New Organizations/Reorganization (original) (raw)
The LEADS Database at ICPSR: Identifying Important Social Science Studies for Archiving
2006
ICPSR has created a database to document information about the thousands of social science studies that have been conducted over the last 40 years. Included in the database are descriptions of social science data collections funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. These records are supplemented with additional information gathered through correspondence with principal investigators of those awards with the goal of gathering information about the public availability of any research data collected with grant support. The goal of this paper is to describe the LEADS database and provide results regarding the scope of social science research data that are "at risk" of being lost. In the social science research community there have been longstanding expectations and mechanisms for archiving and sharing data. Even with this expectation, analysis of the LEADS database shows that the majority-nearly 75%-of researcherinitiated social science research data is not archived publicly. Further, we find that a substantial minority have been lost.
The LEADS Database at ICPSR: Identifying Important "At Risk" Social Science Data1
ICPSR has created a database to document information about the thousands of social science studies that have been conducted over the last 40 years. Included in the database are descriptions of social science data collections funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. These records are supplemented with additional information gathered through correspondence with principal investigators of those awards with the goal of gathering information about the public availability of any research data collected with grant support. The goal of this paper is to describe the LEADS database and provide results regarding the scope of social science research data that are "at risk" of being lost. In the social science research community there have been longstanding expectations and mechanisms for archiving and sharing data. Even with this expectation, analysis of the LEADS database shows that the majority -nearly 75% --of researcherinitiated social science research data is not archived publicly. Further, we find that a substantial minority have been lost.
Academic Affairs Annual Report
2019
H ealthy organizations take time periodically to reflect upon why they exist, what values provide the foundation for their work, and what they aspire to be. e University of Maine, including its regional campus the University of Maine at Machias, engaged in this type of self-reflection through the Strategic Vision and Values process over the past academic year. rough a series of public forums, pop-up gatherings, formal meetings, electronic communications and prescribed reports, we learned a great deal about our institution. I was pleased but not surprised by the engagement of the university community in this work. More than 2,000 faculty, staff, students, Board of Visitors members, alumni and community partners participated in sessions, contributed their thoughts in writing, or found other ways to engage in the dialogue. Integrating what we learned, we have articulated the university's strategic values, a vision for the future, goals-both broad and specific-and metrics by which we will gauge progress. Strategic Vision and Values: A Framework for the University's Future will be released this fall and will be the compass with which the university will navigate its future course. e 2019 Academic Affairs Annual Report is organized around the three strategic values identified through the strategic planning process: Fostering Learner Success; Discovering and Innovating; and Growing and Expanding Partnerships. As in previous reports, what appears in the following pages is not a comprehensive list of accomplishments. Rather it is a summarizing and sampling of the work carried out across campus, throughout the state and, indeed, around the world by UMaine's talented faculty, staff and students. As has been the case each time I prepare the Division of Academic Affairs annual report, I am amazed by the dedication, work ethic, creativity and resilience of UMaine's academic community. My amazement has not diminished over the six years that I have had the privilege of serving as the university's chief academic officer. is is the last report of this type that I will prepare. Please accept my thanks for all that you do to support our students, create new knowledge and serve our state.
Office of Institutional Research & Assessment Departmental Survey, October 2002
2002
conducted an OIRA Satisfaction with Services Survey for the fall 2002 period. The survey was distributed to 100 faculty and staff members on the three college campuses. Thirty-one (31%) faculty and staff members responded to questions regarding three main areas: (1) Personnel; (2) Documents and Publications; and (3) Website. The purpose of the survey is to determine the satisfaction levels of faculty and staff with services provided by the OIRA office. 65% of respondents reported interacting with OIRA often or very often. Nearly 42% of respondents were staff members, while 29% were administrators and another 29% were faculty. While a baseline of 85% satisfaction is commonly used, OIRA sets its sights on at least a 90% rating. 97% of respondents were satisfied with overall personnel characteristics, 97% were satisfied with overall reports/publications characteristics, and 98% were satisfied with the overall appearance of the website. Categorical results yielded lower satisfaction ratings for faculty than for the other respondent groups. 100% of administrators and staff were satisfied with OIRA personnel, while 90% of faculty were satisfied. The report recommends that steps be taken to improve the relationship between OIRA and faculty. Research instrument appended. (NB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
2009-2010 Annual Report: Office of Scholarly Communications
2010
The Office of Scholarly Communications (OSC) had a very busy and productive year. Important developments included expansion of the UNL DigitalCommons repository by over 7,000 items, a major increase in downloads furnished from the repository, passage of a UNL Faculty Senate resolution endorsing use of the repository, creation of an e-book imprint, registration as a publisher with Portico for permanent storage of journal content, recognition in a feature article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, multiple campus, national, and international presentations by Paul Royster and Sue Ann Gardner, ranking of 17th among institutional and 33rd among world repositories by the Cybermetrics Lab in July 2010, enrollment of several UNL publishing centers, and more widespread acceptance of the repositories role and function on the UNL campus.
1975
This seventh edition of the directory lists'-those cooperative arrangements in higher education which were reported by their chief administrative officers to satisfy five criteria. Each Consortium is .a voluntary formal organization with three or more 'member institutions; has/multi-academic programs, is administered by at least one full-time professional; and has a required annual contribution, or other tangible evidence of long-term commitment of member institutions. Two trends are identified: the movement to state regionalization where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between voluntary and statutory systems; and a broadening of the base of participation to inclUde the full range of the postsecondary community and related community/regional agencies in cooperative arrangements. The directou includes background program descriptions for each consortium. It is indexed as to academic, administrative, community, and student activities. (LBH) * * via the ERIC'Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not *responsible far the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.