DOCSLIB.ORG

Quality Enhancement Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quality Enhancement Plan Quality Enhancement Plan SACSCOC On-Site Review: March 11-13, 2014 Louisiana State University Quality Enhancement Plan March 2014 Developed by Louisiana State University and A & M College in preparation for reaffirmation of accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Foreword from President and Chancellor of Louisiana State University and A&M College The changing landscape of higher education provides a pivotal opportunity for flagship universities to renew their commitment to student learning. Our Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) will increase students’ opportunities to participate in undergraduate research in ways that significantly advance their knowledge, abilities, and capacity for lifelong learning. The plan transforms student learning by adapting courses and curricula in a manner that takes advantage of the wealth of research activities always in progress at LSU. Development of the high-level skills and abilities associated with effective research ensures their emergence from the baccalaureate experience well prepared for the challenges they will face in the 21st Century workforce. Participation F. King Alexander in undergraduate research will deepen contact with faculty and President and Chancellor reinforce the prospect that students will acquire the ability to expand knowledge, create innovations, and effectively communicate findings. This plan strongly affirms our commitment “to be a leading research- extensive university” that challenges students “to achieve the highest levels of intellectual and personal development.” Many individuals worked tirelessly on this project. The university is indebted to the faculty, students, staff, and administrators who served on The SACSCOC Steering Committee and The QEP team, whose dedicated effort, thoughtful feedback, and creativity resulted in this impressive, promising plan. Thanks are due also for the contributions of numerous others from LSU colleges, departments, and administrative groups, and from private-sector partners. Finally, special recognition is due to the primary authors of this document: QEP team chair, Carol O’Neil; QEP implementation committee members Nancy Clark, Randy Duran, Jori Erdman, Sarah Ferstel, Bobby Matthews, Janet McDonald, Elaine Smyth, and Vince Wilson; and the staff of the Office of Communications & University Relations. As one who greatly benefited from participation in undergraduate research, I am delighted to lead the LSU community in the launch of “LSU Discover.” 1 Louisiana State University QEP Table of Contents Foreword and Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 1 I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 II. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 II.1 Introduction to the University ................................................................................................... 5 II.2 The LSU Faculty ...................................................................................................................... 6 II.3 LSU Students .......................................................................................................................... 7 III. Institutional Process to Identify Key Issues and Select the QEP ........................................... 9 III.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 9 III.2 Assessing Existing Data and Data Collected by the QEP Team to Identify Opportunities to Improve Student Learning ...................................................................................................... 9 III.3 Conferences Attended and Acquisition of Information from External Sources ..................... 16 III.4 Solicitation and Evaluation of Initial and Final Concept Papers ........................................... 16 III.5 Further Assessment of the Final Two Concept Papers ........................................................ 16 III.6 Existing Undergraduate Research Programs at LSU ........................................................... 17 III.7 Focus Groups and Pilot Studies ........................................................................................... 18 IV. LSU Discover SLOs ................................................................................................................... 19 IV.1 Definition of Undergraduate Research ................................................................................. 19 IV.2 SLOs ..................................................................................................................................... 19 IV.3 Primary Methodology for Assessing LSU Discover SLOs: The Digital Response Folio ....... 20 IV.4 Learning E-Portfolio .............................................................................................................. 21 IV.5 SLO5 and the Student’s Digital Self-Representation as Competent Researcher: The Digital Self (exclusive to mentored students and select degree programs) ..................................... 21 IV.6 Overview of QEP Program Activities .................................................................................... 22 V. Literature Review and Best Practices ..................................................................................... 23 V.1 Review of Literature ............................................................................................................... 23 V.2 Best Practices ........................................................................................................................ 25 V.3 Best Practices at Other Institutions ....................................................................................... 26 VI. Actions To Be Implemented...................................................................................................... 27 VI.1 Co-curricular Opportunities .................................................................................................. 27 VI.2 Curricular Transformation ..................................................................................................... 32 VI.3 Mentored Undergraduate Research ..................................................................................... 40 VI.4 LSU Discover: Research Day .............................................................................................. 49 VII. Timeline: A logical calendar of actions to be implemented ................................................... 54 VIII. Project Management ................................................................................................................. 59 IX. Resources .................................................................................................................................. 63 X. LSU Discover Assessment ....................................................................................................... 65 XI. References ................................................................................................................................. 71 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 76 2 Table of Contents TABLES Table II.A LSU’s Vision and Mission Statements and Selected Flagship 2020 Goals ........................................................................ 6 Table III.A Timeline of Selecting the QEP at LSU and Finalizing the Report .................................................................................... 10 Table III.B Results from University Learning Competencies, 2012 ................................................................................................... 12 Table III.C Comparison of LSU First-year and Senior Responses with Carnegie Class Peer Group Responses for Select Questions Related to Undergraduate Research or Skills/Accomplishments for NSSE 2011 .......................................... 13 Table III.D Results from Employer/Advisory Board Survey April, 2013 ............................................................................................. 14 Table III.E Students’ Ranking of What They Think Is Most Important for Faculty to Improve ........................................................... 15 Table III.F Conferences Attended and Information Gathering from External Sources ...................................................................... 16 Table IV.A Overview of LSU Discover Activities ................................................................................................................................ 22 Table V.A LSU Discover Activities Based on Best Practices of Other Institutional Programs ........................................................... 26 Table VI.A.1 Introduction and Awareness Activities .......................................................................................................................... 29 Table VI.A.2 Skill Set/Knowledge-base Building Activities ................................................................................................................ 30 Table VI.A.3 Research Community Cultivation and Networking Activities .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPORT of the TASK FORCE on the FUTURE of UMASS AMHERST
    REPORT of the TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF UMASS AMHERST October 3, 2001 OUTLINE OF THE UMASS AMHERST TASK FORCE REPORT I. THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UMASS AMHERST III. CLASSIFICATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (1994) • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (2000) • The Association of American Universities (AAU) IV. NATIONAL RATINGS OF UMASS AMHERST • US News and World Report • The National Research Council (NRC) • The Association of American Colleges (AAU) • The “Center” at the University of Florida V. FINANCIAL RESOURCES • A Comparison of Fiscal Resources with Peer Institutions • A Comparison of Fiscal Expenditures with Peer Institutions • Investment Decisions and Opportunities • Opportunities for Enhancing Revenue VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Part One THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT The decade of the nineties was a period of significant change — and at times upheaval – for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMA). On several fronts the campus advanced its position as an important center for teaching, research and service to the public: • The Board of Higher Education selected UMass Amherst in 1997 as the home of the statewide honors college — Commonwealth College. The first class was enrolled in 1999. • For the past two years, UMass Amherst has been named one of the institutions offering the best value for the money in the Kaplan/Newsweek college guide, and this year was also listed as a leading school supporting diversity. • The 1995 National Research Council (NRC) ranking of research doctoral programs placed UMass Amherst in the top 25% nationally in Linguistics, Materials Science, Psychology, Computer Sciences, Chemical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Adjustment of Foreign Students in an Institution of Higher Education
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 2000 Cultural Adjustment of Foreign Students in an Institution of Higher Education. Bridget Oscar Udoh Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Udoh, Bridget Oscar, "Cultural Adjustment of Foreign Students in an Institution of Higher Education." (2000). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 7394. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/7394 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • [Thesis Title Goes Here]
    THE EFFECTS OF NETWORKS ON U.S. INSTITUTION SELECTION BY FOREIGN DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty by Zeynep Esra Tanyildiz In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia State University April 2008 Copyright 2008 by Zeynep Esra Tanyildiz THE EFFECTS OF NETWORKS ON U.S. INSTITUION SELECTION BY FOREIGN DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Approved by: Dr. Paula E. Stephan, Advisor Dr. Erdal Tekin Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Andrew Young School of Policy Georgia State University Studies Georgia State University Dr. Gregory B. Lewis Dr. Albert J. Sumell Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Department of Economics Georgia State University Youngstown State University Dr. Mary Frank Fox School of Policy Studies Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: March 22, 2008 To my husband Omer Tanyildiz ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Paula E. Stephan. She directed this dissertation through her unique academic intellect and scientific rigor. Studying under her supervision is an exceptional privilege which I will value all my life. I would like to thank Dr. Gregory B. Lewis for his tremendous amount of help in this dissertation. It is, however, only a small portion of what he has done for me since the beginning of this program. I call him my “academic father” symbolizing my great amount of respect, love and admiration for him. I was very lucky to have an excellent dissertation committee. Dr. Mary Frank Fox provided me with valuable comments, and she has been an inspiration for me in doing research.
    [Show full text]
  • Rising Tuition and Enrollment in Public Higher Education
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Hemelt, Steven W.; Marcotte, Dave E. Working Paper Rising tuition and enrollment in public higher education IZA Discussion Papers, No. 3827 Provided in Cooperation with: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Suggested Citation: Hemelt, Steven W.; Marcotte, Dave E. (2008) : Rising tuition and enrollment in public higher education, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 3827, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20081127560 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/35596 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu IZA DP No. 3827 Rising Tuition and Enrollment in Public Higher Education Steven W.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rubric for Evaluating Organizational Behavior Phd Programs
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones Fall 2011 Seeking Further Education: A Rubric for Evaluating Organizational Behavior PhD Programs Douglas M. Quist University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Education Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, and the Other Business Commons Repository Citation Quist, Douglas M., "Seeking Further Education: A Rubric for Evaluating Organizational Behavior PhD Programs" (2011). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/2532304 This Professional Paper is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Professional Paper in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Professional Paper has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SEEKING FURTHER EDUCATION: A RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PHD PROGRAMS By Douglas M. Quist Bachelor of Arts Brigham Young University 2007 A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Hospitality Administration William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas December, 2011 Chair: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining Scholarship: a Win-Win Proposition for Engineering & Technology
    Session 2248 Redefining Scholarship: A Win-Win Proposition for Engineering & Technology Anthony L. Brizendine, Laora D. Brizendine Fairmont State College, WV Abstract What is scholarship? And what is the difference between research and scholarly activity? Scholarship is defined by Webster as "the methods, discipline, and achievements of a scholar" and as "knowledge resulting from study and research in a field." Given these definitions, it is not surprising that while traditional promotion and tenure criteria include evaluation in the areas of research, teaching and service, the favored path to gaining promotion and tenure at many institutions is the research component of the triumvirate. This paper reviews faculty and administration views on scholarship, tenure and promotion and scholarly work by Diamond, Boyer, Karabell, Miller, Schön, ASCE, ASEE, and others; indeed, most of this paper serves as a review of some of the significant writings in this area in the 1990s. While the authors apologize to those already familiar with the literature, readers unfamiliar with these works should find this background helpful. Scholarship as redefined by E. L. Boyer is discussed extensively. Boyer broadens the definition of scholarship to embrace the scholarship of teaching. Does Boyer’s model of scholarship, as presented in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, represent the correct model for engineering and/or engineering technology? It can be argued that it is this broader definition of scholarship that best serves students, faculty, academe, and society; indeed, scholarship at its highest level involves the process of creative endeavor, integration, application and dissemination. And while we typically think of this process as relating to research, the same process relates to teaching and service as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentives and Disincentives Emilia E
    The Scholarship of Engagement in a Research University: Faculty Incentives and Disincentives Emilia E. Martinez-Brawley Abstract Arizana State University is developing an identity as a "metropolitan research university." Focusing on the ASU Downtown Center (DTC) as a core site for expressing the metropolitan mission, a recent study looked at incentives and disincentives for faculty to become involved in the scholarship of engagement through the DTC. The study findings led to recommended strategies to enhance the metropolitan mission at ASU. Urban and metropolitan universities have become central in ensuring that the citizens of the inner city have access to higher education and that the expertise of universities is used in solving today's complex community challenges (Mulhollan 1995:1). In addition to the traditional commitments to teaching, research, and service, a metropolitan university encourages the scholarship of engagement and provides leadership to regional quality of life. Researchers agree that articulating and fulfilling an urban and metropolitan mission is a major challenge. The varied, and often contradictory, expectations of faculty, administrators, political officials, and the community can inhibit the development of clear missions. The literature is filled with references to the need for urban and metropolitan universities to address the intra­ university debate of research vs. teaching (Englert 1997; Goodall 1970; Greiner 1994 ), but incentives for faculty to add to their traditional campus endeavors are not always in place. At the time of this study (2000-2002), Arizona State University (ASU) had recently achieved the status of Research I university in the existing Carnegie classification. ASU uses a multi-campus system to deliver services and instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Public Health History in Florida: Interview with Laurence G. Branch 44
    Our Public Health History in Florida: Interview with Laurence G. Branch Robert J. McDermott, PhD Laurence G. Branch, PhD became the third Dean of the University of South Florida College of Public Health, and served in that capacity from 2002 to 2003. Before coming to USF he was a Research Professor at Duke University’s Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development (1995-2002), and also the Director of Duke’s MD-MPH Program and Director of its Long-Term Care Research Program. He also has held faculty appointments at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health (1978-1986), at Boston University School of Medicine (1986-1996), and an adjunct appointment at Tufts University School of Medicine (1984-1992). He contributes regularly to the health policy field as evidenced by his more than 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and over 50 book chapters and monographs. He currently is the co-editor of the Journal of Aging and Health. Formerly, he was editor-in-chief of The Gerontologist. He is a member of the editorial boards of two other professional journals, and reviews for several additional scholarly publications. The Gerontological Health Section of the American Public Health Association honored him in 2003 by naming the annual award for best doctoral research, the Laurence G. Branch Student Research Award. Dr. Branch’s research responsibilities past and present include being Director of the Massachusetts Health Care Panel Study (1974-present), Director of the Disability Sub-study of the Framingham Heart Study (1976-1980), and a co-investigator of the East Boston EPESE study for the National Institute on Aging (1982-1989).
    [Show full text]
  • ACADEMIC OPENINGS & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING University of Wisconsin-Madison Seeks Outstanding Individuals with a Ph.D
    and emerging strengths in biosystems engineering, advanced materials including complex fluids, and energy systems. Level of appointment depends on qualifications. Please send resume, list of references, and a research plan to Chair, Faculty Search Committee, Chemical Engineering Department, MS-362, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251- 1892. Rice is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ACADEMIC OPENINGS & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING University of Wisconsin-Madison seeks outstanding individuals with a Ph.D. FACULTY POSITION CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING and a strong background relevant to chemical or biological engineering. Tufts University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in the These tenure track positions will be at a rank commensurate with the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering. The appointment is at qualifications and background of the successful candidates. Candidates the assistant or associate professor rank. The department is looking for should have a distinguished academic record, exceptional potential for candidates with a Ph.D. degree in Chemical Engineering or related field, and creative research, and a commitment to both undergraduate and graduate with excellent qualifications for teaching and scholarship in any of the broad instruction. For more senior applicants, an outstanding reputation in the field areas of biochemical engineering, biomaterials and bioinformatics. of specialty is a prime requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • ELEMENTS the Alumni Magazine of the Department of Chemistry at Virginia Tech
    ELEMENTS The Alumni Magazine of the Department of Chemistry at Virginia Tech From the Department Chair I have never known a building to occupy the top three floors, approximately 40,000 be completed ahead of schedule. I assignable square feet. All student organic have never known organic labs in syntheses will be conducted forthe first time in any building other than Davidson many of the 92 hoods in the building. Three Hall. I have never known Virginia spacious rooms for the Chemistry Learning Tech in the Atlantic Coast Center, one computer classroom, and a large ' Conference. After my 36 years in distance learning facility supplement the residence, things are indeed laboratory space. State funds totaling changing. Virginia Tech will join approximately$ l .6M are available for furniture • Wi.:J.aii.flJJ;tJ.lJ.,�,-;c... the ACC in all sports July 1, 2004. and laboratory equipment. Professor Gary Long The new Chemistry-Physics building will has won a NSF grant to assist in outfitting the What's Inside: accept its initial students Spring, 2004. All analytical chemistry labs. Numerous faculty instructional Chemistry laboratories will be have helped in planning the building. New What'sNew in housed in the same building for the first Chemistry 3 time in over 25 years. Chemistry will (Continued on Page 2) Student News 4 Commentary from tlie _Jldvisory Counci{ FacultyIn The News 5 The Department of Chemistry is now have world-class part of the new College of Science. teaching facilities Spotlight on Chemistry was critical to the mission of that our world­ Research Faculty 7 the old College of Arts and Sciences and class faculty and in the smaller, more focused College of students deserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Enrollment in Colleges and Universities Is Projected to Increase from the 1995 Level of 10
    INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PRIVATE GIVING TO PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS By Ying Liu Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Leadership and Policy Studies May, 2007 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Michael McLendon Professor Will Doyle Professor Karen E. Campbell Professor James C. Hearn Copyright © 2007 by Ying Liu All Rights Reserved ii To my parents, Shimo Liu and Dafang Xiong, Who always love and support me. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe Dr. James C. Hearn, my academic advisor and mentor, my deepest gratitude for his patience, time, advice and constant encouragement throughout my Ph.D. study. It has been a great honor for me to work with Dr. Hearn, a phenomenal scholar with high caliber and noble character. I am especially appreciative of Dr. Hearn for always treating me with great respect and having confidence in me when I doubted myself. I am also indebted to my committee chair, Dr. Michael K. McLendon and other committee members--Dr. William Doyle and Dr. Karen E. Campbell--for their intelligent insights and fresh perspectives on my dissertation. This endeavor would not be successful without their generous guidance. Special recognition and acknowledgment is given to my parents, Shimo Liu and Dafang Xiong, whose enduring love and support provided the impetus for the completion of the degree. They brought me into this world with great courage and perseverance, and instilled in me important values in life: integrity, frugality, fortitude, and empathy toward others.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas February 26-29, 2020 | Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A
    2020 AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas February 26-29, 2020 | Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. www.ahrd.org 1 Ideas & New Connections Welcome from the President On behalf of the Academy of Human Resource Development Board of Directors, I would like to welcome you to the 2020 Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Conference. We are delighted that you are here! This organization is a community of scholars and scholar-practitioners who share a passion for the field of Human Resource Development in all of its dimensions. Over the next three days, there will be a myriad of opportunities for learning, sharing, growth, thinking, discussion, and engagement. Since our last conference, our Board has been hard at work in ways that reflect the requisite governance of a not-for-profit association, and in ways that are intended to help move us forward. We have been considering and developing ways to strengthen the value that members receive; as an example, we have asked our Program Excellence Network (PEN) members to give feedback about what they see as valuable and effective in PEN. We have begun a journey toward intentional and systematic fund development so that we are appropriately resourced, we have continued to consider and develop ways to energize our Special Interest Groups (which I have long believed can be part of the “heartbeat” of AHRD). The Board serves as representatives of our members, so I do hope that you feel comfortable sharing your input during and after the conference. Please join us for the annual business meeting, in which we will present the annual report and in which we will engage synchronously with members to dialog about the organization, and receive input.
    [Show full text]