Version April 10, 2025
Research at the School of Public Health (SPH) is principally driven by faculty principal investigators who lead teams consisting of faculty, staff, and/or students, both internal and external to Washington University. Each faculty member leads their research portfolio, which is the most basic unit of the overall research enterprise at SPH. All faculty members are welcome to create structures that best support their work in any way they wish to do so.
The process below describes the formation and review of SPH units that receive support from the school. Separately, faculty often create informal “labs” or “groups” or “teams” that include extramurally funded collaborators. Similarly, there are “programs” and “centers” that are formed due to the availability of external funding specifically to fund such a unit (i.e. mechanisms such as NIH T32s, NIH P01s, targeted development funds). The formation of such groups is encouraged and does not require the process of approval and review described below.
Building on this, recognizing that there can be strategic advantages to forming larger multifaculty units that focus on a particular content area, we provide a conceptual model for different types of units at the SPH in which the school may invest. Such endeavors can increase the visibility of our work in the topic area (both internally and externally), facilitate the sharing of resources, and lead to new collaborative opportunities that might not have otherwise materialized. Such units also can create new training and development opportunities in specialized areas. While we anticipate that most units will center on research and scholarship, units also can focus on education or practice. Whatever the focus of the unit, the guiding principle is that the formation of the unit will yield benefits that would not have otherwise been possible.
At SPH, there are three main categories of units supported at the school level: labs, programs, and centers. The following sections describe each of these units, as well as the proposal process and review process, in greater detail.
Labs
An SPH lab typically includes the meaningful engagement of at least two faculty members with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area. While labs may include the engagement of faculty, staff, and students from multiple departments, structurally, they are housed within a single home department.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new lab by submitting a proposal to the Lab, Program, and Center (LPC) Review Subcommittee (described below). In addition to proposing a name for the lab, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, membership, plans for the first two years, anticipated benefits, anticipated challenges, and a proposed budget. Typically, labs emerge from external funding obtained by faculty and supplemented via individual faculty discretionary funds, which might then be supplemented by SPH funds. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
The LPC will review the proposal, considering the anticipated benefits to the SPH, ensuring that we strategically advance our mission while also adhering to principles of fiscal responsibility. The LPC recommendations are provided to the Dean. Decisions about whether to approve a new lab within the SPH, to provide financial support, and if so, how much financial support to provide, are made by the Dean. Any financial support for labs approved by the Dean are seen as a strategic investment in the SPH.
Labs are approved for a one-year term and reviewed annually by the LPC. Every year, the lab director is expected to send the LPC a letter summarizing progress (as per the review process described in the section below). Through that review process, the Dean assesses whether there is sufficient justification for renewal and continued dedication of funds, which is communicated to the lab director(s) in an annual approval letter.
Programs
A school-level program typically includes the meaningful engagement of at least five faculty members with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area. Programs are expected to engage faculty, staff, and students across multiple disciplines. Programs are schoolwide units with budgets that are set up within the SPH.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new program, building on the success of an established lab, by submitting a proposal to the LPC. In addition to proposing a name for the program, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, membership, plans for the first two years, anticipated benefits, anticipated challenges, and a proposed budget. It is expected that a request for a program will have been preceded by at least two years of function as a lab, and that a request to expand to a program will be reviewed more favorably by highlighting how a lab has leveraged previous investment from the SPH, and how elevation to a program will take work to a different and better level. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
The LPC will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Dean. Decisions about whether to approve a new program are made by the Dean. Programs are initially funded by SPH for two years to supplement the activities supported by external sources. Additionally, the program director will receive relief from other school administrative responsibilities to dedicate to this work. Program directors are appointed and serve at will, as determined by the Dean. Any funded program is expected to send the ADFA an annual letter summarizing progress (as per the review process described in the section below). Every two years the ADFA assesses whether there is sufficient justification for renewal and continued funding, which is communicated to the director(s) in an approval letter.
Centers
Interdisciplinary academic schoolwide centers are charged with bringing together relevant faculty, staff, and students from across multiple disciplines and schools to advance an area of strategic academic interest for the SPH. Centers typically include the meaningful engagement of at least 10 faculty members with shared interests and active research in a particular topic area where there is an opportunity for the SPH to be seen as global leaders.
Center directors guide strategic thinking, foster new collaborations in teaching, research, and practice; increase the visibility of our efforts in the center’s domain of engagement both internally and externally; facilitate the development of new applications for external funding; supervise center staff and oversee the center budget; and provide an annual report on the progress of the center.
A group of interested faculty may propose the formation of a new center, building on the success of an established program, by submitting a proposal to the Dean. In addition to proposing a name for the center, the application should describe the overall focus, rationale, plans for the first three years, anticipated benefits of the proposed activities, and anticipated challenges. It is expected that a request for a center will have been preceded by at least two years of function as a program, and that a request to expand to a center will be reviewed more favorably by highlighting how a program has leveraged previous investment from the school, and how elevation to a center will take work to a different and better level. The primary goal of the proposal is to make the case that the anticipated benefits are worth the investment of time, effort, and money.
Centers are organizationally connected with the SPH. Centers do not have faculty lines, do not confer degrees, or manage curricula. Center-affiliated grants should be submitted and awarded via the school of the principal investigator. The Dean decides whether to approve a new center in consultation with the LPC. Center directors are appointed and serve at will, as determined by the Dean. Center directors will receive course relief for their engagement in this role. Additionally, each center receives an annual operating budget and an initial deposit of discretionary funds, which may be spent following SPH guidelines for use of discretionary funds. In general, the operating budget is used to cover annual operating expenses, whereas the discretionary funds carry forward year to year and can be used to capitalize on emerging opportunities, new strategic initiatives, etc.
The center director(s) sends an annual letter summarizing progress of their work to the Dean and LPC. This is followed by an annual renewal letter. Every three years, the LPC assesses sufficient justification for center renewal and makes a recommendation for continued funding, which is communicated the Dean. The Dean then decides whether to continue center funding, which is communicated to center director(s) in an approval letter.
Review Process
The LPC Subcommittee manages the review of proposals for labs, programs and centers, the annual review process, and makes recommendations to the Dean. The LPC consists of four faculty members including the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs (Chair), the Associate Dean for Research, and Associate Dean for Education, and the Executive Director of the Innovation Research Networks. The LPC is available to assist faculty throughout the proposal development and annual review process.
The annual review process is an opportunity for critical reflection, self-assessment, and strategic planning toward our goals. It is also an opportunity for the unit director to highlight accomplishments and share plans for moving forward, ensuring that school leadership is informed and positioned to be as helpful as possible.
As described above, units receive resources from the school based on the rationale that the anticipated benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) will justify the investment. To underscore the level of investment and the importance of engaging in an annual review process, the following table summarizes the details from the sections above.
| Faculty engaged | Term length | |
|---|---|---|
| Labs | ≥ 2 | 1 year |
| Programs | ≥ 5* | 2 years |
| Centers | ≥ 10* | 3 years |
Awarded amounts may vary so that the level of investment by the school broadly reflects the differences in the scope and scale of the units.
Each unit (lab/program/center) is expected to summarize their accomplishments in an annual letter to the LPC Subcommittee. In addition, each unit director is invited to give a 20-minute presentation to the Dean, the LPC, and invited members of the SPH community, summarizing the unit’s progress during the prior year and plans for the coming year. The annual letter and presentations should address the following:
- Discuss the main priorities and activities of the lab/program/center.
- Summarize key activities of the faculty, staff, and students who engaged with the unit during the past year, and how the unit bridges interdisciplinary gaps and facilitates new interdisciplinary work.
- Highlight accomplishments that are unlikely to have happened were it not for the contributions of the unit. Please quantify these benefits to the extent possible.
- Describe how the unit enhanced our educational programs.
- Identify key challenges faced by the unit in the past year.
- Summarize how unit finances were used during the past year.
- Describe the unit’s top priorities for the coming year, including key opportunities, anticipated challenges and proposed solutions.
Decisions
Following the annual review, the Dean will provide each director with an annual letter that includes:
- A summary of feedback from the review;
- Recommendations to enhance unit functioning and development;
- An assessment of the unit’s finances and administration.
If the unit is in the final year of the current term (annual for labs, biannual for programs, triannual for centers), the letter also will indicate whether the unit is renewed for another term. If the unit is not renewed, the unit director may make a written appeal within 30 days to the Dean. This appeal, not to exceed 1,000 words, must specify the goals/objectives to be met, what changes will be made to achieve those goals/objectives, and the proposed timeline. The Dean will issue a written decision to the director within 30 days. The decision of the Dean shall be final.
Decisions about funding and renewals for all school-level units is on a fiscal year basis, with funding and renewal July 1 of each year.