2003-02-21: Winter 2003

 

Minutes – Meeting of February 21, 2003, at

California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo

 

Present:            Rich Taketa (SJ), Elliott Barkan (SB), Jim Ross (BA), Ed Nelson (FR), Ted Anagnoson (LA), Dick Shaffer (SLO), John Korey (PO), Randy MacIntosh (SA), Gene Turner (NO), Nan Chico (HA), Richard Serpe (SM), Kanghu Hsu (DH)

 

Meeting called to order at 9:15 a.m.

 

1.      Approval of the minutes.  Approved as submitted.

 

2.      Introductions. 

 

3.      Additions/Corrections to the agenda.  None.

 

4.      Update on the SSDBA and funding for the social science data bases. 

 

  1. Report from the SSDBA.  No report.
  2. Report from the Chancellor’s Office (Zweier) – see below. 

 

·        Discussion of the present state and future of the SSDBA. 

·        Tony Hernandez has become the acting director of the campus institutional research office, which is within the office of the Provost/VPAA.

·        The SSDBA is being handled – we think – by Colin Campbell, who handled it before Tony, and who is within the office of the VP for Information Resource Management.

·        Items promised for August, 2002 – a new web page and new indexing system – have still not been installed. 

·        Alternatives to the SSDBA were discussed.

·        Should SSDBA fail to continue to function, the following data was targeted as important to save:

·        Preferably everything.

·        High priority – the Field surveys and codebooks.

·        Barkan mentioned INS data that was specially purchased.  Other data may have been specially purchased.

·        Ideal activities for a data center such as SSDBA would be to:

·        Provide workshops

·        Provide materials for data analysis

·        Indexing of data bases

·        Help desk

·        Putting up Field, ICPSR, Roper, other data

 

  • Next steps:

·        It was m/s/p for Ted Anagnoson to investigate whether the SSDBA is still functioning at his campus. This activity is to be done within one week. 

·        It was m/s/p for Dick Shaffer to call Gerry Hanley to investigate the possibility of an audit of the SSDBA funds and who might be the responsible party at CSULA for the SSDBA.  If Ted does not receive an answer, it was decided to move formally with a request for an audit of the SSDBA funds received in the last two years (01-02 and the current year, 02-03). 

 

1.      Field Institute – report from the Field Committee of Ed Nelson, Dick Shaffer, Nan Chico.

 

  1. Five proposals for question credits and/or the faculty fellow were received.  Three were clearly not as good quality as the other two.  It was m/s/p to recommend:

(1)   Prof. Alexandra Cole of CSU Northridge for the Field Institute Faculty Fellowship for her questions and proposal on post-materialist values. 

(2)   Prof. Sandra Emerson of CPSU Pomona for the Field Institute question credits based on her proposal on corruption and questionable behavior. 

(3)   We recommend that Field use the unused questions from the faculty fellowship on the question credit proposal. 

 

  1. Ross to place on the Teaching Resource Depository www site information on how to access questions through the SSDBA. 

 

  1. No requests were received for the student internship.  Discussion ensued on the reasons for this state of affairs, which is outside the control of the SSRIC. 

 

2.      ICPSR Biennial Meeting.

 

  1. The rotation list submitted by the chair with the agenda was approved. 

 

  1. Proposed bylaw change.  The bylaw change submitted by John Korey was approved as submitted.  The amended bylaw section follows:

 

Article VII:  Attendance At Biennial ICPSR Meeting In Ann Arbor

 

According to the terms of the agreement with ICPSR in Ann Arbor, CSU is entitled to send up to ten participants to the Meeting of Official Representatives of ICPSR.  Selection will be as follows:

 

1.         The CSU, SSRIC Chair at the time of the ICPSR Meeting shall be one of the CSU, SSRIC representatives attending the ICPSR meeting.  If the Council Chair or other designated attendees are unable to attend, the campus next in line on the rotating list will be designated.

 

2.                     The Council will select the other  campuses on a rotating basis at the Spring Council meeting prior to the ICPSR meeting.  If a campus entitled to send a representative cannot do so, the campus will not lose its position on the rotating list.

 

3.                     As many  participants will be funded to attend the ICPSR meeting as can be fully supported by ICPSR or Non-ICPSR funds. 

 

4.                     If any campus is not represented at a minimum of one SSRIC meeting during the academic year prior to the ICPSR meeting, that campus will be moved to the bottom of the rotation list.

 

Rationale: The intent of this proposed change is to allow campuses to send someone other than the OR to the biennial meetings of the ICPSR.  The ICPSR already permits this.  A number of CSU campuses now have alternates on the SSRIC.  Jim Gerber, although he is the sole SDSU representative on the SSRIC, is not the ICPSR OR.  Last time, there was a request from Bakersfield to send someone other than the OR.  Though she ended up not going, the request was approved.  However, since no one else had wanted to go, I doubt that this would have procedural value.

 

(An updated version of the SSRIC By- Laws will be attached to the emailed version of the minutes, and posted on the SSDBA web site.)

 

  1. Discussion of inactive representatives.  Shaffer to call Long Beach and Monterey Bay regarding alternative representatives and other campuses as appropriate. 

 

3.      ICPSR Summer Information.  No report.

 

4.      California Social Survey. 

 

  1. John Korey, Richard Serpe, and Ed Nelson discussed the proposed survey.  A proposal draft was submitted for comments. 
  2. Discussion of partnering with UCB. 
  3. Potential issues of questionnaire and house effects on the data. 
  4. Need for an instructional component.
  5. With a project of this size, it is good to have relationships with other research teams. 
  6. National Advisory Board – use NORC GSS researchers to help with questionnaire design. 
  7. Cost – perhaps $200K for a 45 minute questionnaire in English and Spanish with 3,000 randomly selected adults in California. 
  8. Split questionnaire – difficult to implement here because common questions need to be in the same place on the questionnaire or “house effects” and “questionnaire effects” will result. 
  9. It was M/S/P that the SSRIC supports the development of a California Social
    Survey as proposed by Korey, Nelson and Lascher, and that the polling
    proposed be divided evenly between UC-Berkeley, CSU-Fresno, and CSU-San Marcos.  

 

5.      Phone Call with Lou Zweier.

 

  1. Two processes are ongoing –

·        At least one campus submitted a data acquisition request through the Provosts, who responded to a call for interesting and innovative best practices in the Fall of 2002. 

·        The other process is the ongoing – with campus visits taking place in February, 2003 – CSU Academic Technology Planning Project, which published its Final Draft Initiatives, January 20, 2002? (document states 2002, but may be 2003). 

 

o       Representatives should ask for an initiative to retain data acquisition that is ongoing but threatened because of budget cuts as well as submitting the activity as a project under Initiatives 1 (“Transform the dynamic of learning environments”), 2 (“Promote pedagogically sound and innovative applications of academic technology”), and 3 (“Enable faculty, staff, and students to develop skills and knowledge for successful teaching and learning”). 

 

6.      New SSRIC Chair.  Randy Macintosh of CSU, Sacramento was unanimously and enthusiastically elected as the 2003-2004 Chair of the Social Sciences Research and Instructional Council.

 

Meeting adjourned at approximately 4 p.m.

 

Minutes submitted by Ted Anagnoson, LA. 

2/23/03

 

California State University
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCIL

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I
NAME

This organization shall be known as the California State University Social Science Research and Instructional Council (hereinafter referred to as CSU, SSRIC or Council).

ARTICLE II
OBJECTIVES

  1. To encourage the use of quantitative methods in the teaching of social sciences to undergraduate and graduate students.
  2. To support and implement the collection and distribution of social science data and computer-aided instructional materials, and to disseminate information related to them.
  3. To support and implement the use of computerized projects in the CSU curriculum.
  4. To support and implement the quantitative skills of students and faculty in the California State University.

 

ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING

  1. Each campus shall appoint one representative (and, optionally, an alternative representative with full rights and responsibilities when acting as such) to the Council.  Past Council chairs who no longer serve as campus representatives but who remain affiliated with the CSU system shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of the Council.
  2. Decisions on all issues will be by a majority of the council members present and voting, provided a majority of the members is present.
  3. Participation in Council deliberation may be expanded to include other members of the CSU community.

 

ARTICLE IV
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEES

  1. At the Winter meeting, the Council will select a chair to serve for the next year beginning the first day of July.
  2. There shall be a CSU, SSRIC Field Committee for the Field Poll, which will function in the following way:
    1. The Committee will consist of three members -- a Chair, a Northern California member, and a Southern California member. Terms of office will be two years. The first representative from Southern California will serve a one-year term.
    2. Any CSU, SSRIC member is eligible for this Committee. CSU, SSRIC will select all committee members.
    3. The chair is responsible for announcing to CSU faculty the possibility of including questions on the Field Poll and for reviewing question proposals that are received by CSU faculty.
    4. Each proposal shall be anonymously reviewed by at least three reviewers to be selected by the members of the Field Committee.
    5. No proposal shall be reviewed by a faculty member for a campus from which the proposal is received.
    6. CSU, SSRIC will determine the structure and format of question proposals. Instructions concerning structure and format shall be included in the requests for proposals.
    7. The Committee shall represent the CSU system at meetings of The Field Institute.
    8. At each meeting, the chair will report to the Council on the progress and status of Committee activities.
    9. The chair is responsible for announcing to the CSUC faculty the procedures for applying for the Field Student Intern and the Field Faculty Fellow. The chair shall report the committee's recommendation to the SSRIC for approval.

 

ARTICLE V
MEETINGS

There shall be at least three meetings of the council in each academic year.

 

ARTICLE VI
SUMMER TRAINING PROGRAMS, ANN ARBOR

  1. Any council member may nominate participants.
  2. Both faculty and students will be considered eligible applicants.
  3. Under the assumption that elementary training in research methods is readily available within the CSU, preference will be given to those applicants qualifying for the more advanced programs.
  4. The Council will attempt to insure that each campus is represented.

 

ARTICLE VII
ATTENDANCE AT BIENNIAL ICPSR MEETING IN ANN ARBOR

According to the terms of the agreement with ICPSR in Ann Arbor, CSU is entitled to send up to ten participants to the Meeting of Official Representatives of ICPSR. Selection will be as follows:

  1. The CSU, SSRIC Chair at the time of the ICPSR Meeting shall be one of the CSU, SSRIC representatives attending the ICPSR meeting. If the Council Chair or other designated attendees are unable to attend, the campus next in line on the rotating list will be designated.
  2. The Council will select the other campuses on a rotating basis at the Spring Council meeting prior to the ICPSR meeting. If a campus entitled to send a representative cannot do so, the campus will not lose its position on the rotating list.
  3. As many participants will be funded to attend the ICPSR meeting as can be fully supported by ICPSR or Non-ICPSR funds.
  4. If any campus is not represented at a minimum of one SSRIC meeting during the academic year prior to the ICPSR meeting, that campus will be moved to the bottom of the rotation list.

 

ARTICLE VIII
AMENDMENTS

Amendments to these By-Laws shall be adopted by an absolute majority of the members of the Council. Proposals for amendment shall be submitted to Council members by mail in advance of one of the regular meetings.

 

ARTICLE IX
SUSPENSION 0F BY-LAWS

At any regular meeting at which a majority of the members is present, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, suspend all or a portion of the By-laws. The motion to suspend shall indicate the duration of the suspension.

 

Adopted, November 30, 1972

Revised, February 13, 1976; May 6, 1977; February 2, 1979; May 3, 1979; May 1983; April 29, 1994; October 7, 1999; February 21, 2003.

 

‹ 2002-10-25: Fall 2002up2003-04-26: Spring 2003 ›