivated and either absorbed into another appropriate R&D center of the Institute or become a Study Group (see p. 6, Sunset Clause for R&D Centers of the Institute application).

Organizational Units within the Institute

            There are three basic organizations within the Institute:  R&D units, Study Groups, and individual research projects.  These are described below in this section.

            Research and Development (R&D) Units.  R&D units are intended to support multiple Principal Investigators (PIs), each pursuing some aspect of the coordinated research program of that research unit.  There are currently five R&D units in the COE that will be part of the Institute:  The Center for Latino Achievement and Success in Education, the Georgia Center for Assessment, the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory, the Program Evaluation Group, and the E. Paul Torrance Center for Creativity & Talent Development.  Each of these Centers has a Director and an administrative staff to provide support for the research activities of the projects within the Center.  In some Centers, there may be one or more Associate Directors as well as additional PIs.

The Director of an R&D unit provides primary research and administrative leadership. This includes identification of external funding opportunities, preparation of funding proposals, and monitoring all budgetary, personnel and research activity in the unit.  If an Associate Director is appointed in a unit, the responsibilities may be similar to those of the Director except that they will be for a subset of the activities in the unit.  Individual PIs in an R&D unit may or may not have administrative responsibility (e.g., as would be required of an Associate Director), depending on the needs of the unit.

            Research Study Groups. An important function of the Institute is the development and support of interdisciplinary study groups to focus on research problems that are not contained within the scope of existing R&D units or of individual teams of researchers.  Study groups are established for the purpose of developing and securing external funding for a coordinated program of research among the study group members.  The Institute does not provide direct funding of study group activities, but will assist study groups and their members with administrative support, mentoring, and assistance in obtaining specialized funding, such as might be needed for attending specialized conferences or training that could be used for increasing the likelihood of securing external funding.

The study group is typically led by a Chair.  The responsibilities of the Chair of a study group are to organize meetings, provide leadership in identifying and bringing together scholars from different disciplines, identifying research interests among the group members, helping members explore common threads, identifying possible external funding sources, and working with members to develop funding proposals for their research. Membership in a study group is voluntary and typically by invitation, although individual researchers may request to join a group.  When a study group is able to develop sufficient external funding to maintain its own administrative services and infrastructure, it may request that it be allowed to form a new R&D unit.

           Individual Researchers.  Individual scientists who are not members of a study group or  a R&D unit but who have either secured external funding for their work or identified interest in leading or supporting a collaborative interdisciplinary R&D project  may request that their projects be housed in the Institute.

Administrative Support of R&D Units

The current plan is that the Institute will synthesize current administrative and infrastructure services designed to enhance the operational capabilities of the existing R&D units and individual researchers in the COE.  The Institute will provide those engaged in external contract and grant activities with pre-award and post-award administrative and infrastructure support. These services are described below, and are to be formed by re-allocating existing personnel and services already in the COE.  The expectation is that providing these services will enable the COE to be better positioned to undertake more and larger R&D projects than is currently possible under the existing support structure.

Sources of funding for these services is determined by Dean’s Office policies.  Currently, the five R&D units (Torrance, LPSL, GCA, PEG, and CLASE) operate as individual budgets within the Dean’s Office supported by state and external funding. Support for developing new R&D units, study groups, individual projects will be supported by external funding and by salary release and/or indirect cost funds from the Dean’s Office.

Services of the Institute

To help encourage and support interdisciplinary research efforts as well as other efforts to obtain external funding, it is proposed that, as external funding increases, the Institute will phase in two primary sets of services to researchers in the COE.  These services (described below) are currently provided totally by the Office of the COE Associate Dean for Research. The first will be pre-award and post-award services.  The second set of services will be infrastructure development and support.

• The Institute will phase in additional support for pre-award and post-award services for the COE.  These services will be provided to any COE R & D unit, department, study group, and investigator on a voluntary basis.
• The Institute will not tax the indirect costs that are currently allocated to the R & D units, investigators, or departments to provide these services.

These services are described below:

           Pre-Award Services:  These services are currently provided by staff in the Office of the Associate Dean for Research.  This staff now helps with technology including document preparation, reports, on-line grant submissions, etc.;  helps edit grants, works with faculty to identify funding opportunities, and provides support for identification of external funding opportunities and for proposal writing; works with PI.’s in terms of budget review, provides some assistance with human subjects.  The Institute would phase in additional support for the following:

• Provide support in organizing interdisciplinary teams of researchers for the purpose of exploring external funding possibilities
• Provide support in identifying external funding opportunities, linking faculty interdisciplinary research interests with available funding opportunities
• Provide support in writing grants, preparing the documents, graphics, on-line submissions
• budget analysis, development, and preparation
• advise PIs on budget strategies and policies and guidelines
• assist PIs in final negotiations with UGA and funding agencies
• provide PIs with information on cost sharing
• Assist R& D research units, study groups, and individual PIs in preparing human subjects proposals

            Post-Award Services. These services are currently handled by post-award staff in the Office of the Associate Dean for Research as well as by accountants in departments electing to house their own research projects.  As is currently done by this staff, individual accountants from the Office of the Associate Dean for Research will be assigned to the Institute and additional accounting support will be developed to work with R & D units, study groups, individual investigators and academic departments as funding increases.  The Institute would phase in support for the following:

• financial management assistance for R & D units, study groups, or individual projects assistance to ensure compliance with federal, state, agency and University regulations regarding sponsored program administration
• advising PIs on financial management of research projects
• preparing monthly financial status reports for PIs
• coordinating the design and development of project subcontracts
• compiling indirect cost rate structure for University and Federal approval
• coordinate human resource activities in the Institute
• Assist R&D units, study groups and individual projects with UGA IRB process

            Infrastructure Support.  Some of the support infrastructure is now provided by staff of the Associate Dean for Research and some is provided by the Office of Information Technology (OIT) within the COE.  In addition, individual R&D units also already provide specialized infrastructure support for their respective grants and contracts. Currently, 25 percent of pre- and post-award services are allocated to the Institute.  This allocation will be increased as the number of external interdisciplinary grants increases.  In addition, as new centers and study groups are formed, the added support needed for pre- and post-award services will be developed by the Institute.  This will include support for centers and COE researchers, support for improved high-speed access to Research Computing Center facilities, and support for COE researchers with specialized IT and computing needs.

This would include activities such as

• desktop computing and desktop publishing
• secure internet and communication services
• website design, development and maintenance
• instructional web design support
• secure data base creation, storage,  maintenance and retrieval
• digital video and multimedia support
• dissemination

Physical Resources and Location of the Institute

All space to be occupied by the Institute will be in existing COE space.  The five R&D units already occupy space in the COE and will continue to do so.  The study groups will not be assigned separate space until they begin to receive external funding for their projects.  Likewise, individual research projects not in either an R&D unit or a study group will not be assigned space until they receive funding for their research project(s).  The COE has approximately 2400 square feet of new research space that is currently assigned to externally funded projects.  The assignment of space in the COE is handled through the Office of the Associate Dean for Outreach.

Appendix A
Participating Tenure Track Faculty
With Appointments in a COE R&D Center

The Center for Latino Achievement and Success in Education

           Pedro Portes, Professor & Director

The Georgia Center for Assessment

           Allan Cohen, Professor & Director

           Jonathan Templin, Assistant Professor

Learning and Performance Support Laboratory

           Michael Hannafin, Professor & Director

Program Evaluation Group

           Karen DeMeester, Director

E. Paul Torrance Center for Creativity & Talent Development

           Bonnie Cramond, Professor & Director

           Sarah Sumners, Assistant Director

Appendix B
Participating Faculty by Academic Department

Academic Departments

Communication Sciences and Special Education

Kevin Ayres, Assistant Professor

David Gast, Professor

Noel Gregg, Professor Emerita

Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology

Scott Ardoin, Associate Professor

Jonathan Campbell, Associate Professor

Ikeson Choi, Associate Professor

Allan Cohen, Professor

Michael Hannafin, Professor

TJ Kopcha, Assistant Professor

Elementary and Social Studies Education

Martha Allexsaht-Snider, Associate Professor

Cory Buxton, Associate Professor

Mark Vagle, Associate Professor

Language and Literacy Education

Ruth Harman, Assistant Professor

Mathematics and Science Education

J. Steve Oliver, Professor

Appendix C
Examples of Revenue-Producing Courses

The following are examples of courses that could be offered on a revenue producing basis.

QUANTITATIVE  METHODOLOGY WORKSHOPS

Propensity Score Matching (PSM): This course/workshop will introduce participants to an increasingly popular quantitative method that allows the post hoc estimation of causal treatment effects from observational data. This course will provide a systematic overview of PSM, elaborate on its advantages and limitations, and offer general guidelines for participants interested in applying the method for their own purposes. The course focuses on developing a conceptual understanding of PSM. Recent developments in PSM research and various alternative PSM software packages will be part of the course content. Education researchers, policy makers, administrators, practitioners, and individuals with a limited or general understanding of PSM will benefit from this course.

Introduction to Bayesian Analysis:  Introduces basic theoretical and applied principles of Bayesian statistical analysis designed for graduate students in the social sciences. The Bayesian paradigm for estimation of statistical models has been found to be useful for some types of data that predominate in the social sciences.  Social scientists have found this methodology to be useful because of the capability for incorporating information generated from prior research. Recent work has shown that this method of estimation is particularly useful for complex kinds of statistical models.

Advanced Bayesian Analysis:  This course assumes a background in Bayesian analysis such as would be provided by the Introduction to Bayesian Analysis course noted above.  Recent advances in statistics have resulted in increasingly complex statistical models.  Estimation of parameters of these models using Bayesian estimation algorithms has been useful.  In this course, Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation will be introduced and used to derive parameter estimates for common statistical models.  The Gibbs sampler and the Metropolis Hastings algorithm in particular will be discussed.  The course will also cover important issues such as model checking, model assessment, and model comparison.  Computation using MCMC will be a focal point in the course.

Longitudinal Data Analysis:  Longitudinal analysis focuses on is the study of sequences of observations obtained from respondents over time.  This kind of analysis is also referred to as repeated measures analysis, growth modeling, multilevel analysis, and panel analysis. Longitudinal analysis is increasingly being used for analysis of behavioral data because of the need to explain why changes occur.   The statistical basis and practical applications of linear models for longitudinal analysis and generalized linear models will be discussed including analysis of unequally spaced and missing data.

Multilevel Models:  Multilevel models are also known as general linear mixed models and hierarchical linear models. These models are useful because of their capacity for providing quantification and prediction of random variance across occasions, persons, or groups. Multilevel models are useful in analyzing clustered data (e.g., persons nested in groups), in which one wishes to examine predictors pertaining to individuals or to groups. They also offer advantages for analyzing longitudinal data, such as for modeling change and individual differences in change, the possibility of examining time-invariant or time-varying predictor effects, and the use of all available complete observations.

Methodological Issues in Studies of Ethnicity:  This course will examine research design, measurement, and analysis issues in quantitative research on ethnic populations in the United States. The course is designed for those students and scholars with an interest in policy-relevant social science research on race, ethnicity and related diversity challenges.  Topics that will be covered will include psychometric issues (including reliability and validity) in measurement of ethnic variables in survey studies, sampling strategies for diverse populations, race-related measurement errors in data collection, and analysis options, traditions, trends and issues within various social sciences, professional fields and public policy arenas.

Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling:  This course will introduce participants to Structural Equation Models (SEMs) with and without latent variables. It will begin with an overview of the statistical theory underlying SEMs..As part of the course, students will be taught how to estimate SEMs using current SEM computer software. Topics included will be path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, simultaneous equation models, incorporation of multiple indicators and measurement error into models, alternative estimators, model identification, and assessing model fit.

Single –Subject Designs

Introduction to Single Subject Research: This course covers the logic underlying single subject research design as it relates to educational and behavioral interventions. Topics will include measurement practices, inter-observer agreement, visual analysis, replication and detecting and guarding against common threats to internal validity. The course is designed for the researcher who has questions focused on small-n populations or has a particular interest in individual responses to intervention. 

Comparative Single Subject Research Designs: This course expands on the introductory course by specifically examining typical comparative designs and their underlying logic. The course will focus on designs appropriate for answering comparative questions (e.g. do teacher generated or student generated graphic organizers lead to better comprehension and recall of content area reading by students with learning disabilities). Researchers will learn the advantages and disadvantages of the various comparative designs for addressing a range of comparative questions when the performance of an individual is of interest.

QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY WORKSHOPS

Qualitative Methods in Policy Research. This workshop will introduce participants to the concept of conducting qualitative research methods in policy analysis. Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of qualitative methods in policy research. This allows policy researchers to examine a broader range of research questions, which leads to expanded views about the nature of policy problems, processes, and methods of investigation. This workshop will cover topics such as case study research and historical research in policy analysis.

Qualitative research design. This workshop will provide an overview of the characteristics and applications of qualitative data collection. Specifically, the workshop will offer a review of various qualitative methods in the overall construction of qualitative research designs; hands-on experience in selecting and collecting qualitative data for educational research; and techniques for assessing quality when examining a qualitative research study.

Mixed methods inquiry. The purpose of this workshop is to provide an overview of mixed methods in evaluation and social science research.  Topics covered in the workshop include origins of mixed methods approaches, paradigmatic issues related to mixed method usage, the language and logic of mixed methods research, mixed method designs, data collection strategies, and data analysis considerations.

Appendix D
Members of the Advisory Board

Kevin Ayres, Communicative Disorders & Special Education

Steven Beach, Psychology and Institute for Behavioral Research

Allan Cohen, Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology and Georgia Center for             Assessment

Michael Hannafin, Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology and Georgia Center for    Assessment

Jeremy Kilpatrick, Mathematics & Science Education

Ezemenari Obasi, Counseling & Human Development

Amy Parks, Elementary & Social Studies Education

Paula Schwanenfluegel, Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology