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?
How can U.S. research universities strengthen their financial positions by improving management or capitalizing on new revenue opportunities?
Of the following, what are the most important issues that the 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, education, 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?
In what ways will U.S. research universities—individually or 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 others 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
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. research universities. In this focus group session, we focus on key issues in the funding and organization of academic research. The following questions 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?
Are current federal and state research policies—and by extension the academic research enterprise—aligned with national needs? What emerging needs require changes in research funding or agendas?
What is the proper role of academic research in the larger U.S. research and innovation ecosystem relative to other components (industry labs, national labs, FFRDCs, etc.)?
Of the following, what are the most important issues that the committee should consider in its deliberations and why?
Implications of trends in federal, state, industry, and philanthropic funding and policies for research agendas, organization, and quality
Balance in the academic research enterprise across disciplines 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?
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. research 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 following questions 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:
What are the strengths of our system of doctoral education and postdoctoral training?
What are the most critical challenges the nation faces in ensuring the strength of doctoral education and postdoctoral training? Are there differences by field?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. research universities in responding to those challenges? Are there differences by field?
Of the following, what are the most important issues/challenges 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, training, length, career counseling, attaining independent 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. doctoral 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 training, 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?
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 government, state governments, research universities, and others that are supported by evidence and will have traction in the current fiscal and political environment?
Is it time for a “Flexner Report” on doctoral education that would examine doctoral education in a comprehensive manner, 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
This page intentionally left blank.
