The following comes from the ACM office: 
 

November 1, 2007, will be the campus due date for the 2007-2008 Enhancing
Scholarly Agendas grant proposals, and we ask that campuses submit three
grant proposals to the ACM office by November 15, 2007.  THIS NOVEMBER
ROUND WILL BE THE LAST ONE WITHIN THE CURRENT FaCE PROJECT.  Meanwhile, a
new request for proposals emphasizing collaborative projects
(faculty-students, across departments, across colleges) will be developed
and announced by next fall for a spring round of funding under the
guidelines of the new funding provided by the Mellon Foundation.

Below you will find the guidelines for this final round of Enhancing
Scholarly Agendas Grant proposals.  

CAMPUS SELECTION

On November 1, 2007, you will be receiving grant proposals from the
faculty at your college for the Enhancing Scholarly Agendas Grants within
the ACM Faculty Career Enhancement (FaCE) Project.  

Let me briefly remind you that within this category there are two types of
grants: Enhancing Scholarship by Exploring New Avenues and Enhancing
Scholarship by Enriching Sabbatical Experiences and Planning.  The former
is designed for mid-career faculty who are interested in exploring a new
area of research, while the latter is for assisting faculty in developing
a stronger sabbatical proposal or allowing for better preparation for a
planned sabbatical.  The grants are for an amount up to $3,000.

After you receive the grant proposals, we ask that you review them and
choose up to three proposals to send to the ACM office by November 15,
2007.  All proposals should contain a budget and a vita.  

In addition, we ask that you comment on the proposals and rank them.
Particularly with new research proposals, it will be very helpful if you
could pinpoint the particular stage of the research of the project, and
your sense of its worthiness of being funded at an early stage. Because
one of the goals of this FaCE initiative is to fund new projects and help
faculty who might be restarting research agendas, the review committee
would appreciate advice and guidance about proposals that may not be as
well developed as is traditionally the case. As one of the previous review
committee members commented, frankness is greatly appreciated in this
ranking process.  Also, for faculty in fields where grant writing is not a
common practice, it would be helpful for the review committee if you
comment on the faculty member's experience, or lack thereof, with writing
external grants. For all the proposals, it will be good for the review
committee to know what type of impact the funding will have on the
individual, future research, and the campus.   In order for the ACM office
to consider these grants and their impact on individual campuses, we ask
that you tell us how many grant proposals in total you received for the
Enhancing Scholarly Agendas Initiative before you chose the three to send
to the ACM office.  

Please send the proposals and your comments electronically to Betsy Hutula
([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) by November 15, 2007.  A
subcommittee of ACM Deans will review the proposals and support up to 15
of them.  

CRITERIA FOR GRANT AWARDS

While there will be a number of internal considerations that will guide
your selection of grant proposals to forward to the ACM office, I would
like to review, first, the standards that were included in the original
grant proposal; second, the conversations that have occurred among the
FaCE Liaisons; and, third, the comments that were made by the committees
that have reviewed the previous six rounds of grant proposals.  

The subcommittee of Deans will be looking to see how the specific
activity(ies) would impact an existing or conceived research project or
plan.  The planned research could focus on either a traditional model of
individual scholarship or a more creative approach that follows a research
model but imbeds curricular or pedagogical goals into that larger
research-focused outcome.  Funds in either category could be used to
support visits to specialists, research trips to domestic or international
sites, extended stays at laboratories or library collections, data
collection, and classes and/or specialized training in a new skill or area
of interest.  

In their conversations, the campus Liaisons discussed the possibility of
these funds being used for course release time, a discussion that has
occurred at the Deans' meeting as well.  While the funds could conceivably
be used for release time, the campus Dean would need to authorize that
possibility.  If it is thought that the requested release time is not
possible, then the proposal should not be sent to the ACM office.  

The Exploring New Avenues grant was originally designed for mid-career
faculty, a broad category.  The Liaisons thought the breadth was
appropriate because there can be a number of points, during one's long
mid-life, for exploring new possibilities.  Junior faculty, however, have
received funding in this category.  

A number of people have asked about timing of the sabbatical when it comes
to the second category, Enriching Sabbatical Experiences and Planning, and
review committees have generally evaluated the request and the time on a
one-by-one basis.  For example, in one case, funds were approved to
support a spring 2007 trip to London so that a faculty member could
prepare for a 2008-2009 sabbatical, a long-term view.  In another
instance, due to the nature of the proposal and the timing, a proposal for
funds to support a summer 2007 trip to prepare for a 2008-2009 sabbatical
was denied, with encouragement given for resubmission.  To summarize, the
responses to the timing have varied considerably.  

In the granting of awards, the Liaisons agreed that the first priority
should be the strength of the research proposal, but they acknowledged
that there are a number of contextual issues that could shape the proposal
and the need for funds, such as teaching load, prior paid leave for
research, and other available sources of funding.  Those issues would be
particularly relevant at the time of campus selection, and the Dean can
comment on those contextual issues.  

The selection committees have refined the criteria, working specifically
within the guidelines of the grant.  Grant proposals with very clear
projects, goals, and outcomes were the most successful.  A tangible
result, even if that outcome was a small part of a larger project, was
very important.   Along with that, strong preference was given to
proposals that focused on a research agenda rather than supported
curricular goals.  While curricular changes, such as the development of a
new class or a new topic within an old class, could certainly be one of
the outcomes, the primary focus should be on scholarly research.  Because
there are other initiatives within the FaCE Project that support
pedagogical goals, the feeling was that these funds should be reserved for
research.

The selection committee decided that the grant funds should not be used
for a faculty member to attend a meeting without a very clear, specific
purpose.  There would need to be a strong case made for attending a
meeting, such as the opportunity to meet with several scholarly
collaborators or a workshop with specific goals and outcomes.  Also, there
was a spirited discussion about the funding for equipment purchase.  It
was determined that the applicant would need to make a very strong case
and that the equipment would need to be embedded within the stated
research goals and be very specialized and specific to the discipline.

In spring 2005, it was determined that stipends for summer or other breaks
would not be funded through the FaCE Enhancing Scholarly Agendas
initiative.  Even though it is recognized that faculty time is valuable,
the emphasis is on funding scholarly activities.  Also, it was determined
that an ACM faculty member could receive only one grant from the FaCE ESA
initiative.    

Please feel free to contact the ACM office with any questions.  We look
forward to receiving the grant proposals from your campus on November 15,
2007.