Periodic reviews of ORUs are necessary to ensure that the research being conducted under the units’ auspices is of the highest possible quality and that campus resources are being allocated wisely and in line with campus priorities. Each ORU should be reviewed at intervals of five years or less by an ad hoc review committee. Five-year reviews are most common. Additionally, all ORUs must establish a rationale for continuance, in terms of scholarly or scientific merit and campus priorities, at 15 years and at every review after that; these are called “sunset reviews.”
Five-year review process
Policy guidance
Roles and responsibilities
- Responsible Administrator review process responsibilities include:
- Contributing to the substance of the self-study charge
- With reviewer, recommend ad hoc review committee members
- Contribute to the Ad Hoc Review Committee Charge
- Participate in review activities
- Respond to committee report(s)
- Reviewer review process responsibilities include:
- Setting and managing the schedule
- Initiating the review
- Selecting the ad hoc review committee along with the responsible administrator
- Charging the self-study
- Charging the review committee
- Coordinating the review activities
- Coordinating post review activities
- Disseminating the report and recommendations
- Director review responsibilities include:
- Managing the self-study effort
- Coordinating with ORU advisory committee
- Participating in and helping to coordinate review
- Responding to the review report
- Advisory Committee: The chair of the advisory committee, and as many other members as practical, should meet with five-year review committees and otherwise be available for consultation by the five-year review committee during the course of its review.
- Ad Hoc Review Committee Chair: A member of the committee, who will manage committee report development and production. Selected by the Reviewer based on recommendations from the Responsible Administrator and COR.
- Ad Hoc Review Committee Member: Appointed by the Reviewer, this person can be either internal or external to campus. They agree to accept the schedule and associated responsibilities, including:
- Reading background material
- Meeting with reviewer and responsible administrator
- Participating in review day events
- Delivering a draft report and final report according to schedule and in compliance with the charge
- Committee on Research (COR):
- Reviews and comments on Ad Hoc Review Committee Charge.
- Recommends review committee nominees.
- Responds to the committee report.
- Recommends continuation or disestablishment of ORU.
- Recommends continuation or replacement of current ORU director.
ORU self-study guidelines
The self-study charge should anticipate the Ad Hoc Review Committee Charge. Per UCOP guidance, reviews should address “original purpose, present functioning, research accomplishments, future plans and continuing development to meet the needs of the field…the review should assess the adequacy of space and other resources made available to the unit…budget…including sources of funds and expenditures…the review should make recommendations, if appropriate for improvements in the mission, budget, administration, research focus, space and other resource requirements, and programs and activities of the unit.”
The ORU will prepare a self-study document, which will consist of the following:
- Original purpose and present functioning: The first section provides the ORU’s assessment of its current direction in research. Appropriate questions are along these lines:
- What are the mission and goals of the ORU?
- Has the ORU been successful in meeting them?
- How has the research evolved from the establishment of the unit up to this point?
- How do the ORU’s activities create engagement with the affiliated department(s) and contribute to graduate student training and mentorship and financial support?
- Discuss evolution in resources (e.g., growth in budget, research and administrative staffing) to the current levels.
- Research accomplishments: Over the five-year time period covered by the review, what have been the extramural awards garnered and significant research accomplishments in the field?
- Comment on the continuing productivity and influence of ORU participants, locally as well as nationally and internationally.
- Comment on the ORU’s collaborative/interdisciplinary work, its quality, and impact on the ORU’s research efforts and the campus.
- Describe the possible sources and availability of extramural funds to support the ORU’s research.
- Future plans and continuing development: This section, building from the ORU’s assessment of the current functioning, should address issues important to the progress within the next five years. These issues may be specific resource goals, space constraints, and planned growth of engagement with faculty or graduate support, and cultivating new or reinforcing existing external partnerships. Strategies for pursuing plans should be proposed within available or foreseeable resource allocations.
- Self-Study appendices:
- Link to a comprehensive unit website, or a list of individual researcher links, that provides current research focus and CV for each researcher who has held an appointment in the past three years. Include an organizational chart to illustrate the administrative structure of the ORU.
- Total extramural research funding proposed and awarded (public and private) by year since the last review. The Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) will provide a baseline report; units may augment this report with data not captured by OSP.
- History of ORU director appointments (at least since the previous review) and plans for succession.
- Postdoctoral fellows: sources of support (fellowships, external grants, other) and number of fellows by year since previous review.
- Graduate students: by area or cluster if relevant, five-year history of doctoral and/or master’s students, including thesis (and/or project) title, principal advisor, and year degree was awarded, and job placement.
- List of non-PI research and administrative staff.
- Budget: five-year history of revenues and expenditures.
- Equipment inventory, with age and plans for retirement, upgrading, or replacement.
ORU Advisory Committee Report
The ORU Advisory Committee Report should include an evaluation of progress on goals and the effectiveness of the unit during the time period under review.
ORU Ad Hoc Review Committee Report
The review should address:
- The ORU’s original purpose
- Present functioning
- Research accomplishments (such as publications, grants, and new collaborations resulting from research conducted or sponsored by the unit)
- Future plans
- Continuing development to meet the needs of the field
The review should assess the adequacy of space and other resources made available to the unit. The review should look at the unit’s success in meeting previously established objectives, planned changes to program objectives, and planned steps to achieve new objectives. The review committee will be provided explicit budget information by the VCR or dean’s office, and the committee should assess whether the budget is adequate and appropriate to support the unit’s mission. Each ad hoc review committee should consider and make specific recommendations, if appropriate, for:
- Improvements in the mission
- Budget
- Administration
- Research focus
- Space and other resource requirements
- Programs and activities of the unit
- Whether the unit should merge with another similar unit, or be disestablished
Sunset review process
Sunset reviews occur at 15 years and every review after that.
A sunset review would include elements described in the five-year process as well as a formal proposal for continued ORU status, support funds, and space in the context of current campus and university needs and resources. The proposal should state a persuasive rationale for the unit’s continuation and should include all of the information required of proposals for ORU establishment, and for a five-year review (detailed above). In addition, the proposal should describe the ORU’s achievements since establishment or since the last sunset review, the contributions the ORU has made to research, graduate and undergraduate education and public service, and the consequences if the ORU were not continued.
The proposal and submitting unit are reviewed by an ad hoc review committee established by the chancellor or the VCR after consultation with appropriate divisional Academic Senate committees. It is recommended that at least one member from outside the campus sit on the review committee. The report of the review committee is reviewed by appropriate campus senate committees and administrative officials. Approval for continuation or disestablishment of the ORU is made by the chancellor.
Review process timeline
Review process timeline
| Month | Process Step | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Month 1 | Initiate the review | Reviewer, i.e., either VCR or dean (as designated) |
| Month 1 | Set review process dates | Reviewer, with inputs from Responsible Administrator |
| Month 1 | Charge the self-study (notify ORU director to begin self-study) | Reviewer, with inputs from Responsible Administrator |
| Month 1 | Meet with ORU director to go over the review process | Reviewer |
| Month 2 | Solicit committee nominations from ORU director & Responsible Administrator | Reviewer |
| Month 2 | Send nominations to COR for input | Reviewer |
| Month 3 | Appoint ad hoc review committee members from list of nominees | Reviewer with COR |
| Month 4 | Receive and review Self-Study with Advisory Committee Report | Reviewer |
| Month 4 | Initiate planning review visit | Reviewer, with inputs from Responsible Administrator |
| Month 5 | Solicit and receive Responsible Administrator’s response to self-study with Advisory Committee Report | Reviewer |
| Month 5 | Draft charge for the review committee – Reviewer distribute initial charge to academic committees and Responsible Administrator – Reviewer solicit and receive additional questions from COR and Responsible Administrator | Reviewer, with input from COR, and Responsible Administrator |
| Month 6 | Charge the review committee | Reviewer |
| Month 6 | Distribute Self-Study with Advisory Committee Report, previous External Review Report & Annual Reports for time period being reviewed to review committee | Reviewer |
| Month 7-8 | Finalize external reviewer visit agenda | Reviewer & Responsible Administrator with input from the review committee chair |
| Month 9 | Conduct the review | Reviewer |
| Month 10-11 | Review Committee drafts report | Review Committee |
| Month 12 | Receive and distribute draft report to Responsible Administrator & ORU director | Reviewer |
| Month 13 | Return factual corrections (along with comments from ORU Advisory Committee) to Reviewer | ORU Director |
| Month 13 | Return comments to Reviewer | Responsible Administrator |
| Month 13 | Meet with Review Committee | Reviewer, Responsible Administrator |
| Month 14 | Receive Final Report from Review Committee | Reviewer |
| Month 14 | Meet with ORU director | Reviewer, Responsible Administrator |
| Month 14 | Solicit COR recommendations | Reviewer |
| Month 15 | Receive COR recommendations | Reviewer |
| Month 15 | Campus-Level Closure Meeting held | Reviewer |
| Month 15 | Letter and final report delivered to ORU director, Responsible Administrator, COR, EVC and chancellor | Reviewer |