Faculty Investment Program

If faculty need reviews of their written proposal narrative, staff with the OU Writing Center and the Center for Faculty Excellence are available to provide that assistance. 

* Dates are subject to change.

** Proposals are checked for compliance prior to review by the Research Council. Proposals found to be non-compliant are return to the PI without review. If you submit your proposal before the due date (no less than one week before the due date), your proposal will be pre-reviewed for compliance and you will have time to make any necessary adjustments before resubmitting it for full consideration by the Research Council.

Eligibility

Funds support the research of tenured and tenure-track faculty of all ranks, as well as research faculty, ranked renewable term faculty, and permanent professional or technical staff members who hold the terminal degree appropriate to their discipline. The following are not eligible for this program: non-ranked renewable term and temporary faculty, instructors, lecturers, adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, research personnel funded from external grants and contracts, postdoctoral researchers/associates/fellows, and students.  To confirm eligibility before submitting an application to FIP, contact the OVPRP at RC_VPRfunding@ou.edu.

Award Amount and Reimbursement

FIP applications may request up to $15,000. Matching funds from colleges and departments are not required. This is a reimbursement program: if a project is funded, the OVPRP will reimburse the PI's department for expenditures up to the awarded amount, after the PI's Final Report has been submitted and approved by the OVPRP.

Separation from the University

Faculty who separate from the university after being notified of a FIP award but before beginning the work generally may not proceed with the award. An awardee who separates while FIP-funded research is underway is strongly encouraged to complete the research and submit the final report before leaving, so the department can be reimbursed for expenses incurred.

Award Limits

Eligible individuals may receive no more than one FIP award in any given fiscal year (1 July-30 June). However, a new application may be submitted during a fiscal year in which an award is active, provided the requested funding begins in the following fiscal year. The Research Council may also place limits on new applications. For example, if a Council-funded project lists submission of an external grant proposal as a goal, the Council may require proof of that submission before considering a new FIP application.

Funding from Multiple Programs

Eligible individuals may hold funding simultaneously from more than one program administered by the Research Council or OVPRP. Those with existing funding — or with applications under review — from these sources must disclose it when submitting a new application for funding and must clearly demonstrate that the proposed activities and budget do not duplicate those of the previously funded project. For example, a faculty member may hold Junior Faculty Fellowship, Faculty Travel, and Faculty Investment Program funding at the same time, provided no duplication of purpose exists. 

Formatting Requirements

All applications must use a font size of at least 11 points, margins of 1 inch on all sides, and line spacing of no less than 1.5 lines.

A complete application consists of six required components and, if applicable, supplementary documentation. Combine all components into a single PDF, in the exact order listed below.

 

Required Components

1. Cover Sheet

Download and complete the separate fillable PDF cover sheet, obtain all required signatures, and include the signed copy in your final application.

2. Project Description — 6-page limit

Write in clear, straightforward English, minimizing technical jargon and unexplained acronyms. Your application will be evaluated by a multidisciplinary faculty panel whose members are scientifically literate but may not be experts in your specific discipline. Note, your project description is not a journal article; it should be concise, compelling, and easy for every reviewer to follow.  

Structure your project description using the specific sections below (A-F) as your major headings, maintaining the exact order shown. This standardized format ensures you address each evaluation criterion thoroughly and helps reviewers easily locate key information.

A. Intellectual Merit: Discuss the intellectual significance, purpose, and value of the proposed work within its discipline(s). Include a clear statement of the problem or issue your work addresses, sufficient background from the literature to establish context (what has been done to address the problem/issue, what are the remaining gaps), and a description of the specific knowledge gap your application will fill.

B. Technical or Creative Approach: Describe the project’s overall approach and the specific methods, analyses, and/or other work to be done, for example, procedures, productions, protocols, experiments, studies, observations, information and data collection, surveys, analyses, performances, practices, exhibitions). Include a timeline showing major tasks and activities.

C. Outcome and Impact on the Field of Scholarship: Describe the project’s expected outcomes and impacts and explain how a successful outcome will advance your field. Note that an outcome differs from an impact: publishing a book is an outcome, while the book being adopted by organizations to broaden understanding of a subject is an impact. Where appropriate, highlight the originality of the outcomes and the significance of the impacts.

D. Impact on Investigator's Scholarship: Place the project in context of your broader research or scholarship, including your future plans, and explain how this project fits in your overall program. For example, will the project generate results for publication in the peer-reviewed literature or produce preliminary data that strengthens a future application for external funding? 

E. Qualifications: Demonstrate that you/your team are qualified to carry out the work. This section should supplement, not duplicate the two-page CV; highlight the accomplishments most relevant to the project’s success.

F. Rationale for Funding Request: Explain why you are seeking funding from the Research Council rather than from other available sources, and whether you have submitted one or more applications for the same or similar purpose elsewhere. Faculty in their first one or two years of employment who received University startup funding  should explain why they are requesting Research Council funding instead of drawing on those funds.  

3. References — no page limit

Provide complete references for all work cited in the Project Description.

4. Budget and Budget Justification — 2-page limit  

Provide an itemized budget table with an accompanying budget justification describing how the funds will be spent and why they are needed. Link each budget item directly to the project description — for example, connect funding for a student to the data collection and analysis that student will perform. Where appropriate, include supporting documentation such as quotes from vendors for equipment purchases or estimates for travel. If you request funding for specific individuals, describe their duties and explain why the individual is essential to the project's success.

Budgets must comply with applicable University and State of Oklahoma policies, including those governing travel (https://www.ou.edu/travel)  teaching release (subject to approval by the chair/director and dean), student stipend rates, data collection practices, tuition, equipment, summer salary, and staff support. 

5. Curriculum Vitae — 2-page limit per person

Submit a two-page CV for the applicant and each co-applicant. Each CV should include: undergraduate and graduate education and postdoctoral training; professional appointments; up to five publications, exhibits, or other works most closely related to the proposed project; and up to five other significant publications, exhibits or other works, whether or not related to the proposed project.

6. Funding History — 1-page limit

A.  List all current (active) and pending (submitted or under review) internal and external funding, and state how each is or is not related to the proposed FIP project. If you have no relevant funding history, indicate this.

B.  If you have been previously funded by the Research Council, provide a brief synopsis of the outcomes and impacts of that work, whether or not related to this submission.

Supplementary Documentation — project-specific

These items are project-specific; not all applications will include them. There is no page limit, but content is limited to the items below.

Regulatory approvals. If the project will involve human subjects, laboratory animals, rDNA, radioactive materials, or biohazards, describe your plans to obtain necessary approvals or related documents by the time a Research Council award is expected to be made and include it in your application. The relevant units are:

·         Human Subjects — Institutional Review Board (IRB)

·         Laboratory Animals — Institutional Animal Care and Use    Committee (IACUC)

·         Radioactive Materials — Radiation Safety Committee

·         rDNA and biohazards — Biosafety Committee.

Teaching Release. If your application requests funding for teaching release, include a completed and signed Teaching Release Form (see Resources section) in your application.

Existing documentation or support.  If you have documentation for a proposed activity (such as a book contract), or are identifying matching or in-kind support, include a copy in your application.

Non-written materials. If audio, video, images, or other non-written material (such as art, complex figures, diagrams, or illustrations) would help reviewers understand your project, you may upload them as supplementary documents in the FIP Submission Portal. You may not use this allowance to introduce ideas, concepts, or perspectives absent from your Project Description, or to circumvent the FIP page limits.

Assembling Your Application

Combine all components into a single PDF, in the order listed above. Applications received without all required materials, or that do not follow the required formatting, will be returned without review.

Remember that every Research Council member reads, reviews, and votes on every FIP application, regardless of their expertise in your area. Aim for a clear, concise and compelling description that a panel of scientifically literate non-experts can readily understand.  

 

Application Submission

New applications: Submit your application electronically as a single PDF through the online submission portal linked below. Applications received by the first day of a month are reviewed by the Research Council during that same month.

Resubmission of declined applications: A declined FIP application may be resubmitted once. Because decline notifications include specific reviewer feedback, all resubmissions must include a response letter (maximum two pages) detailing how reviewers’ comments have been addressed.

 

READY TO SUBMIT?

Click here to access the FIP Online Submission Portal

Review Criteria

In making funding decisions, the Research Council weights the following six criteria equally:  

• Intellectual merit
• Technical or creative approach
• Outcome(s) and impact on the field of scholarship
• Impact on the investigator(s)’ scholarship
• Qualifications of the investigator(s)
• Appropriateness of the budget and justification of resources requested

Review Process

The Council reviews all applications to the highest standards of ethical integrity, following Council policy on conflicts of interest. Each application moves through the following stages:

1. Completeness Check. Applications that are incomplete or incorrectly formatted are returned without review.

2. Conflict-of-interest screening. Complete applications that meet the guidelines go to the Council Administrator who identifies and confirms any conflicts of interest between the applicants and Council members. Conflicted members recuse themselves and leave the meeting while the application is discussed and voted on.

3. Reviewer Assignment. From the unconflicted members, the Administrator assigns two lead reviewers, at least one with expertise closely related to the proposal’s discipline. If no unconflicted member has that expertise, the Administrator recruits an unconflicted OU faculty member from outside the Council to serve as an additional reviewer. Every application is therefore reviewed by at least one unconflicted expert in a closely related discipline.

4. Independent reviews and vote. Each lead reviewer, and the external reviewer if one is used, submits an independent written review. An external reviewer joins the discussion and is bound by the same confidentiality rules as Council members but does not vote. Guided by all reviews, the unconflicted Council members then vote.

Decision and notification

The Research Council Administrator, in collaboration with the Council Chair, will prepare a narrative summary of the reviews and discussion. The summary and the vote are forwarded to the Office of the Vice President for Research and Partnerships, who makes the final funding decision. A decision letter is sent to the PI per the FIP timeline; for declined proposals eligible for resubmission, the letter includes the reviewer.

The written reviews, discussion details, and vote are confidential. For each funded project, the Council posts the investigator(s), project title, and approved budget on the website at the end of the fiscal year in which the award was made. 

Requirements for Award Recipients

FIP award recipients are responsible for the following:

Reporting

The principal investigator must submit a Final Report — a written narrative plus a final budget (see the template in the Resources section) — by the deadline specified in the award letter. The narrative should describe the project’s outcomes; any deviations from the work originally proposed; and any in-progress activities that relate directly to the project. Submit the report through the online final report portal.

Once the report has been received and approved, funds are reimbursed to the PI's department, up to the award amount.

To request an extension email  RC_VPRfunding@ou.edu, before the report deadline and include a justification.

Acknowledging Research Council Support

All written publications, in digital or print form, that have benefitted from Research Council funding must contain the following statement of acknowledgment: "This research was supported (or, supported in part) by a grant from the Research Council of the University of Oklahoma Norman Campus."

Serving as a Reviewer

By accepting funding from the FIP, faculty members may be called upon to serve as an ad hoc reviewer for the Research Council. Faculty are obligated to review no more than three proposals, in a subject area related to their own, within a two-year period that begins when their proposal is approved for funding.

READY TO SUBMIT YOUR FINAL REPORT?

Click here to access the FIP Online Final Report Submission Portal