Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I.
Introduction and Purpose of this Review
II.
Background
Defining and Using ‘Measures of Success’
Research Communities and Culture
III.
The Research Environment
Total Research Funding and Associated Indicators
Highlights of Significant Grants and Other Research Successes
International
IV.
Enhancing Research Culture
Identifying Research as Integral Par of Institutional Planning and Outreach
Re-investment of Research Revenue into the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Community
V.
Current Strategic Programs and Initiatives
Extending Horizons: University of Saskatchewan Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape
Team-approach of Coordinators/Facilitators/Research Officers
Task Force on the Management of Centres
Industry Liaison r
University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program
VI.
Context for the Second Planning Cycle
General Conditions and Situation Assessment
Progress and Change Since 2003
University Integrated Planning
Student Centered – Graduate and Undergraduate S udent Research Experience
Review of Existing OVPR Structure and Function
VII.
The Way Forward
VIII.
Tables
Table I: University of Saskatchewan Research Revenue Summary, 1994/1995 to 2004/2005 t
Table III: Distribution of Canada Research Chairs at the University of Saskatchewan
Table IV: Relevant Statistical Indicators of Technology Transfer at the University of
Saskatchewan
Table V: Research Acceleration Program (RAP) Awards and Success in Tri-Council Grant
Applications (2004/2005 and 2005/2006)
Table VI: Proposal Development Awards (PDA) and Success in Tri Council Grant Applications
(2003/2004 to 2005/2006)
Table VII: Office of the Vice-President Research Matching Grant Program and Associated
Success in Leveraging Additional Research Funding
IX.
Figures
Figure I: University of Saskatchewan Research Revenue, 1999/2000 and 2004/2005
Figure II: Research Revenue Comparison by College
Figure III: Maximum CFI Contribution of Top 15 Universities
Figure IV: International Research: Global Connections i

X.
Appendices
Appendix I: Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Indicators as Developed for Extending
Horizons: University of Saskatchewan Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape
Appendix II: Role of Humanities at the University of Saskatchewan, Submitted by the
University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit (USPPRU), 6 November 2006
Appendix III: Evaluation of Research Communications Activities
Appendix IV: Discussion Session at Wanuskewin Heritage Park, 20 October 2006
Appendix V: Initiatives in the First Planning Cycle
Appendix VI: Research Transition Facility (RTF) and Research Capital Plans
Appendix VII: Additional Context, Issues, Possibilities, and Opportunities ii

Executive Summary
The Office of the Vice-President Research (OVPR) has been designed and expanded since 2003 to serve the University of Saskatchewan academic community with effective research leadership, management, and administration. This review paper follows five individual bi-annual reports of activities (May 2004,
January 2005, May 2005, January 2006, June 2006) to identify success and specific future actions that will contribute to the University of Saskatchewan achieving stated research goals as an essential component of the t priorities in the past few years have been:
• Increasing research-intensiveness and innovation;
• Enhancing the research culture;
• Clarifying the relationships of the OVPR to other stakeholders: establishing partnerships;
• Creating effective research communications;
• Developing successful research groups;
• Taking a strong role in foundational documents and supporting the Strategic Directions; and
• Identifying the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape and areas of strength.
Many different metrics to measure success in these endeavors have been proposed at universities worldwide – some are used to measure ‘research-intensiveness’, research performance, research productivity, and other concepts of interest in comparative or evaluative projects. There is no simple approach that can serve all individual and institutional needs in this important exercise which must be sensitive to the context and disciplinary characteristics that can be clearly articulated. As part of the preparation for the second planning cycle, a strategy – including a comprehensive research database and system – will be developed to support appropriate benchmarking and an institutional research performance measurement approach.
Supporting Research Success
The OVPR operates within an administrative and collegial context with strong relationships to the
Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee of University Council, the Associate Deans (Research)
Forum, the Centres Forum, the VPR Advisory and Executive Committees. Active participation by the VPR at PEC, PCIP, and all three governance bodies (Council, Board, and Senate) has ensured a high degree of integration of the research perspective in appropriate decision-making and collegial settings. A number of specific initiatives have been implemented to support some of the needs expressed by different research communities at the University of Saskatchewan. A few examples include:
• SSHRC Internal Review Program and SSHRC Research Time Stipends;
• Matching Funds for SSHRC 4A Applications and SHRF RPP (CIHR) to support graduate students;
• Program to connect NSERC researchers with external partners;
• Augmented proposal development educational workshops and mentoring services;
• More than $1 million in Research Acceleration Program (RAP)/Matching funds;
• CIHR Bridge Funding and CIHR Internal Review;
• Implementation of research communications to highlight research impacts;
• Efficient services and programming for commercialization activities;
• Administration of Research Overheads Policy implemented in 2005-2006 fiscal year.
Strategic Research Priorities
Since the introduction of Canada’s Innovation Agenda in 1997, total research funding at the University of
Saskatchewan has increased from approximately $48 million to $104.6 million in 2004-2005. Each of the major revenue sources (e.g., federal, provincial, industry, others) has shown tremendous growth – greater than the national average as the University has increased its ‘share’ relative to competitor institutions. Increases in each of the Tri-Councils have been more than 100%, and the new federal programs (CFI, CRC, and Indirect Costs) have boosted total research revenues. The University of
Saskatchewan ranks 7 th among the medical/doctoral universities in CFI funding (total funding received
1

since the program inception in 1999 is more than $116 million). Between 2002 and 2004, the University of Saskatchewan ranked at least 15 th among research universities in Canada in total research funding.
The University of Saskatchewan received over $4.4 million in federal Indirect Costs funding in 2003-2004
(approximately 2% of the $224 million available nationally that year). By 2006-2007, the federal program had grown to $259 million (an increase of 15.55%), but the amount received by the University of
Saskatchewan had increased to $5.6 million (representing an increase of 25.11%). In the inaugural year of the Canada Research Chairs Program (2000), the University of Saskatchewan received an allocation of
31 Chair positions based on the institution’s proportion of research grant funding received through
NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR. In March 2005, the University allocation increased to 34 Chairs. The University of Saskatchewan’s percentage of women holding CRC positions (26.0%) is greater than the percentage demonstrated nationally (21.6%).
Current strategic priorities continue to develop and will be a focus during the second planning cycle.
Some highlights include:
• Enhancing research experience for students;
• Extending Horizons: University of Saskatchewan Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape;
• Research coordination/facilitation and better project management services;
• Accountability and responsibility associated with research centres and the university governance structure;
• Investments in industry liaison and exploration of a Tri-council/non-Tri-council funding strategy;
• Thorough examination of the Research Transition Facility concept (earlier proposed as a
Research Commons);
• Development of high-profile research capital plans (e.g., successful CFI); and
• Continued development and launch of additional components of the exciting and high-impact
University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program.
The Way Fo ward
A commitment to research-intensiveness continues to evolve and may now encompass a new, rich, and emerging understanding of engaged scholarship and concepts of knowledge translation and exchange
(KTE). The university environment is fundamentally based on the practices of discovery and innovation, creation and critical thinking, generation of knowledge or artistic performance, and facilitation of the KTE processes. Students are at the centre of these concepts as full participants engaged in knowledge translation and exchange. Are we presently organized to ensure adequate support and service of these ideals? Have the implications of priorities that develop institutionally and within specific units been considered? How will the OVPR Second Integrated Plan fit with other administrative unit and college plans? What initiatives should be the priority action items for the OVPR in the Second Planning Cycle?
How can these action items be successfully implemented? How will we know we have succeeded? What should be considered as organizing principles for the operations of the OVPR in the Second Integrated
Plan? Initial collegial discussion has confirmed the essential direction and focus for the OVPR, the current strategic priorities, and introduced new emphasis on the following themes:
• Research leadership development;
• Project management ;
• Research group development ;
• Expanded research database and measures of success ;
• Internal/external partnership development ;
• International research ;
• Infrastructure/equipment priorities ; and
• A university of discovery and creation .
2

Refinement and additions to these themes, and resolution of these questions (among others), will occur in the following months leading to development and presentation of the r
October 2007.
Measuring Success and the Way Forward can be found online at: http://www.usask.ca/vpresearch/strategic_plans.shtml
under the heading t
Research.
3

I. Introduction and Purpose of this Review
This review paper is based on the responsibility and desire of the Office of the Vice-President Research
(OVPR) to identify success and specific future actions that will contribute to the University of
Saskatchewan attaining the goal to “build on our current and emerging strengths and traditions to increase our intensity of research, scholarly and artistic activity over the next decade to be clearly established as:
• Among the top ten medical/doctoral universities
1
• One of a select few internationally in key areas”
2
in Canada; and,
.
In a series of collegial planning and administrative decisions in recent years, the University of
Saskatchewan has committed to the following priorities thought necessary to increase researchintensiveness, and to support the development of a strong research culture:
• Clarification of relationships among senior leadership and stakeholder groups,
• Creation of effective research communications - separate and distinct from other university communications,
• Development of successful research groups and provision of support to existing research groups,
• Identification and support of areas of strength,
• Provision of comprehensive and enlightened research services, and
• Development of necessary supporting architecture required for a research-intensive university.
As the new Integrated Planning Cycle begins, Fall 2006/Winter 2007 is an appropriate time to measure our achievements, celebrate successes and evaluate the effectiveness of investments and decisionmaking, improve and enhance the research environment, identify areas of future activity, and ensure appropriate vision and commitment are in place to support University of Saskatchewan research, scholarly and artistic goals and values.
1 Medical/doctoral universities are characterized as universities with a broad range of PhD programs, broad range of research, scholarly and artistic activities, and health science schools. The category includes: British Columbia,
Toronto, McMaster, Montréal, Ottawa, McGill, Laval, Alberta, Queen’s, Calgary, Dalhousie, Western, Sherbrooke,
Memorial, and Manitoba.
2 Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Foundational Document, January 2004, p. 8.
4

II. Background
In 1998, A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan contained the goal of increasing research-intensiveness at this institution. In February 2000, a Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work
I t Committee report entitled ncreasing Research Intensiveness at the Universi y of Saskatchewan elaborated on this theme and suggested key priorities, strategies, and next steps, many of which were adopted in the development of the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Foundational Document
(January 2004), and the Office of the Vice-President Research Integrated Plan and Multi-year Budget
2004-2007 (March 2004). These last two documents were firmly based on the University of
Saskatchewan Strategic Directions: Renewing the Dream (January 2002), and specified a wide variety and diversity of goals. The University of Saskatchewan Integrated Plan (May 2004) continued the emphasis on research with specific initiatives that are the subject of other review and evaluation t processes (e.g., the Provost’s Repor Card on Progress Towards Completion of the Integrated Plan
Initiatives).
The OVPR Integrated Plan identified a number of key areas for development, some of which remain in progress. For example, a Task Force on the Management of Centres will report in December 2006 and will encompass a review of current governance, finance, and mission-related issues associated with research centres and their relationships and accountabilities to the University of Saskatchewan. As part of the Changing Structures Task Force mandate, an effort will be made to examine and improve our overall structural arrangements and operational organization. The federal Indirect Costs Program, the Canada
Research Chairs (CRC) Program, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) are all subject to internal and external review procedures that are complementary to the analysis considered here. Some of the material from those program reviews will be incorporated, but the main focus of this report is a specific review and evaluation of the initiatives implemented since 2003 to support the priorities of the
University of Saskatchewan research agenda:
• Increasing research-intensiveness and innovation;
• Enhancing the research culture;
• Clarifying the relationships of the OVPR to other stakeholders: establishing partnerships;
• Creating effective research communications;
• Developing successful research groups;
• Taking a strong role in foundational documents and supporting the Strategic Directions; and
• Identifying the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape and areas of strength.
Individual bi-annual reports of activities have been presented to University Council (May 2004, January
2005, May 2005, January 2006, June 2006) and comprise a public record of investments, activities, and program/policy initiatives for which the OVPR has primary administrative or leadership responsibility.
Typically, these reports have presented information, but offered little in the way of analysis or evaluation.
The current report does not follow that format, but instead offers an evaluative interpretation of data, results, and desired outcomes. This information is presented in subsequent sections under the broad headings of ‘research environment’, ‘enhancing research culture’, ‘current strategic programs and initiatives’, and ‘context for the second planning cycle’. This review concludes with a prognosis on ‘the way forward’.
Defining and Using ‘Measures of Success’
Many different metrics have been proposed and used to measure ‘research-intensiveness’, research performance, research productivity, and other concepts of interest in comparative or evaluative projects such as that contemplated here. There is no simple approach that can serve all individual and institutional needs in this important exercise, although clear recognition of research products could be a reasonable place to begin. Generally, however, there is a need to be aware of the limitations in any given approach, and be sensitive to the context and disciplinary characteristics that can be clearly articulated. We are not alone in recognizing this challenge. Four of many possible examples are provided here:
5

1.
The University of Toronto often refers to assessment of research productivity through publications and citations, which are understood to be easier to measure and more useful in the sciences, than the humanities
3 . New ‘webometrics’ 4 and improving citation services suggest this
avenue of measurement may increase in the future and may yield simpler, one- or twodimensional indices considered to be appropriate for specific purposes.
2.
Simon Fraser University (with approx. $50 million in research funding annually) has identified a target of 25% of total university degrees at the graduate level. Their strategic plan goes on to say “we are currently one of the top five universities in Canada with respect to research intensity, as defined by the number of grants per 100 faculty members from the three federal funding
agencies.” 5
3.
The University of Waterloo employs “various measures to evaluate success in meeting its strategic research objectives, including scholarly output, sponsored research funding, growth in research capacity, training of highly qualified personnel, and knowledge and technology
transfer.” 6
4.
One final example illustrates the international nature of the discussion: “The University of Bristol will implement an integrated strategy to establish itself as an internationally competitive, research-intensive university, committed to the transfer of knowledge and the provision of a world-class education to the most talented students from all backgrounds”.
7 More than 25 action
items were identified, and measures of performance and benchmarking against international competitors on an ongoing basis has been approved. Departments, in consultation with Faculty
Research Directors and with support from the Division of Research and Enterprise Development, will monitor research performance on an ongoing basis using discipline-specific indicators such as:
• Bibliometric impact.
• International indicators of esteem (FRSs, FBAs, etc.).
• Per capita levels of research funding.
• Collaboration with institutions considered as internationally excellent.
• Interdisciplinarity.
• Knowledge transfer.
• Publication profiles.
•
Impact on policy makers and/or user communities.
8
In the OVPR Integrated Plan, a nuanced ‘qualitative-quantitative’ approach to measuring researchintensiveness was recommended because, as was clear then, the intellectual life of university research, scholarly and artistic work cannot be understood through quantifiable measures alone. While it is recognized that such measures can provide a portion of the picture of the research environment, they are insufficient when considered in isolation. In developing Extending Horizons: University of Saskatchewan r Research, Scholarly and A tistic Landscape steps were taken towards the development of qualitative and quantitative indicators to describe the research, scholarly and artistic work undertaken at this institution.
As part of this collegial process , a listing of indicators was devised that is sensitive to the varying applicability of performance indicators by discipline. The five selected indicators include:
1.
High Quality People;
2.
Significant Regional, National, and International Relevance;
3.
Ability to Attract Resources;
4.
Significant Collaborative Activity; and
5.
Significant Activity Output.
3 Challis et al, 2004, http://www.research.utoronto.ca/about/pdf/universityresearchenviron.pdf
4 Webometrics (also cybermetrics, web metrics) attempt to measure the Internet to obtain knowledge about number and types of hyperlinks, structure of the World Wide Web, and usage patterns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webometrics
5
6
http://www.chairs.gc.ca/web/program/srp/sfu_e.pdf
7
http://www.research.uwaterloo.ca/documents/ASR_04-05.pdf
8
http://www.bris.ac.uk/research/policy/strategy/version2.html
http://www.bris.ac.uk/research/policy/strategy/version2.html
6

Indicators are further divided into sub-themes that demonstrate various means by which to measure each indicator. For a complete listing of the indicators and sub-themes, refer to Appendix I. One of the longer term strategies identified later in this document will be to further develop this selection of indicators and implement a robust database collection system to ensure appropriate monitoring over time
(and with appropriate time intervals). As part of the preparation for the second planning cycle, the OVPR will develop a strategy to have in place an appropriate benchmarking and performance measurement approach through the Integrated Planning Office and the evolving Systematic Program Review activity.
This process will also inform – and be influenced by – the next steps taken with regard to the areas of strength and the scholarship discussions carried out within the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
Research Communities and Culture
Throughout this document, multiple references to the research culture at the University of Saskatchewan are made. It is critical throughout any discussion of the research culture to be cognizant that within that culture, very broadly defined and understood, numerous different communities co-exist. In order to ensure that a culture of research excellence is upheld, all participants must be sensitive to the cultural differences and also the similarities that exist both between and within these component communities. As was noted in the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Foundational Document, “The University must ensure its procedures, policies and practices enable all members of faculty to create and enjoy opportunities to pursue research, scholarly and artistic goals. This goal will often require disciplinespecific approaches (p. 10).” Variety in the approaches and strategies implemented will include, but are not limited to, the:
1.
Manner (diverse and unique) by which research, scholarly and artistic activities are pursued;
2.
Determinations of what qualifies as a productive climate in which these activities can be supported and promoted; and
3.
Measures utilized to gauge success.
The intention is to ensure that every discipline, college, department, or unit would have the ability to propose and agree on how measures of success should be prioritized, and certainly on what indicators should be used as measures within each community. Although there are many possible ways to consider the appropriate communities on campus (e.g., grant-based and contract-based, applied and basic research), one of the primary illustrations of variations in culture may occur between the various Tri-
Council communities on campus. Research administration and leadership must be sensitive to these and other differences, and there should be programs and services that respond to the varying needs of each group. In reviewing the differences that exist between communities, it is important to be cognizant that differences also exist within each group. Clearly, program development must avoid approaches that are rigid or restrictive.
SSHRC - This community has tended to be characterized by skepticism concerning the utility and necessity of grants, as SSHRC research has typically required lesser amounts of funding for equipment or infrastructure. Instead, graduate student assistance and time-release have been the primary focus.
Perhaps another characteristic of the SSHRC community is the tendency towards a solitary research model, although SSHRC is beginning to encourage its researchers to work collaboratively more frequently. Generally, it is well understood that the humanities occupy a privileged place at a university, based on its encouragement of critical thought and its ability to produce results of social relevance encourage SSHRC researchers to see the importance of positioning their research so that it has
9 . As
scientific agendas increasingly capture the attention of policy-makers, it will be important to continue to prominence, relevance, and impact. Several initiatives were instituted in response to the recognition that the University of Saskatchewan needed to improve its success in SSHRC competitions. In particular:
• Internal Review Program – established to increase the number and quality of applications submitted;
9 Further discussion of the institutional importance of scholarly activity in Humanities is provided in Appendix II.
7

• Research Time Stipends - matched through centrally administered funds whereby the University’s half of release time is absorbed centrally, rather than by colleges or departments; and
• Matching Funds for 4A Applications – provision of matching funds by the OVPR for 4A applications (deemed fundable by SSHRC, but money was unavailable).
NSERC – This community at the University of Saskatchewan is characterized by a mature research culture with a demonstrated history of success in Tri-Council competitions. The nature of research activity in this community is highly diverse from applied to basic science and from interdisciplinary by nature to a focus on making advances in a single subdiscipline. Typically, NSERC researchers are members of networks at the national and international level to a greater extent than networks within the University. These individuals are often well funded and highly successful, but they can at times be less visible within the
University. There is typically a relatively high rate of success within NSERC, but average grant values are insufficient to support the full costs of a research program. To partially address this, involvement with external partners is encouraged. However, freeing up time for research remains an important challenge.
Other important challenges to Science and Engineering researchers include the availability of funding for graduate students and obtaining, housing, and maintaining up-to-date research equipment and facilities.
As with SSHRC, the OVPR provides several services including:
• Programs to connect researchers with external partners – individual support and education services;
• Augmented educational workshops and mentoring services;
• Workshops, a listserve, and direct contact with researchers and granting agency personnel; and
• Proposal Development and Research Acceleration Program (RAP) funds.
CIHR - Health research, ranging from social, economic, and cultural issues (which are very similar to the interests of SSHRC) to biomedical approaches (similar to the interests of NSERC life scientist researchers), are included within the CIHR community. Researchers are encouraged to hold multiple grants with complementary purpose from either Tri-Council or non-Tri-Council agencies. Although CIHR funds few applicants (20-30% success rates nationally; approximately 15-20% locally), approvals are funded at a higher level than is the experience in SSHRC and NSERC. Most provinces in Canada have some form of separate support for health researchers, in part to maintain the level of competitiveness. In
Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (SHRF) provides this support. SHRF partners with CIHR to fund the Regional Partnership Program (RPP), which currently provides roughly
10% of the CIHR research funding in Saskatchewan, but supports around 20% of CIHR researcher projects. SHRF also provides start up grants for some new faculty, and funding for post-doctoral fellows.
A consequence of this funding is that the Province has set health research priorities, which in turn determine funding patterns, and thus influence the activities of researchers at the University. Health research activity in Canada has adopted research group or research institute models, in which individually-successful researchers collaborate in common areas or common projects. Inter-dependence rather than independence is where success in CIHR will be found. In common with the NSERC community, having available at the University high-technology infrastructure is essential to be able to move forward and maintain activity, but in many cases the user community is too small to maintain such equipment on a user-pay basis. The disappearance of equipment funding from CIHR in the last few years may disadvantage a research community that has few options for alternative sources of such funding.
Initiatives implemented through the OVPR for the CIHR community include:
• Matching Funds – the University participates in the RPP by providing matching funds to support graduate students;
• Bridge Funding – established jointly with the Colleges to provide support to four highly rated renewal applications that did not receive CIHR funding and that cannot be supported by RPP;
• Internal Review Requirement – to improve the quality of grant applications submitted to CIHR.
Only a few of the many dimensions of the research culture could be highlighted here. Numerous other communities are recognized and, working together, are identifying the services and programming unique to their needs and potential impact. Some are now beginning to receive the attention required through creation of specific initiatives (e.g., Aboriginal Education Research Centre, interdisciplinary Schools). The
8

continued development of a strong and collaborative service ethic in the constituent units of the OVPR may help encourage the process of understanding and serving these communities and individual researchers at the University of Saskatchewan.
9

III. The Research Environment
Total Research Funding and Associated Indicators
Since 1994-1995, total research funding from all sources has increased from $49.1 million to over $100 million (Table I). Since the federal government introduced the Innovation Agenda in 1997, total research funding has increased from approximately $48 million to $104.6 million in 2004-2005. Each of the revenue sources (e.g., federal, provincial, industry, others) has also shown tremendous growth (Figure I).
Funding in each of the Tri-Councils show more than 100% increases; in addition, the trio of new federal programs (CFI, CRC, and Indirect Costs) have boosted total research revenues. Between 2002 and 2004, the University of Saskatchewan ranked at least 15 r th among research universities in Canada as compiled
10 Interesting patterns can be discerned in Table I and Figure I related to the
by Resea ch Infosource Inc.
distribution across categories, including provincial funding and private sector contracts versus grants.
The overall increase in funding from the Tri-Councils in the last six years was $21,809,296 (an increase of
157.9%).
11 Within this context, the number of Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grants at
the University of Saskatchewan has increased from 59 in 1999-2000 to 128 in 2004-2005. The number of
Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grants has increased, in the same time period, from 25 to 87; and the comparable Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) numbers are 283 and 408 respectively. The average value of grants over this time period has also increased: CIHR from $46,000 to $57,000, SSHRC from $24,000 to $46,000, and NSERC from $36,000 to $59,000.
However, the University of Saskatchewan has a disproportionately smaller portion of the number of awards and the total research funding than would be suggested based on numbers of eligible faculty alone; and, the average value of the grants obtained is lower than the national average in each of the
Tri-Councils. This situation will continue to be a source of motivation to increase research-intensiveness by encouraging a greater number of eligible faculty members to participate in the competitions and succeed in obtaining Tri-Council grants.
The proportion of total University of Saskatchewan research funding attributable to the Tri-Councils in
2004-2005 was 42% (CIHR 10%, SSHRC 7%, and NSERC 25%). The Government of Saskatchewan contributed 21% of total research funding ($23.2 million) and provincial government funding, along with that from industry, has increased annually since 1999-2000. While comparisons of research revenues over time can be important in understanding research trends and patterns, it is also important to consider the variability in the revenue source distribution when comparing colleges. Figure II demonstrates that for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, research revenues at the college level can be highly varied. For example, while the College of Engineering receives the largest portion of its research revenues through NSERC, the
College of Agriculture and Bioresources receives primary support through provincial departments and agencies.
The total CFI funding received since the program’s inception in 1999 is $116.7 million. The University of
Saskatchewan ranks 7 th among the medical/doctoral universities in CFI funding (Figure III) – an indication that this institution is among the most successful – if not the most successful – Canadian university in these competitions. All of the universities that have received higher amounts of CFI funding in the past six years are much larger than the University of Saskatchewan. Much of our success with the
CFI is attributable to the Canadian Light Source (CLS) and the more recent InterVac awards. The total
CFI funding to the University of Saskatchewan has leveraged an additional $173 million in matching funds, principally from the provincial government and from other federal programs.
The federal Indirect Costs Program was developed to assist colleges and universities nationally with the administrative and management costs associated with the provision of high quality research activities. As is outlined in Table II, the University of Saskatchewan received over $4.4 million in indirect costs support in 2003-2004 which equals approximately 2% of the $224 million available nationally that year. By 2006-
10 http://www.researchinfosource.com/media/2005-top50-sup.pdf
11 Tri-Council data obtained from University of Saskatchewan Institutional Analysis, courtesy of Maclean’s survey data compiled by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).
10

2007, the federal program had grown to $259 million (an increase of 15.55%) and the portion received by the University of Saskatchewan had increased to $5.6 million (representing an accompanying increase of 25.11%).
12 The increased funding is currently distributed to universities through an incremental
formula which considers total Tri-Council funding success on a rolling three-year average. A comparison of the indirect costs received at this institution to a sample of other institutions from across Canada reveals that the greatest overall increase in indirect costs funding was received by the University of
Saskatchewan. Also of note, the percentage change experienced by this sample of institutions between
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 was negative or only slightly positive for all of the other institutions, with the exception of the University of Saskatchewan where a percentage increase of 10.75% was demonstrated.
In the inaugural year of the Canada Research Chairs Program (2000) the University of Saskatchewan received an allocation of 31 Chair positions based on the institution’s proportion of research grant funding received through NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR. Then, in March 2005 the University was notified that the recalculation of the Chairs allocation
13 was to result in an increase from 31 to 34 Chairs.
14 Of that total
allocation, the University of Saskatchewan currently has 27 active Chairs. Table III compares the general statistics of current Chairholders across Canada to those at the University of Saskatchewan. Of particular note, the University of Saskatchewan’s percentage of women holding CRC positions (26.0%) is greater than the percentage demonstrated nationally (21.6%).
In the area of Intellectual Property (IP) Management the number of FTEs dedicated to technology transfer has increased from 5.4 in 2003 to 8.0 in 2005. Over that same time period, expenditures on technology transfer have risen from $783,000 to over $1.3 million representing an increase of 66%.
These input measures are a good indication of the new strategic importance provided to the management of IP by the Industry Liaison Office (ILO) in the first planning cycle. As those investments have only recently been made, and the new model of a ‘line-department’ tech-transfer operation has been developed, it is much too early to focus on outcomes that are clearly recognized to require long time periods to assess. Probably the most important general trend in outcomes (as shown in Table IV) relates to the number of invention disclosures; the new ILO model has resulted in a significant increase in such disclosures (from approximately 40-50 annually to more than 80). This may be a result of the new programs that have been initiated to bring technology transfer to the faculty in a way that allows many to see the advantages of a service designed to provide a smooth integration between academic accomplishment and commercialization and knowledge translation. The number of patents and license agreements appear to be associated with this larger cultural change in how the institution manages IP and provides service. It must be stressed again that this is a long-term activity which requires several years (at least) for the activities to mature and become well-integrated with other knowledge translation and outreach activities at the University of Saskatchewan. One of the goals in managing University of
Saskatchewan IP is to become more efficient and to reduce the administrative workload for faculty involved in knowledge commercialization.
Highlights of Significant Grants and Other Research Successes
The University of Saskatchewan is extremely proud of its research successes and the dynamic research culture evident on this campus. The past several years have been particularly fruitful for this institution; unfortunately only a few highlights and examples of this enormous success can be acknowledged here.
Part of the reason to engage in the process of identifying the University of Saskatchewan research landscape, and to document the many activities in the Extending Horizons report was to more fully celebrate our achievements. A few highlights:
12 The total of $259 million for the overall program excludes the $40 million that was included in the spring 2006
Federal Budget, but has not yet received Treasury Board approval; the University of Saskatchewan total of $5.6 million does not include the potential top-up that will be received based on the approval of the $40 million because the amount to be directed to the University of Saskatchewan has yet to be determined.
13
14
Revised allocations are expected to be announced in November 2006 and every two years thereafter.
In 2004, the CRC Oversight Committee approved the redistribution of two Tier 2 chairs to create one Tier 1 chair bringing the total allocated Chairs from 34 to 33.
11

The Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) recently awarded one of only 11
Knowledge Impact in Society (KIS) grants to over twenty researchers from varied disciplines at the
University of Saskatchewan. KIS grants represent a new initiative by SSHRC whereby support is provided for knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilization initiatives. This in turn improves the societal impact of research by transferring the expertise that is developed by the institution to the surrounding community. SSHRC awarded $300,000 to this project, entitled Adapting to new environments: agriculture and rural economies in the 21 st century. Another significant research success experienced at the
University of Saskatchewan was the receipt of a $1.75 million SSHRC grant from The Social Economy
Suite to support the study of social enterprises. This grant, awarded to a team led by Lou Hammond
Ketilson, is the largest SSHRC grant ever received by a University of Saskatchewan researcher. The project, entitled Linking, Learning, Leveraging: Social Enterprises, Knowledge Economies and Sustainable
Communities and coordinated through the Centre for the Study of Co-operatives and the Community-
University Institute for Social Research (CUISR), will examine how social economy enterprises can assist in the establishment of improved relationships within communities, with the environment, and among stakeholders.
As stated in Renewing the Dream: University of Saskatchewan Strategic Directions (2002) “the university plans to play a leading role in Aboriginal education and scholarship” (p. 4). To that end, the newly established Aboriginal Education Research Centre (AERC) aims to facilitate the creation of more effective learning environments for Aboriginal students. In April 2006, it was announced that the AERC was selected by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) to co-lead the new Aboriginal Learning Knowledge
Centre. This centre is one of five knowledge centres created by the CCL to improve learning outcomes at various stages throughout the learning process. With access to $1.5 million annually, the Aboriginal
Learning Knowledge Centre will develop a network of shared expertise to advance current knowledge on effective approaches to Aboriginal Learning and to promote further research in this area. In 2005, the second year of the SSHRC Aboriginal Research pilot program, University of Saskatchewan researchers received 5 of 28 national grants. This success represents the highest number awarded to a single institution – amounting to approximately $480,000 in research funds over three years. Kristina Fagan
(English), from the Labrador Métis Nation, leads a study of Métis identity from a community perspective, intended to advance their struggle for recognition and rights as a distinct Aboriginal group. Evelyn Peters
(Geography), along with a team of internal and external stakeholders, investigate First Nations and Métis identities in cities from the Aboriginal perspective. Brenda MacDougall (Native Studies), a western
Canadian Métis, leads an archival digitization project that will make accessible previously unpublished materials on western Canadian First Nations and Métis leaders, organizations, and events from 1900 to
1970. Linda Wason-Ellam (Curriculum Studies) and an expert team of researchers investigate literacy and life skills for Aboriginal children and youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Randy Wimmer
(Educational Administration) is exploring the experiences of graduates of the Indian Teacher Education
Program (ITEP) in their first year of teaching in the Band Controlled School system that will inform policy and practice for Band Controlled Schools and university-based teacher education. Clearly, the University of Saskatchewan is recognized nationally for its leadership in Aboriginal research, scholarship, and collaboration with Aboriginal communities.
Another stride in research success was taken when the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization
(VIDO) was awarded $6.2 million ($5.6 million USD) over five years through the Grand Challenges in
Global Health competition in June 2005. The grant was awarded to support the development of novel vaccine formulations for newborns and young children; particularly, effective single dose vaccines. This competition is an initiative supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and additional partners and was established to attempt to solve what have been identified as “grand challenges” in health that, if solved, would make significant advances in prevention and treatment of disease within the poorest nations globally.
The resurgence of CIHR-funded research at the University of Saskatchewan and the development of new strengths for the future were illustrated in March 2006 when the University received three out of twenty
Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) grants. This success was further illustrated in the major roles played by University of Saskatchewan researchers in two other successful applications for these grants. These grants, each worth approximately $800,000 over five years, resulted from the Reducing
12

Health Disparities and Promoting Equity for Vulnerable Populations – ICE Competition and build on this institution’s emerging strength in the area of community-based and population health research. Lewis
Williams (Community Health and Epidemiology; Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre) and
Caroline Tait (Women and Gender Studies; Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre) lead a team that will investigate issues of mental health in the Aboriginal community. Cory Neudorf (Community Health and Epidemiology; Saskatoon Health Region) leads several University collaborators investigating health disparities in Saskatoon. Anne Leis (Community Health and Epidemiology), along with Louise Bouchard from the University of Ottawa, lead a diverse team including researchers from the Department of French and the University of Regina and will investigate health service delivery for the francophone population.
A new international research network, Improved Processes and Parameterisation for Prediction in Cold
Regions or IP3, was recently funded for a total of $2.5 million by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). IP3 will be based out of the University of Saskatchewan’s Centre for
Hydrology and will operate from 2006 to 2010.
15
water and weather systems in cold regions, particularly in Canada’s Rocky Mountains and western Arctic regions. These issues are of key importance to agriculture, urban and industrial development in the
The Centre’s director, John Pomeroy, is principal
investigator of this nation-wide research network “devoted to an improved understanding of surface
Prairies and northwest.”
16
Evidence of sustained research activity is demonstrated in various colleges, departments, and units across the University of Saskatchewan. One such example is the Crop Development Centre’s (CDC) renewed 10-year funding partnership with the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF). The original agreement began in 1995 and following an extensive process has been renewed to continue from 2005 through to 2014. The new agreement is valued at $8.85 million over ten years ($300,000 annually for barley R&D and $585,000 annually for wheat R&D) and was made available through the WGRF’s producer-funded Wheat and Barley Check-off Funds.
17 These funds are used to support the CDC’s barley
and wheat plant breeding and new variety creation and development programs for the benefit of agriculture across western Canada. Sustained funding, such as this, plays a significant role in this institution’s long-term success and in the development of externally recognized programs.
Striking evidence of research accomplishment at the University of Saskatchewan is also evidenced in the success rate of our researchers in NSERC’s Collaborative Research and Development Grant (CRD) program. In the five years leading up to April 2005, University of Saskatchewan researchers enjoyed an average 85% success rate in the CRD competition. In addition, for the fiscal year of April 2005 to March
2006 the number of applications (23) nearly doubled the average of the previous five years (12). Of the
23 CRD applications submitted, 17 have been awarded and one remains pending demonstrating that the current success rate will, at a minimum, be 74% for the 2005 fiscal year.
International Research
The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) report on the National Roundtable on New
Directions for International Research (May 2003) provided several important insights into the ways in which the University of Saskatchewan – and other Canadian universities – could adjust their activities in order to increase engagement in international research activity and more focused initiatives.
Administration and leadership for international research at the University of Saskatchewan changed in
2004 with the first Integrated Plan. The earlier structure of University of Saskatchewan International
(USI) was partitioned into three units comprised of international recruitment, global relations, and international research. The existing operating budget lines were associated with the student initiative, and the other two units were funded for limited terms via alternative resources (e.g., APF). The time has come to consider these arrangements and, perhaps, provide closer scrutiny and attention to the ways in which we respond to the larger context for international research at the University of Saskatchewan.
15 http://www.usask.ca/ip3/index.html
16 http://www.usask.ca/ip3/about.htm
17 http://www.westerngrains.com/news/nr_050407.html
13

Figure IV visually depicts some of the research that has been and is currently being conducted internationally by individuals or groups from the University of Saskatchewan from 1993 to present.
Currently, the International Research Office – the part of the USI endeavor now associated with the
OVPR through Research Services – has identified 13 international research projects underway in 10 countries.
18 In addition, the International Research Office is in the process of assisting with the
development of five international research projects in countries including Bangladesh, Ukraine, Trinidad and Tobago, and Nigeria.
Since 2004, as identified in the first Integrated Plan, particular focus has been directed towards the pursuit and development of research opportunities for the University of Saskatchewan in India and China.
First, an agreement with the Beijing Institute of Technology has been developed which will form the basis of joint research activity, faculty and student exchanges, and other research initiatives, principally in the health sciences, but potentially expanding into other mutually beneficial areas of interest. In India, specifically in the last 9 months, the University is aggressively pursuing a recently announced opportunity through the World Bank ($250 million, 6 year program) focused on the development and demonstration of technologies related to value added agriculture. Given the expertise this University demonstrates in this area, several proposals are under development. As part of the World Bank program there is $50 million for Basic Research and Science of which approximately $10 million would be specifically accessible by the University of Saskatchewan. Other opportunities to engage University of Saskatchewan researchers in India are being sought in the areas of Agricultural Biotechnology and Veterinary Medicine.
In spring 2007, a thorough review and analysis of these activities and others in the International
Research Office will be conducted (as envisioned in the first Integrated Plan and approved by the
Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning (PCIP) through the allocation of resources from the
Academic Priorities Fund). Some potential questions of interest in this review, to be initiated by the
Director of Research Services and Assistant to the Vice-President Research and to involve wide representation across the campus, will include:
• What research successes have been achieved in reaching the broader mandate of University of
Saskatchewan internationalization?
• What changes, if any, can be made to improve our research performance in international research activities and priorities?
18 International projects operated independently from the International Research Office will not be fully reflected in this compilation.
14

IV. Enhancing Research Culture
Identifying Research as Integral Par of Institutional Planning and Outreach
An essential component of enhancing the research culture at the University of Saskatchewan was thought to be the identification of research as an integral component in both institutional planning and outreach.
There may have been a sense, in some areas of the university, that research, scholarly and artistic work was perhaps not as high a priority at the University of Saskatchewan as it should have been (though in other areas it might have been thought that research was too high and was somehow in a form of conflict with other university priorities). Clearly, the view now widely accepted, that research is a complementary and essential priority for the University of Saskatchewan, is thoroughly appreciated and understood. Research is considered as a contributor to the University culture, a central consideration, and research has assumed a prominence and critical position relative to the University’s mission and Strategic
Directions. There is every indication that this position has been achieved in balance with other priorities for the University of Saskatchewan including teaching and outreach; for example, it might be helpful in the future to measure the impact and prominence of ‘research’ in virtually every aspect of university life.
This is clearly consistent with the development of the concept of Knowledge Translation and Exchange
(KTE) which appears to be assisting many North American universities in the management of research and teaching and learning.
One way people sometimes gauge the effectiveness of a strategic priority is to examine the membership of various governing and consultative bodies responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Clearly, research leadership has an important role at the University of Saskatchewan; the Vice-President
Research is able to influence and participate in all the critical collegial environments and research is a constant consideration in all the important processes (e.g., student recruitment, faculty hiring and promotion, infrastructure development). A quick glance through the various committees that operate with the Vice-President Research (or a delegated member from the Vice-President Research Executive
Committee) suggests the degree to which there is clear integration of research in institutional planning and outreach. For example, the Vice-President Research is a:
• Member of President’s Executive Council (PEC), PCIP, and Deans’ Council;
• Non-voting member of University Council and Senate;
• Resource officer to the Board of Governors; and
• Participant in a number of critical advisory, board, and decision-making settings (e.g., Associate
Deans’ Research Forum, Centres Forum, VPR Advisory, Indirect Costs Advisory, and CFI Advisory
Committees).
In addition, other university processes (e.g., those administered by Government Relations, Global
Relations, IT) have a strong research understanding and sensitivity that continues to serve the University of Saskatchewan well. The VPR Advisory Committee should possibly be considered as a venue to ensure an appropriate clarification of the OVPR relationship with all stakeholders (internal and external) is developed and maintained.
Re-investment of Research Revenue into the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Community
Through the recent development of a number of external funding programs and the resulting funding opportunities, the University of Saskatchewan is in a position to re-invest in research, scholarly and artistic activities on this campus.
Indirect Costs - Canada’s Indirect Costs Program is intended to assist post-secondary institutions with the
‘indirect costs’ of research connected with Tri-Council activity (i.e., those costs that are not eligible for funding under direct granting council competitions). Under the management of the OVPR, via the Indirect
Costs Advisory Committee and PCIP, and ultimately approved in the form of an Institutional Grant by the
Indirect Costs Program Secretariat, University of Saskatchewan indirect costs expenditures are distributed to eligible expenditures in the following broad categories:
15

1.
College/Centre Priority and Awards Fund – 22% (which is, in turn, distributed by the Colleges, in some proportion, to the five broad categories below)
2.
Research Management and Administration – 22%
3.
Resources – 20%
4.
Facilities – 17%
5.
Intellectual Property Management – 10%
6.
Regulatory Requirements and Accreditation – 9%
The University’s Indirect Costs allocation is dispersed equally between 1) sustainability activities in response to increased operating costs arising from Tri-Council research (facilities, library acquisitions, etc.) and 2) new initiatives implemented with the aim of increasing research-intensiveness.
Provincially, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (SAF) provide Strategic Research Program funding to the
University. In addition to the amount provided for the support of direct costs of research, SAF provides
15% of the total to assist with covering the indirect costs associated with the funded research activity. At full capacity, this amounts to indirect costs support of approximately $360,000 annually. It is recognized that this support can only partially offset the indirect costs incurred through the funded research activities. Hence, the allocation from SAF is distributed approximately as follows:
• Technology Commercialization – 46%
• Research Initiatives and Support – 40%
• Youth and Entrepreneurship – 14%
Overhead - Under the recently revised Administration of Research Overheads Policy,
19 indirect costs are
recovered through both grant and contract agreements. Overhead is now being recovered from various types of grants, whereas it had previously been primarily limited to contracts. When overhead is recovered on a project, the central share (50%) is transferred to a UniFi Fund under the authority of the
OVPR. Then, based on a three year rolling average, a baseline amount will be subtracted from the annual overhead recovered centrally and the balance will be set aside in the Research Overhead Fund (ROF).
The college share of overhead is transferred directly to the appropriate college or centre. For department shares, overhead is typically distributed downwards from the college to the relevant departments. It is then between the department and researcher or between the college and researcher (if no departments exist within the college), to determine what portion, if any, will be distributed to the researcher.
The first year for this revised recovery scheme was the 2005-2006 University fiscal year. In 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 the overhead recovered centrally was approximately $586,000 and $410,000 respectively.
For 2005-2006 the amount recovered centrally was approximately $600,000 which converts to a balance of approximately $65,000 remaining in the ROF following the first full year under the revised policy. As of early October 2006, the central overhead recovery fund has a balance of approximately $290,000, after only about 5 months of the fiscal year. Therefore, although there are many factors to consider throughout the year relating to how overhead will be billed and collected, it looks promising that there may be a 10-20% increase in the annual central recovery amount by the end of the current fiscal year
(May 2007).
Qualitative analysis of the impact of the new research overheads policy has identified areas of improvement from previous policy and issues that remain to be managed. In particular, demonstrated understanding of the rationale behind changes to the policy has been widespread and as a result, changes have been fairly well accepted. Student exemption remains a key contributor to the idea of increasing graduate student numbers, but it has been recognized that this exemption is increasingly more
‘difficult’ to budget and administer (e.g. NSERC CRD awards). Issues warranting further consideration include variation in overhead rate for industry support of contracts as compared to grants; reality that numerous large projects have no overhead or that overhead may be provided via alternative sources; consistency in the application of internal overhead distribution across campus.
19 Approved by the Board of Governors – December 2004; implemented for 1 January 2005.
16

Internal Awards Programs - The Research Acceleration Program (RAP) (also variously called the
Collaborative and Research Group Facilitation Awards) and the Proposal Development Awards have made more than $400,000 available to University of Saskatchewan researchers. These programs provide support for grant proposal development for consideration by funding agencies such as the Tri-Councils, various foundations, and governments. In information collected to date, recipients of awards through both programs have brought over $37 million in research funding to the University of Saskatchewan
20 .
In addition, the Matching Grant Fund has been used primarily to support faculty applying for grants that encourage engagement in wide-ranging, multi- or interdisciplinary research and whose funding agencies may require institutional support as a criterion of the grant application. The purpose of this Fund has been to invest in graduate students by increasing their involvement in research and to increase the success of University of Saskatchewan researchers in their receipt of major grants. Since 2003, more than
$1 million has been allocated through this program and Table VII provides a summary of matching grant recipients (both confirmed and pending) and reflects the funding brought in to the University of
Saskatchewan by those individuals receiving support through this program. Total funding that has been leveraged to date is more than $21 million. Some early questions that may be considered at this point include the type of research assistance provided (for example, those awardees that appear to be more in need of matching program or development assistance) and the faculty profile of the recipient (for example, the impact on awardees and their subsequent success).
20 Details on Research Acceleration Program and the Proposal Development awards can be found in Table V and
Table VI respectively.
17

V. Current Strategic Programs and Initiatives
Extending Horizons: University of Saskatchewan Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape
The Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape document has reached a state of maturity in describing the University of Saskatchewan research breadth and diversity; now, what is needed is an understanding of the Next Steps – what are the ways in which we can use this document, how does the existence of the document change our planning and decision-making, can we make progress on identifying areas of strength and promise based on this solid foundation? These, and other next steps, are the responsibility of a committee, with representation across the campus and drawn largely from the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee of Council and the Associate Deans (Research) Forum, under the leadership of the Associate Vice-President Research Karen Chad.
Team-approach of Coordinators/Facilitators/Research Officers
Faculty members serving as ‘Research Coordinators’ (Health, NSERC, SSHRC) were proposed in 2003, or earlier, and have been instrumental in determining the optimal programs to be delivered in the areas of grant development, matching grant commitments, and other key areas of specific interest or concern to the different research communities. Proposed as a three-year initiative, the concept of ‘research coordination’ has now evolved, but since 2003, together with the Research Services-based Research
Grants Officers and new Research Facilitators, many of whom are located within colleges, this teamapproach has been valuable and instrumental in delivering appropriate ‘discipline’ specific initiatives (such as mentoring, internal review, grant-writing services, etc.).
21
In 2007, a full discussion of the appropriate level of service and operational functionality of this teamapproach will occur. In addition, discussion will surround the form this blended model, of central and college-based administrators, should take. A number of related developments should be considered that may impact the need for separate ‘research coordinator’ leadership within the OVPR. These include:
• Creation of the full-time Associate Vice-President Research in 2005;
• Creation
22 of the joint Vice-President Research and Innovation (Saskatoon Health Region) /
Associate Vice-President Research (Health) (University of Saskatchewan) in 2007;
• Structural changes in the OVPR Executive;
• Presence of a full-time Associate Dean (Research) in many colleges; and
• Creation of other ‘research coordination or facilitation’ personnel both centrally and in many colleges and research centres.
In addition, several new sources of research service requirements can be recognized, over and above the on-going needs to develop research partnerships, grant development, and internal support mechanisms; what may be required is a new service in the area of research project management. For example, at the
National Workshop on Research Leadership and Management (October/November, 2005), it was acknowledged that many multi-institutional and multi-partnered grants and/or projects are not well managed across the country. Those in attendance recognized that both the Universities and the granting agencies should seriously consider funding non-academic project managers to support large research projects. In addition, consideration was given to the idea of encouraging academic leads on large grants to participate in management training programs.
23 It is clear that as the University of Saskatchewan
increases in research-intensiveness, additional demands on our ability to support and manage activities –
21 As of November 2006, this group of individuals includes four central (OVPR) Research Facilitators, seven collegebased Research Facilitators, and two central (OVPR) Research Grants Officers.
22 The posting for this position is listed at http://www.caldwell.ca/ops/disp.asp?pNum=8448&page=1&return=/ops/default.asp&criteria=anyWords&opType=a nyOp&searchFor=8448
23 A summary report from this workshop is available at http://www.hpme.utoronto.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/Research_Leadership__Management_Workshop
_2005_Report_2956650.pdf
18

financially, personnel, students, research projects – will occur. We need to prepare for this challenging new environment.
Task Force on the Management of Centres
The sheer variability and breadth of centres – there are more than 75 in existence at the University of
Saskatchewan – is evidence of the unique relationships that can develop between a University and a research centre (broadly understood to encompass centres/institutes/organizations/etc.). These relationships have fostered creative approaches and collaborations and can, at times, be accompanied by challenges related to governance, accountability, and/or productivity benchmarks.
While the approval of a new
Centres Policy 24 addressed some of the existing issues facing centres
associated with this University, several issues related to their operation remained unresolved.
Consequently, a Task Force on the Management of Centres was established, under the leadership of the
Associate Vice President Research/Dean of Graduate Studies Tom Wishart, to develop recommendations related to the management and assessment of these centres. Specifically, the Task Force was formed in
June 2006 (with a strong link to the Changing Structures Task Force) to:
• “Develop guidelines for the assessment of centres and to propose a mechanism to support such assessments;
• Develop guidelines for the effective management of centres including, but not limited to, governance structures, financial viability, and resource support” ( University Task Force on the
Management of Centres: Discussion Paper, February 2006, p.1).
To assist in the development of these guidelines, a survey was developed by the Task Force in order to obtain responses regarding the review process for Centres. Through the work of subcommittees of the
Task Force, survey questions were developed in the following areas:
• Centre Governance,
• Centre Financial Policy,
• Relationship of Centre with the University, and
• Centre Review Process.
The survey was circulated in early September and data submission was completed in late October 2006.
Collation of this qualitative research data is currently being conducted. As next steps, the subcommittees of the Task Force will receive the collated data and will work to develop summaries of the issues arising from that data. The Task Force membership will then reconvene and begin deliberations toward the establishment of a draft document making several recommendations regarding the accountability and responsibility of centres and the University of Saskatchewan. When available, the draft will be circulated widely for consideration and feedback. The final Task Force draft report will be considered by Council through the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee of Council. A final document, including recommendations, should be available early in the new year and will also be provided to the Task Force on Changing Structures.
Industry Liaison
Created in 2004, the Industry Liaison Office (ILO) serves University of Saskatchewan researchers, faculty, staff, and students with the diverse components of technology transfer. This includes, but is not limited to, the building of relationships, the identification of the commercial potential for research, and the provision of advice on the technology transfer process and related university policies. In staffing the ILO, the following priorities have been identified and are presently being addressed:
24 Approved by University Council - December 2003; Board of Governors – March 2004.
19

• Inclusion of small teams of technology transfer professionals (approximately two individuals) located in satellite offices within the colleges they serve as follows: o
Medicine, Pharmacy and Nutrition, Dentistry, Nursing and Saskatchewan Cancer Agency
– have been filled, o
Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, and Toxicology Centre – have been filled, o
Arts and Science and Engineering – one of two positions filled.
• Addition of enhanced legal support through the hiring of a second lawyer to assist with the growing volume of work.
• Considerations of the need to assist large research centres (e.g. Vaccine and Infectious Disease
Organization) with Intellectual Property Management.
• The development and delivery of a full suite of technology transfer programming – including start-ups, patents and licensing, and potentially, early-stage incubation and graduation to fulfill economic development goals for the university, region, and province. r
In Building U of S Research Profile: University of Saskatchewan Strategic Research Communications Plan
, priorities for Research Communications were identified with goals to enhance the profile
(2004-2007)
25
of the institution locally, provincially, nationally, and internationally, and to celebrate the research excellence demonstrated here. The activities of Research Communications support the following
University of Saskatchewan goals:
• Raise the profile for the University of Saskatchewan research, scholarly and artistic (RSA) work locally, nationally, and internationally, with special focus on strategic areas such as environment, public policy, public health, and others.
• Support recruitment of faculty and students, especially graduate students.
• Help foster a research-intensive culture on campus.
• Support the University’s fund-raising goals by influencing perceptions of University of
Saskatchewan RSA among alumni and current and prospective donors.
• Contribute to a sense of place by highlighting University of Saskatchewan research strengths such as Aboriginal research, infectious disease research, synchrotron research, etc.
• Help build research partnerships with industry, government, and the community.
Several initiatives have been implemented to obtain these objectives. For example, the University of
Saskatchewan Research website
26 was redesigned to improve usability and ease of navigation and to
improve visual impact. Beginning 8 March 2005, Research News, an electronic newsletter, was established in order to improve both internal and external communications related to research activity. In r 2006, a readership survey was conducted to gauge the effectiveness of Resea ch News. This survey revealed a high approval rating with 80% of respondents rating the newsletter as either “good” or
“excellent”.
Another initiative developed, in cooperation with the Division of Media Technology, is video news features. The six video news features on synchrotron and CRC researchers have been extensively shown by SCN and by satellite across Canada. SCN does not track audience reach, but extrapolations from CRTC data on the number of cable/DTH (Direct to Home) audience indicate that SCNs potential audience in
Saskatchewan is almost 400,000 people. The videos have been shown approximately 93 times over six months (or 15.5 times a month) which equates to potential exposures totaling almost 37 million. Satellite exposure across Canada would be in addition to this number.
r that the dozen articles on student research – “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” – met CanWest journalistic standards and were therefore published in an unprecedented university-newspaper partnership.
25 September 2004, p. 5 and 6. Document is available from Research Communications upon request.
26 http://www.usask.ca/research/
20

Additionally, Research Communications produces the majority of press releases at the University of
Saskatchewan. In 2005, 62% (73 of 118) of all news releases from this institution were produced by
Research Communications. Despite a reduction in the number of news releases produced overall between
January and October 2006, in large part due to a fewer federal announcements from the new government, 55 of 64 (or 86%) news releases from the University of Saskatchewan were produced by
Research Communications. While it is recognized that the media tracking system used institutionally is rudimentary, the following information was captured for the past two years:
Year
Total Media Hits 27
Potential Audience Reach
2006
(January to mid-September)
950 21,968,763
For further details on the activities of Research Communications, refer to Appendix III.
University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program
As was anticipated following the University’s Integrated Plan, considerations of the establishment of a
University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program have been occurring over the past year. Out of the work conducted by the University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program Drafting Committee, a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Chairs and Professorships (JCCP), the proposed Chairs Program and a broad implementation strategy for the launch of the Centennial Chairs component and the continued development of the Saskatchewan Chairs component has been conceived.
Equivalent in concept to a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair, Centennial Chairs will focus on external recruitment opportunities with the intention of developing a critical mass of scholars in strategically identified areas. The intention is to have three Centennial Chairs, one to be associated with each of the three proposed interdisciplinary Schools (Environment, Public Health, and Public Policy) in place by 1 July
2007, and funded through provincial contributions, “undesignated” Thinking the World of our Future campaign contributions, and the Academic Priorities Fund.
The Saskatchewan Chairs component continues to be in the development phases and the intention is for development discussions to have been completed by 1 July 2007. Funding must be secured. This component of the Chairs Program is intended to facilitate both recruitment and retention issues identified by the University. Valued at a minimum of $100,000, Saskatchewan Chairs will be five-year appointments with the possibility for one renewal in areas of University and provincial priority. Emphasis must now shift to the development of a process by which to launch the Saskatchewan Chairs component. This process will involve gaining approvals from JCCP and from the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work, Budget and
Planning Committees of Council; to be followed by President’s Executive Committee and Provost’s
Committee on Integrated Planning approvals.
27 Total Media Hits is supplemented with known pitches.
21

VI. Context for the Second Planning Cycle
General Conditions and Situation Assessment
In the OVPR Integrated Plan and Multi year Budget 2004-2007 and the Research, Scholarly and Artistic
Work Foundational Document, increased research-intensiveness was clearly stated as one of the primary mandates of the OVPR. As has been described throughout this document and in earlier communications presented at University Council, numerous initiatives were implemented and priorities established to shift the University’s focus towards the attainment of research-intensiveness and to place heightened importance on research, scholarly and artistic activity as fundamental values of the University of
Saskatchewan 28 .
By any broad definition, research-intensive institutions consider research an expected component of daily practice and strive for heightened research productivity across disciplines. The presence of research, scholarly and artistic work is intricately woven into the institutional experience of faculty and students.
These activities are considered inherent to institutional success, and therefore the strategic principle is understood and accepted as integral to institutional goals and culture. Collegial discussion is often focused on implementation: how to achieve the goal of research-in ensiveness without compromising other significant priorities of the institution. t
A discussion session outlined in Appendix IV resulted in general acknowledgement of some key features of research-intensiveness at the University of Saskatchewan including:
• Research should be expected and be built into the institution’s mission statement, hiring and promotion practices, and daily activity;
• A research-intensive environment encourages a culture of discovery and creation in which all faculty are engaged, all students are exposed, and the results of which are valued, appreciated, and comprehended by the broader community and society;
• The engagement of internal and external participants in research and the flow of knowledge within and beyond this campus; and
• Engagement in the research enterprise must not exist solely among internal stakeholders, but should extend to include not only local, but also provincial, national, and international communities and stakeholders. To be successful, the institution must participate in a combination of knowledge translation (KT) and knowledge exchange (KE).
This latter point can be helpful in elaboration of institutional research goals. Knowledge translation involves “transferring good ideas, research results, and skills between universities, other research organizations, business and the wider community to enable innovative new products and services to be developed
29 .” Complementary to this idea is the concept of knowledge exchange which involves
“interaction between decision makers and researchers and results in mutual learning through the process of planning, producing, disseminating, and applying existing or new research in decision-making.”
30
Through a combination of these practices – essentially, a thorough implementation of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) – the institution is practicing engaged scholarship and differentiates itself as an engaged institution.
The University of Saskatchewan could consider an increased effort to minimize the existing gap between what we know and what we do and perhaps better implement the characteristics of a research-intensive university, one that is engaged and adheres to the concept and practices of KTE. Clearly, it is critically important that the knowledge and expertise developed here is relevant to the broader community, available to that community and other external stakeholders, and that it is mutually beneficial. According
28 For further detail regarding initiatives from the first integrated planning cycle, refer to Appendix V and Appendix
VI.
29
30
http://www.ost.gov.uk/enterprise/knowledge/index.htm
http://www.chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/index_e.php
22

to the Kellogg Commission
31 “successful universities will be those that are intimately connected to their
communities and responsive to society’s needs, not only locally, but nationally and globally as well … we must consider the world as our community and it is imperative that we work to integrate a global and engaged perspective into everything we endeavour.”
32 The KTE model and the characteristics of an
engaged institution are more fully expressed in documents
33 developed by the Kellogg Commission (one
of many sources available). In response to this shift in institutional philosophy towards increased engagement as an expression of research-intensiveness, several accreditation agencies across the United
States include measures of engagement in teaching, research and service as one of the criterion used to evaluate institutions.
34 As well, the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement assesses
institutional and faculty engagement for institutions across the United States the Study of University Engagement
36
35 and a National Centre for
has been established at Michigan State University.
Interestingly, this KTE concept is being developed at several institutions across Canada and the United
States to shift institutional focus to enhance the concept of research-intensiveness. For example, the language of ‘research-intensiveness’ is being reconsidered to attempt to clarify a philosophy that is not divisive and that does not emphasize any separation between the research and teaching and learning processes. The emphasis, instead, is on the key recognition that achievement of research-intensiveness does not take place at the expense of teaching and learning. Ultimately, research and teaching and learning need not, and must not, be perceived as mutually exclusive. Instead, research, scholarly and artistic activities must infuse, inform, and enhance all aspects of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and learning. The importance of research to this University should always be celebrated; research, scholarly and artistic activity are most beneficial and the institution most successful when these activities are appropriately balanced, integrated, and valued with the teaching and learning activities taking place here.
The environment and culture at the University of Saskatchewan must be fundamentally based on the belief that the development of students into productive, proactive citizens is best accomplished in an environment of discovery and innovation where research and teaching and learning are integrated pursuits. When students, working alongside faculty, participate in the generation of knowledge or artistic creation, they join in the University’s rich intellectual community where knowledge claims are viewed as fallible, ideas are questioned, and inquiry-based learning is given a high priority. Such a climate develops a student population of critical thinkers and instills within them an appreciation of knowledge generation and the process involved in the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching.
Progress and Change Since 2003
In examining the steps this University has taken towards reaching its earlier stated goal of becoming a research-intensive institution – fully understood within the comprehensive concept of Knowledge
Translation and Exchange (KTE) – becomes clear that in some areas the institution has demonstrated success, but in others opportunities and deficiencies remain. The University has begun or continued to:
31 The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities consisted of 24 presidents and chancellors of universities from across the United States who came together from 1996 and 2000 to examine the issues affecting higher education.
32
Kellogg Commission.
33 http://president.psu.edu/speeches/articles/engaged.html
Excerpt from a speech given by Graham B. Spanier, President of Penn State University and former Chair of the
Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution
(http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/Kellogg1999_Engage.pdf ),
Discovery, and Engagement in a New Age and Different World
Renewing the Covenant: Learning,
( http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/Kellogg2000_covenant.pdf) and Public Higher Education Reform Five
Years After The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities
(http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellogg/KCFiveYearReport.pdf).
34
35
For example, The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (http://www.wascweb.org/).
For further details on the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, refer to http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/index.html.
36 For further details on the National Centre for the Study of University Engagement, refer to http://ncsue.msu.edu/about.asp
23

1.
Highlight strategic research thrusts;
2.
Establish a foundation of research strengths (process to continue with the finalization and confirmation of next steps for Extending Horizons);
3.
Enhance research culture - research is very simply what we, as an institution, do; and
4.
Encourage high quality research – integration into hiring and promotion practices, provision of appropriate services.
As the institution continues to identify areas requiring additional research support, a complementary building of the institution’s research capacity is taking shape.
Even as these achievements have been made, opportunities for further progress have presented themselves. In particular, a focus on engagement, both internally and externally, must be perceived as a primary motivation. For example, an apparently uneven engagement of students in research, scholarly and artistic work should be examined. The transformative effect research experiences can have on students is great, and the University should consider providing continued and additional opportunities for students to experience scholarship and research first hand. There is a great opportunity to emphasize the rich internal and external community environment in which the University is placed. Through study at this institution, students may be better prepared for independence and participation in a knowledge-intensive society. Only in a university – perhaps only in a research-intensive, engaged university – are students challenged and prepared in such a way. Other opportunities for continued improvement include raising the level of competitiveness of the recruitment packages offered to new faculty and ensuring more supports are in place to assist young faculty in the attainment of research success.
In order to inform the Second Planning Cycle, consideration of the directions taken and actions undergone by the OVPR throughout the First Planning Cycle and the alignment of those directions and actions to the University’s Strategic Directions is required. No question, this institution has taken significant steps to attract outstanding faculty, but an associated concern relates to the ability to then retain those faculty members. There may be questions about the institution’s ability to follow through on the promises made to new faculty about what can be offered to them as participants in a researchintensive, fully engaged university. The development of a strategic plan by which to effectively hire and then retain faculty should be an integral component of the Second Planning Cycle. Incorporated into this strategic plan for recruitment and retention, should be the balance between research expectations and desired learning outcomes; knowledge transfer and exchange practices may attract faculty who are committed to the learning experiences of the students attending this institution.
The University of Saskatchewan is a major presence in graduate education and increases have occurred in the number of Ph.D. students enrolled at the University. The numbers of Masters students enrolling here has remained steady in recent years and continues to show modest increases. To create improvements in graduate enrollment, the University should consider improved financial incentives for graduate students. Such funding could be; 1) particularly directed to Ph.D. students and 2) additional course based or professional Masters program development. Tied to this is the requirement for a more aggressive recruitment strategy for graduate students. Incentive programs could also be developed for faculty to encourage the increase in the graduate student complement. Associated with this is the strategic direction to recruit and retain outstanding students. Based on what has been discussed earlier in this document, the ability to establish a successful recruitment and retention strategy may be tied, in part, to the institutional capability to engage students at all levels in the research, scholarly and artistic activity available at the University of Saskatchewan.
Significant progress has been achieved in several key areas which were identified in the OVPR Integrated
Plan. The University of Saskatchewan has successfully secured numerous significant grants and has improved on the previously successful track record in this area. The space dedicated earlier in this document to the review of research successes and highlights can only begin to capture all of the impressive achievements that have been made in this respect. Institutional success with the Canada
Research Chairs Program further demonstrates this improvement. Increasing the number of Chairs allocated to this institution from 31 to 34 represents an achievement of which the University community
24

should take great pride. The ability of researchers to achieve their personal research goals at the
University of Saskatchewan has been supported through the broadening of supports offered by Research
Services including the Coordinators, the Research Facilitators, the Research Acceleration Program,
Proposal Development Awards, and the Matching Grants Fund.
Some progress has been achieved in other areas and requires additional development. For example, the
University of Saskatchewan has not fully participated in the Networks of Centres of Excellence and has not completed the development of a research database upon which implementation of measures of success or indicators of research impact could be based. Further development could be considered desirable in fostering the relationship between the University of Saskatchewan and the City of Saskatoon,
Innovation Place, SREDA, and other possible entities within the evolving context of research clusters.
37
There is clearly a need to better understand the potential to acquire additional industry funding to support University of Saskatchewan research, and there may be some agreement to make progress on institutional policy on Intellectual Property.
University Integrated Planning
One of the principal goals of the Integrated Planning process will be to ensure a stronger integration of
OVPR, college, and centre plans in the finalized OVPR Second Integrated Plan. As the University moves into its second Integrated Planning cycle the timeline for participation in this collegial process has been determined as follows:
• 20 October 2006 – Release of initial draft of Measuring Success and the Way Forward document and Discussion Session at Wanuskewin Heritage Park.
• 26 October 2006 – Further review of the initial draft at an OVPR staff meeting.
• 28 November 2006 – Research Town Hall (opportunity for campus community input into development of the document) – second draft of Measuring Success and the Way Forward available on-line.
• September – December 2006 – Development of general themes or areas for emphasis in the second institutional Integrated Plan through campus wide discussion.
• December 2006/January 2007 – Collegial consultations with various groups to develop a final draft of Measuring Success and the Way Forward.
• Mid-January 2007 – Finalization of general themes for second institutional Integ ated Plan.
• 25 January 2007 – Joint presentation of Measuring Success and the Way Forward by OVPR and
Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee to University Council.
• January – March 2007 – Meetings between OVPR and Centres reporting to the Vice-President
Research regarding the OVPR Second Integrated Plan and the submission of each Centre.
• March – June 2007 – Meetings between OVPR and colleges to coordinate the response to the developed themes and ensure the OVPR Second Integrated Plan incorporates college views.
• 1 September 2007 – Deadline for Centre Integrated Plan submissions and OVPR unit submissions.
• 1 October 2007 – First draft of the OVPR Second Integrated Plan completed and distributed for public feedback.
• 15 October 2007 – presented publicly. r
Of the remaining planned Foundational Documents, the Teaching and Learning Foundational Document is of critical importance to the research activities on campus. It is anticipated that the Associate Vice-
President Research’s involvement in the Teaching and Learning Foundational Document will continue
37 The November 2, 2006 issue of Research Money (p. 2) ranked Saskatoon 15 th of 20 Research Communities in
Canada based on a combination of corporate R&D and higher education research indicators. Of smaller cities (i.e. population less than 250,000), only Kingston and Sherbrooke were ranked higher than Saskatoon.
25

given the significant association between research, scholarly and artistic work and the teaching and learning experience. In addition, the OVPR recognizes that while the established Foundational
Documents, by definition, provide the groundwork upon which the University grows and develops, they may require refinements and updates in the coming years. Following the completion of the O VPR Second
Integrated Plan and under the advisement of the IPO, a review of these documents will be undertaken with particular emphasis on the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Foundational Document. t
Raising the numbers of graduate students enrolled at the University of Saskatchewan and providing increased graduate student funding continue to be areas of institutional focus. As the following table shows, the number of graduate students enrolled at the University of Saskatchewan
38 has increased
annually since the 2002-2003 academic year.
Academic Year Enrolment -
Total
Enrolment -
PhD
% PhD Enrolment –
Masters
% Masters
2002-2003 1746 404 23.1 1254 71.8
2003-2004 1848 495 26.8 1287 69.6
2004-0205 1969 556 28.2 1353 68.7
2005-2006 2096 630 30.1 1402 66.9
2006-2007 2146 687 32.0 1397 65.1
It is widely recognized that graduate students will be the creators of future research and innovation and that the future of any community is intricately linked to the development of a well-educated and innovative talent base.
39 Given this, competition between institutions at the local, national and
international level for top quality graduate students has been heightened in recent years and continues to escalate. Recently, Ontario announced that in preparation for the double-cohort class it plans to increase the number of graduate student spaces available throughout that province by more than 50% through the provision of $240 million. Equally competitive is the Alberta Ingenuity Fund (AIF) which “operates the
Alberta Heritage Foundation for Science and Engineering Research, a $1 billion endowment established by the Government of Alberta to build science and engineering research expertise in areas that will enhance Alberta’s economy and quality of life.”
40 One of the main objectives identified by AIF is to attract
graduate students and researchers to that province.
The need is clear to recognize and respond to this developing climate or the province and the University of Saskatchewan could find themselves in a precarious position. It is crucially important that strategic initiatives be introduced to foster a positive environment for graduate students – that includes funding, infrastructure, and unique programming. The Province of Saskatchewan and the University of
Saskatchewan must develop together a comparable financial situation to that of many other provinces and institutions to remain viable in this competitive environment; where we are already successful
(through the Integrated Plan and earlier initiatives) is in the areas of high quality graduate programming and unique program development. The University of Saskatchewan is in the enviable position of offering several unique graduate programs that will undoubtedly continue to attract graduate students to this institution.
41 One example of a unique program that has been developed at the University of
Saskatchewan is the graduate program in Toxicology. At the time of development, this program was the only institution in Canada offering this advanced degree and the program continues to draw students to
38 Data provided as of the University of Saskatchewan Census Day held annually in October. As a result, students who begin study in January, who are students in the Master’s of Professional Accounting Program, or who are enrolled in the College of Education, but register solely for summer study, are excluded.
39 The Creation of the Saskatchewan Innovation Foundation (SIF) Draft 19, December 2005 .
40 http://www.albertaingenuity.ca/about.aspx
41 A full listing of ‘unique’ graduate programs is being compiled and to date includes, but is not limited to, programs such as the Master’s programs in Toxicology, Professional Accounting, International Trade, and Vaccinology and
Immunotherapeutics.
26

the University of Saskatchewan.
42 As another example, the formulation of an Interdisciplinary Academic
Graduate Program in Vaccinology and Immunotherapeutics will undoubtedly attract graduate students both nationally and internationally. Building upon the University’s reputation and demonstrated talent in this manner will lead to highly unique and academically strong programs.
While it is common for discussions around research and universities to focus on graduate students, The r Foundational Document on Research, Scholarly and A tistic Work (January 2004) notes one of the initiatives for academic administration and appropriate collegial bodies is to “Develop a plan to engage and encourage undergraduate students to become involved in the research realms” (p. 39). As a first step towards this goal, the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee drafted the Report on
Undergraduate Research Experiences (June 2005) to highlight “a series of recommendations … directed towards enhancing the undergraduate student research experience” (p. 1). The recommendations put forward were as follows, with particular emphasis placed on the fifth recommendation:
1.
Develop an inventory of opportunities available for undergraduate students to engage in research, scholarly and artistic (RSA) activities at the U of S.
2.
Develop an understanding of student participation in research, scholarly and artistic work learning experiences with a view to identifying obstacles which may hinder greater availability and participation by undergraduate students.
3.
Develop a University-wide communications strategy to ensure greater awareness of RSA learning opportunities at the U of S, the integral and unique nature of these to the learning environment at a research-intensive university, and ways they can be strengthened as part of the overall U of
S student recruitment and retention strategies.
4.
Encourage the Research Communications Office and the Student and Enrolment Services Division to cooperate in developing a strategy to create greater awareness among prospective students of the benefits of attending a research-intensive institution. The strategy should include not only communication with potential students and their parents and guidance counselors, but also with students entering their second and third year of study at the University of Saskatchewan.
5.
Invite the University senior leadership, with wide consultation with the RSA community, to develop an appropriate leadership arrangement – perhaps a lead office or lead individual – to champion the undergraduate research experience.
6.
Allocate appropriate resources to ensure that University goals of enhancing the undergraduate research experience are articulated, receive appropriate approvals, and are achieved in keeping with the directions and initiatives identified in the Integrated Plan and other strategic planning documents.
43
Review of Existing OVPR Structure and Function
In 2003, the OVPR Executive group was comprised of all directors and senior academics involved in leadership roles within the OVPR; this arrangement was altered in 2004 to create a VPR Advisory
Committee, which meets monthly, and a VPR Executive Committee, which meets weekly and is invested with appropriate decision-making authority. This structure will be evaluated in 2007 and adjusted if necessary. One idea, not yet implemented, was to construct a ‘Research Advisory Committee’ of senior academics on campus who could provide insight and necessary advice, beyond the administrative and collegial inputs already in place through existing committees. Another idea might be to expand the VPR
Advisory Committee still further to incorporate all those interested in participating (for example, a general invitation to directors and leaders of all cognate or related units). The need for this new structure, or another arrangement, could be the subject of discussion in relation to any change in focus or operations contemplated for the OVPR leadership team (e.g., increased international focus).
42 http://www.usask.ca/toxicology/graduate/index.html
43 Report on Undergraduate Research Experiences, June 2005, p. 2 and 3.
27

VII. The Way Forward
The next cycle of Integrated Planning suggests several priority areas associated with research, scholarly and artistic work be identified. These could be considered in the context of the broad themes as identified by the Integrated Planning Office through the larger planning process, or as separate initiatives thought necessary for continued development of the University of Saskatchewan as a fully engaged knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) and research-intensive institution. The planning process needs to consider: How does the OVPR Second Integrated Plan fit with other administrative unit and college plans?
This suggests that there be a provision to ensure all perspectives are identified and explored. Initial ideas on the research focus include a number of critical areas identified briefly in this section and subject to continued refinement and feedback (Note: the following list is not in any order of priority).
Leadership Development - Trends demonstrated nationally reveal that post-secondary institutions will see a significant turnover of faculty in coming years. Given the impending changes to the faculty complement at this institution, strategic consideration must be given to succession planning so as to allow for the continued momentum of achievements and investments made thus far. To encourage faculty to take on leadership roles and responsibilities, issues associated with existing collective agreements may be reviewed. Particularly relevant might be discussion surrounding the development of an incentive structure to provide adequate support to those who assume leadership positions.
Project Management - A review of the programs made available by numerous funding agencies, both nationally and internationally, reveals a tendency towards the funding of projects – sometimes very large projects – of a collaborative nature. In addition, as the complexity, size, and sheer number of grants received by researchers from this institution continues to escalate, adequate leadership must be provided to these projects to better ensure their success. To remain competitive, the University may need to provide adequate leadership for complex grants, but may also need to establish satisfactory administrative support through project management services.
Research Group Development - The roles of Centres, Institutes, Groups, and eventually Schools in the
University’s research agenda and the relationship between the broader University community and these diverse groups requires greater clarity. The current Task Force on the Management of Centres will help set the direction. However, principles and guidelines should be established in order to manage and help guide collaborative research between these various entities; the funding arrangements are often unclear or temporary. Processes to develop indicators and benchmarks to monitor activities could be identified as priorities.
Measures of Success Implementation - The determination of a series of agreed upon measures to be used institutionally to track research, scholarly and artistic activity (see Appendix I) cannot be trivially established and must be based on a sensitive consideration of disciplinary differences in the crediting of research activity. The implementation of indicators and benchmarks is very important in order to allow for assessment of where success has been demonstrated and in what areas improvement is needed.
Similarly, the development of indicators and benchmarks to assess the success of the various programs implemented by and provided through the OVPR must be established. Like the aforementioned variability between disciplines, the indicators developed for this purpose must be cognizant of the varying services provided through the OVPR and the varying timelines that are reasonable over which to assess certain activities.
Internal Partnership Development - A crucial associated step for the University of Saskatchewan is the facilitation and encouragement of partnership development. Internally, numerous untapped partnership opportunities could be identified on an ongoing basis. As the institution confirms or determines new institutional goals pertaining to research, new opportunities for partnerships will continue to present themselves. For example, clearer links may be required to bring together various colleges and departments with individuals from University Advancement (and OVPR/Research Services) in the attempt to seek donor assistance in specified, strategic areas. Fostering effective partnerships between individuals in these areas will play a significant role in the successful receipt of funding. As another example, through its examination of the research landscape at the University of Saskatchewan, Extending Horizons may
28

shed light on internal partnership opportunities between disciplines that may not have been fully developed. Additionally, areas where a critical mass of researchers exists may be identified, thus potentially encouraging previously underdeveloped collaborations.
External Partnership Development - While the importance of internal partnership development must not be minimized, external partnership opportunities carry equal, if not greater, importance for the overall competitiveness of this institution. Collaboration with various industry partners is currently being developed through the Industry Liaison Office and via alternative avenues, but an aggressive strategy to further develop existing partnerships and to foster additional ones could become an institutional priority.
To improve the institution’s competitiveness in relation to peer institutions, a greater percentage of overall research revenues at the University of Saskatchewan may originate as a result of industry funding sources. Failure to implement an aggressive strategy – with the appropriate safeguards and management structure – may place the University of Saskatchewan at a distinct disadvantage as compared to its peers.
By clearly identifying the research landscape at this institution, Extending Horizons will potentially be an extremely useful tool to identify to industry partners potential linkages between themselves and the research currently underway or possible here. As well, the development of continued opportunities with important government partners will remain a priority. By better understanding the research landscape at this institution, there may be greater opportunity to connect with the initiatives designated in government portfolios. Continued development and maintenance of existing government partnerships at the provincial and federal level are demonstrated through initiatives such as the annual “The Universities of
Saskatchewan go to Ottawa” and the invitation to the heads of funding agencies to visit the University of
Saskatchewan.
International Research - Following shifts in the organization of international initiatives and activities conducted institutionally, it is time to focus significant attention on the advancement of a targeted institutional strategy for international research that will focus on key areas. This may be of critical importance to the support and expansion of this institution’s research agenda. One idea: an r t r t the definition for International Research; 2) institutional goals for International Research; 3) initiatives to be undertaken; 4) establishment of benchmarks, indicators, and areas of strategic significance; 5) an implementation plan; and 6) a governance model. At present, not all international research being conducted at the University is managed, administered, or even reported through the Office of
International Research. Perhaps this situation is reasonable based on historical developments, but considerations of the relationship between the central office and other decentralized opportunities may be helpfully made by this Task Force.
Balanced Tri-Council and Non-Tri-Council Funding Strategy - Given the documented importance of success in Tri-Council competitions to the receipt of additional federal funding (e.g., actual research programs, but also Indirect Costs, Canada Research Chairs, etc.), the University of Saskatchewan must continue on its established path in the pursuit of increased Tri-Council funding. In so doing, however, it must be recognized that alternative funding opportunities exist and should be pursued with great energy.
Strategic decisions are needed institutionally in the whole area of pursuit of non-Tri-Council funding and, as with Tri-Council Funding, indicators and measures should be devised to gauge success. The establishment of a Task Force on Research Funding Strategies to further investigate and develop this balanced strategy could be considered. Over time, institutional culture will be informed by the value placed on these alternative funding sources. Establishing the means to sustain high levels of research activity will be another institutional priority in the coming years in order to maintain the successes achieved to date and to continue the forward momentum.
Blended Model for Research Facilitation - As administrative services to support research functions continue to develop and evolve, both centrally and within the colleges, a priority of the Second Planning
Cycle may be the creation of a model that makes the most strategically effective use of these resources
(Coordinators, Facilitators, Research Officers, Development Officers, etc.). A blended model that arises from ongoing and continuing discussions within and between various units, may allow for the provision of the comprehensive services required by researchers and the institution to achieve stated goals. In establishing the appropriate blended model, caution must be taken to avoid the implementation of a one-
29

size-fits-all model that will be certain to fail amid the diverse research environment present at this institution.
Infrastructure/Equipment – The provision and maintenance of adequate facilities and equipment remains a priority in order to support the hiring strategies and the continued development of the University of
Saskatchewan. Incorporation of these considerations into the development of recruitment and retention of faculty strategies may prove beneficial.
Student Experience in Research – Recognition has occurred that students should receive the benefits of education at research-intensive universities – that to be a fully engaged institution, more can and should be done to provide students with research experiences at the University of Saskatchewan. Further development of the recommendations made by the Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee in the Report on Undergraduate Research Experiences should be considered. The development of experiential learning opportunities associated with research, scholarly and artistic opportunities may be considered to augment the existing recommendations. Already, research, scholarly and artistic experiences have been included in the draft document “Types of Experiential Learning at the U of S”
(August 24, 2006). Preliminary documentation has been compiled with regard to the planning, implementation, and potential models for a new Research Co-operative Program at the University of
Saskatchewan.
44
A University of Discovery and Creation – An overall priority for this planning cycle is to build on research momentum, to ensure the changing institutional language, perceptions, and attitudes evolve to meet expectations and Strategic Directions. One contextual change appears to be gaining momentum as universities across North America consider their evolution from a focus on research-intensiveness to a focus on the establishment of a culture of discovery and creation, to knowledge translation and exchange
(KTE), and to renewed emphasis on the mission of the university within societal developments. Over the course of the next Planning Cycle, a useful emphasis may be to fully explore those characteristics – administrative, collegial, leadership, management – that are attributable to a university that is fully engaged in scholarship devoted to a culture of discovery, criticism, and creation.
44 For further details, refer to Cooperative Education Manual: A Guide to Planning and Implementing Co-operative
Education Programs in Post-Secondary Institutions , Canadian Association for Cooperative Education, 2000 or
Learning from Experience: Enhancing Co-operative Education and Career Services at the University of Waterloo ,
University of Waterloo Review Committee for Co-operative Education and Career Services, 31 August 2005.
30

VIII. Tables
Table I: University of Saskatchewan Research Revenue Summary, 1994/1995 to 2004/2005
University of Saskatchewan Research Revenue 1994 to 2005 (000s of dollars)
CFI NSERC SSHRC CIHR
Federal
Depts &
Agencies
Provincial
Depts &
Agencies
Industry
Misc. &
Other 45
Total
$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
1994/95 n/a n/a 11,985 0.6% 3,359 6.8% 6,533 13.3% 9,797 19.9% 5,445 11.1% 11,694 23.8% 49,111 100.0%
1995/96 n/a n/a 10,898 0.5% 3,263 7.0% 4,835 10.4% 10,621 22.8% 5,535 11.9% 11,289 24.2% 46,672 100.0%
1996/97 n/a n/a 13,828 0.8% 2,403 4.7% 4,933 9.6% 10,474 20.5% 6,610 12.9% 12,506 24.5% 51,147 100.0%
1997/98 n/a n/a 7,528 0.6% 2,348 4.8% 4,026 8.3% 13,867 28.4% 8,518 17.5% 12,219 25.1% 48,778 100.0%
1998/99 n/a n/a 10,425 0.4% 2,798 4.7% 5,132 8.7% 16,034 27.1% 9,740 16.5% 14,794 25.0% 59,166 100.0%
1999/00 15,921 22.4% 10,763 15.1% 771 1.1% 2,735 3.8% 5,325 7.5% 16,225 22.8% 7,272 10.2% 12,126 17.0% 71,138 100.0%
2000/01 14,768 14.7% 11,972 11.9% 987 1.0% 3,749 3.7% 14,642 14.6% 15,776 15.7% 7,803 7.8% 30,840 30.6% 100,537 100.0%
2001/02 20,183 17.4% 10,554 9.1% 1,765 1.5% 5,519 4.7% 11,695 10.1% 29,784 25.6% 9,194 7.9% 27,631 23.8% 116,325 100.0%
2002/03 15,272 13.2% 13,232 11.4% 2,079 1.8% 7,051 6.1% 13,141 11.3% 25,197 21.8% 13,010 11.2% 26,854 23.2% 115,836 100.0%
2003/04 11,964 11.7% 19,095 18.6% 2,932 2.9% 8,496 8.3% 7,648 7.5% 23,357 22.8% 13,851 13.5% 15,291 14.9% 102,634 100.0%
2004/05 4,312 4.1% 26,870 25.7% 2,767 2.6% 10,639 10.2% 7,105 6.8% 23,210 22.2% 13,531 12.9% 16,169 15.5% 104,603 100.0%
NOTE:
• Change in reporting starting in 1999/2000 to reflect University of Saskatchewan Financial Statements.
• Provincial Department Scholarships (Graduate Scholarships) included in Research Revenue until 1998/1999
• Effective June, 2000 Medical Research Council has been changed to Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
• SSHRC included Canada Council to 1998/1999
• Federal Depts. included Health & Welfare Canada to 1998/1999
• Previous to 1999/2000 Interdisciplinary Units were included in Miscellaneous.
45 Data sourced from University of Saskatchewan Research Accounts Annual Reports to 1998/1999 and University of Saskatchewan Financial Statements 1999/2000 to present. Items included in the category “Misc. & Other” include Municipal Government, Foreign Government, Other Provinces, Donations, Income from Investments, etc.
31

Table II: Indirect Costs (IC) Program Funding of Select Institu ions: 2003/2004 to 2006/2007
Institution
McGill University
McMaster University
Simon Fraser University
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
University of Guelph
University of Manitoba
University of Saskatchewan
University of Waterloo
2003/04
Payment ($)
2004/05
Payment ($)
2005/06
Payment ($)
2006/07
Payment ($)
16,884,621 18,631,156 19,975,709 19,440,633
8,122,229 8,871,819 9,345,143 9,086,468
4,964,270 5,337,916 5,238,149 5,233,683
13,354,465 14,177,422 14,681,251 14,235,067
8,478,186 9,521,594 10,332,168 10,149,314
4,830,342 5,117,404 5,061,045 5,088,754
6,094,182 6,633,377 6,869,085 6,895,021
4,483,343 4,845,722 5,064,799 5,609,248
6,494,532 6,742,122 6,864,207 6,791,344
IC Program
Institution
McGill University
McMaster University
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
University of Guelph
University of Saskatchewan
University of Waterloo
University of Western Ontario
Institution
McGill University
McMaster University
Simon Fraser University
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
University of Guelph
University of Manitoba
University of Saskatchewan
University of Waterloo
University of Western Ontario
IC Program
224,184,147 244,463,998 259,055,568 259,054,088
Additional
Funds
Expected
46
Expected
Total for
2006/07
40,000,000
299,054,088
% Change –
2003/04 to
2004/05
% Change –
2004/05 to
2005/06
% Change –
2005/06 to
2006/07
10.34% 7.22% -2.68%
9.23% 5.34% -2.77%
6.16%
12.31%
5.94%
3.55%
8.51%
-1.10%
-3.04%
-1.77%
0.55%
8.08% 4.52% 10.75%
3.81% 1.81% -1.06%
8.60% 6.39% -3.19%
Overall Percentage Change, 2003/04 to
2006/07
15.14%
11.87%
5.43%
6.59%
19.71%
5.35%
13.14%
25.11%
4.57%
11.86%
15.55%
46
The total of $259 million for the overall IC program excludes the $40 million that was included in the spring 2006
Federal Budget, but has not yet received Treasury Board approval.
32

Table III: Distribution of Canada Research Chairs at the University of Saskatchewan
The University of Saskatchewan allocation of Canada Research Chairs has increased from 31 to 34. Of those Chairs, 27 have been allocated.
Agency Nationally University of Saskatchewan
NSERC 757 44.8 18 66.7
CIHR 553 32.7 6 22.2
SSHRC 379 22.4
Total
3 11.1
1689 100.0 27 100.0
Chair
Type Nationally University of Saskatchewan
Tier 1
Tier 2
Total
Gender
785
904
46.5
53.5
14
13
51.9
48.1
1689 100.0 27 100.0
Nationally University of Saskatchewan
Men 1325 78.4 20 74.0
Women 364 21.6 7 26.0
Total 1689 100.0 27 100.0
Nationally University of Saskatchewan
Tier 1
Tier 2
Total
663
662
122
242
785
904
1325 364 1689
15.5
26.8
21.6
13
7
20
1
6
7
14
13
7.1
46.2
27 26.0
33

Table IV: Relevant Statistical Indicators of Technology Transfer at the University of Saskatchewan
(Includes UST Inc., Industry Liaison Office, VIDO, and Crop Development Centre (2003 to 2005))
47
IP Management Activity 2003 2004 2005 2006
(to date)
50 43 83 - Reports of invention received
Total patents held at the end of the fiscal year
Total patent applications filed
Patents issued
Number of patents licensed at the end of the fiscal year
New licenses/options (includes amendments)
22
13
37
23
29
31
-
-
28 20 25 -
Income from licensed/sold IP
Confidential disclosure agreements
Material transfer agreements
Start-ups created
$3.146-M $1.398-M $1.462-M
- - 31
-
3
-
3
28
0
-
21
48
17
49
-
47 Table depicts general trends only, actual numbers require confirmation. Data are not available for all items at this time.
48
49
To date in 2006, there are 235 confidential disclosure agreements being managed by the Industry Liaison Office.
To date in 2006, there are 75 material transfer agreements being managed by the Industry Liaison Office.
34

Table V: Research Acceleration Program (RAP) Awards and Success in Tri-Council Grant Applications
(2004/2005 and 2005/2006)
50
Principal
Investigator
G. Adams
G. Aikenhead
O. Baik
M. Cattet
Research Acceleration
Program Award Amount
$10,918.33
$8,862
$4,300
$22,770
Funding
Received
***
Source of Funding
**
**
*
SSHRC n/a
$1,946,000 Alberta Innovation and Science
$1,346,625 NSERC
K. Chad
D. Chen
R. Chibbar
T. Crowe
A. Dalai
T. Dewhirst
W. Duggleby
P. Elabor-Idemudia
M. Foldvari
H. Furtan
G. Gray
R. Gray
M. Green
X. Guo
L. Gusta
L. Hammond-
Ketilson
L. Hanson
T. Harkness
C. Holmden
M. Marshall
V. Meda
F. Messier
$5,000
$2,000
$5,370
$9,950
$1,445
$4,000
$2,500
$9,550
$2,000
$4,000
$2,480
$7,700
$20,000
$5,000
$2,800
$6,023
$6,350
$1,000
$25,000
$9,000
$10,069
$12,000
*
$80,000
$25,180
$8,000,000
$273,000
*
$1,000,000
$20,000
$34,370
$100,000
**
*
*
$360,000
*
*
*
*
$1,745,000
$4,500,000
$320,000
**
***
*
**
$150,000
*
SHRF New Investigator
Establishment Grant
SHRF New Investigator
Equipment Grant
Genome Canada/Province of
Saskatchewan
Swedish Foundation for
International Cooperation in
Research and Higher Education
CPRC NSERC/AAEC
NSERC CRD
Ontario Tobacco Research Unit
CIHR/Canadian Tobacco Control
Research Initiative
SHRF New Team Grant
CIDA
*
*
AAFC/NSERC
*
*
Chinese Government
IPY
SSHRC CURA Social Economy
Suite
Matching funds from community agencies and four levels of government
IDRC
NASA
***
*
UPCD Tier 1 and Tier 2
NSERC RTI
50 Success in Tri-Council competitions of individuals receiving RAP Awards for 2006/2007 have yet to be determined.
35

Principal
Investigator
D. O’Brien
S. Panigrahi
M. Partridge
B. Patterson
E. Peters
P. Petrucka
G. Poelzer
J. Pomeroy
D. Pushor
M. Reed
M. Roberge
A. Rosenberg
R. Sammynaiken
B. Schissel
S. Siciliano
M. Smadu
L. Stewart
S. Urquhart
L. Wason-Ellam
M. Wickstrom
L. Williams
C. Zhang
Research Acceleration
Program Award Amount
$20,000
$3,225
$5,000
$20,000
$3,761.91
$2,507
$3,300
$15,570
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$1,766
$836
$20,000
$653
$5,000
$6,240
$6,326
$1,000
$1,000
$5,000
$4,380
Funding
Received
Source of Funding
$12,000
$6,000
Asia Pacific Foundation of
Canada
CIDA Proposal Development
Fund
$67,000 2 NSERC RTI
$175,000 ADF
$12,000 CIDA
*
*
***
*
*
*
*
*
CIHR
Northern Development Board
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
**
**
*
$1,100,000
$560,000
CFCAS Major Network Grant
CFCAS Major Network Grant
SSHRC CURA
SSHRC CURA
*
CIHR Team Grant
Funding from other sources
*
*
NSERC MRS
*
$1,934,464 NSERC (various grants)
$40,000 CIHR
**
*
$83,884
$156,000
**
SSHRC
NSERC CRD
SSHRC Aboriginal Research
Grant
$40,000
*
*
CIHR
*
NSERC
NOTE:
*
**
***
Decision unknown or pending at this time
Application not yet submitted, not successful, or deferred to a later competition.
Funding successful, amount not confirmed.
36

Table VI: Proposal Development Awards (PDA) and Success in Tri Council Grant Applications (2003/2004 to 2005/2006)
-
Principal
Investigator
P. Aich
Y. Bai
B. Bandy
Proposal
Development
Award Amount
$1,000
$1,000
$790
Funding
Received
**
$120,000
Source of Funding
NSERC Discovery
NSERC Discovery
$8,000 Mary Isabel Irwin Estate Trust Fund
S. Bell $2,000
**
$300,000
*
*
**
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
D. Blackburn
F. Brandizzi
D. Brenna
N. Cadger
M. Cannon
S. Carr-Stewart
D. Chen
J. Courtney
G. Csapo
B. Daku
M. Daley
T. Dewhirst
J. Dillon
O. Dmitriev
R. Dobson
D. Domain
W. Duggleby
S. Falkner
J. Fang
P. Famese
L. Ferguson
M. Foldvari
$3,000
$817
$627
$964
$890
$2,000
$2,000
$370
$980
$970
$1,000
$995.45
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$700
$1,000
$990
$1,000
$950
$900
$184
**
$42,555
**
$30,000
$45,000
$20,000
$18,000
$220,000
CIHR Operating
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan
NSERC Discovery
Ontario Tobacco Research Unit
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
$47,659 SHRF
**
**
$29,641
**
**
SSHRC Standard
CIHR Operating
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
* CIHR Operating
$127,311 SHRF
R. Fotouhi
S. Fowler-Kerry
G. Gillis
R. Gokaraju
D. Goodridge
D. Goodwin
G. Gray
X. Guo
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
**
*
$145,000
*
*
$195,000
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
CIHR Operating
SSHRC Discovery
NSERC Discovery
37

Principal
Investigator
P. Hall
Proposal
Development
Award Amount
$1,890
Funding
Received
J. Harding
T. Harkness
G. Harrison
C. Havele
C. Hawkes
S. Hayes
L. Hellsten
M.J. Hendry
S. Hoffman
A. Honaramooz
L. Humbert
N. Jamali
P. Jordan
A. Kalinowski
R. Karki
C. Kent
K. Kowalski
A. Kusalik
A. Leis
L. Lemisko
M. Mahfoud
V. Makarova
R. Mainar-Jaime
J. McCannon
L. McIntyre
S. McLean
D. McNeill
M. Meyers
M. Morrison
D. Mould
A. Nazarali
J. Ndisang
B. Nelson
D. Nelson
J. Nicol
$1,000
$2,000
$825
$2,000
$840
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$80
$200
$700
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$900
$1,000
$1,000
$986.08
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$690
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
**
**
**
$120,000
*
$65,517
$652,210
Source of Funding
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
CIHR Operating
CIHR Operating
NSERC-IRC
$168,300
**
$48,000
$50,391
$39,090
$120,000
$59,012
**
$115,250
*
**
**
*
**
$50,507
*
$107,500
$17,500
**
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Strategic
NSERC Discovery
CIHR Operating
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
**
**
**
**
38
$59,994 SHRF
$42,000
$65,506
NSERC Discovery
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC
SSHRC Standard

Principal
Investigator
P. Paterson
Proposal
Development
Award Amount
$1,000
Funding
Received
Source of Funding
P. Petrucka
J. Pomeroy
J. Poudrier
T. Pugsley
G. Sarty
E. Sayrs
R. Schwier
Y. Shi
B. Si
L. Sippola
L. Smith
M. Smith-Norris
A. Smolyakov
S. Subramanian
K. Tanaka
T. Tanaka
D. Teng
R. Thomas-MacLean
D. Torvi
L. Vargo
L. Voitkovska
C. von Baeyer
V. Vujanovic
J. Waldram
$1,000
$935
$993.96
$1,000
$2,000
$855
$1,000
$450
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$825
$710
$987
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$683.85
$2,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$88,328
*
$170,500 pending
$132,390
*
$105,899
$95,000
$124,950
**
**
**
$165,000
$110,000
$160,000
$33,000
*
$130,000
$50,139
**
$110,637
$125,000
Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Saskatchewan
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
NSERC
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
NSERC Discovery
NSERC Discovery
NSERC Discovery
CIHR Operating/Canadian Breast Cancer
Research Alliance
NSERC Discovery
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Standard
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
L. Wason-Ellam
A. Williams
L. Williams
A. Wong
F. Wu
J. Xiang
W. Xiao
J. Yang
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$200
$770
$1,000
$1,000
$105
$162,207
$20,000
*
*
$54,000
$363,723
$670,960
*
SSHRC
SSHRC Standard
SSHRC Aboriginal Program
SSHRC Standard
NSERC Discovery
CIHR
CIHR Operating
NSERC Discovery
NOTE:
*
**
***
Decision unknown or pending at this time
Application not yet submitted, not successful, or deferred to a later competition.
Funding successful, amount not confirmed.
39

Table VII: Office of the Vice-President Research Matching Grant Program and Associated Success in Leveraging Additional Research Funding
Confirmed Commitments
Project Principal
Investigator/
Granting
Program/Agency
U of S
Participant
Date Amount of
Matching Funding
Funding
Received
Commitment
Source of Funding
Strategies to Improve the Care of Persons with Dementia in Rural and Remote Areas
D. Morgan CIHR Net Grant 2003 – 2008 $165,000 $750,000 CIHR
$120,000 SHRF
CUISAR J. Randall 2003 – 2005 $81,000
$295,000 U of S various commitments
* SSHRC CURA
Gasotransmitter Research And Training
(GREAT) Program
Otipimsuak - the Free People
Saskatoon in Motion: Building Community
Capacity
R. Wang
L. Martz
K. Chad
J. Courtney
SSHRC CURA
Completion Grant
CIHR Strategic
Training Program
SSHRC CURA Grant
CAHR-CIHR Grant
2003 – 2008
2004 – 2009
2004 – 2006
2004 – 2005
$50,000
$100,000
$70,000
$7,000
* CIHR
$1,000,000 CURA
$100,000 University of Alberta
$1,000,000 Aboriginal Healing Foundation
$1,600,000 CIHR
$83,693 SSHRC
$10,000 Canadian Association for
Advancement of Women in
Sport and Physical Activity
$100,000 SHRF
$40,000 Health
$30,000
$60,000
$15,000
University of Saskatchewan
Heart & Stroke Foundation
Indigenous Peoples’ Health
Research Institute
$5,000 SSHRC Electoral Reform in Canada in a
Comparative Context
Enhanced Child Safety in Automobiles
SSHRC Standard
Research Grant
Auto 21 NCE Grant 2005 – 2007 $10,000 * Auto 21 NCE Grant L. Leeseberg
Stamler
J. McVittie NSERC CRYSTAL Grant 2005 – 2010 $25,000 $80,000 Crystal
$12,500 U of S College of Education
Understanding the Dynamics of Risk &
Protective Factors in Contributing to
Student Success in Science and
Mathematics
40

Confirmed Commitments
Linking, Learning and Leveraging: Social
Enterprises, Knowledgeable Economies and
Sustainable Communities
L. Hammond
Ketilson
Grand Challenges in Global Health – Linking
Innate and Specific Immunity to Develop
Single Dose Vaccines for Neonates
Developing Complex Understandings:
Aboriginal Identities in Cities
L. Babiuk
E. Peters
Training in Reproductive Science and
Medicine
Adapting to new environments: agriculture and rural economies in the 21st century
G. Adams
M. Fulton
SSHRC Social Economy
Suite – the Regional
Node Grant
2005 – 2010
Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation/CIHR Grant
SSHRC Aboriginal
Strategic Initiatives
Grant
2006 – 2011
2006 – 2009
NSERC
SSHRC Knowledge
Impact in Society
Grant
2006 – 2009
2006 - 2009
Biologically-based outcome predictors in juvenile idiopathic arthritis
A. Rosenberg CIHR Team Grant 2006 – 2011
Green Crop Network
Totals
S. Siciliano NSERC Research
Network Grant
2006 - 2011
$100,000
$100,000
$8,000
$1,745,000
$4,500,000
SSHRC CURA Social Economy
Suite
Matching funding from community agencies and four levels of government
$6,200,000
($5.6-M US)
Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation/CIHR
$3,000,000 Krembil
$249,000 SSHRC
$60,000 * NSERC
$108,000
$100,000
$300,000
$72,000
SSHRC KIS Award
University of Saskatchewan
$30,000 College of Agriculture
$60,000 CSALE
$30,000 Canadian Agriculture Trade
Research Network
$1,100,000 CIHR/Canadian
Network/Arthritis Society
$250,000 SK Division of Arthritis Society
$75,000
$25,000
Children’s Health Research
Trust Fund
Diefenbaker Fund (U of S
College of Medicine)
$10,000 Pediatric Rheumatic Disease
Program
$20,000 SHRF
$40,000 MB Institute of Child Health
$10,000
$10,000
Pediatric Rheumatology UBC
Pediatric Rheumatology McGill
$5,000 University
$5,000 University
$217,000 NSERC $95,000
$1,079,000 $21,400,500
41

Pending Commitments
Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program
U of S Participant
X.-M. Li
L’immigration en dehors des metropoles J. Garcea
Proposal for a National Research Cluster in Science and Technology Studies/History and Philosophy of
Science
NOTE:
* Funding successful, amount not confirmed.
L. Stewart
SHRF Strategic Rapid Response Grant
SSHRC Strategic Research Cluster
SSHRC Strategic Research Cluster
Date
2006 – 2011
2006 – 2013
2006 – 2011
Amount of Matching Funding
Commitment
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
42

IX. Figures
Figure I: University of Saskatchewan Research Revenue, 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 (000s of dollars)
51
51 Data sourced from University of Saskatchewan Financial Statements (2004/2005), courtesy University of Saskatchewan Institutional Analysis. “Miscellaneous & Other” includes Municipal Government, Foreign Government, Other Provinces, Donations, Income from Investments, etc.
43

Figure II: Research Revenue Comparison by College (000s of dollars)
52
52 Data sourced from University of Saskatchewan Financial Statements (2004/2005), courtesy University of Saskatchewan Institutional Analysis. “Miscellaneous & Other” includes Municipal Government, Foreign Government, Other Provinces, Donations, Income from Investments, etc.
44

Figure III: Maximum CFI Contribution of Top 15 Universities*
Maximum CFI Contribution of Top 15 Universities*
(000s of dollars)
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
* Based on Maclean's ranking (November 2005)
45

Figure IV: International Research: Global Connections
53
53 International projects operated independently from the International Research Office will not be fully reflected in this compilation.
46

X. Appendices
Appendix I: Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Indicators as Developed for Extending Horizons:
University of Saskatchewan Research, Scholarly and Artistic Landscape
1.
High Quality People
• Visionary Leadership
• Critical mass of outstanding faculty, chairs, named professorships
• National and international awards and citations
• Invited presentations at national and international conferences and at institutions outside the
U of S
• Training of highly qualified personnel (number and quality of graduate students; employment of post-doctoral fellows, research associates, research assistants and technicians)
• Participation on National Review Committees, Editorial Boards, etc.
2.
Significant Regional, National, and International Relevance
• Impact on policy (social, business, government, health, education)
• Impact on artistic, performance, cultural and literary work
• Contributions to service facilities, community organizations, public debate
• Contributions to technological advances
• Relevance to regional and Canadian innovation agenda
• Community initiatives that benefit the public and private sector
• Outreach activities (including creation of undergraduate employment opportunities (e.g., summer students, research project and work experience undergraduate classes))
3.
Ability to Attract Resources
• Research funding
• Endowment funding
• Creation of facilities and space
• External funding for other than research
• Personnel and graduate student funding
• Direct economic impact (e.g. spin-off companies, job creation, impact on tourism)
4.
Significant Collaborative Activity
• Cross-unit and cross-college collaborative groups
• Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary achievements
• Use of existing U of S and local facilities and resources
• International partnerships
• Government agency linkages
• Industry linkages
• Community partnerships and collaborations
5.
Significant Activity Output
• Publications (journal publications, books and book chapters)
• Performances
• Exhibitions
• Case books, treatises, case comments
• Presentations at national and international conferences
• Citations
• Patents and commercialization agreements
47

Appendix II: Role of Humanities at the University of Saskatchewan, Submitted by the University of
Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit (USPPRU), 6 November 2006
The demands now being made on schools, colleges and universities are for vocational and professional training and cannot be described as education. A society that measures everything in terms of work done and money earned is not concerned with anything beyond the requisite number of persons duly trained and labeled with the correct diplomas and degrees and ready for use and service.
Dora Russell, Educator, Feminist, and Pacifist 54
One way to justify the role that the humanities play in the life of universities lies in the kinds of questions they raise. The humanities enable faculty and students to pose questions of the texts they are studying and of reality itself. These questions are either ignored by other disciplines, because they are considered value laden and hence non-scientific, or they are taken for granted as requiring no further justification, as in the presuppositions of the natural and social sciences. The process of questioning, which lies at the base and forefront of all learning, becomes critical when it reveals problems with what is, and calls for more adequate understanding or action.
55
Recently, James Downey, former president of the University of Waterloo, the University of New
Brunswick, and Carleton University gave a speech to the Association of Universities and Colleges of
Canada in which he argued for a rejuvenation of the institution’s currently muted role of social critic:
Through teaching and research the university must cultivate a spirit of intellectual dissent. Not for its own sake, but in the interests of a free, tolerant, enlightened, and improving society.
56
Research and teaching must encourage systematic questioning of the dominant images of the age in order to strengthen universities’ active participation in a democratic society.
While Downey omits to mention that knowledge may have value in itself, he understands that universities today are out of balance. Moreover, he is anxious for a public discussion to take place about the “quality and character of undergraduate teaching and learning, for it is there the broader and deeper values of life are shaped,” particularly the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, knowledge and opinion so important for “effective citizenship.” Unless universities carry out both functions of social critic and educator, they “are in danger of being drawn too deeply into the economic functionalism of the age, of becoming too much the handmaiden of society, not enough its honest critic.”
57
Unless the University of Saskatchewan fully recognizes that the humanities educate students to think critically and assume their role as responsible citizens, we shall fail to meet the goals which Dr Downey has articulated. In order for the humanities to perform this function, they require the kind of funding that will restore the many faculty positions which have been lost during the past decade. Only then will the
University be in a position to fulfill its function as critical critic of society.
54 Dora Russell, The Tamarisk Tree 2: My School and the Years of War (London: Virago 1981), 204.
55 John McMurtry, “The History of Inquiry and Social Reproduction: Educating for Critical Thought,” *Interchange: A
Quarterly Review of Education,* Vol. 19, No. 1, 1988, 31.
56 James Downey, The Consenting University and the Dissenting Academy: Binary Friction (Ottawa: Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada 2003), 16.
57 Ibid., 17, 16.
48

Appendix III: Evaluation of Research Communications Activities
The strategic activities of the Office of Research Communications support key University of Saskatchewan goals including 1) advancing institutional profile; 2) recruiting outstanding faculty and students; 3) promoting a research-intensive campus culture; 4) furthering fundraising goals through influence of perceptions of research, scholarly and artistic activities; 5) contributing to sense of place by highlighting institutional research strengths; and 6) building research partnerships with external stakeholders.
The following document outlines some of the ways Research Communications (RC) evaluates the impact and quality of its diverse activities which include media relations, writing and editing of news articles for external publications, special lectures and other events, web initiatives, an expert commentary program in newspapers, speech writing, and research advertisements. While the effectiveness of many communications activities can be difficult to quantify, RC continues to work towards the development of effective measurement techniques.
The majority of University of Saskatchewan news releases are produced by RC. Though the number of news releases produced to date in 2006 is down from previous years, in large part due to a decline in the number of federal announcements released by the new government, 86% of releases have been produced by RC. In 2005, 62% of all University of Saskatchewan news releases were developed by RC.
RC-produced news releases are listed on the Research website
58 .
Currently, the Office of Communications and the Office of Research Communications are working to develop a joint proposal for a new University of Saskatchewan media tracking system. This initiative arose following mutual recognition that the current tracking system is unable to track the effectiveness of media campaigns or the impact of stories on areas of strategic focus. While the media tracking techniques currently being used are admittedly crude, research news exposure, consisting of media tracking supplemented with targeted pitches to media, has been as follows:
Time Frame
January to mid September 2006
Total Media Hits Potential Audience Reach
950 31,968,763
January to December 2005 1226 57,977,038
The Research: Discovery @ U of S website gets roughly 80,000 successful requests per page each month. Beginning in October 2006, Research Communications has begun to track traffic to this site for specific initiatives such as videos, our news release site, “About U of S Research”, and our student research field notes page. The intent of this initiative is to determine how improvements and changes made to the website affect overall use.
RC has also conducted surveys and focus groups to measure effectiveness of specific initiatives. For example, in 2006, a readership survey was conducted to gauge the effectiveness of Research News, the
University’s electronic newsletter that is intended to inform the campus research community and key outside partners about University of Saskatchewan research-related news and developments (total distribution for Research News is 3,415). The survey results revealed a high approval rating with 80% of respondents rating the newsletter as “good” or “excellent.”
With the help of an independent public opinion polling firm, a focus group was used to evaluate public perceptions of the proposed InterVac project. Findings from this focus group were then used to shape a communications plan for this project. RC has identified the need for a benchmark survey of public perceptions of University of Saskatchewan research, scholarly and artistic work, information that would help in planning strategic communications to enhance recruitment and other goals.
58 http://www.usask.ca/research/communications/newsroom.php
49

In November, the effectiveness of services provided to the research community by RC and Research
Services will be assessed by the Division of Audit Services through a survey of faculty and graduate students.
RC has produced a series of five-minute video features that profile University of Saskatchewan researchers and have a multitude of strategic uses for communicating with various internal and external stakeholders. To date, nine video features profiling Canada Research Chairs and synchrotron researchers have been produced. One researcher says that the number of graduate students applying to work in his lab has increased from two to five per week as a result of the posting of the video on his website. The videos have impressed the CRC and SSHRC offices in Ottawa who would like to emulate the video initiative.
The Saskatchewan Communications Network (SCN) has entered into a five-year distribution agreement to show the video futures as interstitials (fillers between shows), thereby reaching a provincial audience via cable television and a national and international audience via satellite. Extrapolations from CRTC data on the cable/DTH (direct to home) audience indicate that SCN’s potential audience in Saskatchewan is almost 400,000 people. Over the past six months, the video news features have been shown approximately 15.5 times per month, resulting in potential exposures totaling almost 37 million. Satellite exposure of the videos would be in addition to this amount.
Another recent RC initiative was the “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” article series in The StarPhoenix on student research. RC editors worked with student writers and photographers to produce half-page articles with accompanying photographs on student research projects. Feedback from readers on this initiative to date has been extremely positive. The stories have also been sent to MPs and MLAs in the students’ hometown communities.
50

Appendix IV: Discussion Session at Wanuskewin Heritage Park, 20 October 2006
At a half-day discussion session held in mid-October members of the Research, Scholarly and Artistic
Work Committee of Council, the Associate Deans Research Forum, and the Vice-President Research
Advisory Committee were invited to consider accomplishments, current programs and initiatives, the research landscape and future directions of the OVPR.
Attendees at the discussion session included: Steven Franklin, Vice-President Research; Jim Basinger,
Associate Dean (Science), College of Arts and Science; Karen Chad; Associate Vice-President Research;
Tom Ellis, Director of Research, Canadian Light Source; Doug Gill, Managing Director, Industry Liaison
Office; Vivian Hajnal, Associate Dean, College of Education; Ken Ladd; Associate Dean, University Library;
Lawrence Martz, Associate Dean (Social Sciences), College of Arts and Science; Cory Neudorf, Chief
Medical Health Research Officer/Vice-President Research, Saskatoon Health Region; Rose Olfert, College of Agriculture and Bioresources; Rob Pywell; Chair of Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee of
Council, College of Arts and Science; Norman Rawlings, Associate Dean, Western College of Veterinary
Medicine; Brian Rossnagel, College of Agriculture and Bioresources; Greg Schoenau, Acting Associate
Dean (Graduate Studies and Research), College of Engineering; Bryan Schreiner, Director of Research
Services/Assistant to the Vice-President Research; Chris Soteros, NSERC Coordinator; Kevin Spink, Acting
Associate Dean, College of Kinesiology; Norma Stewart, Associate Dean of Research and Graduate
Studies, College of Nursing; Peter Stoicheff, SSHRC Coordinator/Associate Dean (Humanities and Fine
Arts), College of Arts and Science; Jim Thornhill, Associate Dean Research and Graduate Studies, College of Medicine; Kathryn Warden, Director, Research Communications; Bruce Waygood, University
Coordinator of Health Research; Kate Wilson, Executive Assistant to the Vice-President Research.
Following discussion of the first draft of Measuring Success and the Way Forward, attendees were asked to help produce the section of this document entitled “The Way Forward.” To do so, attendees were divided into three breakout groups, each responsible for the development of responses to the following questions:
General condi ion
1.
What are the characteristics of a research-intensive university?
2.
Which of these does the University of Saskatchewan most clearly express? In what areas is the
University of Saskatchewan most clearly deficient?
Progress Since 2003
1.
Are the direction and actions in the First Planning Cycle regarding the research area consistent with the Strategic Direction of the University of Saskatchewan?
2.
In what areas has progress been most significant?
3.
In what areas has progress been less noticeable?
4.
In what areas has progress been absent?
Next Five Years
1.
What initiatives should be the priority action items for the OVPR in the Second Planning Cycle?
2.
How can these action items be successfully implemented? How will we know we have succeeded?
The breakout groups then reconvened and one representative from each group reported to all in attendance the ideas and feedback developed within the breakout groups. These responses, along with the input of the larger group were then recorded. The information collected at that discussion session informed the development of the section of the current document entitled “The Way Forward.”
Some of the questions arising from this discussion included the following:
International Research:
1.
What successes have been achieved in reaching the broader mandate of University of
Saskatchewan internationalization?
51

2.
What changes, if any, can be made to improve our research performance in international research activities and priorities?
Matching Grant Fund:
1.
What type of research assistance is provided(for example, those awardees that appear to be more in need of matching program or development assistance)
2.
What is the faculty profile of the recipient (for example, the impact on awardees and their subsequent success)?
Coordinators/Facilitators/Research Officers:
1.
Given the changes in central and college staffing of these positions, what model of support will prove most effective for University of Saskatchewan researchers?
52

Appendix V: Initiatives in the First Planning Cycle
OVPR Integrated
Plan 2004
Recommendations
Research Commons
Supporting Research
Excellence
Specific Initiatives
Action Y = substantially completed
P = partial completion
N=not completed
• Research transition facility N
• University of Saskatchewan Chairs Program Y
• Research Group Development Y
• Increased support for graduate students Y
• Core operating funds for centres P
• Increased matching funds Y
• RSA infrastructure Y
• International Research Y
• Raise the profile of the U of S
• Build strong international/interdisciplinary initiatives
Y
Y
Y
P
• Develop grant preparation/mentorship program
• Support and manage research centres
• Manage intellectual property
• Support contract growth/revenue opportunities
• Enhance experience of graduate/undergraduate students
• Support recruitment/retention of faculty/support staff
• Launch successful Aboriginal initiatives
P
Y
P
P
Y
• Improve teaching and learning
• Support college and inter-college initiatives
• Provide consultative and collaborative opportunities
• Compare staffing/service to similar universities
• Allocate funding (e.g., Indirect costs) in research infrastructure
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
• Review/revise research policies o
Research overhead policy o
Intellectual property o
Conflict of interest and commitment
Y
Y
P
N o
Code of ethics o
Appointments of adjuncts/PDFs o
Research involving indigenous communities
• Develop strong working relationships with governance
• Examine benchmarking approach
• Proactive grant development support to researchers
• Increase commercialization/knowledge transfer support
• Better coordinate Associate Deans Research Forum/RSA
Cttee of Council/VP Advisory/Executive Cttees
• Increased VPR role with government/external partners
• Identify areas of pre-eminence
N
Y
P
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
53

• Ensure client/service orientation for all support groups
• One-stop shop for expert research administration/support
• Provide education on services offered/funding opportunities
• Adhere to regulatory and accreditation environments
• Ensure developed IP is identified/processed consistently
• Add value to IP/protect/prototype/partner
• Stimulate Saskatchewan economy through license agreements
• Develop income stream to support IP management
• Implement shared database
• Implement new IP management system/name/philosophy
• Ensure outstanding scholarly/creative work is recognized
• Increase nominations/awards/recognition/celebration of faculty
• Ensure informed team approach to research administration/leadership
• Create advisory groups for specific initiatives (e.g. WED)
• Measure success and monitor activities
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
54

Appendix VI: Research Transition Facility (RTF) and Research Capital Plans
Research Transition Facility (RTF)
Over the past 15 years, recognition has arisen regarding the wealth of opportunities present through cooperation between universities and industry. Essential differences between the climate of universities and the business world suggest working relationships be fostered to accommodate partnerships. One approach to bridge the gap between industry and universities is through the business of incubation whereby the commercialization of research and outreach to industry are combined. The University of
Saskatchewan has expressed interest in establishing an incubation facility and program intended to strengthen the relationship between industry and the university and to support promising entrepreneurs through the incubation of both enterprise and technology. Incubator programs and associated facilities provide a combination of management development and operations assistance to start-up companies with the intention that these companies will graduate as financially viable, freestanding ventures.
59
The OVPR approved the composition of a pre-feasibility study on the development of an incubation facility at the University of Saskatchewan that was completed in late March 2006. The information compiled in this study was then forwarded to various internal and external stakeholders for review.
Response to and comments on the study were then collected by the Industry Liaison Office via interviews throughout the summer/fall of 2006. In addition, during October 2006 a tour of existing business incubation facilities was conducted by the Vice-President Research and representatives from the Industry
Liaison Office at locations in Alberta, British Columbia, and Colorado. As a result, varying models for incubation facilities are being examined and best practices and success rates of existing facilities are being sought out. To date, response to this initiative has been strongly supportive and information gathered through the pre-feasibility study, the interviews and the tour of incubator sites is currently being compiled into a series of recommended next steps for the University to consider.
In the Integrated Plan and Multi-year Budget 2004-2007 one of two recommendations put forth by the
OVPR was the establishment of a centralized Research Commons. The proposed facility would provide
“an opportunity to design and execute the appropriate working environment to best support all aspects of the research enterprise” (March 2004, p. 38).
Although this recommendation remains unfulfilled, the necessity for such a facility remains equally vital and one idea would be to incorporate the Research
Commons into the Research Transition Facility (RTF). The RTF would then house not only the incubation facility, but also Research Services, Research Communications, the Industry Liaison Office, International
Research, and Research Ethics. This shift to locate all research related services within one space will allow current costs supported by Indirect Costs funding to be redirected to the operating costs for the
RTF. Partnership opportunities are currently being examined between the University, Innovation Place, government, and the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority (SREDA). t
The implementation of improved research infrastructure at the University of Saskatchewan is demonstrated in the following initiatives that have recently been completed, are in the planning stages, or are currently in progress. A few examples include:
Digital Media Research Centre – Housed in the College of Arts and Science, this collaborative centre for research and teaching will facilitate research activities for the humanities and fine arts through the application of modern technology. In particular, this centre will consider the impact of, and the cultural and artistic issues associated, with various forms of digital media. ( Divisional Plan: Humanities and Fine
Arts, 2003, p. 8 & 9).
University of Saskatchewan Research Network (USR-net) – This $15 million project, supported by funding from CFI, the provincial Innovation and Science Fund, Cisco, and IBM, was established to address new
59 Incubator Study for the University of Saskatchewan: A Project Report Prepared by Corewest International for the
University of Saskatchewan , March 31, 2006.
55

and expanding institutional technological demands. Network and technology improvements of significant scope have been underway since 2002 to improve the security and reliability of the University of
Saskatchewan network and to provide high quality network management.
Canadian Light Source (CLS) Expansion – Initial construction has begun on the Phase II suite of beamlines at the CLS; these will be operational in 2009. This $3.8 million expansion is provincially and federally funded through the Canada-Saskatchewan Western Economic Partnership Agreement. In addition, proposals from three research groups, located nationally, are currently under consideration by
CFI for the development of the Phase III suite 60 . This facility will not only provide abundant opportunities
for researchers from the University of Saskatchewan, but will also foster a world class learning environment and exposure to a wide array of research disciplines for students at this institution.
Toxicology Centre – As was noted in the OVPR Integrated Plan, the Toxicology Centre is “governed by a broad mandate to be the primary source for advanced toxicology research and training in Western
Canada, the Centre is notable for its active participation in research, extension and undergraduate and graduate education” (p. 24). A $9.6 million expansion, slated for completion in January 2007, will make the University’s Toxicology Centre the largest research facility of its kind in Canada and a major attraction for new graduate students.
Academic Health Sciences Complex – With the completion of this $251 million
61 integrated and multi-
disciplinary complex by 2013, the University will experience a significant strengthening in the health sciences including health research, education, and patient services. Through its development, space shortages for numerous health programs will be addressed, along with the provision of enhanced medical library space and laboratory facilities.
InterVac – This $110 million facility, slated to be built by 2009, will be one of the largest vaccine research laboratories in North America, providing state of the art facilities for research on current and emerging infectious diseases. InterVac will link studies in infectious diseases of humans and animals, and act as a magnet for national and international collaborations in current, as well as in new and emerging, diseases.
In addition, the level III facilities housed within InterVac will address a critical gap in health research facilities on campus; access to level III bio-containment laboratories is essential for current work in vaccines and infectious disease. InterVac is a facility that will support the academic integration of VIDO into the newly proposed School of Public Health.
Research Data Centre (RDC) – An initiative of Statistics Canada, SSHRC, and university consortia, RDCs allow users secure access to sensitive Statistics Canada longitudinal survey data from population and household surveys. Presently, the University of Saskatchewan is the only medical-doctoral institution in
Canada without this type of facility. The establishment of an RDC on campus would eliminate the need to travel to other locations across Canada to access this rich data source and would allow the University of
Saskatchewan to participate in the network of RDCs established nationally.
Mineral Technology Research Centre – This proposed centre will prove beneficial to students and faculty at the University of Saskatchewan and to both the mining industry and the Saskatchewan research enterprise through the development of internationally renowned research and the training of a highly qualified pool of personnel. Strong interest in the development of this centre has been expressed by government, industry, the Saskatchewan Research Council, and the Consulting Engineers of
Saskatchewan. A steering committee representing the various stakeholders has been struck and a concept paper is being prepared for presentation at the Annual Geoscience Open House in November
2006.
60 http://www.lightsource.ca/CLS_Annual.pdf
61 In 2005, project costs were determined to be $165 million. As the result of market escalation, project costs for completion of the entire Academic Health Sciences complex by 2013 will be $251 million.
(http://72.14.253.104/u/usask?q=cache:e4TbCXEFaOgJ:www.medicine.usask.ca/faculty/cmrc/general-academicassembly-minutes/gaa-minutes-may-10-
2006.doc+academic+health+sciences+complex&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&ie=UTF-8)
56

Support for Community-Based Research – A proposal has been submitted calling for the establishment of a research cluster at the University of Saskatchewan dedicated to supporting research partnerships between the university and the broader community and within the university itself. The resulting coherence of a dedicated structure devoted to community-university research is expected to improve opportunities for the coordination of research activities in this area. Such an initiative would be strongly linked to the successful Community University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) project now in its fifth year of operation in Saskatoon.
57

Appendix VII: Additional Context, Issues, Possibilities, and Opportunities
The intent of this document is to offer an interpretation of data, results, and desired outcomes related to research at the University of Saskatchewan. Over the course of the development of this document, individuals have raised additional questions and suggestions related to the strengthening of the document and of the research culture existing at the University of Saskatchewan:
• What portion of faculty at the University of Saskatchewan interact with and make use of the services made available through the OVPR?
• Of those, what proportion of interactions and/or usage is attributable to institutional requirements
(e.g. University policy) versus voluntary, mutually beneficial participation?
• What percentage or proportion of the increase in Tri-Council funding at the University of
Saskatchewan can be attributed because of development and expansion of the OVPR support programs? What percentage or proportion is the result of young faculty vigorously perusing Tri-
Council funding in an attempt to receive tenure?
• Establishment of an appropriate balance between the stated institutional goal to become one of the top ten medical-doctoral universities in Canada against the acceptable level of institutional risk in to be taken in research. Determinations of what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ level of risk must balance sensitivity to the risk being undertaken institutionally against the realization that leading edge research will, by its very nature, be perceived to be risky.
• Consideration of the debate of dollars brought in versus impact of those dollars – while such an assessment can be exceedingly difficult to make, it is important to consider o
Recognition that a sizable grant may not be for research that is of more significant impact than research receiving a very limited level of funding o
Need to determine how to balance funding versus impact of that funding
• Consideration of the benefits and costs associated with the decision to separate Research
Communications from the Office of Communications (improved distribution of research messages; administrative efficiency; etc.)
• Blended Model and Roles of Coordinators/Facilitators/Officers o
The University needs to define the basket of services required by ourselves and others to provide adequate support to our researchers. Included in this basket would be advancement (raising donations), services around research grants and contracts, and intellectual property management. All of these services exist as part of a continuum and the opportunity for overlap is great. The roles of the Facilitators and Coordinators cannot be viewed in isolation and we must establish processes to more clearly delineate individual and unit roles.
• Regarding areas where progress has been evidenced in knowledge commercialization in ILO since its inception o
Creation of a new department, the ILO, to manage the University of Saskatchewan’s Intellectual
Property and the dissemination of knowledge to the public o
Creation of new technology transfer program of adding value – (introduced protocol for evaluating inventions; increased spending on patents demonstrated by the statistics on patents in
Table IV, especially issued patents; introduced “Forge Ahead Fund” for proof of concept and prototype development; increased flow of inventions as demonstrated in number of reports of invention in Table IV) o
Creation of satellite teams of experienced technology transfer professionals and offices in various colleges o
Revised Intellectual Property policies – Memorandum of Agreement revised through negotiations with the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association o
Introduction of explicit start-up company program o
Secured additional funding from the Province of Saskatchewan o
Research Commons or Research Transition Facility o
Expanding Intellectual Property Management to other units (e.g. VIDO, CLS, Saskatchewan
Cancer Agency, Saskatoon Health District)
58