Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 10 engineering by public institutions increased to 13,600 in 1988, up from 11,200 in 1978. Ph.D. degrees granted by private institutions grew from 5,300 to 6,600 per year. (Figure 1-18). This renewed growth in Ph.D. production is primarily due to a rising enrollment of foreign students in the natural sciences and engineering (Figures 1-19 and 1-20).12 If it was not clear earlier, it became so by the end of the 1979â1988 decade: The historic relationship between university research and graduate education was under stress from virtual steady-states in university enrollments and the over-all production of new doctoral researchers, on the one hand, and mounting pressure to expand basic research activities, with or without instructional components, on the other. With the over-all ratio of students to faculty remaining constant over the past decade, expansion occurred in part by creating extra-departmental research centers and institutes and hiring non-teaching researchers to operate them.13 While graduate education in the United States continues to include significant research components, what appears to have changed is the extent to which expanding academic research programs include instructional components. With regard to undergraduate education, all of these factors combine to provide disincentives to teaching. The increasing scale and organizational complexity of much new academic research activity, a faculty salary system that increasingly rewards research accomplishments, and federal policies which favor research over educational programs further exacerbate this situation. Some aspiring research universities, in response, have developed two-tier faculty systemsâone tier for non- teaching research âsuperstarsâ and the other for teaching faculty. FORCES FOR EXPANSION AND DIVERSIFICATION The expansion of resources for the academic research enterprise during the past decade was spurred by powerful new expectations for science and technologyâimprovement in international competitiveness, aggressive state and local economic development, and growing research competition among the universities and colleges themselves. Unlike the expansion during the 1960s, which largely concentrated on institution building in the then-existing university research community, the current expansion is more the result of diversificationâa continuing broadening in the number of institutions participating, increases in the number and types of organizations funding extra-mural research, and a broadening in the national research mission, particularly in support of such social problems as health, the environment, and economic competitiveness. Concern for improving the nation's international competitiveness has generated expectations that universities, in partnership with industry, will provide scientific and technological breakthroughs in key commercial areas. At the federal level, for example, the country's dependence on the research enterprise takes on a new intensity as major international competitors' investments in research grow at a faster pace than oursâsignaling an intensification in economic rivalries. But the federal government isn't alone in its renewed interest in academic research; industry also is demonstrating interest, a significant portion of which represents an increased reliance on universities for entree to basic research frontiers. New commercial technologies, in turn, generate and make possible
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 11 the exploration of new basic research avenues. To achieve these mutual interests, industries are augmenting the research capacity of U.S. universities. State and local officials increasingly urge their public universities to contribute to regional development through applied research and cooperation with resident industries; they recognize that local academic research is often a magnet, drawing high-tech industries and new jobs to an area. As the economic benefits of academic research catch public attention and imagination, political leaders press for a larger and geographically broader academic research enterprise. In addition, some federal research appropriations are earmarked for specific locations, often on a basis of economic development or local scientific research agendas. Competition among universities also helps to drive the current expansion in research. The major universities are enlarging their research capacity to maintain their competitive standing. Aspiring research universities are under great pressure to develop research capacity; they are also at some financial risk, whether they opt to develop research capacity or not. If they seek to attract a prestigious scientific and engineering faculty, they must invest resources heavily in state-of-the- art research facilities and instrumentation; in a competitive academic labor market, even promising younger faculty members can now demand university resources for their research projects and time to establish their research careers before undertaking teaching duties. If, on the other hand, universities do not seek to expand their research capacity, they now jeopardize financial, political, and community support for their institutions.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 12 Figure 1-3: Distribution of U.S. Basic Research Expenditures by Performer (See Figure 2-20)* Figure 1-4: Total and Federal Academic R&D Funds as Percents of the Gross National Product (See Figure 2-4)* Figure 1-5: Academic R&D Expenditures By Type of R&D (See Figure 2-23)* Figure 1-6: Distribution of Academic R&D Expenditures by Science and Engineering Field (See Figure 2-30)* * See corresponding figure in Part Two for data sources and definitions of terms.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 13 Figure 1-7: Investigators (FTE) in Doctoral Institutions by Institution Governance (See Figure 2-74)* Figure 1-8: Academic R&D Expenditures per FTE Investigator by Type of Expenditure (See Figure 2-45)* Figure 1-9: Academic Faculty by Institution Type (See Figure 2-64)* * See corresponding figure in Part Two for data sources and definitions.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 14 Figure 1-10: Academic R&D Expenditures by Source, CR>(See Figure 2-27)* Figure 1-11: Distribution of Academic R&D Expenditures by Source (See Figure 2-28)* Figure 1-12: Distribution of Public Doctoral Institution R&D Revenues by Source of Funds (See Figure 2-34)* Figure 1-13: Distribution of Private Doctoral Institution R&D Revenues by Source of Funds (See Figure 2-32)* * See corresponding figure in Part Two for data sources and definitions.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 15 Figure 1-15: Figure 1-14: Distribution of R&D Expenditures among Doctoral R&D Expenditures among Doctoral Institutions* Institutions* Figure 1-16: Distribution of Federal Academic R&D Funding by Federal Agency, 1945â1988** * Source National Science Foundation. Largest 20 includes the 20 doctoral institutions with the largest R&D expenditures. Next 40 includes the next 40 institutions with largest R&D expenditures, and Next 125 includes all other doctoral institutions. ** Source: National Science Foundation.
STATUS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 16 Figure 1-17: Enrollment in Academic Institutions by Institution Type and Governance (See Figure 2-78)* Figure 1-18: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded in Science and Engineering by Institution Governance See Figure 2-94)* Figure 1-19: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded in Engineering by Citizenship (See Figure 2-106)* Figure 1-20: Ph.D. Degrees Awarded in Natural Sciences by Citizenship (See Figure 2-104)* * See corresponding figure in Part Two for data sources and definitions.
