the journal of research administrationdownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/jra_39_1.pdf01...

The Journal ofResearch Administration

Volume XXXIX, Number 1 SprINg 2008

Published by

Society of Research Administrators International

01 May 2008 Colleagues, I am very pleased to announce that the Journal of Research Administration has been selected this year for the 2008 Publications Award from the National Grants Management Association. The award was bestowed at the Association’s annual meeting on 24 April 2008 in Washington, DC. Now in its 39th year of publication, this moment in the Journal’s history was only possible due to the immense efforts of all those who have served as editors, editorial staff members, and staff liaisons over the past four decades. Without this dedicated service, the Journal’s highly acclaimed research articles, commentaries, reviews, case studies, and special features would not be possible. This honor from our colleagues testifies well that the Journal has become the premier international publication of its nature. For all of us in the Society, the Journal captures well the spirit of our commitment with one another as leaders, scholars, executives, and professionals whose efforts are critical for researchers around the world. Sincerely yours, Philip V. Spina, CRA President

Philip V. Spina, CRAPresident

Dr. Edward GabrieleEditor

The Journal of Research Administration Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 iii

Journal

of

Research

Administration

iv Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 The Journal of Research Administration

Cover Photo:

The 2008 international meeting of the Society of Research Administrators International will be held in the National Capital Region of Washington, DC, at National Harbor, Maryland. This year’s meeting takes place during the political fever of the American national elections. The cover of this edition of the Journal celebrates the 2008 international meeting and the American political experience by showcasing the central reading room of the Library of Congress -- a place where individuals gather to learn, to be challenged by diverse and sometimes stridently different ideas, and to re-imagine the meaning of being free individuals and dedicated citizens.

Photo courtesy of Fotosearch.

iv Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 The Journal of Research Administration The Journal of Research Administration Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 1

Editorial Staff

Members:Angelica Almonte, PhD, RNLinnea M. Axman, DrPH, MSN, CFNP, FAANPPaula Bistak, RN, MS, CIPDouglas Carroll, MRE, MLISMarie Anselm Cooper, IHM, EdDMichael Crouch, EdDMarianne Elliott, MS, CIPVincent Gallicchio, PhD, Dp (hon), FRSA, FASAHPDarlene GilsonAnita Hartmann, PhD, CIP, CRAFrances Jeffries, PhDSarah Hope LincolnPaula Means, MPAElsa Nadler, EdDCamille Nebeker, MSMary Perkins, PhD (cand)Debra Schaller-Demers, MSOMJackie Solberg, CRAMarianne Ward, CRAJohn Whitcomb, PhD, RN, CCRN

“Voice of Experience” AuthorsVictoria Molfese, PhD 2008 Coordinator and Senior WriterElliott Kulakowski, PhDLynne Chronister, MPAJ. Michael Slocum, JDCliff Studman, PhDPaul Waugaman, MPA

Publishing CoordinatorDebra Raden

Journal Review Board

Chair:Joseph Cosico, MA, CCRC, CRA

Members:Ronald BackusRemgarajan Balaji, MS, MBAJohn Baumann, PhDPhilip Cola, MABryan Ford, PhD, MSWJohn Gillon, JD. MPHMaggie Griscavage, CRARene Hearns, MPA, CRAElizabeth Holmes, PhDMartin Jamieson, MBA, ACMALeslie KennedyGreg Koski, PhD, MD, CPISharon McCarl, MBA, CRAJessica MoiseJennifer Morgan Shambrook, MHASandra Nordahl, CRATamara O’Black, CIPPaul O’KeefeThomas Roberts, EdDJacqueline Rychnovsky, PhDJ. Michael Slocum, JDTimothy Sparklin, MSW, CIMRenee Vaughan, MDiv, MA, CRA, RCCJoann Waite, MA, PhD (cand)Jill Williamson, JD

Manuscript Editorial Board

Chair:Mary Adams, MTS

EditorEdward F. Gabriele, DMin

Senior Associate EditorBruce Steinert, PhD, CCRA

Business ManagerJames Hanlon, CHRP

Associate Editors:Timothy Atkinson, EdDFrances Chandler, MA, PhD (cand)Wayman Cheatham, MDCarol Fedor, ND, RN, CCRCCindy Kiel, JD

David Langley, PhDCharles MacKay, PhDPhillip E. Myers, PhDMildred Ofosu, PhDPamela Krauser Vargas, MBA

2 Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 The Journal of Research Administration

Journal Correspondence Manuscripts or Letters to the Editor are to be submitted to the Editor. Submission of a manuscript is considered to be a representation that it is not copyrighted, previously published, or concurrently under consideration for publishing in print or electronic form. Consult the Journal web page (www.srainternational.org/journal) for specific information for authors, templates, and new material. The preferred communication route is through email at [email protected], Attention: Editor.

Subscriptions Subscriptions: $100 per year in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; $125 per year international.

Make checks payable to The Journal of Research Administration.

Subscriptions for SRA Members are included as part of an individual’s annual dues. All subscriptions include electronic access to the two yearly print-editions mailed separately via USPS.

Send change-of-address notices (together with your address label) and all other correspondence regarding subscriptions and purchase of back issues to Society of Research Administrators International, Executive Office, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004, Arlington,VA 22209 USA. Phone: +1-703-741-0140. Periodicals are postage paid at Arlington, VA and at an additional mailing office.

Copyright © 2008 by the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA).

All material subject to this copyright may be photocopied for limited non-commercial educational purposes with the written permission of the SRA and with appropriate credit. Opinions expressed in this Journal represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect official policy of either the SRA or the author-affiliated institutions unless so noted in the Author’s Note portion of the specific article. Papers prepared by employees of the U.S. government as part of their official duties may not be copyrighted, but the Journal format is copyrighted and requires written permission of the Society of Research Administrators International, as outlined above. Copying for general distribution, resale, or other purposes may be authorized only with specific written permission from the Society of Research Administrators International. Requests for such permission must be made in writing to the Society of Research Administrators International, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004, Arlington, Virginia 22209 USA or through email at [email protected].

Officers of The Society Of Research Administrators International President Philip Spina President-Elect Pamela MillerPast President Dorothy Yates Treasurer Frank Davis Secretary J. Terence Manns

2 Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 The Journal of Research Administration The Journal of Research Administration Volume XXXIX, Number 1, 2008 3

The Journal of Research Administration is published semi-annually by the Society of Research Administrators International, Arlington, Virginia 22209 USA. Founded in 1967, the Society of Research Administrators International is dedicated to the education and the professional development of research administrators and to enhance public understanding of research and its administration. Representing all disciplines and sectors in research administration, it serves as the international society to promote quality and innovation in research administration. USPS No. 008245. ISSN No. 1539-1590.


RAM Strategy Group, Inc.

Research Administration and

Management

Our mission is to:

Maximize Value of Our Client’s

Research and Technology Efforts

and allow researchers to do world class research.

♦ Strategic Planning, Implementation

and Evaluation

♦ Interim Leadership

♦ Clinical Trials Management

♦ Policies and Procedures Development

♦ Pre- and Post-Award Management

♦ Regulatory Compliance

♦ Research Management Training

♦ Technology Transfer

♦ Technology Commercialization

We provide client-based and customer-

delivered results. We care about you,

your satisfaction and your success.

Contact: RAM Strategy Group, Inc:

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 435-615-7190


Table of Contents

Contributing Authors ............................................................................................6

From the Editor’s Desk .........................................................................................9Dr. Edward F. Gabriele

ArticlesListening to Those We Serve: Assessing the Research Needs of University Faculty ...10Carol A. Mullen, PhDUday Murthy, PhD Greg Teague, PhD

University-Based Research Centers: Characteristics, Organization, and Administrative Implications ............................................................................32Creso M. Sá, PhD

A Need to Know: An Ethical Decision-Making Model for Research Administrators ...41Sarah Hope Lincoln Elizabeth Holmes, PhD

Women’s Ways of Collaboration: A Case Study in Proposal Development .........48Debra Easterly, EdD

SBIR and STTR Programs: The Private Sector, Public Sector and University Trifecta ....................................58Bryan Ford, PhD Kathleen Shino, MBAErik Sander, MSMoTJ. Michael Hardin, PhD

Book ReviewRethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution of Research on Leadership (2006) Adrianna J. Kezar, Rozana Carducci, Melissa Contreras-McGavin. Jossey-Bass, 218 p. .............................................................................79Frances Chandler, PhD (cand)

Voice of ExperienceThe Strategic Planning Process: Applications to Research Universities and Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions ...........................................................85Victoria Molfese, PhD, 2008 Senior WriterLynn Chronister, MPAElliott Kulakowski, PhDJ. Michael Slocum, JDCliff Studman, PhDPaul Waugaman, MPA


Frances Chandler, PhD (cand), is currently Associate Director of Research Services at Brock University in Southern Ontario. She previously was engaged in research, teaching, social work and community development in China, Ghana, and Northern and Southern Ontario. Currently Ms. Chandler is a doctoral candidate in education with a focus on leadership.

Lynne Chronister, MPA, is Executive Director of Sponsored Programs at the University of Washington. Prior to this she was Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of California, Davis. She is a Past-President of the Society of Research Administrators International and has served in various leadership capacities for the Society. She has been at the forefront of the Society’s international outreach program. She is co-editor of the work, Research Administration and Management (Jones/Bartlett).

Debra Easterly, EdD, is Research Administrator in the Office of Research at Idaho State University (ISU), Pocatello, ID. She works with many areas of research administration and co-teaches research methods for the Education Leadership program. Dr. Easterly is co-PI/project director for a National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant and is active in the ISU community promoting the advancement of women in higher education, particularly in the role of faculty and administrators.

Bryan K. Ford, PhD, MSW, is the President and CEO of CaringSource. Dr. Ford was recently a Hartford Doctoral Fellow and in addition to his geriatric care business he also contracts as a consultant for NIH SBIR/STTR grants.

J. Michael Hardin, PhD, is Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Statistics in the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration. Dr. Hardin frequently serves as an ad hoc grant reviewer for NIH, and is currently Associate Editor for The American Statistician, and for the International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications. Over the last 20 years, Dr. Hardin has served as a Co-Principal Investigator or Investigator on numerous NIH sponsored research grants.

Elizabeth Holmes, PhD, ABPP, is the Deputy Director for Assessment at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership, United States Naval Academy. A retired Navy Captain, Dr. Holmes is a clinical psychologist and holds the honor of being the first woman Naval officer to attain the rank of full professor at the Academy. She is an innovative teacher, scholar, and leader in ethics, psychology, and leadership studies.

Elliott Kulakowski, PhD, is President of the Research Administration and Management Strategy Group. He has served as a Past-President of the Society of Research Administrators International. He has been an executive in research management in federal, university, and academic medical center environments. A proponent of the SRA educational mission overseas, he is co-editor of the recent work, Research Administration and Management (Jones/Bartlett).

Sarah Hope Lincoln, is a psychology intern at the United States Naval Academy’s Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership in Annapolis, MD. She is a 2006 graduate of Wellesley College and holds a Bachelor of Arts in psychology.

Contributing Authors

Biographical Sketches



Victoria J. Molfese, PhD, is the Ashland/Nystrand Chair in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Louisville and is the Director of the Center for Research in Early Childhood. She has published, lectured, and received various research grants in areas related to cognitive development in infants, children and adults. She is a Past-President and Past-Secretary of the Society of Research Administrators International.

Carol A. Mullen, PhD, is a professor and chair, Department of EducationalLeadership and Cultural Foundations, School of Education, The University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro. Dr. Mullen specializes in mentorship anddemocracy, faculty and graduate student development, and curriculumleadership. She is editor of the refereed international journal Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning (Routledge/Taylor & Francis). Her mostrecent book is Write to the Top! How to be a Prolific Academic (PalgraveMacmillan).

Uday Murthy, PhD, ACA, is Professor and holder of the Quinn Eminent Scholar Chair in the School of Accountancy at the University of South Florida. His teaching and research interests are in the area of accounting information systems. Professor Murthy’s research has been published in the leading journals in accounting information systems. He has served as coeditor of the Journal of Information Systems, the leading journal for accounting information systems research.

Creso M. Sá, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Toronto. Dr. Sá writes on science and technology policy and research universities. His forthcoming book is Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth (with Roger L. Geiger).

Erik Sander, MSMoT, is President of V2R Group, Inc. and also serves as Director of Industry Programs for the University of Florida College of Engineering. Mr. Sander has 24 years of experience in high technology R&D and commercialization in the private and academic sectors. Mr. Sander also manages the Florida High Tech Corridor Matching Grants Research Program at the University of Florida, providing investments in university-high tech company R&D collaborations.

Kathleen J. Shino, MBA, is the NIH Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Specialist. She held positions in Grants Management at NCI and NIDDK before joining the NIH Office of Extramural Programs. She provides administrative guidance to applicants, training for NIH staff, and conducts technical site visits for NIH and CDC grantee organizations. Ms. Shino also serves on the Frederick County Business Development Advisory Council in Maryland.

J. Michael Slocum, JD, is a senior member of the law firm of Slocum & Boddie, P.C. He has more than thirty years of experience in grant and contract law. He is a Distinguished Faculty member of the Society of Research Administrators. He is a member of the Virginia State Bar, and is President of Slocum & Boddie, PC in Springfield, Virginia.

Biographical Sketches, continued



Cliff Studman, PhD, consults in Research Management, currently with the Accident Compensation Corporation in New Zealand, funding research projects. He worked for five years at the University of Botswana, establishing the research office and university policy. Interests include building research in developing countries, research funding, assessment and monitoring, and predominantly undergraduate universities. Qualifications are a physics doctorate from Cambridge (UK) a degree from East Anglia (UK) and an education diploma from Massey (New Zealand).

Gregory B. Teague, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department ofMental Health Law & Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental HealthInstitute, University of South Florida. His research and teaching are inthe general area of mental health services, with particular emphasis oncommunity-based interventions for persons with severe mental disordersand on measurement of critical processes and performance in behavioralhealthcare systems.

Paul Waugaman, MPA, is Principal and Co-Founder of the Technology Commercialization Group. He has served in diverse leadership positions within the Society of Research Administrators International, and has led various research administration initiatives at the executive level for diverse institutions of high renown. He has been instrumental in expanding the SRA mission to the global community and has expanded greatly the awareness of indigenization as an important goal for research management and administration practices.

Biographical Sketches, continued


Introduction

Political soundbytes are dominating the American ear. Pundits comment that the “din” in this election cycle is louder and more raucous than in recent history. Many, both in the United States and around the world, believe this is one of America’s most tumultuous political campaigns. Some question, under an unfortunate and inappropriate sense of polarization, whether one candidate’s position or another’s is loyally part of the democracy at all. Some wonder if this polarizing inability to approach commonality signals that the political processes themselves are irreparably broken. Some question if all the noise is counter-productive to the process of being a nation, a community of persons seeking the common good for America itself and the world. But I wonder..... Congresses, parliaments, councils, and political assemblies have often been filled with brash language, strident beliefs, strong argument, sometimes the coarsest of language or a determined push or shove, or even the pulling of an opponent’s beard! Perhaps we are a bit too enamored of some of the elegant and serene portraits painted at the end of such gatherings. The processes that preceded the artist’s work were anything but elegant and serene. So why do events like national elections elicit such strong and uncivil behaviors? Simply, because every time a democratic people approach their national elections, it is a time of re-invention, of rebirth. And no birth is easy. In this election year, Americans are about something far deeper than simply the triumph of one party or another. The real issue is not about a winning platform. Rather, it is about being reinvented in the original vision and future interpretation of what it means to be a people. Such a reinvention necessarily is preceded by the loud and raucous debate of differing ideas, colliding concepts, stretching goals, and competing values. While we are in the fray, the exchange and debate will always be fiery, born of passionate beliefs about what it means to be a people. We should expect nothing less. For our profession, the passion of this year’s American elections is familiar territory. Our service can give rise to heated debate and even controversy within our institutions. We experience challenges that demand unprecedented change. Sometimes change requires reform, i.e. the alteration of processes and skills already acquired. At other times, it requires revision, i.e. the institution of completely new methods with never before known expertise. Our profession is always about change. However, change means living in a world constantly open to the loud and raucous exchange of stridently different energies, ideas, opportunities, strategies, and solutions. This edition of the Journal celebrates this sense of strident change through diverse articles about new, unique, and perhaps challenging topics. As we review them it is best to listen beneath the words of each author’s message to hear a voice beckoning us to the less-than-easy but necessary process of change and re-invention. Change has its price, for sure. But not to change, not to evolve, not to be open to possibilities --- these have a far greater direct cost. In 2008, the Society holds its annual international meeting in the National Capital Region of Washington DC, at the new National Harbor, Maryland. To highlight our 2008 meeting, the Journal cover depicts the Library of Congress Reading Room from the above. It shows the reading tables and carousels of the Library facing each other in circular fashion. It is an apt image of what any nation experiences in an election year. It is a very apt image of what we as research administrators do for and with one another. We face each other. We face new ideas that emerge from within. We confront the challenges that face us. Sometimes that confrontation is a loud and raucous event. But in the end, we never break the circle. We never break the bond between us regardless how loud the discourse, regardless how strident the debate. We come to understand that the din and the clatter are the necessary prelude to becoming something always serenely new.

From the Editor’s DeskDr. Edward Gabriele


Articles

Listening to Those We Serve:Assessing the Research Needs of

University Faculty

Greg Teague, PhDAssociate Professor

The University of South FloridaFlorida Mental Health Institute (FMHI)

4202 E. Fowler Ave. MHC 2734Tampa, FL 33620

Tel: (813) 974-7185Email: [email protected]

Authors’ Note This article is based on preliminary presentations delivered both to research administrators and university faculty at the University of South Florida, a research-extensive institution that serves as the context for this investigation. In accordance with the University’s rule 6C4-10.109.B-6, the authors confirm that the opinions stated herein are their own, not the university’s. The corresponding author is Carol A. Mullen, PhD, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, [email protected].

Abstract This study presents findings from a university-wide faculty survey on research resources at a top-tier research institution in the United States (U.S.). The researchers (faculty leaders) designed the original instrument, submitted it for critique and validation to a faculty senate’s research body, and solicited participation from all colleges. The principal investigators sought to identify impediments to research and scholarship, as perceived by faculty. The questions posed were: What specific types of resources do faculty members deem important to facilitate their research activities? Are financial and non-financial resources deemed equally important? Do junior and senior faculty members differ in their views on the importance of various resources as valued resources? Are there differences across academic units in the degree to which particular resources are valued? The survey also elicited faculty perceptions of the level of research support actually received and demographic information about the faculty respondents, their recent research and scholarship activities, and their attitudes towards various types of incentives for research. The survey was distributed

Carol A. Mullen, PhDProfessor and Chair

The University of North Carolina at GreensboroDepartment of Educational Leadership &

Cultural Foundations239-B Curry Building

1109 Spring Garden StreetThe University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Greensboro, NC 27412 Tel: (336) 334-9865Fax: (336) 334-4737


Uday Murthy, PhDProfessor and Quinn Eminent Scholar

The University of South FloridaSchool of Accountancy

College of Business4202 E. Fowler Ave. BSN 3403

Tampa, FL 33620-5500Tel: (813) 974-6523Fax: (813) 974-6528



Articles

to all faculty members (1,474) at the University. It was completed by 305 faculty, yielding a response rate of 20.6%. Results obtained reveal that across all faculty ranks financial and material resources are deemed critical for supporting faculty members’ research efforts. Intellectual and scholarly resources, such as the availability of research mentors, were deemed significantly more important by junior faculty. The results should be of interest to anyone seeking to enhance the research output of the academic enterprise.

Keywords: Faculty survey, research support infrastructure, faculty perceptions, level of support, research resources, organizational culture

Introduction Universities around the world are constantly pressured to improve in response to environmental influences and competitive forces. The desire to ascend the rankings ladder drives the resource allocation decisions of university administrators worldwide (Clarke, 2004), and in such countries as China (Ng & Li, 2000), the United Kingdom (Tapper, & Salter, 2004), and the U.S. (Tierney, 1999). Since ranking methodologies invariably place a significant emphasis on faculty research and scholarship productivity, university leaders and consequently faculty members are constantly seeking to enhance their research profile (Tien & Blackburn, 1996). While few would argue that it takes resources (primarily financial) to enhance the research productivity of faculty, our purpose in this study was to examine more nuanced questions about how research and scholarship activities at a large public university can be enhanced. In particular, we attempted to identify faculty members’ perceptions of impediments to research and scholarship by asking the following questions: What specific types of resources do faculty members deem important to facilitate their research activities? Are financial and non-financial resources deemed equally important? Do junior and senior faculty members differ in their views on the importance of various resources as valued resources? Are there differences across academic units in the degree to which particular resources are valued? Answers to such questions will be informative to large universities worldwide as research administrators and faculty leaders seek ways to facilitate research at their institutions. So that bridges can be built between these often fractious cultures (faculty and administration), research administrators need to have opportunities for listening to those they serve, as well as data upon which to plan new ways forward. This paper reports the results of original research in the form of a university-wide faculty survey of research resources. The context for this investigation is a university in the southeastern U.S. classified as a Carnegie research-extensive, doctoral-granting, public institution. The survey instrument elicited the perceptions and perplexities of faculty regarding the importance of various research support factors and the level of support they reported having actually received. The survey also sought demographic information about the faculty respondents, including self-ratings of scholarly output, activities actually engaged in, and feelings toward research incentives. Although the results on the level of support dimension are specific to one university, the findings on the degree of importance dimension are relevant for other large, research-oriented universities. Research-related areas and concerns addressed


Articles

by full-time faculty of all ranks and from various colleges were identified. As such, this study should be of interest to directors of sponsored research, college deans, and anyone else engaged in developing the internal research capacity of universities and facilitating the scholarly performance and contribution of faculty.

Background and Related Literature A seriously underdeveloped area of scholarship involves study of university research resources through the eyes of faculty. This focus lends a very different perspective than the traditional administrator-driven view from above, which often perpetuates top-down stipulations for funding, recognition, and reward structures. In the U.S., the traditional emphasis has been on organizational support for faculty success with regard to the acquisition, discovery, and application of knowledge. However, depending on the selected lens for viewing the role of university resources in supporting faculty, the results can vary tremendously. Accordingly, the university portrait we provided with respect to an institution’s capacity to support research is strictly faculty informed and context specific.

Related Studies Scholarly sources dealing with university-wide investigations of faculty perceptions of research resources are few and far between. What was typically located through Internet database searches, conducted from 2005 to 2007, are internal research reports generated by administration, research, and management offices. The authors of these various reports argue the need to build capacity for research development and even to rethink and rebuild stagnant research infrastructures. These reports are generally not based on empirical investigations of faculty perceptions but rather analyses garnered through task forces, internal audits, or accreditation visits. In such cases, it is often recommended that increased funding be applied to the internal research infrastructure, including library and operating budgets of units and colleges; it is also recommended that faculty education occur in the importance of developing and maintaining research agendas and attracting external grants and contracts (Rice, 2000). University management teams commonly assert that, to achieve their vision, it is critical that planning processes pay close attention to the current resource situation; it is recommended that strategies be devised for effectively cultivating and using financial, human, and physical resources. Another pattern we uncovered through the paucity of available material on this subject underscores that even when faculty members’ views are taken into account, these may be collapsed with that of administrators’ views, making it difficult to know what faculty are actually thinking and recommending. In one such instance, 42 surveys were collected by Carnegie Mellon University researchers who reached out to administrators and faculty alike at various universities to determine the research administrator’s role in creating a supportive environment for interdisciplinary research (Laughlin & Sigerstad, 1990). It was discovered that individual faculty members are critical in initiating interdisciplinary research activity and that administrators are indispensable to the effort of making funding available and of facilitating a proactive and supportive environment for doing research. Using data from a National Research Council study on research-doctorate programs in the U.S., Dundar and Lewis (1998) investigated factors that explained the research productivity of 1,841 doctoral programs at 90 research universities. The


Articles

proxy for research productivity employed was the publication of journal articles, which comprised the primary dependent variable in the study. Independent variables included in the regression model comprised doctoral program size, concentration, and percentage of faculty publishing, percentage of faculty who were full professors, institutional library expenditures, ratio of graduate students to faculty, percentage of faculty with research support (i.e., funding), percentage of graduate students who hold research assistantships, and institution type (public or private university). These explanatory variables were found to be significantly associated with research productivity, with some differences across the four clusters of fields investigated -- biological sciences, engineering, physical sciences and mathematics, and social and behavioral sciences. While Dundar and Lewis (1998) shed light on macro-level factors associated with a narrowly defined measure of research productivity, what remains unclear are the specific impediments to research and scholarship activities as perceived by faculty. A more recent survey of over 6,000 faculty members at institutions with significant federal funding for research shed light on the administrative burden faced by grant-funded research faculty (Decker, Wimsatt, Trice, & Konstan, 2007). Most respondents were from the hard sciences (primarily the medical sciences) and received funding from the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation. Results of the survey revealed that an alarming 42% of the time committed to federal research was consumed by pre- and post-award administrative activities rather than to active research. Faculty reported being burdened by requirements to submit progress reports on grants, hire personnel for projects, purchase equipment and supplies, and comply with institutional review board (IRB) procedures. Also revealing is the finding that 95% of respondents reported that they could spend additional time on active research if they were provided with more assistance for handling research-related administrative tasks. As an indication of the severity of the problem, 76% of the faculty indicated being willing to reallocate direct costs to fund administrative support for research-related activities. It should be noted that the Decker et al. (2007) survey was aimed exclusively at impediments to federally funded research, whereas the survey reported in the current paper is broader, examining issues such as intellectual and scholarly resources. Of interest, it was also discovered that several U.S. universities had conducted similar studies of their research cultures and needs. Columbia University, East Tennessee University, and the University of North Carolina (both at Chapel Hill and at Greensboro) are all noteworthy. Three observations emerged from comparing the efforts at these institutions to our approach. First, some of the identified needs are similar across institutions (e.g., graduate students, project start-up and support, low level of support from central administration). Second, a qualitative analysis of open-ended responses allowed a more phenomenological grasp of faculty members’ situations. Third, our quantitative approach was also unique in allowing the identification of problems with the research support infrastructure and relative gaps in research support resources. The universities we examined applied a slightly different methodological approach to the study of their contexts. Despite different methods or settings, however, a very small sample of universities produced some similar themes for universities trying to attain greater heights in research stature.


Articles

Method Over the years, strategic planning became a major initiative of central administration at the University being investigated. As an organization seeking status as a premier, national-level, research institution, the time had come to investigate, through a faculty-led grassroots initiative, what it would take to help accomplish this identity goal. To attain consideration from key decision makers and to recommend any potential changes to grant support and related research infrastructures, it was necessary to ascertain faculty perceptions of the importance of various research resources and the level of support actually being provided in each instance. A survey of faculty would highlight key research-relevant areas in need of improvement while providing a vehicle for faculty input in the University’s strategic planning process.

Survey Design and Deployment The researchers created the survey and the university-wide faculty research committee, consisting of representatives from all colleges, provided critical review and ongoing input. This committee, known as the Research Council (RC), is a body of the University’s Faculty Senate; it is charged with advising the University administration on matters pertaining to research activity. The overarching goal of the survey was to support the RC’s advisory mission and strengthen the credibility of its recommendations to upper administration through expanded input from faculty. In spring 2005, under the researchers’ leadership, the RC formed a Faculty Research Survey committee charged with drafting the faculty survey instrument. The survey was designed to solicit information from faculty at all ranks and from all colleges across the University concerning deficits in research support and infrastructure. The intent of this instrument was to assess the degree of importance faculty placed on several resources required to support research and scholarship and to assess the level of support received on each resource factor regardless of its source (i.e., department, college, or university). Questions regarding resources for research and scholarship were divided into 8 categories: (a) seven questions relating to financial resources, (b) nine questions relating to material resources, (c) seven questions relating to human resources, (d) eleven questions dealing with intellectual/scholarly resources, (e) four questions targeting administrative/academic support, (f ) six questions on pre-award grant support, (g) five questions on post-award support, and (h) four questions regarding support for dealing with research integrity and compliance issues. Open-ended questions were included in all sections of the survey. The concluding section started with an open-ended question soliciting specific concerns and suggestions for the RC. The second question prompted the listing of three key problems or issues that inhibited the participant’s research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. Additional questions in the final section elicited demographic information regarding the respondent’s college/department, rank, tenure status, years spent at the university, self-ratings of scholarly output, and types of scholarship in which the faculty member had recently engaged. Finally, faculty members were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of eight incentive mechanisms for increasing externally funded


Articles

research and scholarly productivity at the University. Before undertaking the survey, respondents were prompted to choose between the full and short version of the instrument, a strategy used to increase the response rate. The short version bypassed the detailed, category-specific, questions, taking the respondent directly to the concluding section. The final version of the researchers’ survey instrument reflected input from the RC membership, as well as the associate deans for research of the University’s 12 colleges. The survey was posted on the web. Email solicitations were sent to all faculty members, with separate requests for participation from key stakeholders (associate deans within each college and college-level RC representatives).The survey was granted an exemption by the IRB.

ResultsFaculty Respondents The survey was distributed to all faculty at the University, numbering, in 2006, 1,474 full-time tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty. It was completed by 305 faculty members, yielding a response rate of 20.6%. This response rate is biased downward to the extent that it is unknown how many of the 1,474 faculty members had a research assignment significant enough to foster interest in the survey. If only about 1,000 faculty members had significant research assignments, the response rate would be around 30%. Regardless, a low response rate was not unexpected, given the survey’s length. Yet, the majority of respondents (245 or 80%) chose the long version; 75% answered more than 75% of the rating items, and 274 answered at least one open-ended question. Compared with the total responses received from the college/institute level, business administration, education, and mental health attracted the highest response rate and medicine, the lowest. Of those who indicated their rank, 88 (35%) were assistant professors, 77 (30.5%), associate professors, and 87 (34.5%), full professors, producing even representation across ranks. Faculty from 12 colleges responded to the survey. For ease of exposition and analysis, three clusters of related colleges were formed. Cluster 1 comprised colleges in the hard sciences and engineering, and included the colleges of arts and sciences, engineering, and marine sciences. Cluster 2 included the colleges of architecture, business, education, and visual and performing arts -- areas where grant-funded research played a relatively minor role given the limited number of funding sources in these fields. Cluster 3 comprised the health sciences and included the colleges of medicine, nursing, public health, mental health, and health sciences. For both Cluster 1 and Cluster 3, external, grant-funded research played a significant role. A considerable portion (over 80%) of the research funding from external grants for the University accrued to colleges comprising Cluster 3. Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by rank across the three clusters. Some variation in proportion of faculty ranks occurred across colleges; however, using Chi-square analysis as a test of independence revealed that the proportions did not differ significantly across the three clusters ( χ2 = 27.17, df=22, p=.205).


Articles

Table 1

Faculty Rank by College Group

College group

Faculty rank

Arts/sciences,

Engineering,

Marine

Sciences

Architecture,

Business,

Education,

Visual &

Performing

Arts

Medicine,

Nursing,

Public Health,

Mental Health,

Health

Sciences Total

Assistant professor 25 34 25 84

Associate professor 30 21 23 74

Full professor 33 19 32 84

Total 88 74 80 242

Importance Scales Each of the eight categories of support questions included an “other” question that allowed respondents to add information not specifically addressed in the preceding (specific) questions. A majority of respondents left the “other” question blank. Excluding the “other” question in each category, reliability analyses were conducted on the importance ratings for the remaining questions to ascertain the degree of internal consistency as the basis for considering each category as a single construct. For seven of the eight categories, the Cronbach’s alpha was above the benchmark of .70 for acceptable reliability (Nunnally, 1978). One category containing four questions dealing with administrative/academic support had a relatively low Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .60. Consequently, this category was excluded from further analyses. The remaining seven categories along with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and the questions within each category are shown in Table 2; also provided are the frequencies of low, medium, and high responses for each scale item. Table 3 is a display of the correlations among the seven importance scales. As might be expected, the scales are highly and significantly correlated, with the correlations ranging from .222 to .593 (p<.01).


Articles


Articles

Table 3

Correlations among Importance Scales

Importance of

financial

resources

Importance of

material

resources

Importance of

human

resources

Importance of

intellectual/

scholarly resources

Importance of

pre-award

grant support

Importance of

post-award

grant support

Importance of

research integrity/

compliance support

Importance of financial

resources

Pearson

Correlation 1 .593(**) .527(**) .504(**) .276(**) .380(**) .222(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002

N 242 235 229 232 218 180 201

Importance of material

resources

Pearson

Correlation .593(**) 1 .579(**) .500(**) .315(**) .384(**) .325(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 235 237 228 232 218 181 202

Importance of human

resources

Pearson

Correlation .527(**) .579(**) 1 .571(**) .516(**) .493(**) .367(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 229 228 229 229 215 178 199

Importance of

intellectual/scholarly

resources

Pearson

Correlation .504(**) .500(**) .571(**) 1 .525(**) .505(**) .453(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 232 232 229 233 219 181 202

Importance of pre-award

grant support

Pearson

Correlation .276(**) .315(**) .516(**) .525(**) 1 .635(**) .532(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 218 218 215 219 219 181 200

Importance of post-

award grant support

Pearson

Correlation .380(**) .384(**) .493(**) .505(**) .635(**) 1 .424(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 180 181 178 181 181 181 171

Importance of research

integrity/compliance

support

Pearson

Correlation .222(**) .325(**) .367(**) .453(**) .532(**) .424(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 201 202 199 202 200 171 202

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to identify clusters of relatively homogeneous importance scales. This procedure is aimed at partitioning the data into relatively homogeneous clusters so that scales that are similar are grouped together. The procedure uses an algorithm that starts with each variable (importance scale in our data set) in a separate cluster and combines clusters until only one is left. Depicted in Figure 1 is a dendrogram plotted to facilitate the identification of related clusters. A dendrogram is a visual representation of the steps in a hierarchical clustering solution that shows the clusters being combined and the values of the distance coefficients at each step with connected vertical lines designating similar variables. The dendrogram is interpreted to mean that financial and material resources are most alike, with human resources following closely in similarity. As is logical, pre-grant and post-grant support are clustered together. Intellectual and scholarly resources, and research integrity and compliance support, are two research resource dimensions that tend to stand alone.


Articles

The degree to which the importance scale ratings varied by college group was then investigated. As shown in Table 4, little variation exists in the degree of importance ascribed to each scale as a function of the college group to which the respondent belongs. Since the importance scales were significantly correlated, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to investigate whether the scales differed between college groups. MANOVA results revealed an insignificant difference in importance scale ratings among college groups (Wilks’ λ = 1.26, df=14, p=.232).


Articles

Table 4

Importance Ratings by College Group

Scales+ College group Mean@ Std. Dev. N

Importance of financial

resources

Arts/sciences, Engineering, Marine

Sciences 2.54 .392 64

Architecture, Business, Education,

Visual & Performing Arts 2.40 .489 30

Medicine, Nursing, Public Health,

Mental Health, Health Sciences 2.42 .480 64

Total 2.46 .453 158


resources


Sciences 2.60 .404 64





Total 2.55 .436 158

Importance of human

resources


Sciences 2.53 .448 64





Total 2.51 .452 158

Importance of


resources


Sciences 2.36 .483 64





Total 2.39 .481 158

Importance of pre-award

grant support


Sciences 2.56 .457 64





Total 2.53 .464 158

Importance of post-

award grant support


Sciences 2.67 .474 64





Total 2.60 .495 158


Articles

Table 4 (Continued)

Importance Ratings by College Group

Scales+ College group Mean@ Std. Dev. N


integrity/compliance

support


Sciences 2.40 .561 64





Total 2.44 .544 158 + Refer to Table 2 for the components of each importance scale @Importance rating scale: 1=low; 2=medium; 3=high

It is reasonable to expect that the ratings of the importance of research support resources might vary as a function of the respondent’s faculty rank. Specifically, junior untenured faculty who must produce sufficient high quality research to obtain tenure and promotion might be expected to have different research support needs in contrast to senior full professors who might potentially be less research active. Table 5 specifies how the ratings for each importance scale varied by faculty rank. As shown in Panel A of Table 6, MANOVA results revealed a significant difference in importance scale ratings among faculty ranks (Wilks’ λ = 1.898, df=14, p=.026). Panel B of Table 6 reveals that importance of intellectual and scholarly resources, and the importance of research integrity and compliance support, were the two scales for which the importance ratings differed significantly among assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors. The means in Table 5 indicate that both of these scales were rated higher by assistant professors relative to associate and full professors. It is especially revealing that junior faculty (assistant professors) rated the importance of intellectual and scholarly resources significantly higher than senior faculty (associate and full professors). In the early stages of their research career, they apparently feel a greater need for those resources relative to senior faculty who likely have established programs of research.


Articles

Table 5

Importance Ratings by Faculty Rank

Importance scale Rank Mean Std. Dev. N

Importance of financial resources Assistant 2.41 .464 44

Associate 2.55 .478 40

Full 2.41 .458 65

Total 2.45 .466 149

Importance of material resources Assistant 2.53 .455 44


Full 2.51 .429 65

Total 2.54 .447 149

Importance of human resources Assistant 2.49 .473 44


Full 2.46 .474 65

Total 2.49 .475 149

Importance of intellectual/scholarly resources Assistant 2.50 .467 44


Full 2.25 .495 65

Total 2.38 .482 149

Importance of pre-award grant support Assistant 2.65 .412 44


Full 2.51 .436 65

Total 2.53 .469 149

Importance of post-award grant support Assistant 2.56 .562 44


Full 2.59 .497 65

Total 2.58 .510 149

Importance of research integrity/compliance support Assistant 2.57 .509 44


Full 2.34 .531 65

Total 2.43 .541 149

Table 6

Comparing Importance Ratings by Faculty Rank

Panel A: Multivariate tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Intercept Pillai's Trace .980 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Wilks' Lambda .020 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Hotelling's Trace 48.581 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Roy's Largest Root 48.581 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Faculty rank Pillai's Trace .172 1.897 14 282 .027

Wilks' Lambda .834 1.898(a) 14 280 .026

Hotelling's Trace .191 1.899 14 278 .026

Roy's Largest Root .136 2.740(b) 7 141 .011

a Exact statistic

b The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

Panel B: Tests of between-subjects effects

Source Dependent Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Faculty rank Importance of financial

resources .512(a) 2 .256 1.184 .309


resources .163(b) 2 .082 .405 .668

Importance of human

resources .154(c) 2 .077 .338 .713

Importance of


resources 1.957(d) 2 .978 4.396 .014

Importance of pre-award grant

support .901(e) 2 .451 2.076 .129

Importance of post-award

grant support .034(f) 2 .017 .065 .937


integrity/compliance support 1.455(g) 2 .727 2.535 .083

a R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = .002)

b R Squared = .006 (Adjusted R Squared = -.008)

c R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = -.009)

d R Squared = .057 (Adjusted R Squared = .044)

e R Squared = .028 (Adjusted R Squared = .014)

f R Squared = .001 (Adjusted R Squared = -.013)

g R Squared = .034 (Adjusted R Squared = .020)


Articles

Support for Research Turning to the views of respondents regarding the actual level of support received at the University, the results suggest considerable room for improvement. Faculty consistently rated support in the medium to low range, although variations occurred by unit and rank. Key problem areas included research assistants, post-award grant administration, project support, bureaucratic infrastructure, and intellectual climate. Because the purpose of the survey was problem seeking regarding individual support for research, the findings consistently reflect problem-oriented responses. Going beyond the data to comprehend the inherent messages, we have not only identified concrete issues but also framed them in a larger strategic understanding of the areas of change that university leaders in similar situations might address. The themes identified, both quantitatively and qualitatively, proved consistent across the range of items for specific sections. We now discuss these themes, identifying each major theme in italics. Time referred to the adjustment of responsibilities for faculty that would permit more research, as well as support and relief from the burden of corollary tasks. Funding underscored additional or reallocated resources for specific needs. Communication was situated as collegial, intra- and interdepartmental. Parity was emphasized as a need with respect to fair access to resources and rewards. More specifically, infrastructure deficiencies were identified as the most salient issue (169/274 or 62% of faculty respondents); monetary resources, the second (147/274, 54%); and lack of time, the third (142/274, 52%). Regarding University infrastructure, bureaucratic systems were identified as a source of grave concern. They were reported to impede research and inter-unit

Table 6

Comparing Importance Ratings by Faculty Rank

Panel A: Multivariate tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Intercept Pillai's Trace .980 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Wilks' Lambda .020 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Hotelling's Trace 48.581 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Roy's Largest Root 48.581 971.629(a) 7 140 .000

Faculty rank Pillai's Trace .172 1.897 14 282 .027

Wilks' Lambda .834 1.898(a) 14 280 .026

Hotelling's Trace .191 1.899 14 278 .026

Roy's Largest Root .136 2.740(b) 7 141 .011

a Exact statistic

b The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

Panel B: Tests of between-subjects effects

Source Dependent Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Faculty rank Importance of financial

resources .512(a) 2 .256 1.184 .309


resources .163(b) 2 .082 .405 .668

Importance of human

resources .154(c) 2 .077 .338 .713

Importance of


resources 1.957(d) 2 .978 4.396 .014

Importance of pre-award grant

support .901(e) 2 .451 2.076 .129

Importance of post-award

grant support .034(f) 2 .017 .065 .937


integrity/compliance support 1.455(g) 2 .727 2.535 .083

a R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = .002)

b R Squared = .006 (Adjusted R Squared = -.008)

c R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = -.009)

d R Squared = .057 (Adjusted R Squared = .044)

e R Squared = .028 (Adjusted R Squared = .014)

f R Squared = .001 (Adjusted R Squared = -.013)

g R Squared = .034 (Adjusted R Squared = .020)


Articles

collaboration, perpetuate inefficient and error-prone financial systems, and produce ancillary research functions often experienced as rigid, complicated, or suboptimal (e.g., IRB, patents/licensing). The faculty logged many complaints concerning the bureaucratic “red tape” involved in processing research-related forms and in attempting to secure help with the grant process. Post-award policies also received attention. Obtaining approved grant funding, a process described as “very difficult,” occurred in a research setting characterized by mechanisms that often proved slow, outmoded, and ineffective. In addition to infrastructure deficiency, policies and procedures were described as cumbersome and redundant, time consuming, fragmented, and unfriendly to users. Simplification and streamlining were requested. An outlier perceived the infrastructure and grant support to be “an adequate financial structure that aids instead of hinders research.” Three principal areas of personnel and general support were noted. First, personnel support resulted in a call for more clerical support across the University. Participants argued that a high level of bureaucracy in the absence of support personnel diverted effort and reduced faculty research potential. Second, graduate/research assistantship support, described as an intellectual labor force that assists with research/scholarship tasks, was seen as lacking, given that doctoral students, research assistants, and graduate assistants were underpaid and often inadequately prepared for working in a research environment. It was believed that the University desperately needed greater recruiting of these individuals and doctoral students in general. Third, general support, portrayed as unevenly or unfairly distributed assistance, was associated with impoverished incentives and rewards for research, and with little feeling of general or targeted support from the institution. A notable area in which support was lacking centered on scheduling of teaching responsibilities, with indications from some faculty that their heavy teaching load prohibited them from doing much research. Too many different curricula and the necessity of teaching during summers interfered with the goals of a rapidly growing research institution. Collaboration and training targeted collegial/intellectual collaboration and support. Faculty described collaboration across the University as generally at a low level, and culture and structure as unsupportive of team efforts. The culture of the institution was not seen as conducive to faculty participation in research-oriented collaboration, mentoring, or even conversation. Some faculty acknowledged that while research skills were not their forte, they nonetheless desired to learn these but needed the support of mentors. Mentors who helped budding scholars with their research were seen as rare, and department chairs were considered infrequently supportive of faculty’s research in their unit. One can infer that the faculty we surveyed desired collaboration and participation in knowledge communities that actively supported research efforts. Research training in support of methodological analyses was identified as a definite need, particularly in areas such as grant preparation and submission, and in all areas involving funded research. Material resources were comprised of three areas, with these primary results: (a) space was associated with limitations in research space and laboratory and other general facilities, resulting in restrictions on research productivity; (b) technology/equipment was commonly viewed as lacking, outdated, or broken; and (c) library


Articles

holdings were seen as deficient, with specific needs for more up-to-date materials, expanded subscriptions, and improved access to electronic databases. Generally, the University’s research support infrastructure was characterized as outmoded and unresponsive to the needs of today’s researchers. The support structures and communications that enabled faculty to perform to their fullest capacity as researchers simply did not exist to the extent desired. Another perceived barrier to research was monetary resources, referred to as non-existent (and/or a paucity of ) start-up funds for research or a dearth of grant opportunities, sometimes known as “seed” monies. Grant-funded faculty described continuous funding as limited, along with funds for equipment, clerical staff, statistical aids, and database/library materials. The survey was used to solicit a representative response to a lengthy instrument. This implies that the faculty viewed their own research capacity and effectiveness as important and that they had vital messages to send. Based on the quantitative data collected and analyzed, the mean support ratings were in the medium to low range, which suggests that significant room for improvement exists in all research support areas. General university-wide themes underlie variations in specific areas across units, ranks, and other groups. The following were all critical areas identified via faculty ratings: increasing the availability of research assistants; strengthening post-award administration; providing sufficient material resources for laboratory space and equipment for initiating and maintaining specific research capacities; making resources more available and facilitating scholarship, especially for newer or more inexperienced faculty; expanding space and equipment in the sciences; and providing clerical support for optimizing investment of faculty effort.

Self-rating of Scholarly Output Respondents were asked to rate their own research and scholarly output over the last 3 years relative to standards/norms (a) they held for themselves, (b) within their department/unit at the University, and (c) at peer “Research I” institutions. The ratings were made on a scale of low, medium, and high. The self-ratings are shown in Table 7, organized by faculty rank. Panel A shows the ratings relative to standards the respondents held for themselves, panel B indicates those relative to department standards, and panel C specifies the ratings relative to standards at peer research institutions. For all three rating categories, Chi-square analyses revealed a significant difference among faculty ranks in their self-ratings on the low to high scale. Senior faculty (associate and full professors) tended to rate themselves much higher relative to junior faculty (assistant professors). Based on this finding, we speculate that the more senior faculty have significant research accomplishments, certainly enough to warrant tenure, whereas the junior faculty likely have accomplished less and consequently rated themselves lower.


Articles

Recent Scholarly Activity As an indication of their research proclivity, respondents were prompted to indicate which of several research and scholarly activities they had undertaken in the last three years. They were asked whether they had applied for and obtained external as well as internal grants for research, published in refereed and non-refereed academic journals and published other types of documents (e.g., research reports, chapters in scholarly books), and made presentations at professional conferences or elsewhere. Engagement in each of these activities was analyzed by faculty rank. The results for a selected subset of activities are shown in Table 8, panel A through E. Chi-square analyses employed to test for independence in the proportion of activities by faculty rank reveal a consistent pattern-senior faculty respondents, especially full professors, were significantly more likely to have engaged in the aforementioned activities.


Articles

Preferences for Research Incentives Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale pertaining to each of eight methods of providing incentives to faculty for enhancing research productivity at the University. The methods can be grouped


Articles

into two broad categories: (1) recognition for outstanding research productivity through research awards, and (2) financial incentives for grant activity or exceptional research accomplishments. Financial incentives included items such as a stipend or bonus for obtaining an external grant, generating salary savings for the institution (by putting a portion of the researcher’s salary on the external grant), and attaining exceptional scholarly accomplishments (e.g., publishing in a premier journal). Results are displayed in Table 9. Close to half of the respondents (46%) favored recognition through awards and all types of financial incentives. Almost one-third (28%) expressed a preference for recognition through awards and financial incentives for exceptional scholarly activity but not specifically for obtaining grants. Approximately a quarter of the respondents (26%) favored financial incentives only.

Table 9

Preferences for Research Incentives

Preference Group N %

Favor recognition and all incentives: financial

(salary, bonus, research expenses)

121 46%

Favor recognition as well as financial incentives

for scholarly achievement, not grants

74 28%

Favor financial incentives only 68 26%

Conclusions and Implications Faculty members at a major research-extensive university in the U.S. were surveyed to elicit their perceptions of the importance of various factors for supporting their research and scholarship activities. The survey grouped support factors into these categories: financial resources, material resources, human resources, intellectual/scholarly resources, administrative/academic support, pre- and post-award grant support, and support for research integrity and compliance issues. Results revealed that financial and material resources were deemed critical for supporting faculty’s research efforts. Availability of sufficient laboratory space and equipment was deemed extremely important by faculty in engineering and the hard sciences. Intellectual and scholarly resources, such as the availability of research mentors and research-active peers, were considered significantly more important by junior faculty than senior faculty. Although not reported herein quantitatively, the instrument also elicited faculty respondents’ perceptions regarding the level of support for research received. A somewhat bleak picture was painted. While university administrators chant the mantra of interdisciplinary research, many of the faculty we surveyed felt cut off from other professors. In response to open-ended questions, some faculty members indicated that the lack of communication and collaboration interfered with the interdisciplinary goals of research. Lessons learned from the current undertaking also suggest that university infrastructure and organizational culture function as two complementary change structures. Infrastructure can work better with a “can-do” attitude and systems that do not impede faculty. Culture change can occur not only in support structures but also in faculty cultures. Reward systems can help to some


Articles

extent, but it seems even more important that faculty learn to work together and that they are enabled to do so. We recognize that this study has certain limitations. Despite multiple requests of faculty to complete the survey, we were successful in obtaining only about a 21% response rate. While low, the response rate was deemed sufficient to allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn. It is unknown whether the views of non-respondents differ systematically. By design, the survey had a “problem orientation.” Because faculty members were not explicitly asked to identify positive features or solutions to their problems, few volunteered such information. Finally, the principal investigators did not seek to identify the specific sources of support but simply asked respondents to indicate the level being received, regardless of the source. Our faculty survey can be used by other higher education leaders also interested in identifying deficiencies in the level of support for research and scholarly activities that may need remedying. Conversations across the faculty-administrator divide are what Wheatley (2002) recommends as a crucial starting place for organizational change. To the extent that obstacles to research are mitigated or overcome at research institutions globally, humankind’s pursuit of knowledge can proceed relatively unimpeded.

ReferencesClarke, M. (2004). Weighing things up: A closer look at “U.S. News & World

Report’s” ranking formulas. College and University, 79(3), 3-9.

Decker, R. S., Wimsatt, L., Trice, A. G., & Konstan, J. A. (2007). A profile of federal-grant administrative burden among federal demonstration partnership faculty. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.thefdp.org/Faculty%20burden%20survey%20report%20-%20complete.pdf .

Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 609-631.

Laughlin, P., & Sigerstad, A. M. H. (1990). The research administrator’s role in creating a supportive environment for interdisciplinary research. Research Management Review, 4(1), 1-8. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.ncura.edu/data/rmrd/pdf/v4n1.pdf

Ng, Y. C., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: An application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139-156.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rice, P. M. (2000, April). The role of research/scholarly/creative activity at SIUC (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale) (pp. 1-61). Retrieved May 8, 2007, from http://www.siu.edu/orda/reports/siuc_research.pdf


Articles

Tapper, T., & Salter, B. (2004). Governance of higher significance of the research assessment exercises. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(1), 4-30.

Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2-22.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.


University-Based Research Centers: Characteristics, Organization,

and Administrative Implications

Creso M. Sá, PhDAssistant Professor

University of Toronto252 Bloor Street West

Toronto, OntarioM5S 1V6Canada

Tel: (416) 923-6641Fax: (416) 926-4741


Author’s Note This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0451828. I thank all the university administrators and faculty who generously shared their time, as well as those individuals who facilitated campus visits and provided me with access to institutional data. Any errors or omissions remain solely mine.

Abstract This paper examines the characteristics and organizational issues associated with university-based research centers. The first section sketches general characteristics and functions of centers. The second section examines major issues concerning the organization of centers, including funding and sustainability, center autonomy, and relations with academic units. Implications for central administration are considered.

Keywords: Research Universities, Research Centers, University Organization and Administration

Introduction Research centers and institutes (“centers” hereafter) have become indispensable to U.S. universities. They have been created in greater numbers since the Second World War, as universities adapted to the rise of the federal government as the main sponsor of academic science (Geiger, 1990). Universities have created centers to advance research of interest to industry, state governments, policy makers, and community organizations. Federal agencies continue to provide incentives for universities to create centers, through a range of center grants and programs to induce boundary-crossing (inter-disciplinary, inter-departmental, inter-institutional) research (National Academies, 2005). While centers allow universities the opportunity to advance innovative research and gather resources, they also raise organizational and administrative issues. This paper examines some of the key characteristics, challenges and opportunities associated with university-based research centers. It draws on a review of the literature and on empirical data obtained from a larger research project. Sources of evidence include policy and planning documents, reports on centers from the leading 100 research universities, and 45 interviews with senior administrators and center directors in six campuses.

Articles


Articles

The section below sketches general characteristics of centers, focusing on functions and organization. The following section examines three interrelated themes that underscore much of the previous debates on the administrative challenges that centers bring to universities. Implications for research administrators are considered next, and the final section concludes the paper.

General Characteristics of Centers Unlike schools and departments, centers are dedicated primarily to sponsored research and derive legitimacy from the resources they control (Ikenberry and Friedman, 1972). They extend the academic mission of universities by rearranging and re-directing the research efforts of faculty towards areas that are deemed important by external agents. Centers usually form to mobilize experts in different fields to address scientific and real world problems that may not be adequately addressed from the perspective of a single discipline. Centers may involve the formation of interdisciplinary teams, academic-industrial partnerships, and other interactions with knowledge users (e.g., policy makers, doctors, educators). Surveys of centers report multiple roles and functions in addition to research, including support to academic units in instructional and training activities, consulting, and outreach (Friedman & Friedman, 1982; 1986; Melnick, 1999; Mallon and Bunton, 2005). Despite the huge resource differentials, this occurs across fields: centers in areas of industrial technology, biomedical research, policy studies, and the arts and humanities are common among research universities. Structurally, centers take multiple and variegated forms (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972; Alpert, 1985; Geiger, 1990; Mallon and Bunton, 2005). Some centers are networks of scientists from multiple departments that count on little or shared infrastructure. These units typically emerge from the bottom up and rely on the common interests of participants and some discretionary resources accrued from the academic units with which they are affiliated, or from external sources. Other centers are organized around a dedicated laboratory, which might host teams of investigators on a more or less permanent basis. Centers providing core facilities to a range of users on campus have become common, as universities attempt to rationalize investments in the research infrastructure. These units provide equipment, services and temporary lab space for faculty and, in some cases, to external collaborators. A number of universities have in recent years invested in such cross-disciplinary facilities (Sá, 2007). Yet other centers based in dedicated labs manage specialized, sophisticated instrumentation such as nanofabrication units. These centers fulfill a service role to internal and external users. Alternatively, some centers have an academic identity and behave as schools without walls, partnering with academic units to offer joint degrees, co-recruit faculty, select post-docs and graduate students. Some of these units evolve to become departments or schools. Centers may also be created to meet external expectations and requirements of sponsors. Federal agencies have consistently funded research through center programs, such as the NSF Engineering Research Centers and the NIH P30 grants. The organizational requirements of these programs vary substantially within and among agencies, contributing to the diversity of forms centers take. Some of these agency-funded centers involve multiple universities and other public and private organizations (Bozeman & Boardman, 2003).


Finally, other centers are umbrella organizations that coordinate several units in a broad area of research, encompassing many of the units described above. These forms described here are not mutually exclusive and can be found in different combinations in a single center. In summary, it is no easy task to define what centers are, but it is possible to observe patterned variation across campuses along the lines described above. Senior administrators often support the establishment of centers in areas perceived to be important because of the organizational flexibility they afford (Mallon, 2006). Centers allow a university to explore emerging research fronts without making the long-term resource commitments associated with a new college or department. Through the establishment of a center, not only do academic scientists gain an organizational framework to access information and resources, but universities also increase the visibility of the campus research that takes place in multiple schools and departments. Over time, centers may develop a unique identity and become a significant source of funding, student and faculty talent, and prestige. A strong record of achievement over long periods of time of units such as the MIT Media Lab and the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research enhances the reputation of the respective universities as places conducive to interdisciplinary investigation (University of Michigan, 2000). Tied to the issue of organizational flexibility is the fact that centers rely to a much greater extent than academic units on the director’s leadership, as reported in previous studies (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972; Friedman & Friedman, 1982; Mallon, 2006). Center directors need scientific credibility to command the respect of peers and the scientific community, and to attract personnel to the unit. But they also need managerial and political skills to build alliances inside and outside the university, to aggregate resources, and use them effectively. As scientists rarely have any formal training to fulfill managerial roles, center directors rely on practical experience to acquire these relevant skills.

Administrative and Organizational Issues Three interrelated issues concern university administrators and center directors alike: (1) funding and sustainability, (2) center autonomy and (3) relations with academic units.

Funding and Sustainability As units predicated on gathering extramural support, the issues of funding and long-term financial sustainability are a central concern for senior administrators and center directors alike. While centers are created to secure sponsored research, the inputs required to establish research programs are increasingly expensive as the costs of science grow (Ehrenberg, Rizzo, & Jakubson, 2003). Moreover, universities face on-going fiscal challenges with declining public support for higher education and enhanced competition in the national research market, which has led to growing pressures on the budgets of research-intensive institutions. Universities have sought to diversify sources of revenue to cope with the current environment. Securing gifts and endowments for centers alleviates the pressure on institutional budgets and allows centers to grow and develop. Some high profile successes in recent years of universities obtaining support for centers from private donors and foundations include Stanford’s Clark Center and the joint

Articles


Articles

Harvard-MIT Broad Institute. Several universities have also obtained funding for research centers of excellence from state governments as part of technology-based economic development initiatives over the past decade (Geiger & Sá, 2005). It is often stated that the resource dependence of centers on external sponsors shapes center creation and continuation (Geiger, 1990; Stahler & Tash, 1994). That is the market test of centers: provided there are buyers for their research services, they are likely to form and persist. However, it is often the case that centers will be created and sustained regardless of market conditions. Demand ceases to exist for some centers, but they persist nonetheless through organizational inertia and lack of campus review mechanisms. Once-prolific centers decline as scientists leave or exhaust the possibilities of a given line of research, but directors may be reluctant to terminate the unit. These are some instances in which centers survive regardless of changing circumstances. Universities find that centers are easier to create than to terminate, despite the widespread existence of policies for periodical review. Oftentimes centers are created and subsist for idiosyncratic reasons -- to support a scientist’s pet project, retain a faculty member, or deal with power conflicts, for example (Friedman & Friedman, 1982; Mallon, 2006). It is also important to note that, although most centers rely on some form of external funding, universities, schools and departments support some units partially or entirely with institutional funds. This may happen provisionally to get some units started, or permanently as a subsidy to centers. Moreover, not all centers are expected to pursue external grants. As highlighted in the section above, some units support the research enterprise through the provision of facilities and instrumentation. These units usually attempt to be self-supporting through service fees, but they often receive central support. Other umbrella units may accrue no external funding on their own, and rely on central allocations to fulfill their coordination roles. While there may be legitimate academic and administrative reasons to allow centers to continue their activities for long periods of time irrespective of external support, this raises problems as well. Ever-increasing numbers of centers with varying levels of productivity and quality drain institutional resources over time and constrain the ability of the university to make further investments. This often occurs in an incremental fashion, through scattered provisions of funding, infrastructure, space, and staff for centers large and small, throughout the university. Considering the on-going demand for novel forms of research organization and the constant rise of external opportunities, the dispersion of campus resources to on-going units creates opportunity costs. As stimulating innovation and response to external opportunities underscore the establishment of centers, universities are likely to benefit from scrutinizing the contributions of their units periodically and rigorously. Institutional decisions about initial and continuing funding for centers thus rely on probabilistic judgments about the likelihood of future success in attracting external funding, as well as qualitative appraisals of the functions they perform and the value they add to the university. As evidenced by an examination of institutional documents, a number of universities are embedding decisions about support for new centers in their strategic planning exercises. Creating centers strategically to exploit external research opportunities is one of the mantras of academic plans across the country.


Autonomy University administrators face a balancing act concerning how much autonomy to give to centers. On one hand, greater autonomy with control over resources makes it more likely that center directors will have the ability to attract strong scientists and build a successful research program. But this may occur at the risk of fostering insularity and competition with academic units. On the other hand, too little autonomy may preempt centers from any meaningful role in creating novel conditions for research. Too great a reliance on academic units may breed not cooperation but subordination, in which departmental norms and priorities overtake those of the center. Size and control over resources are key variables here. As centers grow larger they tend to develop their own administrative capacity to handle the greater complexity of the enterprise. A distinctive organizational culture may emerge, and the center may steer its own course. Taken to the extreme, some independent research institutes such as SRI International were once affiliated with a university (Stanford), but became independent because they grew away from the parent campus (Orlans, 1972). But one does not need to go that far to consider how centers may veer off from cooperating synergistically with academic units. Some centers have their own facilities and full-blown staff on campuses, and rather than lowering barriers to collaboration they create new boundaries among units. Centers may become bureaucratic organizations at the cost of vibrancy and innovativeness. Nonetheless, centers need control over resources and delegated authority to operate effectively and be perceived as legitimate on campuses. Universities, of course, make very distinct choices about how to organize centers, considering their resource endowments, reputations, cultures, and traditions. Some opt for fostering integration among centers and academic units; others place greater emphasis on autonomous and entrepreneurial centers. Over the past decade, Duke University has created a number of interdisciplinary centers oriented toward fostering innovative research and re-invigorating the activities of academic units. Centers’ strategies for accomplishing this integration, along with their success in obtaining external funding, are examined during five-year reviews (Sá, 2007). Conversely, MIT has historically organized very successful interdisciplinary labs that operate with much autonomy (Geiger, 1990). Arizona State University has sought to follow MIT’s path by targeting new state revenues aggressively towards building a few large, autonomous centers such as the BioDesign Institute. The university aims at increasing extramural funding through these units, which are likely to become permanent as they rise as key research performers and become central players in the recruitment of scientists to the university.

Relations with Academic Units As centers draw on resources conventionally associated with schools and departments, particularly scientists themselves, it is not unusual for centers to develop strained relationships with academic units. Depending on organizational cultures, climates, histories, incentive and reward structures, and leadership characteristics, strained and even antagonistic relations may develop among centers and departments. Scientists may be pulled in different directions, or explicitly coerced not to take research projects outside of the home unit, if a climate exists that curbs collaboration

Articles


Articles

and favors territorial behaviors. Center directors and department chairs may engage in disputes over power and resources. Administrative practices and structures may help or hinder internal collaboration. For example, at Pennsylvania State University, the relationship between major campus centers and academic units has been overhauled since the 1990s. Previously, the university had autonomous centers organized separately from the academic units that were responsible for their own resources and were expected to be self-sustainable. Realizing that units competed for credit and recognition, the university implemented a series of changes. It coupled the objectives of colleges and centers through common governance structures. Centers were given central funding and resources to promote collaborative activity across colleges and departments. Centers and departments co-recruit faculty and share facilities and equipment. New administrative systems assign credit to centers and departments for the participation of their faculty in research grants (Sá, in press). As mentioned above, many centers that operate large facilities are expected to support themselves through overhead accruing from research grants. Specific targets are set for sponsored research performance that will generate the needed indirect cost recoveries to cover operating costs or recoup upfront investments in facilities and infrastructure (Goodman & Weissberger, 2006). This requires reliable financial plans and sound projections of the research productivity of scientific teams using center space and facilities, a business model based on economic rationality and efficiency. Most university scientists, however, are rooted in schools and departments where the logics of productivity and resource allocation are not as tightly coupled. Dealing with the transition of scientists and graduate students between these two environments is an administrative issue for centers and central administrators alike.

Implications for Research Administration Viewed as a whole, the issues examined above are not unique to universities. They tend to arise in organizations employing matrix structures, the arrangement through which one set of problem-oriented units is created in parallel to functional departments. Matrix structures have usually proven complex to administer and prone to conflict (Scott, 2003). The use of matrix structures does not necessarily solve these conflicts as much as it creates champions for the problem-oriented centers and provides them with institutional legitimacy. Fine-tuning the relative priority accorded to functional departments and a problem-based unit is the key managerial challenge in matrix structures. A university research enterprise that increasingly blends traditional academic units with a growing number and diversification of centers for collaborative science brings challenges for the administration of research. There are often gaps between advances in the organizations of centers and continuity of older university and disciplinary norms and practices. Traditional university structures and reward systems were built to support and account for single-investigator, discipline-based research. With the growing emphasis on collaborative and interdisciplinary science, universities often find that their management systems and administrative routines are poorly equipped to monitor such activity. For example, research accounting systems that only allow for the assignment of credit for the principal investigator in a research grant and to her school and department make it hard for academic administrators to capture the relative


contributions of collaborating scientists from other units. If departments and centers alike are evaluated and rewarded on the basis of external grants obtained under such a system that fails to capture boundary-spanning efforts, disincentives arise for units to cooperate and for scientists to freely move their activities to and from centers. Centers may have a hard time attracting researchers, or they may become silos of their own to become recognized. While part of the problem is technical, e.g. research accounting procedures and related computer software, it is important to recognize the political, cultural, and symbolic dimensions of decisions about who gets resources and credit. At the time of this research, one of the universities visited had changed its research accounting system to better capture and account for collaborative research, and two had plans to do so in the short run. Some universities allow centers to claim credit and overhead on external awards, others prefer to maintain the primacy of schools and departments. In general, there needs to be clarity of the costs and benefits that accrue to individuals and organizational units when scientists spend their time in centers where collaborative science is conducted. Sanctions, or the perception thereof, on team-based research across organizational and disciplinary boundaries send a warning to researchers and administrators interested in such activities. Junior faculty are particularly vulnerable to such sanctions, especially when participation in centers is viewed as threatening promotion and tenure prospects. Both formal and informal mechanisms can be used to align the goals of centers and academic units. Among the former, universities commonly adopt governance boards for centers that include deans and department chairs of key units involved, in addition to senior research administrators. Such structures are intended to help align the goals of centers with school and departmental goals. Strategic planning processes that require academic units and related centers to develop shared goals are another mechanism used to foster synergies and collaboration. Finally, institutional seed funds may also be provided for initiatives that involve centers and academic units alike. Informal mechanisms are related to institutional cultures, understood as the shared norms, values and assumptions upheld by the campus community. Campus cultures influence how faculty and administrators view centers and collaborative activity. A culture of trust among deans, department chairs, center directors, and senior administrators can translate into patterns of fruitful cooperation, where opportunities to enhance the research enterprise of the institution are not missed because of turf battles among its sub-units. For example, centers are often used to recruit outstanding scientists, but parochial interests and disagreement among units have been reported by administrators as undermining efforts to recruit researchers with joint appointments, or making searches and hiring decisions more challenging than they could otherwise be. Conversely, where collaboration and trust are viewed as core aspects of the institutional culture, administrators seem to downplay the need for formal planning processes and policies to link centers and departments, and rely on the unspoken rules of good campus citizenship. Some research administrators believe that culture change is the ultimate barrier to fostering greater collaboration among units and interdisciplinary research. Cultures indeed change slowly, as opposed to the more circumstantial and transient climates. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that organizational change entails more than simply altering formal structures. Attitudes, perceptions and beliefs

Articles


Articles

also need to be taken into account in attempts to bring about changes in campus behaviors. Creating organizational conditions, through centers and otherwise, that reflect the needs of the emerging fields of science is one of the key contemporary challenges universities face (National Academies, 2005). In the fiercely competitive academic research market, universities more adept at organizational learning are likely to adapt their structures and cultures more swiftly to shifting conditions. Such learning involves constantly assessing the ritualized ways of doing things and questioning longstanding and often implicit assumptions about the proper ways of organizing.

Conclusion Centers allow for a mediation of the intrinsic logics of academic science and the interests of society, which may produce the sort of use-inspired fundamental research that Stokes (1997) famously associated with the work of Louis Pasteur. By clustering researchers around problems, centers balance the traditional emphasis on discipline-oriented basic research with the considerations of external users. Through centers, American universities have diversified the types and modes of research performed, the clienteles served, and the organizational environment for advanced research training. Centers provide academic scientists the means to pursue new relationships, sources of ideas, funding opportunities, and audiences for their research outputs. That being said, centers are no panacea. They raise administrative and organizational issues that require universities to learn new ways of understanding and assessing research performance, inter-unit collaboration, individual merit, and research governance. Choices about the relative priority given to centers and departments and the relationship among these units are and will be central in a university research enterprise that moves towards collaborative and interdisciplinary science.

ReferencesAlpert, D. (1985). Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the

American research university. Journal of Higher Education, 56(3), 241-281.

Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2003). Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research centers: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

Ehrenberg, R. G., Jakubson, G., & Rizzo, M. J. (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? (NBER Working Paper No. W9627).

Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. (1982). The role of university organized research units in academic science. University Park, PA: Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, the Pennsylvania State University.

Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. (1986). Sponsorship, evaluation, and program change at 100 universities. University Park, PA: Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, the Pennsylvania State University.


Articles

Geiger, R. L. (1990). Organized research units - Their role in the development of university research. Journal of Higher Education, 61(1), 1-19.

Geiger, R. L., & Sá, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43(1), 1-21.

Goodman, I. S., & Weissberger, J. M. (2006) Creating a multi-use building for a research center: a management and operations case study and critique (Moores Cancer Center). Journal of Research Administration, 37, 122-8.

Ikenberry, S. O., & Friedman, R. C. (1972). Beyond academic departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mallon, W. (2006). The benefits and challenges of research centers and institutes in academic medicine: Findings from six universities and their medical schools. Academic Medicine, 81, 502-512.

Mallon, W., & Bunton, S. (2005). Characteristics of research centers and institutes at U.S. medical schools and universities. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Melnick, R. (1999). University policy centers and institutes: The think tank as public service functions. Metropolitan Universities, 10 (1), 9-19.

National Academies. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Orlans, H. (1972). The nonprofit research institute: Its origins, operation, problems, and prospects. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sá, C. (in press). “Interdisciplinary strategies” in U.S. research universities. Higher Education.

Sá, C. (2007). Planning for interdisciplinary research. Planning for Higher Education, 35(2), 18-28.

Scott, R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th edition). Upper Saddle Review, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stahler, G. J., & Tash, W. R. (1994). Centers and institutes in the research university. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 540-554.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant - Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

University of Michigan (2000). New openings for the research university: Advancing collaborative, integrative, and interdisciplinary research and learning. Self-Study Report for Institutional Reaccreditation, Report of the Working Group on Research. Ann Arbor, MI.


Articles

A Need to Know: An Ethical Decision-Making Model

for Research Administrators

Sarah Hope Lincoln, BAStockdale Center for Ethical Leadership

United States Naval Academy112 Cooper Road

Annapolis, MD 21402Tel: (410) 293-6088


Elizabeth K. Holmes, PhDStockdale Center for Ethical Leadership

United States Naval Academy112 Cooper Road

Annapolis, MD 21402Tel: (410) 293-6088


Authors’ Note This paper was presented at the 2007 Symposium at the annual October meeting of the Society of Research Administrators International in Nashville, Tennessee. The authors are solely responsible for the contents of this article. The contents do not reflect the policy of the Department of Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Please address all correspondence concerning this article to Elizabeth K. Holmes, Ph.D., Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership, 112 Cooper Road, Annapolis, Maryland, 21402. E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract When faced with a morally charged situation, individuals engage in an ethical decision-making process to resolve the ethical dilemma. This paper outlines a model that describes the steps in the ethical decision-making process and identifies situational factors, collectively termed moral intensity, which may influence this process. The use of a case study, presenting an ethical dilemma relevant for professionals, offers an opportunity to apply the ethical decision-making model. This model can be used as a teaching and training tool to enhance research administrators’ professional development in research ethics.

Keywords: Ethical decision making, moral intensity, ethical professional development

Introduction The ability to work through and resolve ethical dilemmas is an important skill for any professional. The multi-faceted work of research administrators forces them to deal with a multiplicity of dilemmas related to research ethics. These dilemmas can arise in any of the areas or allied disciplines related to research administration, such as financial stewardship, operations, human resources management, sponsored projects oversight, strategic planning, research law,


development activities, standards for the responsible conduct of research, and human subjects protection. The ability to tackle ethical dilemmas to uphold the ethical integrity of research and ensure regulatory compliance is critical for professional research administrators on all levels, including executives, middle managers, and technical or support staff. Yet, as individuals join the research administration profession from diverse backgrounds and previous experiences, their exposure to research ethics also varies. Recognizing that each research administrator brings different perspectives and experiences to ethical situations, it is important that research administrators of all professional levels receive clear, effective training for dealing with ethical dilemmas.

Literature Review Rushworth Kidder, founder of the Institute for Global Ethics, describes a true ethical dilemma as a conflict of right versus right. He claims that true ethical dilemmas fall within four right-versus-right categories; individuals so frequently encounter these four types of dilemmas that they can be considered paradigms (Kidder, 1995). These four fundamental ethical dilemmas are: truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, short term versus long term, and justice versus mercy. Kidder asserts that the ability to classify ethical dilemmas into one of these four categories allows individuals to reduce a complex and potentially anxiety-provoking dilemma into a more manageable and less threatening problem. However, the ability to identify and categorize the type of ethical dilemma does not resolve the conflict. Working through the dilemma is necessary to reach a decision. Focusing on the process of understanding and resolving an ethical dilemma, James Rest (1994) developed a theoretical model of ethical decision making that involves four distinct psychological processes: moral awareness, moral judgment, moral intention, and moral action. Rest asserts that, when confronted with an ethical dilemma, individuals engage in a decision-making process that involves working through these four components. Individuals move from moral awareness, the recognition of a moral situation, to moral judgment, the evaluation of choices and outcomes, to moral intention, choosing how one intends to act, and lastly to moral action, the actual behavior in the situation. A failure at any step in the process could result in a failure to make an ethical decision (Rest, 1994). Building on Rest’s theory, Jones (1991) developed a theory of moral intensity, suggesting that specific characteristics of the moral situation -- what he collectively identified as moral intensity -- influence individuals’ decision-making ability. Jones described six factors of moral intensity: Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Proximity, and Concentration of Effect. Magnitude of Consequences refers to the degree to which an individual may be harmed by or benefit from the decision maker’s action. Social Consensus refers to the degree of agreement among a social group that an action is good or bad. This social group could be society as a whole (e.g., an illegal act is not morally acceptable by society because a law prohibits it) or a smaller social group, such as an individual’s colleagues. Probability of Effect is described as the likelihood that the predicted outcomes and the expected level of harm/benefit will occur. Temporal Immediacy refers to the length of time between the action and its resolution. An action that results in immediate negative outcomes will cause a greater increase in moral intensity than an action for which the outcomes are

Articles


delayed. Proximity refers to the nearness of the decision maker to the individuals potentially affected by the results. Proximity can be a feeling of physical, cultural, social, or psychological nearness to the individuals involved in the situation. The final dimension, Concentration of Effect, refers to the relationship between the number of people affected and the magnitude of harm.

Holmes’ Meta-Model Both Rest and Jones offer important theoretical perspectives to the process of ethical-decision making. Each theory addresses a particular component of the overall ethical decision-making process; integrating the two theories to create a meta-model describing the process of ethical decision making and the factors that influence this process provides a much needed framework for individuals to understand and analyze how they resolve ethical dilemmas. Dr. Holmes conducted research on these two theories, exploring the decision-making process and the moral intensity factors related to that process. This research resulted in empirical support for both theories and the development of a meta-model for understanding and working through the ethical decision-making process. This model can be used in ethics education and training for professionals, allowing individuals to develop a better appreciation for and understanding of the way they approach ethical dilemmas. The meta-model for ethical decision making describes a step-by-step process for making an ethical decision, taking into consideration Rest’s four psychological processes and Jones’s characteristics of the moral situation. The probability that individuals engage in a decision-making process as they confront ethically charged situations is high, as evidenced by this research. Used as a teaching tool, this meta-model, shown in Figure 1, can educate research administrators on their approach to moral dilemmas and what may influence their decision-making processes. Consciously aware of the steps of the process and potential influencing variables, research administrators will be better prepared to tackle the ethical dilemmas they confront in their professional lives.

Figure 1. Ethical decision-making model.

Moral Awareness

Moral Action

I feel

I ask

•How likely is it that something bad

will happen?

•How much will someone be

harmed or benefited?

•What does my social group think?

I think I will

I act

•How close do I feel to

those affected by my

decision?

•What does my social

group think?

What does my social

group think?

Moral Judgment

Moral Intention

Articles


This ethical decision-making model proposes that individuals move through four steps to resolve an ethical dilemma. Research shows that several of the moral intensity factors are significantly related to the decisions made by individuals at each step in the process. Social Consensus, Proximity, Probability of Effect, and Magnitude of Consequences were found to be significant predictors of individuals’ responses throughout the decision-making process, either positively or negatively influencing it. By enhancing the individual’s sensitivity to the situation, these factors of moral intensity could aid in making an ethically sound decision; conversely, perhaps by distancing the individual from the situation, these factors of moral intensity may prevent the individual from effectively resolving a moral dilemma.

Case Study Frequently used in training and teaching of professionals, case studies provide a concrete way of learning a new theory or skill that can later be applied to real-life situations. Case studies can be modified for use with different groups of people. Below is a case example, adapted from one written by Englehardt (2003), about an ethical dilemma that is relevant and realistic for research administrators.

The Glass Ceiling Every research administration office in the history of this institution has had only white, male directors, who, until recently, have also been members of the same religion. A new search has been opened for the vacating director’s job. The list of 50 candidates has been cut to five top choices. The candidates consist of two Caucasian women, one Asian male, and two Caucasian males. Only two of the candidates, one female and one male, are of the same religion as the majority of individuals working at the institution. The final selection committee for the director is a small group approved by the president of the institution. The majority of individuals in the final hiring group are white, male members of the same faith. The initial word within the department is that the candidate to be selected is the white male of the same faith. His credentials are slightly less than either of the women candidates. You are a research administrator in this research administration office and, while not directly involved in the selection of the new director, you were on the initial screening committee. Since the final selection has not yet been made, it is possible for you to make your insights and feelings known. Do you decide to keep silent and go along with what appears to be the end result? Or do you raise the wider issues in the interest of ensuring the best result? What, if anything, do you decide to do?

Below are explanations and questions to guide the decision maker, in this instance, the research administrator, through the ethical decision-making process. At each step in the decision-making model, the decision maker must think through two types of questions, which, while interrelated, are distinct components of the ethical decision-making process. The decision maker must ask questions related to each particular step, as well as think through factors that may influence his or her decision-making ability at that step.

Step 1: Moral Awareness

The first step, moral awareness or the “I feel” step, is the recognition that a situation contains a moral issue. This awareness may result from a “gut” feeling that something is wrong in a particular situation. Individuals may experience a strong

Articles


emotion, like disgust, and/or a physiological response to situations that contain ethical conflicts. Research suggests that the moral intensity factors of Proximity and Social Consensus are particularly important for an individual’s ability to recognize a moral issue. In this scenario the research administrator needs to answer the question, “Is there an ethical dilemma in this situation?” The research administrator must assess his or her own awareness of a potential problem as well as variables that may positively or negatively influence his or her awareness.

Moral awareness questions:

Is anything wrong here?1. Is a person, community, or ideal at risk to lose dignity, respect, or liberty?2. Might a moral principle be violated?3. Are competing values at work? Individual versus community? Justice versus 4. mercy? Truth versus loyalty? Short-term versus long-term?

Moral intensity questions related to moral awareness:

How close (physically, emotionally, culturally, socially) do I feel to the 1. individuals affected by this hiring decision? How do my feelings of proximity to these individuals influence my moral awareness? (Proximity)Would my peers (other research administrators) detect a moral dilemma in this 2. situation? How would their opinions influence my moral awareness? (Social Consensus)

Step 2: Moral Judgment

The second step, “I ask,” refers to Rest’s component of moral judgment. At this point in the process, the decision maker formulates and evaluates potential choices and possible outcomes. Research suggests that the intensity factors of Social Consensus, Magnitude of Consequences, and Probability of Effect are particularly relevant for the decision maker at this stage of the process. In this scenario, the research administrator must develop and critique the possible solutions and outcomes to the problem. In order to construct a morally sound judgment, the research administrator should ask questions that will help develop and clarify his or her judgment about those choices, as well as think through questions that may either positively or negatively influence that judgment.

Moral judgment questions:

Is the hiring committee’s probable decision fair or unfair?1. Is the hiring committee’s probable decision just or unjust?2. Was the selection process for the new director morally right or morally wrong?3. Would this selection process and the probable decision made by the hiring 4. committee be acceptable to my family and friends?Would the search committee’s probable decision be in line with the culture and 5. traditions of the research administration profession?Does the probable decision violate a promise or code that is important to the 6. research administration profession?

Articles


Moral intensity questions related to moral judgment:

What would my peers (other research administrators) think about the potential 1. consequences? How would their opinions affect my moral judgment? (Social Consensus)What is the extent of the harm or benefit that could occur from the decision of 2. the hiring committee? How does the magnitude of the possible consequences influence my moral judgment? (Magnitude of Consequences)What is the likelihood that the possible outcomes and the harm or benefit 3. from those outcomes will occur in this situation? How does this probability affect my moral judgment? (Probability of Effect)

Step 3: Moral Intention

After evaluating possible solutions and their consequences, the individual decides his or her intention to act. This third step, “I think I will,” refers to Rest’s component of moral intention. The research shows that the power of Social Consensus is significantly related to the individual’s intention to act. At this point in the decision-making process, the research administrator needs to decide how he or she intends to act, remembering that choosing not to act may be a valid decision. The research administrator must deliberate on how he or she intends to deal with the hiring committee, as well as take into consideration factors that may influence his or her intention to act morally.

Moral intention questions:

What do I think I should do? 1. Do I intend to act on my decision?2.

Moral intensity questions related to moral intention:

How would my peers (other research administrators) likely act? How does 1. my perception of their intentions influence my moral intention? (Social Consensus)

Step 4: Moral Action

The final step, “I act,” indicates moral courage or moral action. This step refers to the decision maker’s behavior. Choosing to follow through on a morally right decision requires the individual to marshal the courage to act despite fear or adversity. Minimal research has been conducted on moral action and moral intensity factors due to the inherent difficulties in manipulating individuals’ decisions in ethically charged situations. However, the importance of the moral intensity factors in the previous three steps suggests that moral intensity should be considered in this last step. Specifically, the power of social influence, represented by Social Consensus, is significant in the three previous steps of the process and likely consistently important in the fourth step.

Articles


In this scenario, at the final step in the process, the research administrator must act. After having chosen an intended action, the research administrator must consider his or her final behavior and what has the potential to influence his or her action.

Moral action questions:

Do I follow through on my intention? 1. What may prevent me from acting on my intention?2. What may aid me in following through on my intention? 3.

Moral intensity questions related to moral action:

Would my peers (other research administrators) act on their decision? How 1. does their potential action influence my behavior? (Social Consensus)

Conclusion The ethical decision-making model can be used as a framework for evaluating and working through ethical dilemmas. This teaching model describes a process of ethical decision making and characteristics of morally charged situations that may influence the decision-making process. Despite the breadth of potential ethical dilemmas research administrators may face, this meta-model can be used in any situation to highlight a step-by-step process for dealing with an ethical dilemma. This model sheds light on both the thought and affective processes involved in resolving an ethical dilemma, making what has typically been implicit, explicit. Understanding the model of ethical decision making and the factors that may influence the process will help research administrators evaluate how effectively they deal with ethical decisions and what may prevent them from making an appropriate and responsible ethical decision.

ReferencesEnglehardt, Elaine. (2003). The glass ceiling. Utah Valley State College Center for

the Study of Ethics. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://www.uvsc.edu/ethics/curriculum/education/case07.html.

Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.

Kidder, R. (1995). How good people make tough choices. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Rest, J. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1-26). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Articles


Articles

Women’s Ways of Collaboration: A Case Study in Proposal Development

Dr. Debra EasterlyIdaho State University

921 S. 8th Avenue, MS 8130Pocatello, ID

Tel: (208) 282-2618Fax: (208) 282-4529


Author’s Note A version of this paper was submitted for the 2007 Symposium of the Society of Research Administrators International, and appeared in the Symposium Proceedings during the Society’s annual October meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Portions of this paper have been derived from the authors’ dissertation entitled, An exploration of the barriers and supports perceived by female faculty at three state universities in Idaho as they write proposals to secure external funds.

Abstract Research has shown that women may perform actions such as leading, communicating, or working on a team differently than men perform them. For example, female leaders may have a more inclusive rather than authoritarian style. The American university is an institution designed by men for men. Women are increasingly represented as students and faculty in higher education, but are they able to succeed in this structure? Meyerson and Ely (2003) have provided an approach that could change the “masculine” structure. An examination of the work conducted by a group at Idaho State University as they developed a proposal for funds from the National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant program reveals examples of the theories of women’s ways of working, Meyerson and Ely’s approach, and how this model could be incorporated into the work conducted by research administrators. This case study examined how this group (six women and one man) worked together, comparing the work to current theories on women’s communication and leadership. This knowledge is valuable for research administrators as they work to assist faculty with development of proposals for external funds, work that many faculty are finding is now a requirement of their career in academia.

Keywords: Grant proposal writing, faculty development, women in higher education, female faculty.

Introduction American universities were designed by men for men. Structures such as tenure accommodated the lifestyles of men, who usually had women at home to care for them, be it a wife, mother, sister, or housekeeper (Hamilton, 2002). A work ethic grounded in long hours of conducting research, teaching, or writing papers was the norm in the “male” university (Ostrow, 2002). The “ideal faculty worker puts in long hours and demonstrates high levels of effort and commitment to the job” (Helfat, 2002, p. 330). This “unbending nature of the American workplace, configured


Articles

around a male career model established in the 19th century” is a custom that higher education still clings to today (Mason & Goulden, 2002, p. 11), as indicated by the work of several authors. Park (1996) posited that “A gendered division of labor exists within (as outside) the contemporary academy wherein research is implicitly deemed ‘men’s work’ and is explicitly valued, whereas teaching and service are characterized as ‘women’s work’ and explicitly devalued” (p. 4). Gunter and Stambach (2003) stated, “Historians and anthropologists point out that academic science has typically been a male-dominated field, and that it continues to be organized in ways that reflect its gendered history” (p. 24). Even research methodology has been said to follow a masculine framework (Harding & Norberg, 2005). This model was useful when males were the only faculty and students in higher education. Although historically the structure of the university was male-oriented, women did become students and faculty members. As women earned degrees, they became qualified to hold faculty positions (Nidiffer & Bashaw, 2001) and slowly entered every field, some with more difficulty than others. Before 1900, many women who graduated with science-related degrees found themselves in home economics departments (Nidiffer & Bashaw, 2001). By 2003, across all types of institutions, women comprised 38% of full-time faculty (Forrest Cataldi, Fahimi, & Bradburn, 2005). Throughout the twentieth century, the number of women in higher education has ebbed and flowed, increasing in the 1920s, decreasing in the 1950s as men returned from fighting in World War II, and increasing again with the women’s liberation movement and associated shifts in societal norms and values in the 1960s (Nidiffer & Bashaw, 2001). More recently, over the past 30 years, there have been improvements and gains for women at all levels of education. The number of women entering higher education has risen steadily since the 1970s, increasing by 13% between 1989 and 1999. In fact, in 1999, more women than men earned associate, bachelor’s and master’s degrees (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2000). More women have also entered graduate school, and at a higher rate than men. For example, the number of male full-time graduate students increased by 18% from 1989 to 1999, while the number of full-time female graduate students increased by 59% (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2002). Just as college/university gender-specific enrollment trends have evolved over time, according to reports completed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the number of female faculty in higher education has also grown. In 1974-75, women made up 22.5% of all faculty at U.S. institutions of higher education. That percentage rose to 33.8% in 1997-98, 36% in 2000-01, and 39% in 2005-06 (AAUP, 2001; AAUP, 2006). While the number of female faculty has and continues to increase, it is doing so more at lower level faculty ranks and institutions. In 2005-06 women made up 51% of the faculty at associate degree-granting colleges, 42% of faculty at baccalaureate and master’s degree institutions, and 34% of faculty at doctoral-level institutions (AAUP, 2006). Women made up 46% of assistant professors, 38% of associate professors, 23% of full professors, and women held 51% of unranked faculty positions in universities and colleges (AAUP, 2004). Further, according to AAUP (2006), more male faculty than female faculty had tenure. Table 1 summarizes discrepancies in several areas.


Articles

Table 1

Comparison of Significant Issues in Higher Education, Based on Gender Issue Women Men

Number of students enrolled in higher education,

fall 2002

57%

43%

Number of students graduating with bachelor’s

degree, 2003

57%

43%

Number students enrolled in higher education

since 1981

54%

46%

Full-time faculty, fall 2003 38% 62%

Faculty with spouse in academia 49% 12%

Full professors, 2003 24% 76%

Assistant professors, 2003 45% 55%

As noted, there have been an ever-increasing number of women in higher ed-ucation, as students and faculty, but not in the higher ranks of academia. While many reasons have been put forth to explain this, could it be that the male-focused system does not serve women as well as men? Perhaps it is not conducive to the advancement of women. Perhaps, as stated by Beaman-Smith and Placier (1996), “Women in aca-deme are initiates who wandered into a ritual designed for men” (p. 3).

Women’s Ways Research has been conducted looking at “women’s ways” of learning, com-municating, and leading, among other issues. In Women’s Ways of Knowing, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) theorized that measures of psychological development were based on male models as only males were used in many studies of the past. They studied women’s communication systems and development patterns to determine “women’s ways of knowing.” Gilligan (1982) in her work entitled, In a Dif-ferent Voice, posited that women do communicate differently from men and develop morally and emotionally in dissimilar ways. Literature on women’s ways of working reveals that women, in general, tend to work in a collaborative fashion. Dickens and Sagaria (1997) reported that “collabo-ration is a common practice among feminist scholars” (p. 50). Women, in their study of collaborative relationships between female faculty members, sought out close rela-tionships in their professional lives and felt that such relationships were a support in their work. The “participants consistently described their desire to function as demo-cratic, equal partners rather than as hierarchical team leaders” (p. 53). Etzkowitz, Ke-melgor, and Uzzi (2000) wrote, “younger up-and-coming junior and newly tenured women faculty members emphasize a more relational, collaborative approach within their research groups” (p. 147). Community is important for these new female faculty members, as is emphasizing the strengths of group members. Gunter and Stambach (2003) conducted research looking at the ways women and men science faculty per-ceived and experienced the promotion process in higher education. Men describe this process as “a game to be played and won,” while women see it as “a balancing act” be-tween their professional and personal lives (p. 40). They found that women’s personal lives, their families and domestic duties, affect women in their quest for promotion, while men’s personal lives do not impact their promotion efforts.


Articles

In 1990 Helgesen wrote The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership, which described her review of female leadership styles. Similar to the work of Belenky et al., Helgesen reviewed a study on leadership styles that used only male leaders, then expanded this to an examination of women as leaders. She found differences between female and male leaders. Female leaders saw interruptions in their schedules by employees as time to show they cared, to help them, to be involved with employees. Men saw these only as interruptions in their schedule. Women scheduled time to share information while men had trouble sharing information. Women appeared to be better managers than men did. Reviewing behaviors of female leaders can provide another picture of women’s ways of leading. Values associated with female leaders include:

a willingness to look at how action will affect other people instead of simply asking ‘what’s in it for me?,’ a concern for the wider needs of the community, a disposition to draw on personal, private sphere experience when dealing in the public realm,... and an outsider’s impatience with rituals and symbols of status that divide people who work together and so reinforce hierarchies. (Helgesen, 1990, p. xx-xxi)

Doyle and Smith (2001) asserted that women as leaders focus on relationships more than on task-oriented behavior. Chliwniak (1997) concluded that female leaders have a tendency to include everyone in group work and decision-making. Some researchers have stated that there is even a difference in the way females and males conduct research. Feminist research, in particular, states that a woman’s perspective on life gives her a perspective different from a man’s, when doing scientific research. These researchers state that science is “masculine,” which precludes women from being successful in these fields. Harding (2005) contended that women and men conduct research differently because women will ask questions from a female viewpoint. Blickenstaff (2005) wrote that Harding “argues that science should be done from the perspective of women, because their position outside the dominant social order (as mothers and caregivers) endows women with a more objective view of the world than men have” (p. 382). If women do behave differently from men in these areas, how is that difference acknowledged? Meyerson and Ely (2003) wrote of three approaches that are often taken when women are found to “not fit in.” They labeled the first approach “fix the women” (p. 130). In this approach the reason women are not in roles of leadership (or high-ranking faculty) is that they “lack the requisite skills” (p. 130). By training women and providing them with skills to fit into the current system, they will succeed. As Meyerson and Ely point out, this approach merely makes women assimilate into current structures, conforming to rules and structures that may not be the most beneficial for them. A second approach was called “create equal opportunity” (p. 131). “Rather than fix the women, the approach to change is to fix the policies and practices that have blocked women’s advancement” (p. 131). This includes policies on hiring, promoting, and dividing resources. While this approach has been of benefit to women, it is still not the solution, according to Meyerson and Ely. Women may not use the programs and new policies as they fear backlash and being stigmatized for using them. Those in power may indeed feel women have an unfair advantage with policies changed for them. In the end, this approach does not


Articles

providing lasting resolution to the problem. “Celebrate the feminine” is Meyerson and Ely’s third approach, in which differences are celebrated, not eliminated. Women are different from men and those differences should be allowed. Diversity should be valued and women should be allowed to do what they are good at. Unfortunately, this approach can keep women in roles, such as “housekeeping activities” (p. 135). “This approach may simply create and justify an ever more sophisticated form of sex segregation at work” (p. 135). How then, should organizations deal with the very real fact that women are not advancing as quickly and as far as men? Meyerson and Ely (2003) outlined a two-pronged approach, called “using difference to make a difference” (p. 136). The first prong is “the eradication of structural barriers that have excluded women - all kinds of women -- and many men as well, who have been traditionally underrepresented in leadership and other organizational roles” (p. 136). The second prong “requires a shift in emphasis from simply adding different perspectives to the traditional mix to using different perspectives to transform the traditional mix itself ” (p. 137). Meyerson and Ely called for a change in the definition of the norm, thus allowing women, and others from underrepresented groups to fit into the norm. “People must be able to use their cultural identity differences -- which give rise to different life experiences, knowledge, and insights -- to inform alternative views about their work and how best to accomplish it” (p. 138). As the make-up of the workplace changes, administrators in all fields, including higher education and research administration, must be prepared to look for these different perspectives and put them into place to encourage a culture change to effectively use the talents of everyone. Research administrators will benefit by using Meyerson and Ely’s model as they work with faculty. Part of the research administration function is to assist faculty with the development of grant proposals for funding. The following case study examines a “different perspective” in proposal development.

Case Study Idaho State University (ISU) is a research-intensive institution, with 641 faculty -- 271 women and 370 men. There are 49 department chairs at ISU, 13 (27%) of whom are women, many in traditionally female-dominated fields such as nursing and education. Women make up 19% of the full professors, 49% of the associate professors, 52% of the assistant professors, 41% of the instructors, and 58% of the lecturers employed at ISU. Of the 248 tenured faculty, 30% are women. The president’s cabinet, a group of 13 members, contains two women - the Associate Provost for Institutional Planning and Effectiveness and a student-elected student representative. Out of 11 deans, five are women - four permanent and one interim (ISU AAUP Report, 2006). Men make up the majority of the ISU faculty who submit proposals for external funds (personal observation, ISU reports). Individuals on campus expressed concern about these demographics, but it was not until 2005, when a group of faculty and staff (six women and one man) met to work on a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE grant, that a concerted effort would be made to change this picture. The goal of the NSF ADVANCE grant program is to “increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce” (NSF, March 2007). Based on the information described


Articles

above, the group felt that ISU was a perfect site for an ADVANCE grant. The six months of work on this proposal serves as an example of “women’s ways of collaborating.” The research administrator in the Office of Research spoke with a female friend, a faculty member at ISU, about developing an ISU application for an ADVANCE grant. This conversation led to the discovery that there were three other women who were interested in pursuing a grant. These women, representing Math, Biological Sciences, Economics, and the Research Office, decided to develop a proposal. Two more faculty members were invited to work on this project, a female from Pharmaceutical Sciences and a male from Psychology. The faculty were at the associate professor level and above. All members of the team had been at ISU for at least eight years. The members of this team were feminists with a common goal, advancement of female faculty at ISU. As stated by Dickens and Sagaria (1997), “collaboration is a common practice among feminist scholars.” A schedule of weekly meetings was arranged and coordinated by the Office of Research staff member. Much of the time during the first meetings was spent brainstorming. The group shared stories and anecdotes about the status of women faculty at ISU and discussed previously funded ADVANCE grant projects. Several team members had been in contact or involved with ADVANCE grant activities at other universities, and they shared their experiences. Team members had knowledge and expertise in different areas. The Research Administrator was working on her dissertation, which focused on women faculty in higher education; she could contribute to the literature review. The associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences had access to university data needed to write the proposal. After several meetings, the project began to take shape and proposal development began. The RFP was carefully read and assignments were made, with everyone contributing ideas. Weekly reports were made on accomplishments and discussion continued. The associate dean was designated the PI, but meetings were led by whoever had the expertise or information for the week’s topic. Everyone shared leading discussions, taking notes, and being in charge. Sharing leadership is a trait female leaders often exhibit (Chliwniak, 1997). Team members, who worked together and sometimes saw each other socially, encountered each other during the week in other settings and continued the discussions, reporting back to the group with new ideas. Conversation occurred not only about the proposal and project, but also about personal issues. People shared their lives and had fun while they worked, which women will often do (Dickens & Sangaria, 1997). Each person in the group had both a personal and professional commitment to advance women at ISU. Incorporating the personal into the development of the proposal was only natural, as is often the case when women work together (Gunter & Stambach, 2003). There came a point when weekly, one-hour meetings did not provide enough time to pull the proposal together. All group members had full-time jobs as faculty and/or administrators and lives outside the university which limited the time available to meet. The team decided a retreat was necessary to give them an uninterrupted block of time to work on the proposal. The Office of Research at ISU committed funds for this retreat, allowing the group to get away from campus and to bring in a consultant who was active in the field of women in science and familiar with other ADVANCE grant programs. The two-day retreat was held in West Yellowstone, MT, two hours from ISU.


Articles

Discussions and brainstorming continued, refining what had already been planned. Time was taken for dinner and a short hike in Yellowstone Park, but the conversation in any setting usually drifted back to the project. The personal became the professional and vice-versa (Gunter & Stambach, 2003). A solid plan and a name for the project (WeLEAD - Women Empowered to Learn, Educate, Advance and Develop) were the result of a successful weekend. With concrete, workable plans in hand, the actual writing of the proposal started two and a half months before the due date. Most of the writing was done by two or three members of the team, but all contributed by making tables, gathering and analyzing data, and proofreading. In January 2006 the proposal was submitted. Not only were the team members looking forward to a positive response, but administrators and staff who had been peripherally involved were also excited about the project. In August 2006 ISU learned that the proposal had been funded.

Discussion This proposal and subsequent award were not the result of work by a lone faculty member sitting in her office, single-handedly developing a project. It was a team effort, a reflection of what could be accomplished by working together to accomplish a common goal; a method of working that women often use (Rosser & Lane, 2002). No one person was the authoritative leader; all contributed to the leadership of the group, in the manner that women often conduct a group (Chliwniak, 1997). The group worked together professionally, but also developed personal relationships, another “trait” of women working together (Dickens & Sagaria, 1997). Research showed that women do want to work collaboratively when writing grant proposals and that they see teams and mentors as a support when developing proposals (Easterly, 2006). Use of a group method may not be successful for all projects, but, can provide what Meyerson and Ely (2003) called a “different perspective” that may be successful for men and women, especially as more funding agencies make interdisciplinary research a priority. By becoming aware of various ways of proposal writing, staff in offices of research and offices of sponsored programs can provide a multitude of ways to work with faculty and to encourage interdisciplinary work. Research administrators do not need to be major players in the proposal (as was the case in this study), but can take an active role in this type of process, without requiring a great deal of extra resources. Research and Sponsored Programs offices can help by contacting faculty whom have similar interests, arranging meetings so they can discuss ideas, providing secretarial help at such meetings, gathering institutional data so that other team members can concentrate on the research aspect of the proposal, and working with the team on proposal development. It may be possible to provide funds for time away from work and family life to write proposals; maybe not a retreat in West Yellowstone, but perhaps lunch at a Saturday work session. One of the measures often used in tenure and promotion decisions is the number of proposals written and awarded for external funds. Female faculty in higher education do not submit as many proposals for external funds as do male faculty (Boyer & Cockriel, 1999; personal observation, 1996-2004), which may in turn negatively impact their survival and success in academia in terms of tenure and promotions. Easterly (2006) found that working with someone on proposal development is important to women. Fifty-seven percent of the participants in


Articles

her study felt that lack of a collaborator was a strong to moderate barrier in the process of writing proposals for external funds. Sixty-five percent of the participants felt that both a lack of a peer network and lack of a mentor were also strong to moderate barriers to writing grant proposals. Participants indicated the following were strong to moderate supports when writing proposals for external funds: 50%, a network of peers, 63% collaborators at my university, and 60% mentor is a support. Research administrators must become aware of different ways women and other underrepresented groups work and examine ways to incorporate those practices into assisting faculty. Higher education must no longer be a “ritual designed for men” but a setting designed for all.

Conclusion Research has shown that women write fewer grant proposals for external funds than do men and that proposal writing is often taken into account in tenure and promotion decisions (Boyer & Cockriel, 1999; Vesilind, 2000). If the trend to strongly encourage or even require faculty to secure external funds continues, facilitating faculty efforts to write proposals for external funds generally, and female faculty efforts in particular, will require changes in the university policy, practice, structure, and culture to provide a more facilitative and ultimately level playing field for all faculty. August and Waltman (2004) wrote, “It is not enough merely to recruit and hire more women; once hired, women faculty must be retained by fostering a satisfying work environment in which they can perform well and prosper” (p. 178). Being aware of women’s ways of working, as well as conducting further research on this issue, will help foster a satisfying work environment in which women faculty, as well as male faculty, can and will “perform well and prosper.”

ReferencesAmerican Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2001, May). Faculty salary

and faculty distribution fact sheet. Retrieved January 29, 2002, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/01Fact.htm

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2004). Faculty salary and faculty distribution fact sheet, 2003-04. Retrieved December 23, 2004, from www.aaup.org/research/sal&distribution.htm

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/geneq2006.htm?PF=1

August, L., & Waltman, J. (2004, March). Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education 45 (2), 177-191.

Beaman-Smith, K., & Placier, M. (1996). The interplay of gender in the careers of white female and male senior professors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ASHE, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED404896).

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.


Articles

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005, October). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?

Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386.

Boyer, P., & Cockriel, I. (1999, Winter). Women faculty pursuing grants: Gender differences. Advancing Women in Leadership, 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter99/awl_winter99.html

Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.

Dickens, C. S., & Sagaria, M. A. D. (1997, Fall). Feminists at work: Collaborative relationships among women faculty. Review of Higher Education, 21(1). 79-101.

Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). Classical leadership. Retrieved July 14, 2003, from www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.html

Easterly, D. (2006). An exploration of the barriers and supports perceived by female faculty at three state universities in Idaho as they write proposals to secure external funds. (UMI No. AAT 3221860).

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound. Cambridge: University Press.

Forrest Cataldi, E., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E. M. (2005). 2004 national study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF:04). Report on faculty and instructional staff in fall 2003 (NCES 2005-172). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2003, Winter). As balancing act and as game: How women and men science faculty experience the promotion process. Gender Issues, 21(1), 24-42.

Hamilton, K. (2002, March 28). Do babies matter when charting an academic career? Black Issues in Higher Education, 19(3). Retrieved March 3, 2003, from http://www.isu.edu/library/articles, WilsonWeb.

Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005, Summer). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 30 (4), 2009-2015.

Helfat, C. E. (2002, September). Work-life issues in academia and business, the current state of affairs. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(3), 329-331. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from http://www.isu.edu/library/articles/.

Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.


Articles

Idaho State University, 2005-2006 AAUP Faculty Compensation Survey. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://www.isu.edu/instres/Reports/External/AAUP/2005-06AAUP.pdf.

Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2002, November-December). Do babies matter?

Academe, 88(6). Retrieved April 3, 2003, from http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/02nd/02ndtoc.htm.

Meyerson, D. E., & Ely, R. J. (2003). Using difference to make a difference. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), The difference “difference” makes (pp.129-143). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2001: Chapter 3 postsecondary education. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2002/digest2001/ch3.asp#2.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Background characteristics, work activities, and compensation of instructional faculty and staff: Fall 2003. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006176

National Science Foundation. (2000, September 21). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf00327.

Nidiffer, J., & Bashaw, C. T. (2001). Introduction-quiet inspiration and hard work: The impact of women administrators. In J. Nidiffer & C. T. Bashaw (Eds.), Women administrators in higher education: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 1-10). Albany, NY: State University of NY Press.

NSF ADVANCE March 2007, website. http:www.nsf.gov http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383&from=fund.

Ostrow, E. (2002, February 22). The backlash against academic parents. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48. Retrieved February 25, 2002, from http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable_verity.cgi.

Park, S. M. (1996, January/February). Research, teaching and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46-84.

Rosser, S. V., & Lane, E. O. (2002). Key barriers for academic institutions seeking to retain female scientists and engineers: Family-unfriendly policies, low numbers, stereotypes and harassment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 161-189.

Vesilind, P. A. (2000). So you want to be a professor? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


Articles

SBIR and STTR Programs: The Private Sector, Public Sector and University Trifecta

Bryan K. Ford, PhDJohn A. Harford Geriatric Fellow

President & CEOCaringSourceP.O. Box 3686

Atlanta, GA 30024 Tel: (404) 567-6717


Kathleen J. Shino, MBANIH SBIR/STTR

Program Specialist, OEP, OERNIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 3522

Bethesda, MD, 20892 Tel: (301) 435-2689


Erik Sander, MSMoT President

V2R Group, Inc. 2180 West State Road 434, Suite 6184

Longwood, Florida 32779Tel: (407) 682-1894Email: [email protected]

J. Michael Hardin, PhDAssociate Dean for Research

Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business AdministrationThe University of Alabama

Box 870221Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0221

Tel: (205) 348-8901Fax: (205) 348-2951

Web: http://www.cba.ua.edu

Authors’ Note This paper was first presented at the 2007 Symposium at the annual October meeting of the Society of Research Administrators International in Nashville, Tennessee, and appeared within the Proceedings for that event. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the National Institutes of Health, V2R Group, Inc., and the University of Alabama. Also a special thanks to Diane M. Langhorst and Dace S. Svikis (2007) for permission to use of their article, The NIH R03 Award: An Initial Funding Step for Social Work Researchers, in Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 417-424. The views expressed in this paper reflect the exclusive opinions of its authors in their private capacity. No official support or endorsement by the National Institutes of Health, V2R Group, Inc., or the University of Alabama is intended or should be inferred.

Abstract The process of creating and transitioning the storehouse of university research and development to commercial products is by its nature a true partnership of great university innovators, experienced entrepreneurs and adequate funding sources. In the United States, the process of university innovation to commercialization begins deep in university laboratories, where researchers engage in more than $40 billion of cutting edge research and development annually (National Science Foundation, 2006). However, the culture of the university often does not readily endorse quality research with rapid return on investment (ROI) through the traditional commercialization process. In 1982, the Federal government recognized the need to promote university spin-off companies and passed the Small Business Innovation Development Act. In effect, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs that were spawned from this legislation create a trifecta of resources from the private, academic, and


Articles

government sectors to bring research to the marketplace. This article will enhance the reader’s overall understanding of the commercialization process within a university to include a discussion of the advantages of participating in the SBIR/STTR programs, and to underscore the necessity of forming commercialization partnerships to maximize the potential for success of funded SBIRs/STTRs in Phase III.

Keywords: Small Business Innovation Research Program, Small Business Technology Transfer Program, research, private funding, business incubator programs, collaborations, NIH, research and development, social science, technology, grant review process.

Introduction The landscape of research funding is changing in the 21st century. As it does, it is critical that university researchers collaborate with experienced entrepreneurs and funding sources to stay on the cutting edge of scientific progress. Within the United States, the entire process of university innovation to commercialization begins deep in university laboratories, where faculty, graduate students, and post-doctoral researchers engage in more than $40 billion of cutting edge research and development annually (National Science Foundation, 2006). However, the culture of the university often does not readily endorse quality research with rapid return on investment (ROI) through the traditional commercial process. The scientific community’s endorsement of the quality of the research is provided through peer review of publications in leading journals and through attainment of leadership positions in the faculty member’s relevant societies. In fact, most university research is years away from market readiness. It is a culture that is designed to be open, long-term, multi-disciplinary, and focused on basic research. The private sector on the other hand, has different cultural measures and outcomes. Corporate (industry) culture is more secretive and its research is typically shorter-term, lower risk, and focused on applied research for maximizing profits. This creates a cultural challenge for universities and private sector corporations that want to collaborate and transfer technology to the marketplace. General business development strategies are often ineffective in engaging a national audience of technology commercialization partners as the process of fully engaging with universities in research and technology transfer involves a clash of cultures and motivational factors that often stymies successfully transferring technologies to the private sector. Yet, university technology licensing to start-up companies is a growing phenomenon in the US and is funded by multiple sources. Approximately 600 new university spin-off companies are being formed annually. However, many university spin-off companies never recognize their full potential due to the management team’s inexperience in fully utilizing university resources such as researchers and infrastructure to create maximum value, manage intellectual property issues and create shareholder wealth (NSF, 2006). In 1982, the Federal government recognized the need to promote university spin-off companies and passed the Small Business Innovation Development Act. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs were created to “ensure that the nation’s small, high-tech,


Articles

innovative businesses are a significant part of the federal government’s research and development efforts” by teaming private sector expertise and university cutting edge research with public sector funding (SBIR.gov, 2008, ¶ 1). In effect, the SBIR and STTR programs create a trifecta of resources to bring research to the marketplace. However, relatively few universities or private sector companies fully understand the programs or the process. This article will enhance the reader’s overall understanding of the commercialization process within a university to include a discussion of the advantages of participating in the SBIR/STTR programs, and to underscore the necessity of forming commercialization partnerships to maximize the potential for success of funded SBIRs/STTRs in Phase III.

NIH Small Business Innovation Research Grant, Phase I (R43) and Phase II (R44) and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Grant Mechanisms Phase I (R41) and Phase II (R44) The SBIR and STTR programs are distinct funding mechanisms for U.S. small business concerns (SBC) that are solicited within two annual “parent” NIH funding opportunity announcements (FOA), Program Announcements (PA), Requests For Applications (RFA), and Requests for Proposals (RFP), all of which notify the grantee/contract community of continuing, new, or expanded program interests for which grant applications are invited. Investigator-initiated SBIR/STTR projects submitted in response to Parent SBIR/STTR FOAs or to special PAs are reviewed by the NIH Center for Scientific Review, while RFAs and RFPs are generally reviewed by institutes or centers (ICs) within the NIH; those that will award grants under a specific PA or RFA are listed in the specific FOA. The SBIR program is a Congressionally-mandated set-aside program (2.5% of an agency’s extramural research and development [R&D] budget) for domestic small business concerns to engage in research/R&D that has the potential for commercialization. The STTR uses an annual set-aside of 0.30% of extramural agency funds. The Small Business Administration provides administrative oversight of the SBIR and STTR Programs through its Policy Directives. The SBIR Program includes the following objectives: using small businesses to stimulate technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting Federal R/R&D needs, increasing private sector commercialization of innovations developed through Federal SBIR R&D, increasing small business participation in Federal R/R&D, and fostering and encouraging participation by socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns and women-owned business concerns in the SBIR program. The STTR and SBIR programs are similar in that both seek to increase the participation of small businesses in Federal R&D and to increase private sector commercialization of technology developed through Federal R&D. The unique feature of the STTR program is the requirement for the applicant small business concern to collaborate formally with a U.S. research institution in Phase I and Phase II.


Articles

The SBIR/STTR Programs are structured in three phases:

Phase 1: The objective of Phase I is to establish the technical merit and feasibility and potential for commercialization of the proposed R/R&D efforts and to determine the quality of performance of the small business awardee organization prior to providing further Federal support in Phase II. Support under Phase I normally may not exceed $100,000 total costs (direct costs, F&A costs, and negotiated fee) for a period normally not to exceed six months for SBIR and one year for STTR. Applicants to the NIH are advised to propose budgets and timelines that are appropriate for the scope of the scientific project.

Phase II: The objective of Phase II is to continue the R/R&D efforts initiated in Phase I. Funding is based on the results achieved in Phase I and the scientific and technical merit and commercial potential of the project proposed in Phase II. Only Phase I awardees are eligible for a Phase II award. Support for SBIR and STTR Phase II awards normally may not exceed $750,000 total costs (direct costs, F&A costs, and negotiated fee) for a period normally not to exceed two years.

Phase III: The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is for the small business concern to pursue with non-SBIR/STTR funds the commercialization objectives resulting from the Phase I/II R/R&D activities. In some Federal agencies, Phase III may involve follow-on non-SBIR/STTR funded R&D or production contracts for products, processes or services intended for use by the U.S. Government.

At NIH, deviations from the Phase I/Phase II statutory award amount and project period guidelines are acceptable but must be well justified and should be discussed with appropriate NIH staff prior to submission of the application. The Phase I award is smaller in scope and more time limited than the full Phase II award. Twenty-three of the 27 NIH ICs offer these mechanisms; specifics such as project period and amount of award may vary. The Phase I awards are often designed to support the early stages of an innovative research concept by encouraging the applicant to use this mechanism to obtain preliminary data for a subsequent Phase II application. This may be ideal for small start-up companies with an academic researcher who often has teaching or agency obligations and needs some release time, yet is not ready for total immersion in a commercial research career. Projects typically funded in Phase I include: (a) pilot or feasibility studies; (b) secondary analysis of existing data; (c) development of research methodology; and (d) development of new research technology. Phase I can serve as an important developmental step for a small business researcher partnering with an academic researcher, whether they are approaching the research enterprise as a practitioner-member of a research team or as a scholar-member of an agency team. Reviews of all NIH research grant applications are based on the following criteria: significance, approach, innovation, investigator(s), and environment. In addition, reviewers assess the involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research, and adequacy of plans for care and use of vertebrate animals in research. The reasonableness of


Articles

the proposed budget and the appropriateness of the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research may also be assessed. Since the SBIR/STTR award is always made to the small business, the small business must have all of the necessary regulatory (i.e., OHRP and OLAW) assurances in place, regardless of where the animal or human subject research takes place. One advantage of the Phase I is that minimal preliminary data are not expected to be described in the application as they are for the traditional R01 mechanisms. Two options are available to apply for a SBIR or STTR award: by an investigator-initiated proposal or in response to a special announcement. In the first, the researcher designs a project and then identifies an NIH institute with matching goals. The second and typically recommended approach is to identify a PA or RFA that corresponds to the researcher’s interest area; this can be accomplished by exploring funding opportunities at the NIH Small Business Funding Opportunities website (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm). Applicants are encouraged to subscribe to the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and to visit the websites of specific NIH Institutes and Centers to learn of emerging interests and areas of high priority. Eligibility for the SBIR and STTR programs is limited to U.S. SBCs. An SBC is one that, on the date of award for both Phase I and Phase II funding agreements, meets all of the criteria described in the current SBIR or STTR parent funding opportunity announcement available from the NIH Small Business Funding Opportunities website. The definition of eligible individuals who may serve as Principal Investigators (PI) is broad and includes any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research, particularly individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups or disabled persons. For SBIR, the PI must be at least 50% employed by the SBC at the time of award and for the duration of the project. STTR projects do not specify employment criteria, but the PI must have a formal arrangement with the SBC and must devote a minimum of 10% time and effort to the STTR project.

New Opportunities The SBIR and STTR funding mechanisms open new opportunities for university researchers. As scientists begin to incorporate more technology into their research efforts, they are realizing the advantages of partnering with businesses with similar interests. The University of California, Berkley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently announced a partnership with global energy firm BP “to lead an unprecedented $500 million research effort to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment” (Sanders, 2006, ¶ 1). While the partnership ignited a firestorm of debate among academics, the realities of modern research are such that, without such partnerships, it will be nearly impossible for universities to be competitive in today’s cutting edge research environment. Social science is not an exception. Social science researchers are beginning to use more technology to tackle societal problems. One such researcher from the University of Tennessee, Dr. John S. Wodarski, is using computer technology to prevent college drinking. His computer intervention program, based on previous computer technology alcohol assumption assessments, attempts to reduce irresponsible drinking (Wodarski & Long, in press). Another team of researchers from


Articles

the University of Southern Mississippi has developed technology for youth courts and detention centers in five Mississippi counties that improves information management between systems that work with juvenile offenders. The software they created, called SWORD, helps agencies working with juveniles to collaborate and address issues with youthful offenders in a holistic manner while at the same time protecting their private information (Forster & Rehner, 2003). At the University of Alabama, Dr. Michael Parker and his team have also utilized internet technology to create an online assessment for caregivers to older persons. His Parent Care Readiness Program (PCR-Program) consists of a computerized, comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of the full spectrum of parental caregiving tasks, and a tailored intervention program that adult children can implement (Parker, Toseland, Roff, Klemmack et al., in press). The goal of these social scientists is to create research that solves problems in society. However, the delivery systems and management of those systems are usually not the scientists’ primary foci. This is where partnerships with the business sector are crucial. While scientists are busy with research, the market is forging ahead with innovative technologies to meet market demands and creating remarkable organizations capable of delivering products in an efficient manner. The advantage to social science in using business sector technology is that it allows the scientists to couple the very best research with the very best technology and delivery management solutions. The SBIR and STTR funding programs were created by NIH to provide federal funding for such collaborations. The onus for social scientists is to highlight to NIH the significance of each of their projects (or what impact this technology would have on the social problems they address) and make the case that their research is truly innovative.

Preparing to Write an SBIR/STTR Grant The FOA includes information on how to access the application materials along with instructions for registering at Grants.gov, the central portal for all Federal applications, and for registering on the website of the Electronic Research Administration (eRA; http://era.nih.gov/), NIH’s infrastructure for electronically reviewing, monitoring, and administering grant awards. This must be done at least two months in advance of submitting the applications because NIH now requires electronic submissions of SBIR/STTR grants. The NIH website offers a useful tutorial on electronic submission. The SBIR and STTR use the SF 424 Research and Related application forms that are available using a downloadable link contained within each SBIR/STTR FOA. The FOA also provides a link for help in preparing the required budget pages and justification. The SBIR and STTR programs are the only NIH grants that allow SBCs to include a fee or profit in the application. The research plan required for a Phase I grant application is shorter (15 pages) than the research plans required for Phase II (25 pages) applications, and both contain the following sections: Specific Aims, Background and Significance, Preliminary Studies, Research Design, and Methods. A Commercialization Plan (15 pages) is required in Phase II applications. It is advisable for the first-time applicant to have a mentor or experienced grants consultant to answer questions and review the application. NIH program staff members are also available to provide assistance, and they strongly encourage new investigators to call or email their questions. Primary contacts for the SBIR/STTR program at each IC are listed in the SBIR/STTR Program Topics and Description. The Links and Resources page on the NIH CSR


Articles

site provides a link to an NIH Mock Study Section video that outlines the review and scoring process. Another invaluable resource is the NIH’s Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) database (http://www.crisp.cit.nih.gov), which can be searched to locate current and past awarded grants for SBCs. CRISP also provides information about partnering university, topic area, investigator, or other criterion to learn what has been funded and what unanswered scientific questions remain. Three ways to obtain a copy of a successful grant are to (a) contact the principal investigator directly, (b) obtain a copy through the Freedom of Information Act by contacting the institute program officer, or (c) call the NIH Freedom of Information Office at 301-496-5633. Contacting the principal investigator may also provide additional information and encouragement for a project. Finally, many college- and university-sponsored program offices regularly conduct workshops on applying for NIH funding. NIH also has a sample application on its website: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sbir/app/default.htm The Grants.gov SBIR/STTR Application Guide SF424 (R&R) on the NIH website, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm, is essential when navigating the application requirements. When preparing to write the proposal, an investigator should remember that reviewers are judging the feasibility of the project being completed within the limited financial resources and time constraints proposed in the Phase I application. Reviewers also carefully consider whether the project has commercial potential that is transferable to real-world practice and/or provides pilot data for a subsequent Phase II, application and whether it is within the researcher’s capabilities. Finally and most importantly, reviewers are interested in whether the proposed project fits with the research priorities of the IC. A recommended step for a new SBC investigator completing a SBIR/STTR application is to establish a solid mentor relationship with a senior investigator in the field of study. According to Hesselbrock (2006), qualities to look for in a mentor include common professional interests, available time to devote to mentoring, and whether the person has the necessary NIH-related research experience. The investigator should also consider whether he or she likes and trusts the person and whether he or she is open to advice from this person. Likewise, being a successful mentee involves creating short-term and long-term goals for professional growth, meeting regularly with the mentor and focusing each meeting by having an agenda, using the mentor’s resources wisely, providing appropriate feedback, and avoiding competition with the mentor. For a new investigator to hear the truth in a positive way from an expert in his or her field is truly a gift. The scientific reputation of the mentor and other collaborators can influence the confidence that a reviewer has in the proposed project. This is especially true with an SBIR/STTR Phase I because it does not require the same consideration of the qualifications, track record, or preliminary data of the principal investigator, who is often a new researcher.

Writing the SBIR/STTR Application When writing the application, completeness, significance, originality, and clarity matter. State the hypothesis or underlying principles clearly in both the Specific Aims of the Research Plan and in the Abstract:


Articles

Highlight the importance and innovation of the project.1. Be sure the project has a coherent direction.2. Demonstrate that the objectives are attainable within the stated time frame.3. Explain what gaps in science and/or commercialization the project would 4. fill. If a similar product/service exists, clearly explain why the proposed product/service is better and why it is innovative.Refer to the literature thoroughly and thoughtfully, but not to excess. 5. Research proposals typically do not fare well when applicants are unaware of relevant published work, products, or services or when the proposed research or study design has already been tried and judged to be inadequate.Where appropriate, include well-designed and clear tables and figures. Use 6. titles that are accurate and informative. Label the axes and include legends. Reviewers will look for discrepancies between what is shown and what is described in the proposal. Be sure to explain the details, or reviewers may see things differently from what applicants intended.Edit and proofread thoroughly for typographical and grammatical mistakes, 7. omitted information, and errors in figures and tables.Have other colleagues review the application. They can point out unclear 8. statements and other problems such as typographical errors, omitted figures, absent biographical sketches, missing letters, and confusing budget justifications.

The Project Summary/abstract is critically important. Based on the Project Summary and the title, the Scientific Review official at NIH determines which Study Section within an Integrated Review Group (IRG) will review the application. The Project Summary should be a clear and concise statement of the objectives and methods to be employed. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and insofar as possible understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. This Summary must not include any proprietary/confidential information. It is a snapshot of the significant questions and hypotheses, specific aims and objectives, and important contributions and commercial potential that this project can make. It should be written and rewritten and read by an experienced grants person for feedback before submission. The Specific Aims section is the first part of the 15-page Phase I Research Plan. It is recommended, but not required, that this section be hypothesis-driven. NIH guidelines for reviewers (NIH, 2007) state that a strong application should have sound ideas, address important issues, and generate confidence that the research will make a significant difference. The Specific Aims section should list measurable objectives intended for completion by the end of Phase I or Phase II. Do not confuse Specific Aims with long-term goals for a product. Specific aims are the objectives of the research project, project milestones, and the accomplishments by which the success of the project is measured. This section should capture the enthusiasm of the reviewers (particularly the primary and secondary), since all reviewers will read it. Choose aims reviewers can easily assess. Choose objectives for the Phase I proposal that can be easily and fairly evaluated at the conclusion of this phase. To avoid being overly ambitious, limit the proposal to three to four specific aims. Most importantly, Specific Aims should be focused and clearly express the importance and limitations of the project. Organize and define the aims so they can


Articles

be directly related to the research methods. Begin this section by stating the general purpose or objectives of the research, which may be organized in outline form: Specific Aim 1, Milestone; Specific Aim 2, Milestone; etc. If the SBC is submitting more than one application, make sure the specific aims differ. The Background and Significance section contains the peer reviewed literature, organized to flow logically within the context of a strong literature-based rationale. It develops the ideas presented in the Specific Aims section and identifies gaps in the literature. This is one of the sections likely to be read by all the reviewers, so write this section in nontechnical terms for the broader audience. Tell the reviewers how this work suits the NIH mission to improve health through science. Tie the science to curing, treating, or preventing disease. When reviewing an application, reviewers will judge the likelihood that the research can make an impact on public health. Describe how this research is innovative and how it could produce a significant commercial product or service. Innovative means new technologies, significant improvement of existing technologies, or development of new applications for existing technologies. Specifically identify the commercial opportunities and societal benefits that the project is intended to address. State concisely the importance of the proposed research by relating its specific aims to the longer-term objectives of Phase II. Keep it brief! Why is the project or specific research question important? Write a compelling argument that supports the research to develop a solution to a real problem that affects real people. Consider including a diagram that illustrates the “big picture” by delineating expected achievements in Phase I (aims and milestones), plans and objectives for Phase II, and what the ultimate commercial endpoint will be in Phase III. Consider the following questions:

Does the proposed project have commercial potential to lead to a 1. marketable product or process? Does this project address an important problem?2. What may be the anticipated commercial and societal benefits of the 3. proposed activity?If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be 4. advanced?Does the proposal lead to enabling technologies (e.g., instrumentation, 5. software) for further discoveries?Will the technology have a competitive advantage over existing/alternate 6. technologies that can meet the market needs?

The applicant would be wise to identify potential reviewers and to include relevant articles the reviewers have published. The final sentence should clearly identify the timeliness, significance and commercial potential of the proposed research project without overstating its importance. The Phase I application guide states that the Preliminary Data section is not required. However, some preliminary data can serve to assure reviewers that the proposal has a high probability of success. Applications with convincing preliminary data are likely to score better than applications containing only good ideas. NIH review guidelines state that if preliminary data are provided, they must be evaluated scientifically. Whether investigator-generated data are presented or not, this section should contain a strong


Articles

justification for the approach by providing literature and supporting data. Interpret preliminary results critically. Give alternative meanings to the data to demonstrate it may be able to meet future challenges. In the Research Design and Methods section the researcher spells out the study design in detail. Reviewers often find that this section is underdeveloped. When reviewers judge an application the Research Design and Methods section has the most “weight” even though the review criteria are not numerically “weighted.” Organize this section in accordance with the specific aims. It’s helpful to create a timetable showing how and when the aims will be accomplished, including any overlap of experiments and alternative paths. Use flow charts and decision trees to show paths of experiments and how they progress, including paths that show alternatives -- what will happen if there are negative results. Anticipate reviewers’ questions about the feasibility of the proposal, e.g., access to reagents, equipment, or study populations. Describe sources if reagents or equipment are not generally available. If collaborators will provide them, include letters from the sources. Describe in detail the experimental design and procedures to accomplish the specific aims. While reviewers are experts in the field and familiar with current methodology, do not assume they will know how the proposed research will proceed. The reviewers need to be assured that applicants know what they are doing. It is not sufficient to state “we will grow a variety of viruses in cells using standard in vitro tissue culture techniques.” In this example, reviewers would want to know which viruses, cells, and techniques; the rationale for using this particular system; and precisely how the techniques will be used. Include a detailed discussion of the way in which results will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Remember, the reviewers must be convinced that the proposed project is a great idea. The applicant must show through a succinct explanation that he or she understands the science and can do the research. Make sure the experiments are in a logical sequence, flowing from one another with clear starting and finishing points. Show a timeline for experiments, and take care to propose a realistic level of work for the allotted time. Answer these questions: Are the procedures feasible and within the collaborators’ expertise and competence? Reviewers must be convinced that the right methods have been proposed, especially if the methods are innovative; state why they were chosen and what will be done to avoid technical problems. Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to personnel and describe the precautionary measures that will be taken in handling the materials, and the training people involved have had in safe practices. The application must state what special facilities are available to protect the environment and staff. To fill in expertise, rely on consultants. State how collaborators or consultants will fit into the work. List them as key personnel, and provide biographical sketches. Include a section called “Potential Risks and Alternative Strategies,” which discusses potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures and proposes solutions to them. Since reviewers are experienced researchers, they will be aware of possible problems. Discuss alternative approaches if the initial approach proves not to be feasible or if a result is not what was expected. Tell reviewers what will happen if results are negative, how this will also advance the field, and what the next steps may be. Discuss in detail the methods for gathering and interpreting data and making sure the experiment can yield statistically significant results.


Articles

It is very important to also include the milestones and criteria which will determine that feasibility has been demonstrated. Consider whether the following questions have been addressed after completing this section:

Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately 1. developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?Is the proposed plan a sound approach for establishing technical and 2. commercial feasibility?Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider 3. alternative strategies?Are the milestones and evaluation procedures appropriate?4.

Give thorough consideration to the need of any human subject or animal involvement in the Phase I feasibility work. Although no specific page limitation applies to these sections of the application, be succinct. If there is no animal or human subject research, indicate “Not applicable” in this section of the research plan. If there is animal or human subject involvement by the SBC or the collaborators, these sections must be completed and all assurances must be in place at the time of award. Failure to address the required elements will result in the application being designated as incomplete and will be grounds for NIH to return the application without peer review. If the proposal includes working closely with an investigator from another institution, briefly describe any consortium or contractual arrangements, stating the roles of the people or organizations involved. STTR applicants must enter into a Technology Transfer Agreement with their research institution partners, and it is good practice for any external collaborations. Explain the programmatic and fiscal arrangements made between the SBC and the contractor(s). SBCs often lack all of the expertise “in-house” to complete the proposed research. The inclusion of consultants who are credible, known experts in their field can strengthen the research team, add credibility to the application and greatly improve its quality.

Grant Review Process Grant applications that are submitted in response to the Parent SBIR/STTR FOAs or specific PAs are handled by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR), which receives applications and organizes and coordinates NIH grant review activity. (RFAs are generally reviewed by the ICs.) CSR activities are organized into integrated review groups (IRGs), which are clusters of study sections, also called scientific review groups, responsible for the review of grant applications in scientifically related areas. These study sections share common intellectual and human resources. The study section is selected by the IRG staff and is composed of a panel of experts established according to scientific disciplines or current research areas for the primary purpose of evaluating the scientific and technical merit of grant applications. IRGs, study sections, meeting dates, and rosters of section members (potential reviewers) are listed at the CSR website (http://cms.csr.nih.gov/) and at the eRA website for investigators who are in the eRA system. In the PHS 398 cover letter component of the SF424R&R application, the investigator may request a specific IC, IRG, and study section and should identify the disciplines involved in the research and the expertise needed to appropriately


Articles

review the application (e.g., someone with expertise in qualitative research methods). Although the PI may not request specific reviewers, the PI may state who should not review the application and why. An NIH glossary (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm) and a tutorial on applying for NIH grants (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/Tutorial.html) are both useful tools. So, who actually reviews the grant? First, one or more CSR Referral Officers examine the application and determine the most appropriate IRG to assess its scientific and technical merit. The application is then assigned to one of the IRG’s study sections. A study section typically includes 20 or more scientists from the community of productive researchers. The application also will be assigned to the IC best suited to fund your application should it have sufficient merit. (More than one IC may be assigned if appropriate.) Referral Officers follow established guidelines that define the review boundaries of each study section. These boundaries frequently overlap, and more than one study section may have the expertise to review the application. PI’s may request in a cover note that the application be assigned to a particular study section or IC. The CSR referral office seriously considers such requests. The combined expertise of the scientists in a study section is intended to span the breadth and diversity of the science it covers. CSR may recruit temporary reviewers or secure mail reviews from outside consultants. As soon as the application is received and assigned to a study section, notices are posted to the PI’s online NIH eRA Commons account. The Scientific Review Officer analyzes the content of the application, checks it for completeness, and decides which reviewers can best evaluate it. All study section members have access to the application through the NIH eRA Commons, but only two or three members review it in detail and provide written reviews. As previously discussed, criteria for review are (a) significance, (b) approach, (c) innovation, (d) investigator or investigators, (e) environment, and (f ) other (human subjects, representation, budget). Through a process called streamlining, only the top 50% of grants receive discussion and a numeric rating. About 50% are placed in the bottom half and are unscored (as designated by a double asterisk). Both scored and unscored applications receive summary statements of comments from reviewers, which are invaluable in the resubmission process. NIH applicants are allowed two revised applications. Priority scores for the top 50% range from 100 to 500 with 100 being a perfect score. Generally, 100 to 150 means outstanding (but no guarantee of funding), 150 to 200 is excellent, 200 to 150 is very good, 250 to 300 is good, and 300 to 500 is acceptable. Depending on several factors (institute, number of applications received, type of award, percentile cutoff depending on the budget), applications scored above a specific score (e.g., 150) may have to be resubmitted. After the study section review committee meets and the summary statement has been prepared, the next level of review is conducted by the IC’s Advisory Council or Board, which considers the study section’s recommendations and determines the relevance of the proposed research to the priorities of the institute and to public health needs. If approved by the advisory council the application is on its way to the NIH grants management division that implements the funding process. Concerns most often cited by reviewers include: (a) the applicant had overreached; (b) the project was overly ambitious, which raised feasibility questions (a common problem with Phase I applications); (c) follow-up terms were unclear; and


Articles

(d) the significance of the research was not clearly demonstrated. Consultation with the IC project officer is strongly encouraged before submitting a revised application. In the revised application the initial reviewers’ concerns must be carefully attended to. The important messages are: (a) Follow the instructions in the FOA and ask for help with anything that is not understood, (b) don’t expect to be funded after the first application, and (c) don’t give up! Research conducted by small business concerns partnering with academia is vitally important to the NIH’s objective of bridging the gap between research and community practice to improve public health. The SBIR/STTR award is an important mechanism for small business concerns and research institutions to use in helping realize this objective.

SBC Collaborations with Universities in SBIR and STTR Programs From a university/SBC collaboration standpoint, SBIR and STTR programs can provide key funding to advance a technology through what has been termed the “Valley of Death” - that point in the life cycle of technology development where the research is transitioning from a basic “academic” research program to an “applied” focused development program (Figure 1). As any technology SBC or entrepreneur and many university faculty have experienced, this transition point can be very difficult as the technology is sometimes too far along for significant further federal funding, but not yet sufficiently developed and risk mitigated to attract significant industry attention for adoption or funding. The SBIR and STTR three-phased programs are ideally designed to provide stage-gate funding for technologies that are candidates to successfully transition to full production. The SBIR and STTR scheme of increased funding with successful demonstration of the technical and commercial merits of early stage technologies provides for scarce resources in this stage of development with risk mitigation as funds are only provided as success is demonstrated.

From an academic standpoint, the SBIR and STTR programs provide an avenue to transition some university technologies/research to the private sector by extending the technology work from pure research into the development regime,


and therefore create a pipeline of more attractive technologies for SBC collaborative development and ultimate commercialization through an SBIR or STTR project. A typical faculty member’s team might undertake anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in funded research annually, with over 60% of funding coming from federal agencies and the remainder being supplied by private sector companies (5-15%), foundations, state resources, and other organizations. It’s important to note that at any given time research teams will typically be working on several synergistic research projects in their field funded by multiple sources. Over 70% of university research is categorized as basic (research for the sake of knowledge) versus applied development (research for the sake of meeting a specific market need through development of a product or service). As a comparison, typically less than 10% of corporate research is categorized as basic (NSF, 2006). Basic research provides the foundation for fundamental technology breakthroughs for next generation corporate products, establishing a key role for US universities in the overall advancement of technology today and in the future. Often, basic research is years from market readiness, but the SBIR and STTR programs can provide catalytic funding to transition academic research to industrial development. NIH, academia and business have a stake in many endeavors, such as putting new technology to work, preparing young people for productive careers, exchanging valued goods and services, and advancing knowledge in directions that matter. In fact, a partial listing of collaboration avenues between SBCs and universities shows a broad cross section of mutually beneficial areas to the private, government, and academic sectors:

Joint research with government sponsors1. College, Department, Institute, and Center Advisory Boards2. Facility usage3. Proactive student recruitment4. Student internships and co-ops5. Faculty sabbaticals6. Visiting researchers and scientists7. Distance education / lifelong learning8. Sponsored research9. Product / Technology donations10. Support for student clubs 11. Student scholarships, fellowships, endowments, professorships12. Participation in short courses, seminars, workshops13.

These significant opportunities for collaboration have presented industry with motivation to work with academia on SBIR, STTR, and other collaborative R&D programs. Over the last 20 years, the US private sector has increasingly relied on universities to undertake some of the basic research that spawns breakthrough products of the future -- research that entrepreneurs and SBCs are either not equipped to undertake themselves or are not able to fund internally with their focus on near term product development that affects the bottom line. At the same time, US universities have substantially ramped up their programs to commercialize technologies to the greater impact of society. It’s important to realize that university/SBC collaboration and technology transfer is a relatively young field, having been

Articles


Articles

truly active only since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, but it’s growing dramatically (albeit with its share of growing pains), as evidenced by the data below. As of 2006, US universities, hospitals, and research institutes produced substantial technology transfer results including (Association of University Technology Managers, 2006):

$45B in undertaken sponsored research.1. 18,874 Invention Disclosures with an average of about $2.5M R&D per 2. invention.15,908 patent applications and 3,255 US patents issued to US universities 3. in 2006 compared with less than 250 in 1980.4,963 licenses and options executed with 64% issued to startups & SBCs.4. 697 products launched (4,350 since 1998) based on university or nonprofit 5. research results introduced in 2006 in the US alone.553 new companies (1.5 per day). 5,724 companies were spun-out from 6. US universities, hospitals & research institutes since 1980.

More to the point, much of the market success in this field has been catalyzed by research and licensing collaborations with entrepreneurs and SBCs, a trend that is rapidly accelerating. Federal SBIR and STTR programs are focused specifically on funding of these types of truly breakthrough technologies, making universities attractive R&D partners for many SBCs who participate in the SBIR and STTR programs. Achieving the aforementioned results has taken a dedicated effort by many groups in the university and the private sectors, ranging from faculty and students to university administrators, entrepreneurs, and SBC executives and research leaders. Each stakeholder in the process, whether internal (students, staff, faculty, and administration) or external (SBCs, entrepreneurs, and investors) to the university, plays a key role in making the university effective and proactive at generating and commercializing technology through SBIR/STTR collaborations.

Cultural Challenges to University/SBC Collaborations Robust university/SBC collaboration and technology commercialization programs include a multitude of engagement mechanisms ranging from Industrial Advisory Boards, which guide university research and educational efforts at various levels, to sponsored and collaborative research such as SBIR/STTR, and technology licensing and commercialization. These programs are most productive when the university and entrepreneurs / industry partners understand each other’s cultural differences, key motivators, and other critical factors affecting the collaborative environment. As Putman (1981) observed, cultures can differ in several parameters:

Members:1. academics or businessmenPrinciples:2. For academics, these include to publish or perish, reward brilliance, get famous, and advance knowledge. For businessmen, these include to deliver value to the business, reward consistent achievement, make money, and climb the corporate ladder.Esthetics:3. elegance, simplicity, and beauty versus speed, low cost, and minimal trouble and delay.


Articles

Language:4. “intuitively obvious,” “left as exercise for the reader,” and “as first shown by...” versus “24 by 7,” “six sigma,” and “measures of success.”Worlds:5. One is filled with students, funding sources, publications, academic societies and conferences; the other is filled with projects, delivery dates, contracts, markets, and customers.Practices:6. graduating, getting a grant, achieving tenure, and making a name versus completing a project, climbing the corporate ladder, closing a deal, and building a team.

While the general fields of university/industry collaboration and technology transfer have made significant advances over the last 20 years, universities and the private sector, including SBCs, oftentimes continue to struggle in consistently coming to common ground when working together. Whether in implementing an SBIR or STTR project, working with entrepreneurs to spin-out a university technology-based company, or entering into negotiations with a market leading company to move technology from a university lab to the marketplace through licensing and development, war stories of difficulties and failures abound despite a wealth of proven success in all of these areas. While one can point to various challenges that are highlighted in specific situations, obstacles to successful university / industry collaborations and subsequent technology transfer are usually rooted in misconceptions of each sector’s role, responsibilities, motivational drivers, and success criteria. In a word, the cultural differences inherent in the private and public sectors many times materialize as obstacles to a successful collaboration and transfer of a technology to a private sector client such as an SBC. While it’s always dangerous to generalize, one can readily see (Figure 2) that the cultural gaps between universities, SBCs, and large industry players can be evidenced in definitive ways that affect collaboration potential such as timeframes (semester vs. weeks), focus (basic vs. applied research), management (decentralized vs. hierarchical, project management driven), and bottom line focus (discovery vs. profit / shareholder value).

These cultural gaps are also evident within universities, where philosophical struggles between and amongst administrators and researchers with regard to the proper balance between basic and applied research are common. These challenges can be further exacerbated in SBIR/STTR projects that encompass relatively short time frames and vary in applied research, which are not the university’s norm.


Articles

Additionally, the field of US university/SBC collaboration and technology transfer, while having made great strides since passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, is still somewhat foreign to many university researchers and views of what is considered technology transfer can vary greatly among the contributors. For example, Figure 3 shows what one could argue are all valid, yet myriad, definitions of industrial collaboration and technology transfer avenues, ranging from contractual mechanisms such as sponsored research agreements and technology licenses to “softer” ways to transfer information and technology from one organization to another - seminars, consultation, publications, and graduation, which without a doubt are the university’s broadest means to affect industry with the results of its basic research.

When an SBC engages with a university in an SBIR or STTR project, it’s critical that the two parties agree on specific technology transfer and collaboration terminology to avoid having to face that challenge at an inopportune time when the research is already on-going and deadlines are approaching.

Other Primary Challenges to SBC / University Collaboration While it’s instructive to review the cultural foundation for many of the obstacles to universities, SBCs, and entrepreneurs working together, experience in implementing industrial collaboration and technology transfer programs and individual projects from all three of these perspectives has highlighted four primary, concrete areas of collaborative obstacles that must be overcome:

1. Intellectual Property: When potential university/SBC/entrepreneur collabora-tions such as an SBIR or STTR project are considered, the first and foremost issue in frequency and intensity of argument is intellectual property ownership and rights. One of the key differentiators between research contracts funded by the public sector (federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Homeland Security) and the private sector (SBCs and large companies) involves treatment of intellectual


Articles

property that might result from the research project. Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a federal funding agency will generally contribute the rights to intel-lectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks) from projects that the agency funds to the university. Faculty and graduate students funded by the university have already agreed to assign intellectual property developed under funded projects to the university in their employment agreements. The university is then free to engage in technology marketing and licensing as it sees fit. In an industrially sponsored project such as SBIR or STTR, each party (university and SBC) may sometimes want full ownership of all intel-lectual property generated in a collaborative project, and come to loggerheads very quickly, as this is often initially deemed a “deal breaker.” However, experi-ence shows, and university technology licensing and industrial collaborative research data support, the premise that universities and the private sector have learned to overcome this obstacle. In spite of the occasional war story of “the university deal that went sour,” US universities and SBCs usually come to terms that provide universities with ownership of the intellectual property that their faculty and students develop, while providing sufficient commercializa-tion rights to SBCs. Boilerplate industry-sponsored research agreements in uni-versities usually include a first option to a royalty-bearing license to technology produced in the research project on a good-faith negotiations basis. While this type of uncertain language can often cause heartburn for entrepreneurs or SBCs working with a university, and, more to the point, providing the funds for university research to support a future product, the result is that the univer-sity and its researchers are able to benefit from the fruits of their inventiveness, the entrepreneur or company is able to stake an exclusive or semi-exclusive po-sition in commercializing the technology, and the public benefits from research that is commercialized for the common good.

2. Limited private sector resources for external research support: Again generalizing, over the last 10 years, private sector discretionary budgets for external R&D support have been reeled in and focused on fewer areas with nearer term payoff potential and a very strong linkage to the company’s bottom line. While the validity of this strategy and the long term effect is beyond the scope of this paper, what is clear is that this has had a significant impact on SBC sponsored and collaborative research with universities. University researchers have had to adjust their expectations of industry sponsorship and the deliverables / timelines that are being expected to meet the industrial researcher needs. No longer can faculty count on multi-year industrial contracts with sometimes vague objectives. The entrepreneurial picture is even more demanding as each decision to allocate scarce resources to research and development is a decision to pull those dollars from other very key parts of the company’s lifeline, including marketing, operations, and sales. However, entrepreneurs and SBCs need to clearly understand that only a very small percentage of university technologies is anywhere near ready to go to market. SBC technologies that are developed in SBIR or STTR programs are more often than not advanced along the R&D curve from the university standard basic research. Most technologies that are licensed by universities to the private sector (entrepreneurs, small, or large companies) require months to years of


Articles

development to make them market ready, and entrepreneurs need to account for this in their budgeting. They must also realize that they are now dealing with and relying on follow-on research with an organization (the university) and professionals (the faculty and graduate students) who are influenced by different cultural drivers and timeframes as discussed above.

3. Research guidance/focus to meet company specific needs: As is clearly evident to those who have experienced the university, entrepreneur, and industry cultures, the university’s dedication to knowledge for the sake of knowledge and discovery (basic research) rather than the more definitive industrial profit motive of bringing technology to market (applied research) is a wonderful and necessary facet of society, but can also be foreign and frustrating to an entrepreneur or SBC research manager who is being pushed to justify university research investments in terms of potential impact on the bottom line and progress toward the SBIR or STTR project goals. Entrepreneurs and industry researchers aiming to maximize their collaborations with universities must understand and appreciate that discovery is not as predictable as development and the nature of a university’s research “workforce” (graduate students, post docs) means that the R&D results that industry is seeking must dovetail with the educational mission of the university. This can be very difficult for industry in the face of volatile industry environments (e.g., mergers, acquisitions, and shrinking profit margins), but is still a university foundational element that can’t be ignored. At the same time, a university researcher’s up-front understanding of and an SBC’s continued communication of the nature, timing, and criticality of a company sponsor’s needs can go a long way toward establishing an SBIR or STTR research project that is truly focused on meeting the sponsor’s needs and timelines. This is an especially critical element for SBCs that are often living on a razor’s edge of timelines and budgets and must get the most from each collaboration or license or risk the future well being of their company.

4. Confidentiality: Universities in the past have suffered under the often false label of “leaking information like a sieve.” This is due at least in part to the university’s open culture of information exchange and collaboration in the pursuit of knowledge. While the academic and industry sectors have come to relatively common agreement on how confidential information should be transmitted between the organizations and protected, what can be problematic are publication requirements for students and faculty vs. an SBC’s desires to withhold company-sensitive information and proprietary research results from competitors and to protect intellectual property. The authors would argue that this potential problem can usually be mitigated with clear, on-going communications throughout the SBIR or STTR project so that confidential or proprietary information can be properly managed in publications without affecting a student’s educational progress or unduly delaying a faculty member’s publications or endangering patent positions.


Articles

ReferencesAssociation of University Technology Managers. (2006). 2006 U.S. and Canadian

licensing surveys summaries. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.autm.net/.

Forster, M., & Rehner, T. (2003) Delinquency prevention as empowerment practice: A community-based social work approach. The Journal of Race, Gender & Class, 10, 109-120.

Hesselbrock, V. (2006, January). Successful mentoring relationships. Presentation at the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research, Society for Social Work Research Preconference Institute, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.charityadvantage.com/iaswr/VictorH.pdf.

National Institutes of Health. (2007). Guidelines for reviewers. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://cms.csr.nih.gov/nr/rdonlyres/d3a60ada-1ea6-4495-a8cb-ccf2e9f637e7/6917/guidelinesforreviewersjds102605.pdf.

National Science Foundation (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/.

Parker, M. W., Toseland, R., Roff, L., Klemmack, D., Koenig, H., & Marson, D. (in press). The Evolution of the parent care readiness program: StateofScienceCaregiving-Geriatrics.com. The Gerontologist.

Putman, A. (1981). Communities. In K. E. Davis (Ed.), Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 195-209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sanders, R. (2006). BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois. UC Berkley News. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml.

SBIR.gov (2008). About SBIR and STTR programs. Retrieved January 29, 2008 from http://www.sbir.gov/about/index.htm.

Wodarski, J., & Long, K. (2006). The prevention of college drinking through computer technology. Manuscript in preparation.


Book Review

Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution of Research on Leadership (2006)

Adrianna J. Kezar, Rozana Carducci, Melissa Contreras-McGavin.

Jossey-Bass, 218 p.

Frances Chandler, PhD (cand)Associate Director, Office of Research Services

Brock University 500 Glenridge Avenue

St. Catharine’s, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada Tel: (905) 688-5550


Change is a word that has been repeated time and again during this election year in the United States, but research administrators have understood its meaning all too well over the last decade. We have struggled, in this era of rapid change, to be effective and credible administrators while juggling seemingly incompatible values and norms from the various environments within which we work. For example, we function in an academic milieu that values brain power while traversing another where fiscal frugality, efficiency, and quick results rank higher on the scale of acceptability. We also function in an environment where it seems that new knowledge is produced at lightning speed but funding agencies, politicians, and other members of the community think it is not adapting quickly enough to keep pace with changes in the non-academic community. Balancing competing values is the mainstay of what we do, and our effectiveness is increased when we enhance our own understanding of the leadership role we play in the development of projects that cross cultures within and outside our institutions. We can be better equipped to assume this role by learning as much as we can about past and present theories and practices related to leadership, especially in an academic setting. Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution of Research and Leadership, provides us with information that will help us understand philosophical and theoretical changes that have taken place during the last 15-20 years in the field of academic leadership. This book, modeled after Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum’s 1989 publication, describes past and emergent theories of leadership in higher education from 1989 to 2006. The authors, Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin, embarked on this project not knowing how daunting it would be as they unearthed a glut of information that had to be organized and summarized in a manner that would appeal to the scholar and practitioner alike. They have been successful in publishing a document that does just that. It provides researchers and research administrators with a recent history of leadership theory development while at the same time focusing on the market-driven environment within which policy makers and bureaucrats make decisions on funding for academic institutions. The authors do an excellent job of bridging the cultural divide between academic and non-academic viewpoints, and it is this approach that is particularly useful to research administrators as they manage projects influenced by values and norms from both sides.


The book is divided into eight chapters, with the first being a discussion of the need to study leadership in academia, followed by a chapter on paradigms in leadership philosophy. The third and fourth chapters outline modern theories and concepts such as ethics and spirituality, collaboration, social change, and globalization. By the fifth chapter the authors have focused more closely on how these changing approaches have had an impact on academic leadership during the last 20 years. The authors note that the traditional studies of leadership, with a focus on power and influence, trait, and behavioral characteristics, and the omnipotence of positions such as university presidents, have given way to thinking about leaders within faculties, student associations, research administration, and other non-presidential settings. Finally, the authors acknowledge the difficulty in defining what makes a good leader and suggest that “leadership is multidimensional” (p. 176) and an “evolving concept that has changed over time as social mores and beliefs have changed” (p. 176). For example, until the 1980’s, functionalist or positivist approaches to knowledge development dominated the literature. Positivism, based on the belief that all knowledge is gained from perceptual experience and not intuition or spirituality, has been a dominant force in guiding the leadership research until recently. As a result, much of the attention has focused on attempting to conduct research in lab-type settings so predictions about behavior can be made (p. 18) and generalized to larger populations. The authors acknowledge the importance of these studies but argue that today’s leaders, who work within a more complex and ambiguous environment (p. 29), may not be well served by much of the leadership literature that has emerged from this paradigm. A post-modern approach, one that is “developed through one’s interpretation of the world” (p. 19), is now viewed as an accepted alternative to previous standards for conducting research and developing new theories in the leadership field. To illustrate their assertion, the authors cite the example of a faculty dean who does not feel comfortable sharing the role of visionary with others. Her past experience and education, and that of many of her peers, has led her to believe this role is hers alone. Skilled in the use of techniques that have been based on a functionalist viewpoint, (such as reiterating her vision at every departmental meeting) she moves her agenda forward without paying due consideration to the changes that have occurred in the diversity of her faculty members and in turn the variety of viewpoints on leadership. She may not understand that during this time of globalization, collaboration, cooperation, and consensus this type of leader is no longer seen as the ideal. Good leaders are now seen as people who understand the environment within which they function, are aware of the skills and aspirations of group members with whom they interact, and who know when to share power with others. They understand that the “individual perception and interaction” (p.19) of each faculty or team member is important information to possess, and they use this knowledge to determine how best to utilize scarce human resources in a manner that will result in positive outcomes. Good academic leaders also know that this environment is unique, in flux, and based on the development of knowledge, not products. As a result, previously accepted leadership strategies, based on a positivist approach, might

Book Review


Book Review

not suit this milieu. This change in thinking is depicted in Figure 2, (p. 34) of this monograph:

The Revolution in Leadership Research

Then Now________________________________________________________________

Search for universal leadership characteristics Context boundExamine power and hierarchy Focus on mutual power and influenceStudy individuals Emphasis on the collective & collaborativePredict behavior and outcomes Promote learning, empowerment, changeLeader centered Process oriented

The authors, two of whom were PhD students at the time the book was written, created this summary based on the work of well-known writers in the educational leadership field such as Rost, Bass, Birnbaum, Lipman-Bluman, Neumann, Noddings, and Starratt, among others. They have done an excellent job of reviewing the research, noting similarities and common themes, and converting this knowledge into a very readable document that will appeal to the practitioner and scholar alike. It is this dual focus that initially drew me to this book, with its review of past and current theories on leadership supplemented by examples that directly relate to what research administrators understand. We work in an academic milieu where our role is to make sense of this environment, determine how it reacts to external forces, and then assist researchers to understand how they can work effectively within these distinct but interrelated settings. Without understanding changes in leadership, politics, economics, culture, and theory development in both realms, we are not able to understand the world within which researchers work and how it intersects with funding agencies. These agencies exist within political or philanthropic cultures that may not be conducive to the values, visions, and ideals found in academia. This understanding is echoed by the authors as they move from a review of leadership theories to their application. In the sixth chapter, Revolutionary Leadership Concepts in Higher Education (p. 137), Kezar et al. review the major changes that have had an impact on the leadership literature in the last 20 years. They discuss ethics and spirituality, empowerment, social change, collaboration and partnering, emotions, globalization, entrepreneurialism, and accountability -- all issues that impact on research administration today. They stress the latter three as being of particular significance to universities as administrators struggle with how best to proceed during a time when external influences have such a dramatic, and in some instances immediate, impact on the role that universities play in society. Globalization is seen by the authors as having a new, growing, and profound impact on academic leadership. Universities are hiring faculty and staff members from outside academia based on the “shifting nature of post secondary management priorities such as entrepreneurialism, corporate leadership and values, political


lobbying, and marketing in the context of globalization” (p. 150). As a result, research teams are now comprised of people from various backgrounds, ideologies and cultures. In addition, they are multidisciplinary, allowing transformational leadership approaches to flourish as diverse skills and strengths are incorporated into the management of the project. As fruitful as these alliances might be, the authors, and those of us involved in research administration, understand the challenges inherent in working with teams that may be comprised of members from North or South America, Europe, Asia or Africa. Even if these individuals work within our institutions, differences in language, culture, laws, ethics, values, management, and leadership styles are evident, and a concerted effort on behalf of all the players must be made to ensure open and ongoing dialogue and clarification of roles, responsibilities, and viewpoints. The authors also discuss the importance of communication in ensuring that researchers understand the changes inherent in this era of globalization and accountability. The current research environment is driven by norms and values that emphasize “efficiency oriented practices” (p. 150) as well as the importance of incorporating differing viewpoints. Thus, collaborative research teams are expected to be flexible and entrepreneurial while engaging in research that is deemed to be worthwhile within the current political, social, and economic context. Kezar et al. discuss these changes and the belief, by some, that being accountable means focusing on efficiency (managing money) over effectiveness (producing results) (p. 155). This change in thinking has been evolving since the mid-1980’s and has had a profound impact on how we assist faculty members with managing their projects, how resources are allocated, and the leadership skills that we and the researchers we serve need to acquire. In addition, the reward systems found within research intensive institutions have changed over time to reflect these differing viewpoints. The debate about the merits and meaning of efficiency versus effectiveness continues, but the authors suggest that practitioners such as ourselves should focus on understanding “leadership research in a new era” (p. 169) as opposed to arguing over what might be more important. As a support to the research community we might better serve our constituents through our own enhanced understanding of the value currently being placed on accountability and collaboration rather than engaging in a discussion on the merits of this movement in that direction. The seventh chapter provides us with the kind of information that will assist us with the task of apprising academics of the challenges they will face in this new era, where traditional approaches to the conduct of research are no longer accepted. For example, the shift from individual to collaborative research has meant that administrators and researchers need to refocus some of their energies on leadership development to ensure that the group is able to achieve outcomes that are acceptable to the individual members, the funding agencies, and universities. It is this shift in thinking and resource allocation that the authors feel may be lacking in universities. It is still difficult for administrators and faculty members to understand that leadership evolves, is based on self reflection, and is a process. There is no one size fits all model of leadership so considerable time needs to be spent by

Book Review


Book Review

researchers in acquiring skills that will allow collaborative group members to achieve agreed-upon project goals. This time also needs to be legitimized by funding agencies and academic institutions in their funding and reward structures. The authors have some suggestions on how university administrators and researchers might support the development of more appropriate forms of leadership that will ultimately enhance the ability of collaborative groups to adapt to this changing environment. Some of these ideas are listed below:

Align leadership development with campus culture; 1. Manage ambiguity and complexity on an ongoing basis and realize that this 2. management is part of the process;Take the time to understand the history, traditions, and values of the group;3. Ensure that leaders emerge from various racial, gender, and disciplinary 4. backgrounds;Foster ongoing visioning by both administrators and faculty members; 5. Foster collaborative groups through ongoing communication, trust, a 6. willingness to take chances, a lack of hierarchy, and limited politics;Review and break down traditional structures that inhibit collaborative 7. groups;Empower all team members to take on leadership roles based on their skills 8. and the needs of the collaborative group over time; Realize that leadership development is an ongoing process, is context laden, 9. and socially constructed by individuals; andRealize and celebrate leadership skill acquisition as legitimate and involving 10. a focus on the interactions between the university, the collaborative group members, and funding agency personnel. (pp. 130-135).

These 10 suggestions provide the practitioner in us with some approaches we can use in our daily work while the philosophical discussions in the book provide us with the ideas that form the basis of many of the decisions made today in regards to leadership, funding, and ultimately the type of research that is currently being undertaken. By reading this monograph we learn about existing and evolving ideas related to leadership in and outside of the research administration field, and how we might mitigate the chaos in our environment by understanding our role as leaders and interpreters of change. This monograph provides us with an excellent overview of the subject area, the rapidly changing environment within which we work, and some tools and techniques that are available to us as we juggle competing values related to academic freedom, integrity in research, collaboration, globalization, accountability, and efficiency.


VOE

Voice of ExperienceThe Strategic Planning Process:

Applications to Research Universities and Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions

2008 Coordinator and Senior WriterVictoria Molfese, PhD

2008 AuthorsLynne Chronister, MPA

Elliott C. Kulakowski, PhDJ. Michael Slocum, JD Cliff Studman, PhD

Paul Waugaman, MPA

Voice of Experience advances the tradition and service of the Journal of Research Administration by fostering consideration of and reflection upon contemporary issues and concerns in research administration. VOE is a celebrated feature column in each edition of the Journal. It is under the corporate authorship of some of the most distinguished and seasoned members of SRA International who lead research administration efforts around the globe. In this issue we respond to questions about strategic planning for the growth of research.

Introduction

It is likely that most, if not all, universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and other for profit, nonprofit, and government organizations have engaged in strategic planning. Indeed, many organizations have their strategic plans readily accessible on their websites. The importance of strategic plans to organizations is their definitional qualities - basically the organization’s purpose, goals, and plans for achieving those goals. Research administrators play a prominent role in the strategic planning process of any organization that includes “research” in its strategic plan’s purpose and goals. The purpose of this article is to describe the strategic planning process as it relates to research and research administrators and managers. Examples of strategic planning to achieve research goals are described for emerging research universities in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and China. In contrast to the better known aspects of strategic planning at research universities, examples of strategic planning to achieve research goals and plans at predominantly undergraduate institutions also are described. By contrasting types of institutions, the commonalities and differences in the application of strategic planning to achieve research goals become clearer.

Question: What is Strategic Planning?

The strategic planning process provides an opportunity for all partners to invest in a common goal and to work through the necessary steps for achieving that goal. Research and its administration and management are ideal environments for


VOE

applying strategic and other planning processes. Both day to day and hour to hour, research administration may feel like a completely reactive profession. However, it is our responsibility, in concert with the leadership of our organizations, to set direction and proactive implementation processes. Research administration or research management must always add value to a research enterprise. As research administrators, we must demonstrate that the costs of our effort produce benefits that outweigh those costs. Benefits might include increased external revenue for research and increased research productivity measured by numbers of publications, numbers of active projects, and even numbers of proposals submitted, an especially effective measure if coupled with increased funding rates. Benefits can also include subjective measures such as customer satisfaction and increased motivation to seek external support. A good strategic planning effort will focus on establishing the value-added contribution of research administration and establish both objective and subjective measures of benefit by which the effort can be evaluated in the future.

Question: Is there value to Strategic Planning? The three examples cited -- Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and China -- represent very different histories, cultures and economic environments. The common elements among the three are the political will and strategic decisions to forge a culture of innovation and exploration in their countries. Nigeria relies heavily on the philanthropy of foundations, such as Gates, MacArthur and Carnegie; Saudi Arabia on the wealth of natural resources; and China on political determination. The universities in these countries had the new charge to figure out how to reinvent themselves and to become what we in the western world deem “research universities.” Absolutely critical, then, is a long-term planning process that will establish strategic goals and direction and a roadmap for how to achieve them. In Nigeria and other African nations, donors such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation require that the institutions they support develop and follow a strategic plan for the growth of their research programs. Saudi Arabian and Chinese universities are engaging in similar processes. All have promise for amazing results.

Question: What do we do with the Strategic Plan once we have one?

Few research organizations in the world say they do not want to expand their research capacity and awards. It just does not happen very often! This means that each of us, and the organizations to which we belong, should have a strategic framework and action plan that overlays our daily “reactive” life. We start, as did the universities in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and China, by making the commitment to build a strategic plan and roadmap and follow it. What happens all too often is that we engage in an elegant planning process only to put it on the shelf and dust it off when someone asks if we have a strategic plan. A strategic plan is a dynamic document that should drive resources, process improvement, staffing plans, and organizational structure within our offices. For example, if our organization decides that we are going to set up an Institute for Curing Breast Cancer, that would be a wonderful goal. What does it mean for research administration? Federal funds for breast cancer research have been cut two


VOE

years in a row. How do we help the new institute be more competitive? Our clinical trial negotiators are stretched to the breaking point. How do we stay responsive to an influx of new breast cancer trials? What strategy will we use to garner more resources to support the institute? These are all questions that must be addressed and can be addressed in a strategic process.

Question: Does Strategic Planning take a lot of time?

It sure does! But, the alternative -- working in the dark with no direction or plan for improvement -- takes a lot more time. And time is money!

Question: What are the characteristics of universities seeking to become research universities?

Not every university is a research university, nor should every university aspire to be one. However, many universities can become world class research universities like those in many western countries that have flourished for many years if there are the supports for such a goal. For research universities to maintain their research missions and for new research universities to emerge, there must be vision, realistic appraisals of research strengths and weaknesses, financial support, and political recognition of the opportunities that come from supporting research and higher education in the same institution. The financial support can come from both public sources and external sponsors, but dependable support is critical for research universities to become established and grow.

Question: Can you give examples of how this works?

Nigeria had internationally recognized research universities over 20 years ago. However, changes in government led to a long period when government support for higher education was minimal, and support for research was nearly non-existent. Despite the lack of government resources and commitment, academic faculty and leadership sustained the vision of a future resurgence of research. Today the political climate has changed and the vision is becoming a reality again. Generally, Nigerian universities recognize that they cannot be experts in all fields, and each is pursing research in clearly defined strategic areas that are in the best interest of the institutions and the nation. Most universities understand that they must compete in an international marketplace for research support, and that funds from the national government will not meet all their needs. Weaknesses do exist, including a failing infrastructure marked by limited and aging research facilities, outdated equipment, an aging faculty, and lack of research management practices and experience. International organizations such as the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation are providing infrastructure and capacity-building support for the research programs at six national universities in Nigeria. Young, energetic faculty are being sent abroad to improve their research skills. International consultants from SRA International have visited these universities to assist them in defining these strategic research areas and to provide information about research management infrastructure to make their research programs a success. Nigerian universities have tremendous opportunities to build world class research


VOE

programs. National leadership is becoming more conscious of the economic value of robust higher education activity closely linked to robust research and innovation. As the political climate changes, national universities, such as the University of Ibadan and Bayero University, both in Nigeria, are taking steps to establish stronger international collaborations to benefit research activity. Unfortunately, despite this progress, the threats of political unrest, uncertain basic funding, and unstable public infrastructure such as electric power supply and communications, remain a challenge for Nigerian universities.

Question: Are there other examples?

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is focusing on developing world class, graduate research universities that will provide significant opportunities for scientific discovery and human advancement within the Kingdom, the region and around the globe. “Innovation and the need for scientific discovery know no international boundaries,” noted His Excellency Minister Ali Ibrahim Al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (http://www.xeal.com/articles/Saudi-Arabia-is-Developing-a.htm). Saudi Arabia has the resources and political will to make this vision a reality. The richness in oil and mineral reserves is their strength, and with current petroleum revenues they have the financial resources to support such a program. Public infrastructure (power and communications technology) is sufficient in the urbanized centers of the Kingdom. Academic and political leadership have recognized that the country’s research institutions do not have the research management infrastructure to manage the major research undertaking they are planning, and that this is a weakness. They have brought in international experts to participate in workshops and meetings to help them understand the global perspectives of research management and the steps needed to overcome this weakness. The nation’s existing base of internationally trained scientists and engineers is an important resource and a major strength. With petroleum and minerals being valuable international commodities, leadership recognizes the opportunity to build institutions that can be both internationally and collaborative. However, one of the major threats to success may be the political unrest in the region. This is certainly a difficult issue, and one not easily overcome. In addition, if we look to China, an amazing transformation is occurring. As a nation, China is making every effort to become the world economic power and has made the strategic decision that the universities are driving forces in that transformation. Question: What does Strategic Planning entail if an institution is not a research university - such as at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions?

Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) are very different from research universities. PUIs are, by definition, organizations dedicated mainly to teaching. This means that the academic staff are recruited primarily to teach, and many rate teaching as their main or favorite interest. Historically, research has been undertaken by most academic staff as a secondary but still important activity. Good teaching in most disciplines is grounded on good current research. Many PUIs recognize that they require research managers because of financial needs (grants can bring in much-needed financing) or to increase institutional credibility. Sometimes


VOE

these two needs can be the same. In New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, national governments have research performance systems that are used to allocate funding. For example, the Performance Based Research Fund in New Zealand assesses the output of all academic staff through a peer review process, counts research degree completions and external research income, and allocates funds to universities and colleges in accordance with a formula. Many U.S. universities and colleges use variations of several evaluation processes; evaluation outcomes can impact state funding. It is important to know why research is important to the institution. What does the institution’s vision and mission statement say? Do administrators and academic staff know what the vision and mission statement are? How important is the research - teaching nexus in people’s minds? Do they believe in it? At some PUIs the “traditionalists” believe, while others disagree. It is important to understand what the strengths and weaknesses are of the institution as they relate to having an environment conducive for research.

Question: How do these questions get addressed in a Strategic Plan? Where would administrators or academic staff look for this information?

Strategic goals and strategies need to be set by the institution to enable administrators and academic staff to see how the vision, mission statement and goals all fit together. The vision of research flows out of the institute’s vision. The strategic goals need to be SMARTER: Specific, Measurable, Acceptable to people working to achieve them (and approving funding for them!), Realistic, Timely, Extending the capabilities of the people involved, and Rewarding to them.. The strategic goals flow from the institution’s SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats faced. In a PUI, moving toward a research plan needs to be particularly strategic - setting up a research center with full-time staff to do research may be great in a research university where scholarship is recognized and expected as part of the work load, but can give rise to jealousy if academic staff at the PUI feel disadvantaged (e.g., if promotions are based on research output). The reality is that most academic appointments at colleges and universities today place an emphasis on research and scholarship, so academics engaging in research activities (often with the trade-off of engaging is fewer teaching responsibilities) may have better employment opportunities.

Question: What about the role of the academic staff and their desire to engage in research?

Like everyone else, academic staff at PUIs are motivated to engage in research by power and money, but many academics value prestige and recognition surprisingly highly. The motivators for research performance to achieve strategic goals can be rewards that are useful to academic staff (e.g., researcher of the year certificate with priority parking, or lunch with the vice-chancellor to discuss research ideas or engage in institutional planning processes). The ability to attend conferences, reductions in teaching load, or choice of courses also can be important factors in motivating academic staff to achieve strategic goals.


VOE

Question: Why is it important in thinking about Strategic Planning for institutions to think about motivators - both of the institution and of the academic staff?

It is important to understand the way people think, what the drivers are, and what the strengths and weaknesses are that impact research. For example, for institutions seeking to use research activities to increase institutional credibility, strategic plans that focus on ways to increase funding through grants and capital campaigns may not be successful. Or an institution that thinks patents and royalties are great cash cows and that seeks to increase research products that can be licensed and commercialized needs a strategic plan that considers the time frame required to commercialize research ideas and the necessary infrastructure costs.

Question: What are some of the issues involved with technology transfer (TT)?

TT is anything but an instant source of income. It is a high-risk but potentially high-return type of investment. Occasionally it will work. On the other hand, TT does have some useful spin-offs in the form of creating economic activity around the institution, so that the community in which the institution is located is often the biggest winner (e.g., consider the spin-off companies in technology parks around some universities in the U.S. and Europe). The great challenge is getting the institution to invest long term in TT. It can be hard to convince a cash-strapped university administration or department that it needs to continue to fund an investment that has yet to show a return after several years. Indeed, the data show that just before a product reaches the point of generating a return, the investment needs to increase! In some countries, the spirit of entrepreneurship abounds. In others, such as the countries of the former Soviet Union, it is a very new concept. F For example, in a recent review of 42 countries the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor found that Thailand, Peru and Columbia had the highest levels of early stage entrepreneurial activity (in these low- and middle-income countries the driver was often the need to survive). Russia, Romania and Latvia all had low levels of early stage entrepreneurship. Among high-income countries, Iceland and Hong Kong, followed by the U.S., were highest, while Austria, Puerto Rico and Belgium were lowest. Other countries where SRA members are particularly active, such as the UK, China and Nigeria, are also displaying some innovative trends. In countries with limited entrepreneurial experience, and particularly in the low- to middle-income countries, it is probably better to look for partnerships with larger, long-established commercial organizations. The strategic planning process needs to consider how to manage the intellectual properties that come from research activities. For example, in New Zealand 70% of intellectual properties are protected simply as trade secrets and know-how, which are less expensive to protect than patents to obtain and to legally protect. In institutions without a well-developed TT infrastructure, the cost of patenting can be prohibitive and there may not be a good understanding of how the rights of the institution should be preserved. Fortunately, SRA International conducts some great courses in this area.


VOE

Question: Some Strategic Plans identify funding priorities for research activities. How is this done?

Strategic Planning often means identifying winners, and that means some programs and people will not be in the winner’s circle when the rewards and resources are handed out. The environmental scan that is done as part of the strategic planning process is used to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses. The scan can help in deciding which areas of research to engage in. In PUIs, the pressure for an equitable distribution of research resources is often very strong. This can lead to major problems. In one university the situation got so bad that three years worth of the research budget was tied up in the hands of departmental chairs, unable to distribute it because academic staff were unwilling to engage in the processes needed to get access to funds! Fortunately in this case, a new research manager was able to extract the money and redistribute it through institution-wide open competitions to active researchers. The result was a large boost in research projects, and an improved profile for research (the only negative aspect was a couple of unhappy chairs!). Another example of the advantage of using strategic planning arises in trying to decide which research programs to fund. For example, some institutions and funding agencies use a technique in which they invite research proposals and then operate a two-component review. Research quality and strategic value are scored separately for each project. The resulting numbers are then combined. Projects have to do well on both counts to succeed. Figure 1 shows how this works. Projects scoring high on both scores plot into the upper right-hand quadrant. Projects that miss out on one or the other move sideways or vertically down and can drop below the fundable line.

Figure 1.


VOE

Question: How realistic is it for PUIs to seek partnership with other institutions to accomplish strategic goals?

Partnerships can be very useful if both partners know what each wants to gain from collaborating. The best collaborations arise when all partners know four things: what they will gain, what will it cost to collaborate, what the benefits are, and what the costs are to the potential partners. There must be a win-win (i.e., both partners will benefit) strategy in successful partnerships. If the costs and benefits are unknown, the partners leave themselves wide open to future problems. For example, institutions from Developed Countries (DCs) are interested in collaborating with Less Developed Countries (LDCs). The DC may have a highly structured post-graduate program, need tuition-paying students to enroll in bachelor’s and master’s programs at the institution, and decide that collaborating with an LDC is one way to enroll highly qualified students. There may be willing students and encouraging institutions in the LDC initially, but when the students graduate there may be problems. The students do not want to return home, or they do return home and the knowledge they have or the employment available to them does not allow them to continue doing research. The reasons are not hard to find: graduate students are a key component of the research effort of universities and student training often involves a research focus. In the LDC, there may be little infrastructure, or support for only certain types of research in academic settings. Returning students may find only teaching positions available. The result is at best a win-lose option. A better approach for collaboration requires a view toward building research capability at both institutions. Co-supervision by academic staff at both the DC and LDC institutions is an easy way to create interest and investment in student training. A thick Sandwich program (research in both countries a year at a time) is less costly, and helps to develop a culture of research activity at both institutions. The returning student finds a supervisor bursting to keep the project moving, and even some facilities that were developed for pursuing the research. Collaboration needs to be part of a strategic plan with well-defined aims and goals so that the focus is on building research capability and capacity in the partnering organizations, and not just academic papers that may advance the career of an individual.

Conclusion There are clear challenges to all organizations seeking to implement the research components of strategic plans in today’s highly competitive and increasingly global research environment. To achieve strategic goals successfully, organizations must realistically assess their areas of research strengths and weaknesses, carefully evaluate opportunities for attaining strategic objectives, and set reachable yet ambitious action plans. Research administrators’ and managers’ roles in identifying the benefits that organizations can derive from research, opportunities for growth of research activities, and funding sources for research are essential to the strategic planning process.


MAXIMUS offers consulting services and software for institutions in the area of research and sponsored projects administration.

MAXIMUS manages the business of higher education by providing software and consulting services to institutions of all sizes. Our staff is experienced in the requirements of OMB Circulars A-21 (or A-122, if applicable), A-110, and A-133 and has developed sophisticated tools to enable institutions to manage Federal compliance in a timely manner.

Our expertise and experience allow us to quickly identify areas of concern and provide cost effective resolutions that mitigate risks and maximize recoveries from sponsoring agencies.

Our solutions include:

To learn more about what MAXIMUS can do for your institution, please visit www.maximus.com/highereducation or call 800.709.2747.

Effort Reporting Diagnostics and SoftwareNeeds and gap analysis of current processesReview and development of policies and proceduresWeb-based Effort Reporting System (ERS®) and Committed Effort Management

Facilities and Administrative Services (F&A)F&A rate proposal development and negotiation assistanceComprehensive Rate Information System (CRIS®) Web-based, on-line space surveys – WebSpace®

Institutional costing and compliance

••

•

•

•

•

•

Compliance Reviews to Federal RegulationsCompliance Risk Assessment (CRA®) of key post award activitiesService center reviewsAssistance with University Disclosure Statements (DS-2)

Professional ConsultingIT assessments and strategic developmentProject managementSystems integration and software developmentCampus emergency notification

•

••

•••

•

Copyright © 2008

We manage the business of sponsored projects administration.


MARK YOUR CALENDAR!for SRA’s Annual Meeting

National Harbor, MarylandOctober 9-13, 2008

Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center

REGISTER ONLINE NOW!Step One: Visit www.srainternational.org and select

“Event Registration”

Step Two: “Login” as an SRA Member, then select “Upcoming Events” on the left toolbar

Step Three: Select your conference and choose “Register for a Meeting”

Step Four: Register, “Add to Cart”, and Proceed to “Check-out”

Don’t Miss Your Chance to Network Locally at SRA’s 2008 Section and Chapter Meetings!

Southern/Midwest Section Meeting Riding with the Tides of ChangeMay 17-21, 2008Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

Western Section Meeting Research Elevated: MileHigh OpportunitiesJune 7-11, 2008Denver, Colorado

Virginia Chapter MeetingMay 19, 2008Virginia Beach, Virginia

Delaware Valley Chapter MeetingJune 9, 2008Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Allegheny Chapter MeetingJune 27, 2008State College, Pennsylvania


Prepared by Graphic Arts and Publishing Services at The Henry M. Jackson Foundationfor the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc.

1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 600Rockville, Maryland 20852Rick Crites, Art Director301-294-1218

Left to right: Edward Gabriele, JRA Editor; Katie Hermosilla, NGMA President; Philip Spina, SRA President.

®

Congratulations to SRA International for the 2008 Publications Award

from the National Grants Management Association.

Header

Society of Research Administrators InternationalServing the Profession Since 19671901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004Arlington, VA 22209www.srainternational.org

the journal of research administrationdownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/jra_39_1.pdf01...

Documents