Chapter 7 Faculty Research Policy

Support for Faculty Research

The University of North Carolina at Pembroke encourages its faculty in the pursuit of research and other scholarly and creative activity. The University will support these efforts when possible through reassigned time and through direct and indirect financial support. Since state funding for research at a comprehensive University is somewhat limited, faculty are strongly encouraged to pursue external sources of funding for research and related scholarly activities. The institution will provide direct support and assistance through the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs in the preparation of extramural grant proposals, through the Teaching and Learning Center in providing internal grants and reassigned time, and through the academic departments for travel funds and reassigned time. The Teaching and Learning Center administers the Faculty Travel Grants, Summer Research Fellowships, and Directed Academic Leave. Those awards are contingent on the availability of funds from year to year. For more information on these grant programs, see the website for the Teaching and Learning Center at http://www.uncp.edu/tlc.

Sponsored Research and Programs: Faculty Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements

Procedures for Grant Processing through the Office of Grants

The Office of Sponsored Research and Programs (OSRP) is responsible for assisting faculty and professional staff members who are seeking external support for activities that are consistent with the mission of the University. The OSRP develops strategies for optimizing successful grant applications and provides a wide range of services in proposal development and grants management. Faculty members are encouraged to access the web page for the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs at http://www.uncp.edu/osrp.

All external sponsored program activity must be coordinated through the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs. The Director acts as the Authorized Institutional Official who must review and approve all University grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. All sponsored research and programs must be consistent with the mission of the University and adhere to its policies and regulations

Guidelines for Grant Proposal Development

The following guidelines are critical in the development of proposals for sponsored programs:

1. Adequate budgetary support, both direct and indirect, must be provided by the funding agency and other sponsors. The Office of Sponsored Research and Programs can assist faculty in budget development.
2. Indirect costs must be charged to all budget requests for external funding unless otherwise approved by the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs, or deemed as unallowable costs by the sponsor. The University’s indirect cost recovery policy can be found at http://www.uncp.edu/ba/policies/ba/ms0193.htm.
3. No unauthorized financial obligations are to be assumed by the University. If matching or In-Kind support is required by the sponsor, then the proposed contribution must be approved by the head of the Department providing the matching or In-Kind support, prior to proposal submission.
4. All grant applications must be submitted to the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs at least five (5) business days prior to the submission deadline to allow for Institutional Review. A completed Proposal Approval Routing Form (available at http://uncp.edu/osrp/proposal/) signed by the Principal Investigator and his/her Department Chair and Dean, must accompany the grant application prior to submission.
5. All University grant award documents (including sub-awards) must be received by the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs. Principal Investigators are also required to submit award modifications (i.e., budget revisions, changes in scope of work, changes in key personnel) to the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs.
6. Expenditures of grant, contract, and cooperative agreement funds follow applicable federal, state, and local regulations. No expenditures can be authorized until the Notice of Award is received by the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs and an account is created by the Post Award Office.

The University complies with the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 45, Part 46) regarding Protection of Human Subjects in Research. The University’s Human Subjects Review Committee reviews all proposals relative to research of human subjects, whether scientific or social (basic and applied).

Patents, copyrights, licenses, and technology transfers are facilitated by the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs and must follow the Intellectual Property policies of the University. The Office of Sponsored Research and Programs provides assistance on Intellectual Property rights, inventions, and disclosure.

The Office of Technology Transfer

The UNCP Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) is responsible for managing activities instrumental to determining and fostering the marketability of an invention, including obtaining legal and industry counsel, engaging marketing and focus research, contracting for the development of prototypes, and all else necessary to comprehensively and optimally market inventions under its sphere of control. The intent of the OTT is to transfer inventions and innovative knowledge to outside organizations for the benefit of society. OTT serves as a bridge between UNCP researchers and the business community. Through technology transfer, innovations may be incorporated into products and services that directly benefit society, as well as research and education at UNCP. For more information about the Office of Technology Transfer, see the website for that office at http://www.uncp.edu/tfce/technology/.

Institutional Review Board for Research with Human Subjects (IRB)

Purpose and Scope of IRB Approval

The Institutional Review Board is required by federal law to review and approve ALL research proposals that involve human subjects; that is, any research involving people including adults, children and infants. Special protections are accorded to minors, pregnant women and fetuses, institutionalized populations, the mentally disabled, and economically and educationally disadvantaged persons.

The federal regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalized knowledge. A human subject is defined as a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains personal data through intervention or interaction with the individual or identifiable private information.

Federal law requires that all research protocols involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by an IRB, even if the proposal is not externally funded. The UNC Pembroke IRB must review any human subjects research conducted at UNC Pembroke regardless of outside approval. This includes all research with human subjects conducted at UNC Pembroke including faculty, staff and/or students as research subjects or by UNC Pembroke faculty, staff and or students at any location. Research conducted as part of a classroom exercise or a course assignment MAY be exempt from IRB review. However, the IRB Chair or designate must make that decision based upon a protocol review.

The Institutional Review board at UNC Pembroke ensures that all research that is undertaken protects participants from unreasonable risks to their health, general well-being or privacy. Specifically, the University is concerned that all research and related activities involving the use of human subjects:

1. Protect the rights and welfare of persons participating as subjects, including, but not limited to the protection of identifiable private information.
2. Use as subjects only persons who have freely given informed consent after being made aware of the potential risks and/or benefits of a particular research project, and
3. Allows participants advance knowledge of potential risks of participation and knowledge that these risks have been evaluated by an IRB.

Review and approval of all research protocols is the responsibility of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), a panel of UNC Pembroke faculty, administrators and a community representative. The IRB is responsible for protection of the rights, welfare and privacy of research subjects through an initial review and subsequent oversight of all human subjects research.

Under both federal and university policy, the IRB has the authority to approve proposed research, to require revisions in proposed research to ensure it includes safeguards to protect subjects, or to refuse to approve proposed research if the applicant can not or will not revise the protocol to prevent identified risks to the subjects. Once the research is approved the IRB has the authority to monitor the research to ensure that research is conducted as approved. Additionally, multi-year research projects are required to be reviewed and re-authorized according to the review process outlined below.

All IRB reviews begin with an application (see application procedures below). Following an initial review of the application describing the nature of the research, a proposal may be:

• Exempt from further IRB review
• Appropriate for an expedited review by the chairperson of the IRB or a subcommittee of the IRB
• Subject to full review by the full IRB

Only the IRB Chair, or designee, can determine which type of review is applicable. Regardless of level of review, a record must be kept by the IRB of all research involving human subjects at UNC Pembroke. It is the goal of the UNC Pembroke IRB to support the development of protocols that protect human subjects and support research. Researchers with protocols that lack protection for human subjects will be offered guidance to make necessary modifications to augment approval. No proposal will be rejected without recommendations for modification and resubmission.

Further policy and procedure information, forms to be used for proposals, and links to other useful sites are available on the IRB web site at http://www.uncp.edu/irb. The current IRB Chair can be contacted by email at irb@uncp.edu.

UNC Pembroke Institutional Review Board (IRB) Policies and Procedures

IRB Membership

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs appoints IRB members for Academic Affairs for three-year terms. The Institutional Review Board includes the Director of Sponsored Research (or delegate) and at least five faculty members. The members should reflect the diversity of the institution and the community. A minimum of two members should be experienced in human subjects research. There must be one non-scientist member and one member who are not affiliated with UNC Pembroke. A chair is elected at the first meeting of each academic year. Names of current IRB members and their email addresses are located on the IRB website http://www.uncp.edu/irb

No IRB member may participate in the review of a proposal in which the member has a conflict of interest. Specialists may be invited by the IRB to provide technical assistance, if the subject matter is deemed outside the expertise of the sitting IRB members.

Operating Procedures

The University IRB will review all research involving human subjects carried out at UNC Pembroke or by UNC Pembroke faculty, staff or students. The IRB is responsible for approving research protocols, requiring modifications, or disapproving research. The IRB is responsible for the development of all forms requesting review and guidelines for informed consent that reflect federal regulations. The IRB will notify researchers of their decisions by email. Additional written notification will be provided upon the request of the applicant.

The IRB will meet monthly during the academic year. The meeting schedule for each academic year will be discussed and set during the August meeting of each year. Announcement of a full Review Board meeting will be placed on the IRB website at least 5 working days in advance of each meeting. A majority of the membership must be present to consider any proposal and a majority vote is required for any Board action. For board meetings where a full board review of a protocol takes place, the principal investigator (or delegate) should attend to present a review of the research and answer any relevant questions posed by the committee.

The IRB will keep adequate records of all protocols and requests for continuing review, including decisions made. The minutes of each IRB meeting will include the names of members who attended, actions taken by the Board, the outcome of voting on research protocols including numbers of votes for and against, the rationale for requiring modifications to a protocol or informed consent process, and a summary of discussion of controversial issues and their resolution. Records of all protocols, requests for continuing review, and records of IRB reviews and meeting minutes will be kept on file for a minimum of three years.

IRB Proposal Submission and Review Procedures

An application for IRB review includes a completed IRB Protocol Application (available online at http://www.uncp.edu/irb/forms/) and all supporting materials. Supporting materials typically include all recruitment materials, consent forms, survey instruments, debriefing statements, data use agreements, and human subjects research training documentation (see 8-3.B.5). IRB applicants should submit one electronic copy of the application and all supporting materials to irb@uncp.edu. Additionally, one original signed copy of the application should be sent to the current IRB Chair via Campus Mail.

IRB review requests will be acknowledged by electronic mail within three business days of receipt. The IRB Chair or designee will evaluate the protocol and determine the required level of review and inform the Principal Investigator of this decision as soon at it can be determined. Based upon the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Part 46, the UNC Pembroke IRB will utilize the following categories of review:

Exempt from Review

Projects that are traditionally exempt from an expedited or full IRB review include normal educational practices, educational tests, surveys, instruments, or observation of public behavior when subjects cannot be identified and the information gathered will not put the subjects at risk, research using existing data, documents, and records if publicly available and the subjects cannot be identified, and the evaluation of public benefit service programs. Applications that are exempt from review will be notified by electronic mail as soon as that decision is made.

Protocols that are developed for either instructional purposes or teaching research methodology and are not designed to contribute to generalized knowledge may be exempt from review. Under these circumstances the instructor assumes ethical and professional responsibility to monitor the progress of all research in the classroom. Research on vulnerable populations, including minors, pregnant women, fetuses, prisoners, seriously ill and mentally incapacitated individuals may not be exempt from review.

An Exempt Review determination does not imply that research subjects are exempt from human subjects protections.

Protocols that are approved as exempt from review are valid for three years. Researchers may request an extension beyond three years if necessary by contacting the IRB Chair and submitting an updated Protocol Application.

Expedited Review

Expedited review covers research that poses no more than minimal risk to human subjects. “Minimal risk” is the risk encountered in everyday life. Expedited review may be employed for minor changes in previously approved research, collection of small blood samples, collection of data through non invasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice, collection of data from voice, video, digital or image recordings, the use of materials that have been collected solely for non research purposes, research on individual or group characteristics or behavior, or research employing survey or interview methodologies. Expedited review may be used for these types of research regardless of the age of the subjects.

Expedited reviews are completed by the IRB Chair or designee and at least two additional IRB members. Expedited reviews are generally completed within two weeks. Minor modifications to the protocol may be requested by IRB members participating in the review during this review process. The applicant will be notified by electronic mail as soon as a decision is made.

Protocols that are approved through an expedited review are valid for one year. Researchers may request an extension beyond one year if necessary by contacting the IRB Chair and submitting an updated Protocol Application.

Full Review

Full IRB review includes research where the subjects can be identified and the data collected poses risks to the subjects, in terms of their financial or social standing, employment or criminal or civil liability. It also includes research that involves more than moderate exercise, research on individual or group characteristics or behavior that employs deception of the subjects or where they are placed under psychological or emotional stress, and research that poses potential physical, psychological, social, legal or other risks to the subjects.

Research targeting vulnerable populations, including minors (unless an expedited review is allowed), pregnant women and fetuses, institutionalized populations, the mentally disabled, and economically and educationally disadvantaged persons will receive a full review to insure that adequate protections are in place.

A protocol that will be reviewed by the full board will be assigned to the next available board meeting on the schedule, but no sooner than two weeks from submission in order to insure adequate time for the board members to conduct their review. The research protocol will be distributed electronically to all board members two weeks prior to the meeting. A majority of board members must be present at the review meeting. The Principal Investigator will be invited to present the research protocol and answer questions at this meeting. The protocol must be approved by a majority of the members present. Members of the IRB who vote to disapprove a protocol shall submit their reasons in writing to the IRB Chair. Protocols that are approved through a full review are valid for one year. Researchers may request an extension beyond one year if necessary by contacting the IRB Chair and submitting an updated Protocol Application.

Changes to Existing Protocols, Adverse Events, and Renewal Procedures

Regardless of the level of review or existing approval, any changes made to the research protocol must be submitted to the IRB for review in writing prior to their implementation, as they may affect the status of a review. Additionally, the Principal Investigator is responsible for reporting any adverse or unanticipated events that may occur during their research to the IRB immediately, and no later than one week from their occurrence.

In order to submit changes to an existing protocol, Principal Investigators should add the proposed changes to their IRB Protocol Application and submit it electronically to the IRB Chair.

In order to apply for a renewal of an existing protocol, the Principal Investigator should notify the IRB no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of their approval. Renewal requests should include the submission of an electronic copy of the approved IRB Protocol Application with changes added to the file. In addition, any new recruitment materials, consent forms, or other supplementary materials should be submitted with the renewal application.

It is the Principal Investigator’s responsibility to keep an electronic copy of their approved IRB Protocol Application in order to facilitate the submission of changes and renewal requests.

Training on Human Subjects Research

To provide investigators with up-to-date information about the regulatory requirements for conducting research, the IRB requires that each researcher review core concepts for the responsible conduct of research with human subjects. In order to submit an IRB, Principal Investigators must have completed an OHRP approved training within the last 2 years and submitted documentation to the IRB Chair. The IRB will provide a link to an approved web-based training module on the IRB website (http://www.uncp.edu/irb).

Research Misconduct in Human Subjects Research

The IRB will promptly report any potential research misconduct involving human subjects by Principal Investigators affiliated with UNC Pembroke to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The procedures for handling an allegation of research misconduct are defined in the section below on “Misconduct Related to Research.”

Additionally, the IRB is required by federal law to promptly report certain incidents to the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. These incidents include unanticipated problems in research that involve risk to subjects or others, serious or continuing noncompliance with federal policies or the requirements or determinations of the IRB, and any suspension or termination of IRB approval. The Principal Investigator and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will receive a copy of the report submitted by the IRB to OHRP.

Additional Resources and Further Information

The IRB web site includes information on the most up to date federal guidance on specific situations in human subjects research and how they apply to typical research scenarios at UNC Pembroke. In addition, the IRB website provides links to other sites that provide additional information on government regulations and resources for the protection of human subjects in research. Faculty members and Principal Investigators contemplating research proposals involving human subjects should examine the website and provided links for guidance applicable to their particular project.

Misconduct Related To Research

Guidelines For Consideration Of Cases Involving Misconduct In Academic Research

Guiding Principles

1. Definition of Misconduct in Academic Research by Faculty
   1. The intentional misrepresentation, fabrication, or falsification of data gathered in academic research or in the procedure used to gather, analyze, or validate such data.
   2. Plagiarism – The use of ideas, language, or the results of creative endeavors without appropriate referencing or crediting of the original source(s).
   3. Other practices that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, including inappropriate crediting of authorship (or lack of crediting) in cases in which students, alumni, or other parties have contributed to such research.
   4. The material failure to comply with federal requirements regarding the use of laboratory animals, the treatment of human subjects, or the expenditure of grant funds as stipulated conditions for specific grants, contracts, or as general requirements of the granting or contracting agency.
   5. Misconduct in academic research is to be carefully distinguished from honest differences in the evaluation of data gathering or analysis practices, and from honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. Honest differences of opinion are the lifeblood of a vigorous and productive discipline. The confusion of honest differences of opinion with intentional misrepresentation could easily be detrimental to the discipline and restrict academic freedom.
   6. Similarly, honest errors in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data are not considered to be instances of academic misconduct. It is the responsibility of those investigating the matter to determine, with all the resources at their disposal, the delicate and complex question of whether the alleged misconduct arises from honest error, minor to gross negligence, or outright misrepresentation. Honest errors arising from negligence reflect simply bad research and should be dealt with as an issue separate from deliberate deception, misrepresentation, plagiarism, and unethical or illegal practices in the conduct of research or creative activity.
2. General Policies Regarding Misconduct in Academic Research
   1. Policy. Misconduct in academic research poses a fundamental threat to the process of academic research and creative endeavors and therefore cannot be tolerated.
   2. Handling of allegations. Allegations of misconduct in academic research are a serious matter. They must be handled in a prompt and appropriate manner with due respect and concern both for the accused and the accuser. The responsibility for coordinating these procedures rests with the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs unless there is a conflict of interest, in which case the Chancellor will assume this responsibility.
   3. Protection of the accused. Until a decision as to the facts of the case is made through the judicious application of the policies and procedures described in this document, the accused is to be protected by the institution. Individual parties involved must be shielded from the possible damage arising from allegations of misconduct, while ensuring a prompt and effective response to the allegations raised. The primary mechanism for this protection will be strict confidentiality. The damages resulting from spurious allegations of misconduct in academic research, and inappropriate assumptions of guilt must be minimized.
   4. Protection of the accuser. The accuser is also to be protected by confidentiality and anonymity in the initial handling of the case until it becomes necessary for the identity of the accuser to be revealed to the accused and to other parties that need to know. Except under extraordinary circumstances, the accused has the right to confront the accuser. Special care in this respect must be taken in cases where the accuser is subordinate to the accused. Spurious, frivolous, or irresponsible accusations of misconduct are, themselves, a form of academic misconduct and should be dealt with accordingly. Individuals must be protected by the institution from these types of allegations.
   5. Confidentiality. An investigation of an allegation of misconduct in academic research must be handled with strict confidentiality at all times.
   6. Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest, real or perceived, must be avoided in the investigation of an allegation of misconduct in academic research. The membership of the investigating committee must be screened to avoid this difficulty.
   7. Timeliness. Fairness and justice to the parties involved require that allegations of misconduct in academic research be resolved in a timely manner. Any deviation from the time guidelines given below should involve the preservation of the fair and appropriate handling of the investigation. When a departure from these time constraints is judged to be necessary, the extent and specifics of the departure must be documented and agreed to in writing by the parties involved.
   8. Documentation. The investigation of an allegation of misconduct in academic research must be carefully documented starting with the initial allegation and proceeding through disposition and reporting of findings. Thorough documentation is important for several reasons, including potential legal proceedings that may follow from such cases. Every substantive aspect of the investigation needs to be documented. Personnel decisions or other actions arising from the disposition of the case need to be justified in the documentation.
   9. Organization. There will be three stages involved in the handling of an allegation of misconduct in academic research. The first stage, which is the internal (Inquiry) stage, involves the gathering of facts as quietly and confidentially as possible with only the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Inquiry Committee, and the faculty member(s) named in the allegations being informed of the proceedings. If the inquiry indicates that a formal investigation is warranted, then an Investigating Committee is formed as described below, and the second (Investigation) stage begins. At this stage, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs informs the Chancellor that such proceedings are underway. The third (Summary) stage involves actions taken by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs based on findings in the first two stages.
   10. If in the Inquiry stage it is found that a full investigation (second stage) is appropriate, then the University has the responsibility of informing various parties both within and external to the university community. Those who need to be informed will depend on the circumstances, but may include: (l) department chairs, administrators, or other faculty who will be affected by the investigation; (2) persons who have been or are currently in collaboration with the accused; and (3) any funding agency that requires reporting under such circumstances. It is the responsibility of the Investigating Committee to determine the extent of such reporting at the outset of the official investigation.

Procedures for Handling an Allegation of Academic Misconduct

1. Overview
   1. There are three stages in the handling of allegations of misconduct in academic research. They are the Inquiry stage, the Investigation stage, and the Summary stage. The Inquiry stage begins with the initial allegation of misconduct in academic research and ends when the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs determines that the case does or does not warrant further action. The Investigation stage begins if and when it is decided that the case requires a full investigation and ends with a summary of findings as to the facts of the case and a recommendation for action forwarded to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Summary stage involves actions taken by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs based on the findings of the first two stages.
   2. For purposes of consistency, a “day” is defined as a weekday during which classes are normally in session. University holidays are not to be counted toward the deadlines established in this document. Timeliness for proceedings that extend over lengthy holidays may need to be modified as circumstances require. If so, these modifications must be documented and agreed to in writing by the parties involved.
2. Specific Procedures

Inquiry Stage

1. An allegation of misconduct in academic research should be directed to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs determines, in consultation with the complainant, whether the charges are of a serious nature. This decision must be dated and documented in a specific file to be retained by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Except in cases of conflicting interest, or other sensitive or special circumstances, the department chair of the faculty member(s) named in the allegation is informed of the matter at this time.
2. Upon finding that the complaint deserves further examination, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should initiate the Inquiry stage. This stage should be concluded within 30 work days.

• The Inquiry Committee is to be formed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. This committee may include the department chair involved and members of any research oversight committees that may have an interest in the present matter. Decisions to involve or not involve other parties in the inquiry must be made in light of the need to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest and to maintain appropriate confidentiality.
• The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will name one of the committee members to serve as chair. This individual will coordinate the collection of documents, correspondence, and all other appropriate materials that are necessary for conducting the inquiry.
• The faculty member(s) named in the allegation must be notified of the initiation of the proceedings.

3. The accused has a right to attend the Inquiry meetings at which evidence is presented and discussed, and to examine and respond to any evidence or testimony presented. A discussion of the allegation with the accused should be one of the first elements of the Inquiry Committee proceedings. The accused may not attend the final meeting of the Inquiry Committee at which a decision is reached as to whether the allegation warrants a formal investigation. However, no new evidence used against the accused may be presented or discussed at this final meeting. Within these limits, Inquiry Committee meetings may be attended only by Inquiry Committee members, the accused, persons presenting evidence or testimony, and others who have, in the judgment of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, a substantive and demonstrable need to know. The Inquiry shall be conducted under the strictest confidentiality possible.
4. If the Inquiry Committee finds that a full investigation of the allegation is not warranted, then any reference to the allegation must be removed from the faculty or staff member’s personnel file, as well as from any special files pertaining to this matter. All documentation regarding the allegation must be destroyed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
5. If the Inquiry Committee finds that a full investigation of the allegation is warranted, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should (a) appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct an investigation composed as described below; (b) take appropriate action to preserve and protect any data, records, or evidence pertaining to the case; (c) notify the individual(s) involved of the proceedings being initiated and of their opportunity to appear before the committee in their own defense; and (d) report the initiation of the investigation to any funding agency that may be involved. The Provost and Vice Chancellor may require that the accused individual(s) temporarily cease research activities if it is determined that a continuation of such activities may result in risk or harm to parties involved. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall inform the UNCP Chancellor that a formal investigation of Academic misconduct is underway.

Investigation Stage

1. The Chair of the Investigating Committee is to be designated first by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The nature of the research, possible conflicting interests, and departmental or administrative concerns will guide the choice of this individual.
2. The Investigating Committee should be composed of seven members including: (a) the appointed chair; (b) one member representing the University Senate; (c) one member representing the Faculty Development and Welfare Subcommittee; and (d) members representing the committees involved with research on the UNCP campus. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Investigating Committee will confer on the six appointments (other than the Committee Chair) to assure that the Committee includes faculty with the particular expertise relevant to the nature of the allegation. These appointments shall be full-time faculty members with no apparent conflicts of interest and who are deemed qualified and appropriate to work in this capacity.
3. The Committee shall conduct a prompt and thorough investigation in order to ascertain whether the individual has violated this policy, and if so, to what extent. Early in the course of the investigation, the Committee shall discuss the matter in confidence with the accused individual and with all persons with whom the accused has collaborated in relation to the work under review. Throughout the investigation, the Committee shall be sensitive to the effects of the proceedings on the individual, protecting the rights of the accused, and avoiding disclosure except to individuals who need to be involved in the investigation.
4. One or more hearings shall be conducted by the Investigating Committee in which information and evidence relevant to the allegation are presented, discussed and evaluated. It is the responsibility of the Committee chair to schedule and conduct the hearing(s) as well as to provide relevant evidence, documents, and recorded testimony to Committee members. Interviews with those having special knowledge relevant to the allegation may take place in the hearing(s), as well as a review of written documents, publication records, raw data or computer files, and transcripts of testimony or discussion from previous hearings and interviews.
5. The accused individual has the right to attend these hearings, to examine all documents or evidence used to question persons being interviewed, and to introduce any evidence, documents, or interviews in support of the views of the accused. At the conclusion of the hearings, a separate meeting of the Investigating Committee shall be conducted to reach a decision as to the facts of the case. The accused individual may not be present at this final meeting, and no new evidence of any sort may be presented at this meeting. The accused individual must have access to all information used by the Committee, and must be given the opportunity to respond to that information.
6. The hearings may be attended only by those whose presence is required for the proceedings to take place. This would normally include the members of the Investigating Committee, the accused individual, and persons needed to present evidence or testimony. Others may be permitted on a need-to-know basis at the discretion of the chair of the Investigating Committee in consultation with the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs if necessary.
7. The scope of the investigation shall be at the discretion of the Committee chair according to the charge and the facts. The Committee shall consider only such evidence as is presented at the hearing(s). The Committee shall use its judgment in deciding what evidence presented is fair and reliable. A written transcript shall be kept of all proceedings in which evidence is presented. Upon request, a copy of this transcript will be furnished to the accused faculty member at the University’s expense.
8. Within 30 work days from the beginning of the official investigation, the Investigating Committee should produce a preliminary report to which the accused individual may respond, in writing, before final recommendations are made. A period of 15 work days is allowed for a response from the accused unless it is determined by the Committee chair that more time is needed to ensure fair and appropriate handling of the matter. The specifics of any agreement to alter this timing must be documented and signed by the accused, the Committee chair, and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
9. Within 60 work days from the beginning of the Investigation stage, the Investigating Committee must submit to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs a written report which describes their findings as to the acts of the matter. This report should specify whether a majority of the committee believes that the accused individual has or has not engaged in substantive academic misconduct as defined in this document. If a majority of the Committee has determined that a substantive violation has occurred, the report should address the extent and seriousness of that violation. The report should also recommend a course of action to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Such actions may involve personnel decisions, sanctions, notification of a funding agency, notification of collaborators, or any other appropriate action.

Appeal Process

The individual faculty member may appeal the decision reached in the above process through the standard faculty committees: the Faculty Grievance Committee or the Faculty Hearing Committee, as appropriate. Faculty members who feel that they have cause for a grievance in any matter other than suspension, discharge, nonreappointment (including denial of permanent tenure) or termination, which are under the jurisdiction of the Faculty Hearing Committee may submit a petition for redress to the Faculty Grievance Committee.