2002-04-27: Spring 2002

Meeting Minutes April 27, 2002

Student Union Board
Room

CSU San Bernardino

 

Present: Elliott
Barkan (Chair), Chris Bettinger, Nan Chico, Don Dixon, Jon Ebeling, Jae Emenhiser,
Jim Gerber, Phil Gianos, Kanghu Hsu, Jon Korey, Ed Nelson, Paul O'Brien, Jim
Ross, Richard Serpe, Dick Shaffer, Rich Taketa, Gene Turner, Tony Hernandez
(SSDBA), Mike McLean (Chancelor's Office)

 

Meeting called to order at 9:30. A membership list was
distributed for updates and several number changes were noted for the next
update.

 

MSP to approve
minutes of winter meeting.

 

1. Review of Spring
Student Conference

 

Student
Award Winners:



                        Betty
Nesvold Grad paper: Kathy
Stephens, CSUSB;

                        Charles
McCall Undergrad paper: Jill
Messing, CSUSB

 

Barkan
said there were 17 participants and that ten came from San Bernardino. Ebeling
asked that if posters were being allowed, how

would
they be judged relative to orally presented papers. Barkan noted that only one
poster was submitted this time and the student

made an
oral presentation on the topic as well.

 

Nelson
noted there were no papers qualified for the Rummell's Award and so no winner.
Barkan replied that there has been an overall

decline
in quantitative papers, and so we might want to try to change this trend.
Perhaps we could place a comment in our conference

brochures
that submissions of papers derived from quantitative data analysis are
encouraged. Ross commented that he has always

had the
best response by personally contacting professors teaching methods classes. It
might be helpful to compile a list of such

people
and contact them in advance of our student conference. Ebeling said he has
always heard very positive feedback from

students
after they have presented papers at the conference. We could have past
presenters talk to students back on their campuses

or we
could put some student commentary on our web site to encourage future
participants. We also might distribute a SSRIC

newsletter
featuring the conference next fall. Nelson added that we might contact other
groups such as BICC, the GIS specialty center,

and
student social science groups to increase awareness.

 

Another
issue is the last-minute commitment of students to attend the conference. While
students now seem to not want to commit to

anything
and many say they are too busy to participate in the conference, there are some
other issues including the CSU student

competition
a week later than ours and the costs of attending. While there are funds for
student support through campus student

associations
and from deans, access and award of these monies requires considerable advance
planning.

 

Overall
the Council felt that this Spring Student Conference was a success and Elliott
Barkan was congratulated for his hard work.

 


clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>

2. ICPSR Summer
Program

Ebeling
distributed a memo outlining requests for funding from two people to attend
this summer's conference. The first was from Dr.

Diane
Schmidt, professor of political science at CSU Chico. She requested funding to
attend a five-day course on network analysis

and a
second five-day course on categorical data analysis. The second applicant was
Dr. Elliott Barkan who requested support to

attend
a weeklong course on Census 2000. Applicants for this course are subject to
approval and Dr. Barkan has not been notified

that he
will be accepted.

 

Ebeling
recommended that Dr. Schmidt be awarded $1800 and that Dr. Barkan be awarded
$1200.

 

MSP to provide the
funds as requested with the provision that all funds go to Dr. Schmidt should
Dr. Barkan not be selected to attend the Census 2000 class.

 

3. Update on ICPSR Dues Structure

Korey
said ICPSR has created a committee to review the membership fee structure and
that the committee should meet next
month

and a
recommendation is expected before this July.

 

An important issue from our
perspective is that while some major research universities will remain members
regardless of the cost,

many other institutions consider
the membership optional. These might feel the membership is not worth the added
cost. Korey felt

that ICPSR understood this. He also felt that an alternative idea
of a fee-for-service option had no real support at ICPSR. Last year the

CSU paid a little over $81,000 for membership. Nelson suggested
that we should focus on both the cost issue and the benefits that

federation membership provides for its members. He recommended the
Chair writes a letter to ICPSR expressing our concerns and that

we contact other federations to do the same. These could go to
Chuck Humphry and Martinez in Florida.

 

Barkan said he would draft a letter
and discuss it with Dick Shaffer, SSRIC Chair-elect.

 

4. Review of Priority
List for Attending the Biennial ICPSR Meeting

 

Korey
distributed a priority list of campuses for the 2003 ICPSR meeting. There was
some discussion about where we should put new

institutions
such as the Maritime Academy and Channel Islands. These would be added to the
bottom of the list at the time an OR

joins
the SSRIC.

 

MSP to add the
Maritime Academy to the bottom of the list.

 

Barkan
reported that George Baldwin (CSUMB) displayed little interest in attending the
SSRIC and is not usre that there is interest at

this
time in Monterey Bay being a member of the SSRIC. Shaffer said he would contact
the campus (dean) about joining and someone

else
attending since Baldwin is chair of his department.

 

Gerber
said he would like to send a staff person as an alternate to the ICPSR meeting.
Since this person is not an OR, Korey felt that a

By-Law
change might be needed for it to happen. Gerber said he would look into this
and report back at the next meeting.

 

style='mso-tab-count:1'> PRIORITY LIST FOR 2003 OR
MEETING

1. San
Jose 8. Los
Angeles 15. Northridge

2. San
Bernardino 9. Sonoma style='mso-tab-count:2'> 16. Hayward

3.
Bakersfield 10. SLO style='mso-tab-count:3'> 17. Chico

4.
Humboldt 11.
Pomona 18.
Stanislaus

5.
Fresno 12.
Fullerton 19.
Monterey Bay

6. San
Diego 13. Long
Beach 20. San Marcos

7. San
Francisco 14. Sacramento style='mso-tab-count:2'> 21. Dominguez Hills

22.
Maritime Academy

5. Field Institute
Meeting

 

Gianos
asked if anyone had knowledge of the process Field used in selecting questions
since he has regularly been running a similar

type of
survey out of his institution. No one did.

 

Barkan said
that because of elections the Field Institute meeting has been postponed to
September. We could choose either the 20th

or
27th of September. The Council voted to request the meeting be held
on September 20th.

 

Hernandez
reported that all the 2001 Field Surveys and the first from 2002 have been put
up on the server. The 2001 surveys are

available
over the web and in SDA format.

 

 

6. 2003-2003 SSRIC
Meeting Locations and Dates

 

Fall: style='mso-tab-count:1'> Oct. 25-26 CSU Sonoma

Winter: style='mso-tab-count:1'> Feb. 21-22 CSU
SLO

Spring: style='mso-tab-count:1'> Apr. 26-26 San
Francisco State U. (Tentative, but should be OK)

 

7. Database Funding
and Negotiations with Committee of Library Directors

 

Mike
McLean from the Chancellor’s Office reported that the social science databases
will be funded next year. However, he added

that in
the future they will need to have an interface that meets COLD’s standards of
access. He added that recently a lot of IT

funding
has gone into infrastructure improvement, but the attention now is beginning to
be focused on upgrading academic

technology.
Databases are part of this area and they should be supported.

 

McLean
could not guarantee that future funding would be assured due to expected
cutbacks in the State Budget this summer. He

noted
that the business databases were in the same situation. Funding sources for the
data could come from EAR, COLD, Academic

Technology,
and the campuses. While in the past EAR and COLD had funding control, they now
have become advisory to a vice-

chancellor
who allocates funding.

 

He
briefly reviewed a model being pushed by Gerry Hanley that is called the CSU
On-Line Faculty Resource Center. This involved six

areas
of access including:

1. Text
bibliography

2.
Image databases

3.
Language and learning labs

4.
Alphanumeric data bases

5.
Pedagogical data bases (Merlot Project)

6. CATS
Simulations

 

Barkan
reported that the COLD wanted an open-access system similar to what the library
now uses. While Tony Hernandez will be

working
on this, the question arose of whether this had to happen before acceptance by
the COLD.

 

Nelson
said the type of response expected from us is not clear. The review of the
SSDBA last winter by COLD and EAR was vague in

terms
of what was expected and we are unsure of just who will decide if SSDBA is
acceptable. Is it COLD or EAR? Whom do we

report
to? We must have an itemized list of specific requirements so that someone does
not come back with a list of additional

changes
when we seek approval.

 

Korey
said many campuses have a data librarian and perhaps SSDBA might go that way.
Barkan said the bottom line for COLD is that

funding
not come out of their current budget. McLean noted that faculty need is
important at the Chancellor's Office and that use of

the
data sets is shown. The SSRIC needs to talk to deans, campus presidents, and
other officials to keep this issue visible.

It was
suggested that an email correspondence with Gerry Hanley would be the most
effective way to iron out these issues. Elliott and

Dick
will be drafting a letter to Gerry to identify what we will be doing in order
to determine the time line and what else COLD/EAR

may
want before giving the SSDBA and data sets their blessing.

 

8. ICPSR Direct

 

Hernandez
reported that lawyers are reviewing the policy of providing CSU campuses with
accounts for direct access to ICPSR

databases.
A list of campus server addresses will be provided to ICPSR so that this can
happen once all legal issues are satisfied.

 

He asked if the campus liaisons can
be listed as the point of contact with ICPSR. Some felt that this person may
not be able to handle

many questions. The OR could be that person, but this was not
resolved.

 

Serpe
expressed frustration with attempting to get campus support for the SSDBA. A
number of faculty had acquired ICPSR data from

outside
sources and had come to his institute for assistance which he provided. He had
argued with his administration that this was

the
same service that SSDBA provided and that it cost more than if he paid for
SSDBA membership. However, the administration

refused
to allow him to do this even if it did cost more. They seemed interested in
subscribing to ICPSR Direct rather than going

through
SSDBA. Hernandez reminded everyone that ICPSR Direct does not provide help in
preparing or analyzing the data.

 

Serpe also expressed reservation
about the appropriateness of faculty using the ICPSR data when his campus did
not subscribe to

SSDBA. However, Shaffer recalled that all campuses have a right to
use the ICPSR as part of the central agreement. They just will not

receive assistance from the SSDBA.

 

9. Old Business - None style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>

 

10. New Business

 

Ed
Nelson thanked everyone for the GPS gift and suggested a vote of thanks to
Elliott Barkan for serving as chair in a difficult year.

 

Hernandez
asked if some ICPSR data could be made publicly available at CSU Long Beach as
part of a federal grant. While this could

be done
on the SSDBA web site, it was felt that that is what ICPSR is for. Korey
suggested ICPSR would be the best place for access

to the
data. Perhaps SSDBA could link to that.

 

Minutes

Gene Turner