E

Focus Group Sessions: Questions and Participants

Institutional Environment Focus Group:
Financial and Organizational Capacity of Research Universities

In their letter requesting this study, Senators Alexander and Mikulski and Representatives Gordon and Hall asked the National Academies to examine the financial, organizational, and intellectual health of U.S. research universities. In this focus group session, we focus on the organizational capacity and financial health of public and private research universities in the United States. The following questions developed by National Research Council staff will provide helpful input to committee members as they deliberate their findings and recommendations. They do not in any way indicate what those findings and recommendations may be:

How strong are U.S. research universities, individually and collectively?

What are the current and possible future threats to the financial health of U.S. research universities? What are the current impacts of federal and state policies on research universities?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. research universities in responding to those threats? How can U.S. research universities—individually and collectively—respond to these threats?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 221
E Focus Group Sessions: Questions and Participants Institutional Environment Focus Group: Financial and Organizational Capacity of Research Universities In their letter requesting this study, Senators Alexander and Mikulski and Representatives Gordon and Hall asked the National Academies to examine the financial, organizational, and intellectual health of U.S. research universities. In this focus group session, we focus on the orga- nizational capacity and financial health of public and private research universities in the United States. The following questions developed by National Research Council staff will provide helpful input to committee members as they deliberate their findings and recommendations. They do not in any way indicate what those findings and recommendations may be: How strong are U.S. research universities, individually and collectively? What are the current and possible future threats to the finan- cial health of U.S. research universities? What are the current impacts of federal and state policies on research universities? What are the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. research uni- versities in responding to those threats? How can U.S. research universities—individually and collectively—respond to these threats? 221

OCR for page 221
222 APPENDIX E How can U.S. research universities strengthen their financial positions by improving management or capitalizing on new revenue opportunities?  the following, what are the most important issues that the Of committee should consider in its deliberations and why?  Changes or instability in revenue streams  Changes in operating costs  Planning for and managing capital costs  Indirect cost recovery  Managing academic, administrative, and other workforce   needs and costs  Managing university operations  Managing procurement  Regulatory and reporting requirements for higher education  institutions  Efficiently harnessing technology for management, educa-   tion, and research  Positioning institutions in the evolving ecosystem of U.S.   research universities  Competition between public and private universities that   harm institutions and drive up costs  Globalization of higher education and research  Public understanding of the value of research universities  Something else?  what ways will U.S. research universities—individually or In collectively—need to change over the next two decades? What might the “game changers” be? How does the enterprise need to evolve? How can public policy facilitate this evolution? What are the top actions to assure the strong financial and organizational capacity of U.S. research universities that the study committee could recommend to Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and oth- ers that are supported by evidence and will have traction in the current fiscal and political environment? Participants Committee Members James Duderstadt William Greene Paul Chu

OCR for page 221
APPENDIX E 223 Walter Massey Hunter Rawlings NRC Staff Peter Henderson Laura DeFeo, Science and Technology Policy Fellow Invited Guests Peter Lange, Duke University Albert Horvath, Pennsylvania State University Tim Slottow, University of Michigan Kim Wilcox, Michigan State University Sally Mason, University of Iowa Diana Natalicio, University of Texas at El Paso (Tentative) David Frohnmayer, University of Oregon V’Ella Warren, University of Washington Steven Beckwith, University of California System Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford University Association Staff Robert Berdahl, Association of American Universities David Shulenburger, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities David Kennedy, Council on Government Relations Knowledge Capital Focus Group Academic Research: Agendas, Resources, Organization, and Commercialization In their letter requesting this study, Senators Alexander and Mikulski and Representatives Gordon and Hall asked the National Academies to examine the financial, organizational, and intellectual health of U.S. re- search universities. In this focus group session, we focus on key issues in the funding and organization of academic research. The following ques- tions developed by NRC staff will provide helpful input to committee members as they deliberate their findings and recommendations. They do not in any way indicate what those findings and recommendations may be: How strong is U.S. academic research? What are the most important challenges we must address to ensure its strength and ability to address national goals going forward? What are the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. research universities in responding to those challenges? Are there differences by field?

OCR for page 221
224 APPENDIX E Are current federal and state research policies—and by exten- sion the academic research enterprise—aligned with national needs? What emerging needs require changes in research fund- ing or agendas? What is the proper role of academic research in the larger U.S. research and innovation ecosystem relative to other compo- nents (industry labs, national labs, FFRDCs, etc.)?  the following, what are the most important issues that the Of committee should consider in its deliberations and why?  Implications of trends in federal, state, industry, and philan-  thropic funding and policies for research agendas, organi- zation, and quality  Balance in the academic research enterprise across disci-   plines and types (basic, applied, development)  Organization or structure of research teams  Regulatory and reporting requirements  Quality of or access to research facilities  Demands on faculty  Disciplinary organization, interdisciplinarity, emerging  fields  Collaboration (across disciplines, institutions, sectors, nations)  Managing and commercializing university intellectual  property  Managing conflicts of interest  Globalization of the academic research enterprise  The role of information and communications technology in  research  Public understanding of the value of research  Something else? What major changes in the U.S. or global academic research enterprise are possible over the next two decades? What might the “game changers” be? How does the enterprise need to evolve? How can public policy facilitate this evolution? What are the top actions to assure the strength of the U.S. academic research enterprise and its ability to contribute to national goals that the study committee could recommend to Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and others that are supported by evidence and will have traction in the current fiscal and political environment?

OCR for page 221
APPENDIX E 225 Participants Committee Members Chad Holliday, Bank of America Teresa Sullivan, University of Virginia Peter Agre, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Cherry Murray, Harvard University Charles M. Vest, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) NRC Staff Charlotte Kuh, Policy and Global Affairs Michelle Crosby-Nagy, Policy and Global Affairs Invited Guests David Wynes, Emory University Richard Marchase, University of Alabama, Birmingham Anita Jones, University of Virginia Robert Zemsky, University of Pennsylvania (Learning Alliance) David Korn, Harvard Medical School Luis Proenza, University of Akron Marvin Parnes, University of Michigan Molly Jahn, University of Wisconsin Kelvin Droegemeier, University of Oklahoma Leslie Tolbert, University of Arizona Randolph Hall, University of Southern California Association Staff Tobin Smith, Association of American Universities Howard Gobstein, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities Anthony DeCrappeo, Council on Government Relations Human Capital Focus Group: Doctoral Education, Postdoctoral Training, Labor Markets, and Careers In their letter requesting this study, Senators Alexander and Mikulski and Representatives Gordon and Hall asked the National Academies to examine the financial, organizational, and intellectual health of U.S. re- search universities. In this focus group session, we focus on key human capital issues, including doctoral education, postdoctoral training, and the careers of doctorates in academic and non-academic sectors. The fol- lowing questions developed by NRC staff will provide helpful input to committee members as they deliberate their findings and recommenda- tions. They do not in any way indicate what those findings and recom- mendations may be:

OCR for page 221
226 APPENDIX E What are the strengths of our system of doctoral education and postdoctoral training? What are the most critical challenges the nation faces in ensur- ing the strength of doctoral education and postdoctoral train- ing? Are there differences by field? What are the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. research univer- sities in responding to those challenges? Are there differences by field?  the following, what are the most important issues/chal- Of lenges that the committee should consider in its deliberations and why?  Training doctoral students in the knowledge of their field  Reflecting the increasing interdisciplinarity in research in   doctoral education  Aligning doctoral training with career paths in and out of  academia  Balancing the demand for and supply of new doctorates  Funding mechanisms and packages for doctoral students  Time-to-degree and time-to-first-job for doctoral students  Attrition and completion in doctoral education  Enhancing the postdoctoral experience: stipends, benefits,  raining, length, career counseling, attaining independent t positions and research grants, and other issues  Labor markets and career options for doctorates  The changing nature of faculty positions in academia  Ability to attract high-quality domestic students to U.S. doc-   toral education  Ability to attract high-quality international students to U.S.   doctoral education  Globalization of the research enterprise  Using technology for education and research  Something else? What major changes in doctoral education, postdoctoral train- ing, and careers of U.S. doctorates are possible over the next two decades? What might the “game changers” be? How does the enterprise need to evolve? How can public policy facilitate this evolution?

OCR for page 221
APPENDIX E 227 What are the top actions to assure the strength of doctoral education and postdoctoral training in the U.S. that the study committee could recommend to Congress, the federal govern- ment, state governments, research universities, and others that are supported by evidence and will have traction in the current fiscal and political environment?  it time for a “Flexner Report” on doctoral education that Is would examine doctoral education in a comprehensive man- ner, taking into account important differences by field? Participants Committee Members John Hennessy, Stanford University Burt McMurty, Former Venture Capitalist Enriqueta Bond, Former President, Burroughs Wellcome Fund Francisco Cigarroa, University of Texas System William Pinkston (On behalf of Dr. William Frist), Vanderbilt University NRC Staff James Voytuk, Policy and Global Affairs Mark Regets, Policy and Global Affairs Invited Guests (confirmed) Stacy Gelhaus, University of Pennsylvania Victoria McGovern, Burroughs Wellcome Fund Howard H. Garrison, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Timothy Barbari, Georgetown University Lisa M. Kozlowski, AAMC GREAT GROUP James Wimbush, Indiana University Garth A. Fowler, Northwestern University Janet Weiss, Dean, University of Michigan Andrew Comrie, University of Arizona Jeffery Gibeling, University of California, Davis Association Staff Mollie Benz Flounlacker, Association of American Universities Peter McPherson, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities Patricia McAllister, Council of Graduate Schools Cathee Phillips, National Postdoctoral Association

OCR for page 221