DELIBERATION PROCESS REVISIONS
Approved in the Academic Council, 24 March 2014
2. DLSU-D RESEARCH PROGRAM: BASIC REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS
2.1. Project Availability
2.1.1.A limited number of research project slots will be available for URO funding every school year.
2.1.2.Colleges with graduate studies shall have six slots each while colleges without graduate studies as well as the sector of faculty without teaching assignments shall have five slots.
2.1.3.The slots are available to be used for regular, commissioned and multi-disciplinary research projects.
2.1.4.A Multi-disciplinary research will take half slot from each of the colleges or sector where the proponentsbelong.
2.1.5.Unused slots will be forfeited and shall not be added to the number of slots available in the following school year.
2.1.6.For the second semester, a college, through a written communication addressed to URO, may let other colleges/sector use the slots that they do not intend to use.The written communication must be submitted to URO one month on or before August 31 of every school year.
2.1.7.Colleges with unused slots will have a one-slot deduction in the following school year.
2.2. Qualification
- Academic Teaching Faculty (ATF), Academic Service Faculty (ASF) and Support Staff (SS) members are qualified to apply for URO-funded research projects.
2.2.2.Proponents of individual or group research projects
2.2.2.1.The principal proponent of an individual or group research project should be a permanent full-time faculty member.
2.2.2.2.A probationary full-time faculty member or permanent support staff may be accepted as co-proponent of the research project. However, the duration of the research grant for probationary full-time faculty should be in consonance with their semestral contract.
2.2.2.3.In meritorious cases, a probationary faculty member may also be considered principal proponent upon recommendation of the department/unit research committee.
2.2.2.4.The overload pay shall only be released to the probationary full-time faculty member or support staff after all pertinent documents and/or requirements have been submitted to the URO as stipulated in the contract.
2.2.2.5.Part-time faculty members may qualify as co-proponent. However, the duration of the research grant shall be in consonance with their semestral contract. The overload pay shall only be released to the part-time faculty member after all pertinent documents and/or requirements have been submitted to the URO as stipulated in the contract.
2.2.2.6.Part-time faculty members may also be the main proponent of a research project under the following conditions:
2.2.2.6.1.The research proposal will undergo the same process of proposal and budget deliberation as stipulated in the URO guidelines.
2.2.2.6.2.The research expenses shall be shouldered by the researcher until the project is completed. Upon completion of the research project, the researcher can request the reimbursement of all expenses incurred.
2.2.2.6.3.The research shall become the property of the university upon the reimbursement of the expenses incurred and shall not be used in other universities, for whatever purpose, without the permission of the university as its owner.
2.3. Types of Research Proposals
2.3.1.Basic research involves experimental or theoretical work undertaken to acquire new knowledge without particular or specific application in use [adopted from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Guidelines for Research].
2.3.2.Applied research involves an original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge toward a specific and practical aim or objective [adopted from the DOST Guidelines for Research].
2.3.3.Action research is the application of fact finding to practical problems solving with a view to improve the quality of action within it, involving the collaboration and co-operation of researchers, practitioners, and laymen. Wallace (1998) explains how teachers (rather than outside researchers) carry out action research “by systematically collecting data on everyday classroom practice and analyzing it in order to come to some decisions about what the future practice should be.”
2.3.4.Instructional materials development involves materials that facilitate learning in the classroom which include textbooks, workbooks, modules, etc.
2.4. Submission of Proposals
2.4.1.The deadlines for research proposal submission are every April 30 for the first semester implementation and every September 30 for the second semester implementation. Research proposals submitted beyond the prescribed deadline set by the URO shall be considered for deliberation in the ensuing semester.
2.5. General Guidelines and Policies
2.5.1.The research project should operate within the research thrusts of the institution and of the Cavite Development Research Program (CDRP).
2.5.2.The proponent/s should observe all the terms/conditions set in the Grantees Agreement Form.
2.5.3.The researcher shall not be allowed to apply for URO research funding unless his/her current research project is published in journals that meets any category recognized by URO (see publication criteria and incentive guidelines). The researcher shall not be allowed to apply for another URO funding until his/her recent URO-funded research is published or accepted for publication.
2.5.4.A proponent may be allowed to participate in two internally-funded research projects at the same time; however, the proponent may be the main proponent in only one of the two projects. The projects could be a combination of any of the following: (a) regular research project/ instructional materials development, (b) commissioned research project, and (c) special research project.
3. RESEARCH PROPOSAL DELIBERATION
3.1. For Academic Teaching Faculty (ATF)
3.1.1.The URO shall issue a memo on the submission and deliberation of research proposals for URO-funded research projects and Sabbatical Leave Research Projects. Faculty members who would like to apply for a university research project should fill out the proper research project form available at the URO. To be attached to the form is the research proposal for further evaluation of the Department Research Committee.
3.1.2.The project proposal should be submitted to the Research Committee head of the department where the faculty belongs.
3.1.3.The Department Research Coordinator (DRC) shall forward the proposal to the College Research Coordinator. The College Research Coordinator (CRC) will convene the College Dean, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies Director, Department Head, Department Research Coordinator, College Ethics Review Coordinator, two internal evaluators and other faculty members who the college deems as experts in the topics concerned to deliberate the proposal. During the deliberation, it is imperative that the research proponent should be present to answer the questions from the committee members.
3.1.4.The deliberation in the college level should be documented (with minutes taken by the DRC). Minutes will be kept by the college for reference purposes.
3.1.5.The college research committee members shall recommend the proposal for approval by signing in the appropriate forms provided by the URO.
3.1.6.After the evaluation, if the committee finds the proposal relevant and worthy of pursuing, it shall then forward the revised research proposal to the URO for the IRDC budget deliberation, which is composed of the URO director and coordinators, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research, Cavite Studies Center Director. The proposal is worthy if it is in line with the university research thrusts.
3.1.7.The proposal may be accepted or rejected by URO depending on the following:
3.1.7.1.availability of budget;
3.1.7.2.whether the faculty is in good standing;
3.1.7.3.whether the research is relevant to CDRP; and
3.1.7.4.whether the research is a duplication of what has been done.
3.2. For Academic Service Faculty (ASF)
3.2.1.Academic Service Faculty (ASF) members who intend to submit a research proposal for funding to URO will undergo the same research proposal deliberation process for Academic Teaching Faculty (ATF).
3.2.2.The committee is composed of the following:
3.2.2.1.Unit Head
3.2.2.2.Two (2) ASF in the unit (who are experts in the topic concerned)
3.2.2.3.Academic Service Research Committee Coordinator (ASRCC)
3.2.2.4.Academic Service Institutional Ethics Review Coordinator
3.2.2.5.Faculty members who are experts in the topic concerned
3.2.3.For small units, the ASRC Coordinator can invite ATF from other departments or ASF from other units who are considered knowledgeable or expert in the topic to be deliberated.
5. EVALUATION OF FINAL RESEARCH OUTPUT
5.1.All preliminary results/on-going analysis of research projects must be presented in a departmental or collegiate lounge lecture before the completion of the final research output.
5.2.All final research outputs should undergo evaluation of an external evaluator who is an expert in the field.
5.3.After the external evaluation of the research output, the URO forwards a copy of the evaluation report to the proponent of the research. The recommendations of the external evaluator should be incorporated in the research output.
5.4.The revised paper must be returned to the URO after ten (10) working days. Should the researcher fail to comply, he is compelled to submit a letter of explanation.
5.5.The external evaluator, after checking the revised paper and ascertaining that all corrections had been made, issues a certification to the URO certifying that all recommendations/comments were followed.
5.6.If the research paper is rated poor, it will be submitted to a second external evaluator.
5.7.If the rating after the second external evaluation is still poor, the research project is therefore shelved. In this event, the researcher:
5.7.1.will not be allowed to present the research output at any research forums.
5.7.2.will not be allowed to publish the research work at any professional or refereed journal.
5.7.3.will not be allowed to use the research work for promotion purposes.
5.7.4.should pay back for deloading.
5.7.5.will not receive overload compensation and will not be allowed to submit another research for URO-funding for one school year.
5.7.6.should pay twenty percent (20%) of the actual research expense. The amount should be paid within the maximum duration of one (1) year.
9. SABBATICAL RESEARCH PROJECTS
9.1.Faculty members who intend to file a sabbatical research must submit their research proposals to theirrespective Department Research Committee (DRC) Heads and must closely observe the schedule of deliberation of research proposals for second semester implementation, which is in October of every year. The proposals, once approved, may already be used as an attachment to the letter of intention to file a sabbatical research that must be submitted to their respective department heads six (6) months before the intended date of leave.
9.2.The budget deliberation then follows at the Institutional Research Deliberation Committee (IRDC) level. Likewise, the research proposal should be geared towards the research thrusts of the University.
9.3.Faculty members who apply for a sabbatical research must not have an on-goingURO-funded research.
9.4.Faculty members who apply for a sabbatical research will undergo the same procedures for applying for a regular research and must finish their approved research within the sabbatical period.
9.5.Faculty members with an approved sabbatical research must submit a quarterly progress report to the URO.
9.6.Faculty members with approved sabbatical research will follow all the policies /guidelines set forth byURO.
9.7.Faculty members with sabbatical research must submit their manuscript to URO for the facilitation of external evaluation.
9.8.Faculty members with a completed sabbatical research must present their research in a forum sponsored byURO before they may be allowed to submit a proposal for URO-funding. Researchers are encouraged to publish their research in a reputable refereed journal.
9.9.Faculty members who failed to complete their research projects within the sabbatical period are required to pay for the research expenses incurred subject to the policy of URO on terminated projects.
18. GUIDELINES FOR DISSERTATION GRANTS
18.1. Purpose:
The aim of the grant is to provide financial assistance in the completion of PhD dissertation of De La Salle University-Dasmariñas faculty and personnel. The research grant supports dissertation in any academic discipline in line with the Cavite Development Research Program (CDRP) and the Institutional Research Thrusts (IRT).
18.2. Availability:
A maximum of three grants will be given annually.
18.3. Eligibility:
18.3.1. The grant is open to full-time permanent DLSU-D faculty or personnel and DLSU-D graduate studies students who meet the following requirements:
18.3.1.1. Must be 55 years of age or less
18.3.1.2. Must have completed academic requirements and passed the comprehensive examination.
18.3.1.3. Must have an approved thesis proposal on the stated research areas of the CDRP and IRT
18.3.1.4.Must have a general average of at least 3.25 or equivalent in all courses leading to the graduate degree applied for
18.3.1.5.Must not have availed the dissertation leave of DLSU-D as provided by the faculty manual or any other scholarship or grant from other funding institutions.
18.4.Entitlement:
The maximum grant is P50,000.00. No additional funding shall be awarded beyond the approved duration of the grant.The grant for dissertation shall be released in full upon signing of the contract.
18.5. Scope of the grant:
The duration of the grant is a maximum of one (1) year that starts at the date of the signing of the contract.
18.6.Obligations:
18.6.1.The grantee shall sign a contract with the University Research Office (URO).
18.6.2.The grantee shall submit a final statement of expenses with the pertinent documents for liquidation purposes.
18.6.3.The grantee shall bear the expenses in excess of the research grant.
18.6.4.The grantee, should he/she fail to finish the dissertation during the approved period of completion, must reimburse all expenses incurred by the URO in relation to the grant with 10% interest per annum.
18.6.5.At the end of the grant, the grantee shall submit the following:
18.6.5.1.Approval sheet of the PhD dissertation issued by the college that will award the graduate degree
18.6.5.2.Electronic copy of dissertation in PDF in a CD, flash disk, or through e-mail.
18.6.6.The grantee shall present the completed dissertation in a colloquium in the college, department or unit where the nominee is affiliated.
18.6.7.The grantee shall invite a representative from URO to be part of the audience in his/her final defense.
18.7.Procedure:
18.7.1.Applicants shall submit two (2) copies of the following documents:
18.7.1.1. Accomplished application form
18.7.1.2.The approved dissertation proposal with a one-page abstract
18.7.1.3.Recommendation letter from the thesis adviser
18.7.1.4.Endorsement letter from the applicant’s GS dean/director
18.7.1.5.Photocopy of the enrollment/registration form
18.7.2.All applications, which are recommended by the Graduate School (GS) where the applicant is enrolled, shall be received by the URO before the start of each term/semester in time for getting the grants at the start of the next term/semester.
18.7.3.All applications will only be processed by the Institutional Research Deliberation Committee (IRDC)if the documentary requirements are complete and submitted on or before the scheduled period of submission.
18.7.4.Applications will be processed in a first come first serve basis. The decision of the IRDC is final.
18.7.5.The chair of the IRDC shall formally inform the nominee once his/her application is approved.