Don (UW-Madison): CIRTL for the Nation - I like that title!
Chris Pfund: Awesome! Go team!
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): Whew!
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): Just as a note to all, the one part of the plan that hasn't been massaged in
detail is the "benefits" section. It needs another round of development.
Chris Pfund: Hopefully we can develop some ideas on that section to help further develop it.
Rique Campa: Rique: Robin, Bob--If I could see that materials before CGS it would be welcomed.
Thanks
Robin Greenler: We can do that Rique
Moderator (Carie Fisher) to Rique Campa: I can send the materials to your email address or send you
a paper copy. We are still working on final edits/approvals.
Don (UW-Madison): As a reader, this document is too vague for me to know exactly what I am
buying into.
Mark Connolly: I still think that there should be some clarification of whom the term "faculty"
applies to and does not apply to. For example, does it cover contingent faculty? (If I need to let go of
this, just tell me . . . .)
Don (UW-Madison): I wasn't suggesting that we use the grid in this context. I was just connecting
back to it as something that we did to compare programming.
Chris Pfund: I think your point is important, Mark. This issues plays throughout the document, even
when deciding who the STEM leader can be.
Mark Connolly: Right.
Laura Border: I think the "cross-network learning community" in #2 is confusing, because what it
really means is the portal, right?
Chris Pfund: can we just say, faculty, broadly defined
Laura Border: Also d. "become leader" should be an outcome not a goal, if we are successful we will
be a leader.
Robin Greenler: The "recruitment materials" that Carie has been working on do not highlight specific
institutions but rather various opportunities, initiatives and products of the Network. What we do,
what has been produced, what is going on, what the opportunities are.
Mark Connolly: "facademic"
CU-Boulder: I think Faculty is fine as long as you are willing to define it if you are asked.
1
Chris Pfund: I like that!
Chris Pfund: I thought the Membership Levels was nice...still need some details, but great start!
Don (UW-Madison): As a document, I would want to see as a reader just what I get for each
membership level, particularly if I am paying to join.
Laura Border: Could you clarify if an institution as a whole can be an affiliate, or is it for individuals
at the institution.
Don (UW-Madison): http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/membership/25-membership-overview
Chris Pfund: I think the points being made are not clear in the current text. A box-out/ side bar
example of these cases would help the reader (esp NAB) tremendously.
Ann Austin: The link Don offered to the Postdoc org is very helpful-it is worth some review outside
this call. It would be great if we could figure out a similar diagram. Very easy to read and follow.
Chris Pfund: So do alumni of CIRTL Core Institutions have to join the Network as affiliates or
individual?
Laura Border: Regarding the affiliate status, what about research intensive or "doc 2" institutions,
they have some doctoral programs, would they have to be core members or affiliates?
Robin Greenler: I can certainly imagine upper class undergrads with a graduate school goals being
interested in some of the activities of the Network.
Ann Austin: I think we should take up this issue of who can be a core institutional member with our
NAB. A good question for them to help us think through.
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): yes, that's a really good idea
Chris Pfund: Yes, I think it should be a subset. (Managing inst of core institutions)
Moderator (Kitch): Institutional dues = $41K over 5 years (current draft)
Rique Campa: Rique: It might be good to mention that core institutions should document or describe
what those specific in-kind contributions are/will be
Laura Border: One aspect that is not addressed is the "in kind" staff contributions from the member
campuses. For example, if my time were "paid" by CIRTL it would probably be 1/10th of my salary
at this point
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): Bob W., maybe you can give us a hand clarifying the budget presentation?
Chris Pfund: I think again, specific examples of the types of in-kind contribution expected to the
cross-Network institutions would help.
2
Robin Greenler: A list of what local institutions would need to have/provide to create a successful
local learning community
Chris Pfund: Good idea Ann! and we will need those ideas for the next grant proposal, anyway.
CU-Boulder: Thanks Bob that helped a lot.
Chris Pfund: very interesting strategy...I see the wisdom in it! (requiring in-kind contributions for
cross-network activities from new institutions after year 1)
Rique Campa: Rique: The subject of what developmental funds can be used for--new local activities
or new Network activities needs to be clarified in the document
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): right now its not even in the document or the budget
Rique Campa: RC: Correct and obviously something that needs attention
Chris Pfund: I also would love to see a mechanism for graduate students to apply for funding for new
activities (Network or local).
Robin Greenler: And with all these new projects that might draw additional funds, we need to not
lose the base cross network obligation—that is, a new cross network project cannot be double
counted as the base cross network obligation also. Need careful accounting of activities.
Chris Pfund: As long as the local developments are shared with the Network eventually.
Chris Pfund: I think one thing we need to be careful about is that in writing the text, it is not so
nuanced for existing institutions that it makes the picture for new institutions more clouded.
Don (UW-Madison): Kitch - maybe this will help the discussion
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-38402878_1-t_WwlsNfB3
Don (UW-Madison): Will this include a yearly institutional portrait? (evaluation commitments)
Chris Pfund: Rique..your point is well-taken. I also don't want this to become too long or prescribed,
but even example of ways some folks are currently doing this could go a long way to help the novice
reader. Perhaps an appendix of cases and examples?
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): an issue is oversight versus formative evaluation
Rique Campa: RC: I like your idea of a few examples--to provide a context.
Don (UW-Madison): As written, the evaluation reports are focused on accountability to membership
responsibilities. Not used for research, as is currently done.
Don (UW-Madison): Without the research team request for an annual institutional portrait, we
probably wouldn't create one. We would still be involved in cross-Network projects, like the capstone
study.
3
Chris Pfund: and presumably, these data would be useful for showing the administration at each
campus that the programs are valuable.
Don (UW-Madison): Impact can be a challenge - it would be important for us to define that in the
template.
Don (UW-Madison): Do member institutions have a responsibility for dissemination? e.g. presenting
at national mtg and the like?
Rique Campa: RC: I think we can sell the idea of assessing impact as an "opportunity" they will have
to participate and to do this they'll need to contribute a limited amount of information regarding
program activities at their institutions.
Chris Pfund: Well said Rique!
Chris Pfund: yes, that is how it impacts this plan.
Laura Border: It would be good to start with a backwards research design!
Chris Pfund: Yeah Laura!
Don (UW-Madison): I would like to see in this diagram represented how I would participate as a core
member, affiliate or individual member.
Don (UW-Madison): Then just adding the membership levels to the diagram would be instructive.
Chris Pfund: I would like an operations group that handles national meetings (both our own CIRTL
ones and getting CIRTL Network folks together at disciplinary meetings.
Don (UW-Madison): cool idea. There could also be one that focuses on connecting with the
employing institutions.
Rique Campa: RC: Kitch, good point. It reminds me when our dept. was small and all faculty
members served on 2 dept. standing committees, now that we are huge the "wealth" is more
distributed among more faculty.
Don (UW-Madison): Having folks from MATC on the Internship Development team early on has led
to a really fruitful collaboration between campuses over time.
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): yep, I agree - I was talking about the Executive Committee
Rique Campa: RC: Yes Chris! Don, Mark and I starting the crossnetwork study allowed me to start
learning how to work with new colleagues
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): and I suspect the chairs of the operations groups
Laura Border: What is the difference in an operations group and a committee?
4
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): none
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): Kitch didn't like "Committees" so I changed it to Operations Group
Robin Greenler: cool ideas for additional operations groups
Don (UW-Madison) to Bob Mathieu: maybe this will help the discussion
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-38402878_1-t_WwlsNfB3
Chris Pfund: I like the plan...my only concern is what about folks who pay, withdraw and then want a
refund...a logistics issues we can deal with later.
Don (UW-Madison): POD works well that way.
Moderator (Bob Mathieu): Don, say more?
Don (UW-Madison): I register to attend the annual POD Network conference. Part of my fee to
attend is my yearly membership fee. That gives me access to POD resources and a copy of the
organization's publication. Laura can comment too.
Don (UW-Madison): As a grad student, a fee would have deterred me from joining. I was cheap!
Laura Border: You weren't cheap, you were poor!
Rique Campa: RC: Paying a nominal fee for professional development--they would be investing in
their future
Don (UW-Madison): What would keep people from "sharing" memberships as a way to access the
resources?
Chris Pfund: Could the currency be contributing to the Network ( a blog entry, a posting, offering a
coffee hour, etc)?
Don (UW-Madison): I like that idea of an alternate currency.
Chris Pfund: If we do charge, can folks apply for a waiver based on need?
Don (UW-Madison): She took DCC last spring. She just advertised for us and we have 4 new
students from that institution interested in taking the course next spring.
Don (UW-Madison): They are wait listed.
Chris Pfund: Good point Laura
Don (UW-Madison): We knew that she was a former Boulder student. We had another individual
from a different campus who was "outside" of the Network.
5
Robin Greenler: Actually we now have six who have applied from that institution!
Don (UW-Madison): If I pay dues as an individual member, am I guaranteed a place in an online
course each semester for that year?
Don (UW-Madison): Great advertising!
Laura Border: I think membership could "guarantee" access to the online LC--Cafe, blogs, etc, but
the courses would be first-come-first served.
Don (UW-Madison): So membership fees could have vastly different values in terms of what they
"buy" you access to?
Chris Pfund: Tom, it sounds so reasonable when you explain it that way.
CU-Boulder: We all pay dues to our societies with out guaranteeing access to anything
Don (UW-Madison): Would they pay to join? What do they see as the strengths of the Network, and
the areas of national need to be filled?
CU-Boulder: I see the members paying to join the community not joining to get things.
Chris Pfund: I would like to ask them, if not CIRTL for future faculty development in STEM, then
what? And if CIRTL is "the answer", how do we move it forward nationally?
Chris Pfund: The NSF AMP Alliances work as multi-institutions Networks.
Laura Border: We have one in COPFFN, but it is REALLY loose collaboration.
Chris Pfund: There is also a giant MRSEC...and the NSF-RADs
Moderator (Kitch): Susan has attended every NAB meeting
Ann Austin: The Council of Interinstitutional Cooperation (Big Ten CIC) functions as a network of
12 institutions.
Ann Austin: I think Jim Fairweather has been involved in a few engineering coalitions or networks-ECSEL.
Chris Pfund: good point...some of the large genome projects could be examined.
Laura Border: How does CIRTL "help" NSF?
Chris Pfund: I would like their recommendations on campuses to recruit as well as good board
members or potential affiliates.
6