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.
Partnerships for Emerging Research Institutions REPORT OF A WORKSHOP Committee on Partnerships for Emerging Research Institutions Policy and Global Affairs
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSâ 500 Fifth Street, N.W.â Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:â 978-0-309-13083-7 International Standard Book Number-10:â 0-309-13083-2 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the char- ter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstand- ing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro- viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE ON PARTNERSHIPS FOR EMERGING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS JULIET GARCIA (Chair), President, University of Texas at Brownsville ERROLL B. DAVIS, JR., Chancellor, University System of Georgia DARYUSH ILA, Director, Alabama A&M Research Institute WAYNE P. JOHNSON, Vice President for University Relations, Hewlett-Packard Company VIJAYA MELNICK, Director of the Office of Sponsored Programs, University of the District of Columbia TERRENCE S. MILLAR, Professor of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Madison DIANA S. NATALICIO, President, University of Texas at El Paso T. JOAN ROBINSON, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Morgan State University JUAN M. SANCHEZ, Vice President for Research, University of Texas at Austin MARCUS W. SHUTE, Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs, Tennessee State University Project Staff EARNESTINE PSALMONDS,* Visiting Scholar, National Science Foundation MERRILEA MAYO, Director, Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (until November 2007) CATHERINE DIDION, Senior Program Officer, National Academy of Engineering DENISE GREENE, Administrative Coordinator, Government- University-Industry Research Roundtable *Earnestine Psalmonds is a visiting scholar from the National Science Foundation (NSF) at the National Research Council. This work was supported by NSF, but findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authoring committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Preface Strengthening the science and engineering enterprise is key to posi- tioning the United States so that it can remain globally competitive well into the future. As recognized in the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, much of our success as a nation relies on our investments in basic research and on our ability to educate the populace, and educate them well. While higher education is increasingly seen as a private goodâthe means to personal economic advancementâit contin- ues to also be an important public good, critical for the advancement of the nation. The United States has achieved world prominence in higher edu- cation primarily through a unique blend of research and teaching at universities. Most studies on the impact of research in higher educa- tion focus on research universities. However, according to Fall 2005 enrollment data, about 75 percent of all U.S. undergraduate students are currently enrolled at other types of institutions. Further, these other NAS, NAE, and IOM. 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employ- ing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. For purposes of this report, these are defined as research universities (very high and high research activity) and doctoral/research universities according to the 2005 Carnegie Classification. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Special Tabula- tions of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Fall Enrollment Survey, 2005. vii
viii PREFACE institutions encompass the bulk of the minority student population in the United Statesâa population that is large and growing. What hap- pens in these institutions matters, and will matter, quite profoundly for our collective future. Providing more opportunities for student participation in research in these institutions can help strengthen our scientific sector. Research experience is now known to be an extremely effective means for engaging students, especially in science and engineering, yet it is not used exten- sively to engage a large segment of the student population. The reasons for this phenomenon were examined in a September 13, 2007, National Academies workshop entitled âPartnerships for Emerging Research Insti- tutionsâ (ERIs). This report summarizes those discussions. Workshop participants included research administrators, deans and provosts, department chairs, faculty researchers, presidents of institutions and university systems, and representatives from federal agencies and laboratories. The participants acknowledged that there are differences between public and private institutions, and that the issues raised in the report would vary accordingly. The workshop began by examining the impact of research experiences on students in ERIs. It then dissected the reasons why it is so difficult to cultivate a research climate in these institutions. Workshop participants discussed three interrelated problems. First, teaching loads at ERIs are usually double or triple that of research universities. There is simply no time to do research. Second, many ERIs are extremely limited in the amount of centralized support they can offer their research-performing faculty. From the faculty viewpoint, this makes conducting research in the limited time available substantially more challenging and time-consum- ing. When resources such as sponsored research personnel, intellectual property offices, and business support services are minimal, the associ- ated administrative duties fall squarely on the researchers themselves. These dual problems of limited time, and spending that time to perform multiple, extra administrative functions can be overwhelming. Third, the faculty reward system does not compensate adequately for the daunt- ing burdens that ERI researchers must bear, or for the full scope of their efforts. The net result is that few ERI faculty pursue research, leaving most of our nationâs students without access to the one experience that is the foundation of the science and engineering disciplines. The workshop did present hope, however. In these pages the reader will find some creative solutions presented by workshop participants to both the teaching load and âadministructuralâ problems that plague administrators and faculty dedicated to actively engaging their institu- tions in research. Many of these solutions involve partnerships with other
PREFACE ix institutions or organizations; hence, the word âpartnershipsâ in the title of the workshop. We hope that this report is useful, but more important, we encourage a serious re-examination of how to retool our institutions and the nation to provide one of the most powerful educational interventions to a large segment of the population. Juliet Garcia, Chair Committee on Partnerships for Emerging Research Institutions
Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro- cedures approved by the National Academiesâ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Tabbetha Dobbins, Louisiana Tech University; Cathy Fore, Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Francisco Gonzalez-Lima, University of Texas-Austin; Harold Hellenbrand, California State University, North- ridge; Mildred Ofosu, Morgan State University; Beheruz Sethna, Univer- sity of West Georgia; and Gerald Van Hecke, Harvey Mudd College. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring com- mittee and the institution. xi
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The Importance of Emerging Research Institutions, 2 The Importance of Undergraduate Research, 6 Organization of the Report, 8 2 BARRIERS TO ACCESS TO RESEARCH 9 Branding, 9 Faculty Time, 10 Institutional Resources, 11 Office of Sponsored Research, 11 Office of Technology Transfer, 12 Business Services, 13 Centrally Supported Information Resources, 14 Faculty Reward System, 15 3 SOLUTIONS TO OVERCOMING BARRIERS: strategic partnerships for economies of scale 17 Strategic Approaches, 17 Faculty Time, 20 Institutional Resources, 24 Office of Sponsored Programs, 24 Office of Technology Transfer, 25 Business Services, 26 Centrally Supported Information Resources, 27 Faculty Reward System, 28 Flexible Tenure Policy, 28 xiii
xiv CONTENTS Start-Up Funds, 29 Returned Overhead and Research Incentives, 29 Funding and Other Resources, 29 U.S. Army Mentor-ProtÃ©gÃ© Program, 30 NIH Extramural Associates Program, 31 NSF STAR Alliance and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 32 The Funding Models, 32 4 SUMMARY 35 REFERENCES 37 APPENDIXES A Committee Member Biographies 41 B Workshop Agenda 47 C Workshop Participants 53 D 2005 Basic Carnegie Classification: Distribution of Institutions and Enrollments 57 E Roadmap for Emerging Research Institutions 61 TABLES 1 Enrollment in all fields, by race/ethnicity and 2005 Carnegie Classification of schools, Fall 2005, 4 2 Federal obligations for research and development by basic Carnegie Classification, 2005, 6 3 Resources for Research-Enhancing Initiatives, 33 FIGURES 1 Basic Carnegie Classification: Distribution of institutions and percentage of total enrollment, 2005, 3 2 Percent undergraduate enrollment by race/ethnicity and Carnegie Classification, Fall 2005, 5 3 University of Texas at El Paso, History of Research Expenditures, 19 BOXES 1 Recommendations for ERIs to Expand and Strengthen Research Resources, 18 2 Functions of Proposal Development GroupsâTennessee State University, 24