UCSD General Campus Organized Research Unit Policy and Procedures

August 1999

This document can also be viewed in Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats. (You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDF file.)

Table of Contents

1. Purpose & Definition of ORUs
2. Directors, Committees, and Memberships
3. Budget & Personnel
4. Procedure for Establishment
1. Proposal
2. Review Process
5. Annual Reports
6. Five-Year Reviews
1. Review Process
2. ORU Profile
3. Report of the Five-Year Review Committee
7. Sunset Reviews
1. Review Process
2. ORU Proposal for Continuation
3. Report of the Sunset Review Committee
8. Procedure for Disestablishment
9. Procedure for Name Change

I. Purpose and Definition of ORUs

An Organized Research Unit (ORU) is an academic unit the University has established to provide a supportive infrastructure for interdisciplinary research complementary to the academic goals of departments of instruction and research. The functions of an ORU are to facilitate research and research collaborations; disseminate research results through research conferences, meetings and other activities; strengthen graduate and undergraduate education by providing students with training opportunities and access to facilities; seek extramural research funds; and carry out university and public service programs related to the ORU's research expertise. An ORU may not offer degree programs or formal courses for credit for students of the University or for the public.

A Directory of Organized Research Units in the University of California is maintained and periodically issued by the University of California Office of the President. The UCSD General Catalog includes descriptions of UCSD organized research units. It is important to distinguish between formally established ORUs and other units of a less formal character. Other units such as special libraries, hospitals, clinics, art galleries, museums, and departmental laboratories are not ORUs unless they have been officially approved as such even though they may resemble ORUs in some respects. In the solicitation of extramural funds for a research project by a unit that has not been granted ORU status, care should be taken not to use terminology nor make representations which suggest that the proposing unit is in fact a University-approved ORU or is about to become one. The designations enumerated in the following paragraphs shall not be used as formal labels for units that are not ORUs. If a unit is likely to evolve into an ORU after a trial period of operation, the possibility should be mentioned at a suitable stage in the planning; in such a case, the designation "Project" is suitable.

Organized Research Units normally carry the designation "Institute", "Laboratory", or "Center", but other titles may be employed in particular situations. An ORU that covers a broad research area may in turn contain other more specialized units; for instance, an Institute may comprise several Centers, or a Station may comprise several Facilities. It is recognized that some long-established units have designations that do not conform to the definitions that follow (some Centers are rather like Institutes in their activities) and some have widely known names such as "Bureau", "Division", "Foundation" or "Organization". However, insofar as possible, designations of new units shall be taken from those defined below.

Institute: a major unit that coordinates and promotes faculty and student research on a continuing basis over an area so wide that it extends across department, school or college, and perhaps even campus boundaries. The unit may also engage in public-service activities stemming from its research program, within the limits of its stated objectives.

Laboratory: a nondepartmental organization that establishes and maintains facilities for research in several departments. Laboratories in which substantially all participating faculty members are from the same academic department is a departmental laboratory and is not an ORU.

Center: a unit, sometimes one of several forming an Institute, that furthers research in a designated field; or a unit engaged primarily in providing research facilities for other units and departments.

Station: a unit that provides physical facilities for interdepartmental research in a broad area (e.g., agriculture), sometimes housing other units and serving several campuses. The terms "Facility" or "Observatory" may be used to define units similar in function but with more narrow interests.

MRU (Multicampus Research Unit): this category includes (1) all units with facilities and personnel on two or more campuses or locations associated with them, and (2) all units with facilities at a single location on or near one of the campuses if the participation of faculty or staff from other campuses is so extensive as to give such a unit a Universitywide character. Policies and procedures for MRUs, which may be found in the "University of California Administrative Policies and Procedures concerning Organized Research Units" prepared by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, 4/21/97.

Back to Table of Contents

II. Directors, Committees, and Memberships

1. Director

   Each ORU is headed by a Director who is a tenured member of the faculty and who may receive an administrative stipend in addition to faculty salary, except that a faculty member who already earns such a stipend through another appointment (e.g., as Associate Dean/s) may not receive a second stipend. Such dual administrative responsibilities should be avoided.

   The Director of an ORU is appointed by and reports to the Vice Chancellor for Research. The founding Director of an ORU may be specified in the proposal to establish the ORU. When the appointment of a new Director is for an existing unit, the Vice Chancellor for Research shall be advised by a search committee appointed from a slate of nominations by the Academic Senate.

2. Advisory and Executive Committees

   The Director is aided by a standing Advisory or Executive Committee, chaired by a faculty member other than the Director. The committee should meet at least three times a year, participate actively in setting the unit's goals, determine criteria for membership in the ORU, recommend changes in the unit's membership, advise the Director on major decisions affecting the unit, such as appointments and promotions of research scientists/scholars, submission of major contract and grant proposals, and should critically evaluate the unit's effectiveness on a continuing basis. The Chair of the Advisory or Executive Committee, and as many other members as practical, should meet with five-year and sunset review committees (see Sections VI and VII) and otherwise be available for consultation by five-year and sunset review committees during the course of their review.

   The Advisory Committee is made up predominantly of faculty members of the ORU, but may include some members in the professional research series and may have some members from outside the ORU and the University. The Advisory Committee is appointed by the Vice Chancellor for Research. The charge to the committee and its functions, membership, terms of service, and reporting requirements are determined by the Vice Chancellor for Research.

   ORUs have the option of also appointing external advisory committees, which may meet on an annual basis to review past activities and future plans of the ORU.

3. Membership

   ORUs may have one or more of the following types of membership. Membership criteria are determined by the ORU's Advisory or Executive Committee.

   1. Full members: active UCSD faculty (including adjunct professors) and research and project scientists/scholars.
   2. Associate members: faculty and academic researchers from other universities, non-profit research institutes, and federal laboratories who are collaborators on research projects of the ORU.
   3. Academic affiliates: researchers from UCSD, other universities, non-profit research institutes, and federal laboratories who are interested in the activities of the ORU, but are not collaborating on the ORU's research projects.
   4. Industrial affiliates: companies with an interest in the ORU's activities. Typically the companies pay an annual membership fee and gain defined privileges.

Back to Table of Contents

III. Budget and Personnel

In recognition of the role played by ORUs in the educational process, ORUs are given a budget for the unit's core administrative expenses. These funds may be used for staff salaries, supplies and expenses, equipment and facilities, and general assistance.

All permanent positions—professional, technical, administrative, or clerical—may be established and filled, regardless of the availability of funds, only after specific review and authorization of the proposed positions and of the candidates for them in accordance with University policies and procedures.

Back to Table of Contents

IV. Procedure for Establishment

An Organized Research Unit (ORU) is established by the Chancellor acting upon the recommendation of the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Research, who, in turn, seeks the advice of the Academic Senate and appropriate Dean/s, department chairs, and others.

1. Proposal

   At an early stage, the proposed ORU's core faculty are encouraged to consult with the Vice Chancellor for Research and with department chairs and Dean/s. In developing a proposal, the center's faculty should address the following:

   1. The ORU's goals and objectives.
   2. The proposed research, educational and public service activities.
   3. A discussion of the added value and capabilities that will be brought by the new ORU and an explanation of why they cannot be achieved within existing campus academic units.
   4. Impact on existing academic programs and units.
   5. Names of faculty members who have agreed in writing to participate in the center's activities.
   6. Name of the proposed director, who will be a tenured faculty member.
   7. Role of advisory or executive committee and proposed membership for first year.
   8. Projected numbers of faculty members, graduate students, professional research appointees, and other personnel that will participate in the center's activities.
   9. Resource needs and anticipated sources of funding for the first five years.
   10. Immediate space needs and how they will be met for the first year; realistic projections of future space needs.



2. Review Process

   1. If there are issues of importance to the University that will need to be addressed, these should be called to the attention of the administration and the Academic Senate at an early stage.
   2. The group of proposing faculty submits the proposal to the Vice Chancellor for Research.
   3. The Vice Chancellor reviews the proposal and consults with the SVCAA and appropriate Dean/s and department chairs. If the proposal receives favorable administrative review, the Vice Chancellor submits the proposal to the Chair of the Academic Senate for review with a cover letter that includes the following:
   1. recommendation about the director, advisory committee, and appropriate campus reporting relationship;
   2. the campus commitment of funds, space, and other resources for the center.
   4. After review by the appropriate Senate committees, the Chair of the Academic Senate transmits their recommendations to the Vice Chancellor.
   5. If the Academic Senate recommends approval and upon the recommendation of the Senior Vice Chancellor-AcademicAffairs and Vice Chancellor for Research, the Chancellor establishes the Organized Research Unit.

Back to Table of Contents

V. Annual Reports

By November 1 of each year, each ORU submits a report on the ORU's activities for the past fiscal year to the Vice Chancellor for Research, with copies to the Chancellor, Academic Senate, and other appropriate administrative officers. The Chair of the Advisory or Executive Committee is to be consulted in the preparation of the report. The report is to include the following:

1. Brief summary of major activities during the past year.
2. Names of persons serving on the unit's executive and advisory committees.
3. Names of faculty members actively engaged in the unit's research or its supervision.
4. Names of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers directly contributing to the unit who (a) are on the unit's payroll, (b) participate—through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships, or (c) are otherwise involved in the unit's work.
5. Extent of student and faculty participation from other campuses or universities.
6. Numbers and FTE of academic research personnel, technical staff, and administrative personnel who are paid through the unit's accounts.
7. List of publications issued by the unit, including books, journal articles, and reports and reprints issued under its own covers, showing author, title, press run, and production costs.
8. Sources and amounts (on an annual basis) of income including contracts and grants, gifts, University support, service agreements, and income from the sale of publications and from other services.
9. Expenditures from all sources of support funds, distinguishing use of funds for administrative support, direct research, and other specified uses.
10. Description and amount of space currently occupied.
11. Any other information deemed relevant to documentation of an ORU's achievements.

Back to Table of Contents

VI. Five-Year Reviews

Each ORU is reviewed at intervals of five-years or less, and no ORU may be continued without periodic review. The review considers the ORUs original goals, present functioning, future plans, and continuing development. The unit is reviewed to ascertain whether it is functioning in a manner that justifies the space and support it receives. Its success in meeting previously established objectives and plans to meet new challenges also are examined. The effectiveness of the ORU Director likewise is reviewed at the same time as the ORU. Failings in any area should be discussed in the report.

1. Review Process

   The review is coordinated by the Vice Chancellor for Research.

   1. The ORU Director prepares a profile covering the ORU's mission and history, resources, staff, research activities, and administration, as outlined in Section VI.B., "Report of the ORU Director". After review by the Advisory Committee, the materials are forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Research.
   2. The Vice Chancellor for Research appoints a review committee from a slate nominated by the Academic Senate.
   3. The review committee examines the materials provided to them about activities and accomplishments of the ORU, including annual reports covering the five-year period under review; interviews the ORU Director, Advisory Committee members, associated faculty, the appropriate divisional Dean/s, and other individuals deemed pertinent to the review, including non-UCSD researchers in the field; tours the ORU's physical facilities; and prepares a report of its findings according to the format in the Section VI.C.
   4. The Vice Chancellor for Research forwards the report to the Director, the SVCAA and the divisional Dean/s and meets soon thereafter with the Director to discuss the report.
   5. The Director distributes the report to, and prepares a written response to the review report after consulting with, members of the ORU and the ORU Advisory Committee.
   6. The Vice Chancellor for Research forwards the Director's response to the SVCAA and the divisional Dean/s.
   7. The Vice Chancellor for Research forwards the report of the review committee and the Director's response to the Academic Senate who forwards it to the appropriate committees for review. These may include the Graduate Council and the Committee on Research.
   8. The Academic Senate committees review the report and the Director's response and make recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Research.
   9. The ORU Director, Vice Chancellor for Research, Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs, and the Dean/s of the cognizant Division meet to discuss the report and future plans for the ORU.
   10. The Vice Chancellor for Research prepares a summary report of the review and recommendations regarding continuation, the directorship, and other matters raised in the review, and submits them to the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs and the ORU Director.
   11. The Senior Vice Chancellor makes a decision concerning continuation of the ORU and reappointment of the Director.



2. ORU Profile

   1. ORU Overview

   Brief, concise statement detailing the history of the ORU, its mission, its scope, and its relationship with academic departments on the campus, achievements, and plans for the future.

   2. Academic and Public Service

   For the period since the last review list:

   1. UCSD faculty who were members of the ORU, including their departments and dates of affiliations.
   2. UCSD professional researchers who have appointments in the ORU, including appointment dates.
   3. Names, home universities, and dates at UCSD of all visitors during the last five-years, whether supported by ORU funds or not. [Short-term visitors may, but need, not be included.]
   4. Description of seminar, lecture, and conference programs.
   5. Listing of all publications that have appeared under the auspices of the ORU.
   6. Direct and indirect contributions of the ORU to graduate or undergraduate teaching programs in the University. Include the names of graduate students, postdocs, their advisers, dates of association with the ORU, and, for graduate students, their department and PhD conferral date.

   7. Description of any university-industry activities.

   3. Administration

   For the period being reviewed, provide lists of the:

   1. Directors, Acting Directors, and Associate Directors, including tenure of appointments.

   2. Members of Executive and Advisory Committees, including members' titles, committee positions, departments, and dates of membership.

   4. Physical Facilities and Space

   Description of the physical facilities housing the ORU, including type of space (laboratories, seminar rooms, professional research staff offices, administrative offices, etc.), assignable square footage, and location.

   5. Financial data

   1. All income received by the ORU for each fiscal year since it was last reviewed from:

   1. federal grants and contracts;
   2. sources such as foundations and private gifts;

   3. UCSD and other UC-derived funds.

   2. Expenditures for personnel in both FTE and dollars for each fiscal year since the last review:

   1. research personnel listed by title (Professor, Associate Research Physicist, Specialists, Visiting Scholar, etc.);
   2. graduate students;
   3. technical staff by title (Development Engineer, SRA, Computer Programmer, etc.);
   4. administrative staff by title (MSO, Accountant, Secretary, etc.);
   5. equipment purchases;
   6. supplies and expense.



3. Report of the Five-Year Review Committee

   In order to insure completeness and expeditious review, it is recommended that the review committee's report follows the standardized outline set forth below.

   1. Procedures followed by the review committee.

   2. Research

   1. The quality of research accomplished and in progress.
   2. The accomplishment of the objectives as stated in the research mission of the ORU, the evaluation of changes in direction of research and their impact.
   3. The benefit of the unit's research to other departments of instruction and research, including faculty and student personnel engaged in research within ORU.
   4. The quality of faculty and other research staff associated with the ORU.
   5. The reputation of the research unit and comparison with other similar units at other institutions.
   6. Publications issued by the unit, including reports and reprints in its own covers as well as published material. Publications in progress and in the developmental stages should be considered as well as doctoral dissertations of graduate students.

   7. The interdisciplinary nature of the unit's research efforts, if appropriate.

   3. Graduate, Postdoctoral, and Undergraduate Education

   1. Direct or indirect contributions of the ORU to graduate and undergraduate teaching programs of academic departments of the University. This includes participation in regular courses and seminars of academic departments, supervision of independent research and dissertations, and group study by members of the ORU who are not regular faculty members: visiting scholars, professional researchers, advanced graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, etc.
   2. The degree to which graduate students and postdoctoral scholars participate in the ORU's activities through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships.
   3. Administrative support to graduate studies, to include that provided for both doctoral and postdoctoral training.

   4. The sponsorship of internships with or without credit for graduate or undergraduate students or postdoctoral scholars.

   4. Impact on the Campus

   1. The relationship of the ORU to campus departments in the same or similar disciplinary areas.
   2. Evidence, if any, that the existence of the ORU is a factor in attracting faculty or students to the university.
   3. Other possible effects of the ORU on campus departments.

   4. Advantages and disadvantages to the University which might reasonably be expected to occur if the unit is discontinued.

   5. Public Service

   1. Contributions in the form of lectures, tours, visiting groups, and conferences.
   2. Additional services, such as distribution of research information; recognition by non-University groups or governmental agencies.
   3. Interaction with similar units or research in other places.
   4. Evidence of the direct, tangible impact of the activities of the ORU on the public at large.

   5. Interactions with industry.

   6. Administration

   1. Evidence of leadership of Director: guiding ORU into new areas, new funding sources, providing facilities, overseeing administrative activities.
   2. Effectiveness of Advisory or Executive Committee.

   3. Satisfaction of ORU members.

   7. Resources

   Adequacy of funding, equipment, and space.

   8. Recommendations

   The report should speak to the positive as well as the negative aspects of the committee's findings. Good work needs the reinforcement of recognition, but the committee may wish to recommend changes in organization and policy, or recommend disestablishment of the ORU if it no longer seems to be filling a need or if it seems unable to maintain an adequate level of activity.

   Justification for continuation of an ORU must be documented carefully. The review committees should consider and make specific recommendations on the following range of alternatives to the status quo: a change in funding from state or University resources (recognizing that the overall money the campus can provide is very limited); a change in other resources (such as FTE, space, etc.); a change in the mission of the unit; a merger of the unit with one or more units on the same or another campus; discontinuance of the unit.

   Directors of ORU's are normally appointed for five-year terms, the appointment period coinciding with the ORU review period. Except in extraordinary circumstances, directors are limited to ten years of continuous service. The review committee should look critically at the stewardship of the organization and comment on its quality. The committee may recommend that the present director be reappointed or recommend a change in governance or personnel.

   In this section the review committee should include any other suggested changes for improvement in policy or activities.

   The review committee may, if it thinks appropriate, prepare a confidential statement to the Vice Chancellor for Research. It may also provide the Vice Chancellor for Research with confidential letters received from individuals during the review process.

Back to Table of Contents

VII. Sunset Reviews

The lifespan of an ORU cannot extend beyond fifteen years without it submitting a formal proposal for continued ORU status, support funds, and space in the context of the University's needs and resources at the time. The ORU may not be continued beyond this sunset period without approval of the Chancellor.

All ORUs must establish a rationale for continuance, in terms of scholarly or scientific merit and campus priorities, at 15-year intervals. Sunset reviews are carried out at the same time as, and in place of, regularly scheduled five-year reviews.

1. Review Process

   The sunset review procedures are the same as those for 5-year reviews in Section VI.A. with one exception: the Vice Chancellor for Research has the option to appoint one or more external members to the review committee.

2. ORU Proposal for Continuation

   To begin a sunset review, an ORU shall develop a formal proposal for continuation of ORU status, support funds, and space in the context of current campus and University needs and resources. The sunset review proposal shall include the following:

   1. The ORU's goals and objectives.
   2. The ORU's history and accomplishments over the past five years.
   3. The added value and capabilities that the ORU has brought to the campus, which would have been difficult to achieve within existing campus structures.
   4. The ORU's impact on existing academic programs and units, including the benefits to the teaching programs of the participating faculty members' departments.
   5. The ORU's proposed research, educational, and public service activities for the next five years.
   6. Names of faculty who have agreed to participate in the ORU's activities over the next five years.
   7. The ORU's space needs for the next five years.
   8. The ORU's resource needs and anticipated sources of funding over the next five years.

   9. A persuasive rationale for the ORU's continuation and the consequences if the ORU were not continued.

   Plus items 2-5 from Section VI.B. Five-Year Reviews, ORU Profile (pages 8-9)

3. Report of the Sunset Review Committee

   The report of the sunset review committee follows the same format as the 5-year review report, Section VI.C. (pages 10-11)

Back to Table of Contents

VIII. Procedure for Disestablishment

1. The five-year and sunset review committees recommend, among other recommendations, continuation or disestablishment of the ORU. In addition, an ad hoc review committee or an ORU director with the ORU's advisory committee may recommend disestablishment.

2. A recommendation to disestablish receives careful review by the ORU director, ORU advisory committee, Academic Senate committees, chairs of departments and directors of other ORUs that would be affected by the disestablishment, relevant Dean/s, the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs, and the Vice Chancellor for Research.

3. After reviewing comments from all of the committees and individuals listed in VIII.B above and if the Vice Chancellor for Research determines that disestablishment is the best course of action, then the Vice Chancellor for Research recommends such disestablishment to the Chancellor via the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs.

4. The Chancellor issues a letter formally disestablishing the ORU.

5. A phase-out period lasting from a few months up to two years is provided to permit orderly transfer or termination of non-faculty personnel, grants, financial accounts, and programs.

6. University funding for the ORU reverts to the Vice Chancellor for Research. Space assigned to the ORU reverts to the space bank of the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs.

Back to Table of Contents

IX. Procedure for Name Change

The request for a new name usually reflects new directions in the interdisciplinary research sponsored by the unit, the expansion or addition of new knowledge or fields of research to the unit's mission, or the institutionalization of new methodologies of study.

1. The Director of the ORU, after consulting with the ORU's advisory or executive committee, prepares a proposal describing the rationale for requesting a new name for the unit and submits the proposal to the Vice Chancellor for Research.The Vice Chancellor for Research submits the name change proposal to the Academic Senate and appropriate campus administrators for review and comment.

2. After review and approval by the Senate and appropriate campus administrators, the Vice Chancellor for Research recommends the name change to the Chancellor via the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs.

3. The Chancellor issues a letter formally approving the name change.

Back to Table of Contents