Think. Teach. Do. Units at SPH.
Research at SPH is principally driven by faculty Principal Investigators who lead teams consisting of faculty, staff, and/or students, both internal and external to Boston University. Each faculty member essentially serves as the lead of their own individual research portfolio, which is the most basic unit of the overall research enterprise at SPH.
Recognizing that there can be strategic advantages to forming larger multi-faculty units that focus on a particular content area, we provide a conceptual model for different types of units at the department or school levels. Such endeavors can increase the visibility of our work in the topic area (both internally and externally), facilitate the sharing of resources, and lead to new collaborative opportunities that might not have otherwise materialized. Such units can also create new training and development opportunities in specialized areas. While we anticipate that most such units will center on research and scholarship, units can also focus on education or practice. Whatever the focus of the unit, the guiding principle is that the formation of the unit will yield benefits that would not have otherwise been possible.
At SPH, there are three main categories of TTD units supported at the department and/or school level: Labs, Programs, and Centers. Decisions about whether to funds such units are made by considering the anticipated benefits in the content of budget considerations, ensuring that we strategically advance our mission while also adhering to principles of fiscal responsibility. The following sections describe each of these units, as well as the review process, in greater detail.
Labs
Labs
A department-based Lab typically includes the meaningful engagement of at least three faculty with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area. While Labs may include the engagement of faculty, staff, and students from multiple departments, structurally they are housed within a single home department.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new Lab by submitting a proposal to the Department Chair. In addition to proposing a name for the Lab, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, membership, plans for the first two years, anticipated benefits, anticipated challenges, and a proposed budget. Typically, Labs emerge from external funding obtained by faculty and supplemented via individual faculty discretionary funds, which are then supplemented by departmental funds. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
Decisions about whether to approve a new Lab within a department and how much departmental financial support to provide, are made by the Department Chair; no School level approval is required. Any financial support for Labs approved by the Department Chair is seen as a strategic investment in the department and drawn from the department discretionary account. If a Lab eventually seeks to expand to a Program, School level resources are more likely to be dedicated if the Chair has previously invested resources at the Department level.
Labs are approved for a one-year term and reviewed annually by the Department Chair. Every year, the Lab director is expected to send the Chair a letter summarizing progress (as per the Unit Review Process described in the section below). Through that review process, the Chair assesses whether there is sufficient justification for renewal and continued dedication of funds, which is communicated to the Lab Director(s) in an annual approval letter.
Programs
Programs
A School-level Program typically includes the meaningful engagement of at least seven faculty with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area. Programs are expected to engage faculty, staff, and students across multiple disciplines and departments. Programs are school-wide units with budgets that are setup within the SPH Research Office.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new Program, building on the success of an established Lab, by submitting a proposal to the Dean. In addition to proposing a name for the Program, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, membership, plans for the first two years, anticipated benefits, anticipated challenges, and a proposed budget. It is expected that a request for a Program will have been preceded by at least two years of function as a Lab, and that a request to expand to a Program will be reviewed more favorably by highlighting how a Lab has leveraged previous investment from the Department, and how elevation to a Program will take work to a different and better level. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
Decisions about whether to approve a new Program are made by the Dean. Programs are initially funded by SPH for a two-year period to supplement the activities supported by external sources. Additionally, the Program Director receives 10% salary coverage. Program Directors are appointed and serve at will, as determined by the Dean. Any funded Program is expected to send the Dean an annual letter summarizing progress (as per the Unit Review Process described in the section below). Every two years the Dean assesses whether there is sufficient justification for renewal and continued funding, which is communicated to the Director(s) in an approval letter.
Centers
Centers
Interdisciplinary academic School-wide centers are charged with bringing together relevant faculty, staff, and students from across multiple disciplines and departments to advance an area of strategic academic interest for the School. Centers typically include the meaningful engagement of at least 15 faculty with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area where there is an opportunity for SPH to be seen as global leaders. Centers are school-wide units with budgets that are set up within the SPH Research Office.
Center Directors guide strategic thinking, foster new collaborations in teaching, research, and practice; increase the visibility of our efforts in the Center’s domain of engagement both internally and externally; facilitate the development of new applications for external funding; supervise center staff and oversee the center budget; and provide an annual report on the progress of the Center.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new Center, building on the success of an established Program, by submitting a proposal to the Dean. In addition to proposing a name for the Center, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, plans for the first three years, anticipated benefits of the proposed activities, and anticipated challenges. It is expected that a request for a Center will have been preceded by at least two years of function as a Program, and that a request to expand to a Center will be reviewed more favorably by highlighting how a Program has leveraged previous investment from the School, and how elevation to a Center will take work to a different and better level. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
Centers are overseen by the Dean or the Dean’s designee and are not organizationally connected with any particular department. All faculty affiliated with a Center maintain a primary appointment in an academic department and report to their Department Chair. Centers do not have faculty lines, do not confer degrees, or manage curricula. Center-affiliated grants should be submitted and awarded via the academic department of the principal investigator.
The Dean makes decisions about whether to approve a new Center in consultation with the academic chairs. Center Directors are appointed and serve at will, as determined by the Dean. They receive 15% salary support annually for serving in this role. Additionally, each Center receives an annual operating budget and an initial deposit of discretionary funds (which may be spent in accordance with SPH Guidelines for Use of Discretionary Funds). In general, the operating budget is used to cover annual operating expenses, whereas the discretionary funds carry forward year to year and can be used to capitalize on emerging opportunities, new strategic initiatives, etc.
Each Center Director sends the Dean an annual letter summarizing progress and makes a presentation of their work to the Dean and Department Chairs. This is followed by an annual renewal letter. Every three years the Dean assesses whether there is sufficient justification for Center renewal and continued funding, which is communicated to the Director(s) in an approval letter.
Unit Review Process
Unit Review Process
The annual review process is an opportunity for critical reflection, self-assessment, and strategic planning toward our goals. It is also an opportunity for the unit Director to highlight accomplishments and share plans for moving forward, ensuring that Department and/or School leadership is informed and positioned to be as helpful as possible.
As described above, TTD units receive resources from the Department or School based on the rationale that the anticipated benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) will justify the investment. To underscore the level of investment, and therefore the importance of engaging in an annual review process, the following table summarizes the details from the sections above.
| Faculty engaged | Term length | Funding source | Director salary coverage | Reviewers | |
| Labs | ³ 3 | 1 year | Department | 0% | Department Chair |
| Programs | ³ 7* | 2 years | School | 10% | Dean |
| Centers | ³ 15* | 3 years | School | 15% | Dean & Department Chairs |
*From multiple departments
Awarded amounts may vary so that the level of investment by the School or Department broadly reflect the differences in the scope and scale of the units.
Each unit (Lab/Program/Center) is expected to summarize their accomplishments annually in an annual letter (to the Department Chair in the context of Lab, to the Dean in the context of Program or Center). In addition, each unit director is invited to give a 20-minute presentation summarizing the unit’s progress during the past year and plans for the coming year. The Lab Director presents to the Chair, the Program Director to the Dean, and Center Directors to the Dean and Department Chairs. Following the presentation, reviewers have the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback. In all cases, the principal reviewer may choose to involve others in the review process as appropriate.
The annual letter and presentations should address the following:
- What are the main priorities and activities of the unit?
- In what ways is the unit adding value to BUSPH (both quantitative and qualitative)? Please highlight accomplishments that are unlikely to have happened were it not for the contributions of the unit. This is the key question that will be asked for all Directors, i.e., how does the School benefit from the unit over and above the work that would have occurred in the absence of the unit? Please quantify the benefits to the extent possible.
- How is the unit helping to bridge interdisciplinary gaps and facilitate new interdisciplinary work?
- How has the unit enhanced our educational programs?
- What are some of the key challenges faced by the unit in the past year?
- Please summarize the activities of the faculty, staff, and students who engaged with the unit during the past year, both within SPH and throughout BU.
- Please summarize how unit finances were used during the past year.
- Please describe the unit’s plan for the coming year, including top prioritizes, key opportunities, and anticipated challenges.
Decisions
Decisions
Following the annual review, the principal reviewer (i.e., Department Chair or Dean) will provide each Director with an annual letter that includes:
- A summary of feedback from the review;
- Any recommendations meant to enhance the functioning and development of the unit; and
- An assessment of the unit’s finances and administration.
If the unit is in the final year of the current term (annual for Labs, biannual for Programs, triannual for Centers), the letter will also indicate whether the unit is renewed for another term. If the unit is not renewed, the unit Director may make a written appeal within 30 days to the Chair (for Labs) or to the Dean (for Programs and Centers). This appeal, not to exceed 1,000 words, must specify the goals/objectives to be met, what changes will be made to achieve those goals/objectives, and the proposed timeline. The Chair or Dean will issue a written decision to the Director within 30 days. The decision of the Chair or Dean shall be final.
Decisions about funding and renewals for all school-level units is on a fiscal year basis, with funding and renewal being on July 1 of each year.
TTD Units Versus Other Informal Units
TTD Units Versus Other Informal Units
The process above describes the formation and review of TTD units that receive support from the department or school. Separately, faculty often create informal “labs” or “groups” or “teams” that include extramurally funded collaborators. Similarly, there are “programs” and “centers” that are formed due to the availability of external funding specifically to fund such a unit (i.e., mechanisms such as NIH T32s, NIH P01s, targeted development funds). The formation of such groups is encouraged and does not require the process of approval and review described above.