Research administration as a living system.(Author abstract)(Report)

Introduction

Imagine a university where faculty and research administrators work in harmony. Rather than strife, manipulation, placing blame, stress, and disallowances, a system where research administrators are empathic and helpful and receive accolades and recognition from faculty. Picture a system where faculty are supportive of research administrators and share their objectives and needs openly. Can you envision a university where faculty and research administrators receive and accept constructive feedback? Systems where university business practices support the research endeavor? Funding agencies support new research ideas and new researchers? How could such a system be accomplished? Previous research explains how these circumstances evolved, and is addressed in the literature review.

Literature Review

Publish or Perish Syndrome

Faculty are faced with the need to publish journal articles and books, and to obtain grant funding. This publish or perish syndrome is caused by universities using published research results to evaluate faculty for tenure, merit, funding, and salary decisions (Hu & Gill, 2000). Hu and Gill (2000) developed the theory of faculty productivity as a life-cycle model, which states, "an individual engages in research because of the perceived significant future financial reward for the research activity" (p. 16).

This theory suggests that productivity rises sharply in the first stages of a career, peaks at the time of tenure, and then begins to decline. Hu and Gill (2000) found that the post-peak decline rate was slower for those in the high publication rate group compared to those in the low publication rate group. This finding followed the hypothesis that research provides reputation capital, which yields positive returns in subsequent years. Hu and Gill reported that faculty who took administrative positions such as department head or dean showed a significant drop in research productivity compared to their academic colleagues, and that productivity varied among institutions.

Hu and Gill (2000) noted that institutions could help by providing graduate assistants and reducing teaching and administrative duties. Taking this previous research into consideration, Hu and Gill attempted to "identify the set of variables that have the most significant effect on the research productivity of information systems faculty" (p. 24). Results of their data analysis lead to the following conclusions:

1. Junior faculty may be productive because of current technological skills, a strong reason that leads to longer working hours, more time allocated for research activities, and a light service load.

2. Senior faculty may be productive because of favorable teaching loads, opportunities to work with several junior faculty and doctoral students, or more time for research activities because of fewer new classes requiring preparation.

3. Faculty were adversely affected when assigned with a weekly teaching load of more than 11 hours, [by taking] on many academic service responsibilities, or [having] been in the faculty position for several years.

4. Tenure status, academic rank, and school type seemed to have no significant correlation to faculty research productivity. (p. 24)

The authors remarked that the life-cycle model has potential limitations that might influence reliability because the data are self-reported, and the numbers may be inflated for various reasons (Hu & Gill, 2000). What is clear is that the ability to participate in grant-funded research can be critical to new faculty seeking tenure and to institutions seeking funding to support research activities. Participating in research projects, preparing proposals, and publishing research results are traditionally considered activities of scholarship.

McMillin (2004) reported that becoming a complete scholar was a process through which junior faculty attempt to construct a professional identity:

[A senior faculty is] characterized as [having] a thirty-five year career, [being] an award-winning teacher, an effective dean, and a well-respected historian. He has managed to constantly reinvent himself and adapt to changes in theory and methodology, in pedagogy, student expectations, in institutional mission, and resource availability--all with grace, wit and modesty. (p. 1)

In contrast, junior faculty are characterized as being the lucky few survivors of a competitive job market, and technology has shaped their work both in teaching and research. They are beginning their careers at a time when the expectations of higher education are growing and societal support for higher education institutions is declining. Many junior faculty are struggling to develop a professional identity, and new courses, and many are stretched to participate in community organizations, McMillin (2004) reported that participation in municipal projects, social service agencies, and schools is often part of the institutional mission. Many institutions protect junior faculty from this service mission and allow them to focus on traditional research.

McMillin believed that if new faculty do not find ways to make their research accessible to students, serve the local community, and build interdisciplinary connections before tenure, they most likely will not do so afterward. McMillin noted that the challenge was to find the right balance for new faculty so they could achieve a supportive flexible work environment in which to cultivate their academic professionalism.

The Competitive Nature of Federal Funding

Stigler (1993) reported that universities differ from businesses and athletics, which promote competition as a positive. On the other hand, a university, which views competition as a threat, "fosters complaints, cries for support, pleads for exemption from laws against collusion, and attempts to restrict new entries" (p. 1). Competition does take place among research universities and faculty. The competition focuses on the need to increase the intellectual gains to students and for faculty to derive economic gain from new ideas that advance science and human well being (Stigler). Faculty compete for higher salaries, larger offices, and recognition. Universities compete for prestige, students, and income; competition determines who is successful,

Stigler (1993) proposed that the difficulty faced by research universities was not in the competition between faculty and universities, but in the concentration of government support to a few major universities. In support of this position, Stigler discussed changes that have occurred with the National Science Foundation (NSF). He reported that around 1980, the NSF came under political pressure that impaired its efficiency and threatened injury to research universities, One of these dangers, he said, was the congressional earmarking of funds for state projects and the political setting of research agendas.

The NSF has considerable power in setting the direction of research and does not have a serious competitor in the physical and mathematical sciences. This agency, Stigler said, has turned its focus on "cultivating the source of the funds, the Congress, and has sought to structure its programs to increase its appeal to this source" (p. 7). Stigler explained how this change contributed to increased competition among research universities:

The National Science Foundation has found it easier to explain large-scale projects and research centers to Congress than to argue convincingly for the diffuse benefits of a broad-based funding of individual research grants; as a consequence the NSF has promoted large projects. The scientists have to a degree acquiesced in this shift, being told that otherwise it would be impossible to increase support to meet expanded challenges, and that the support for research centers in fact permits at least a modest growth of funding for other programs. But, that has not happened; instead, as might have been predicted, total budgets have not grown in real terms, and since the highly visible research centers have been enthusiastically sold to Congress, the centers have of necessity been spared the worst of the cuts. (p. 7)

Stigler (1993) offered words of encouragement for the research university, saying that, although universities face serious problems, they have already proven to be resilient and have emerged from these trials "changed and no less strong" (p. 9).

University Perspective

Boyer and Cockriel (1998) stated, "Research universities [were] judged by others based on research productivity and the dollar amount of acquired grants" (p. 61). Being "scholarly" was traditionally defined as "engaging in research, writing articles for publication, and sharing research findings with students" (p. 61). Writing proposals and being successful in receiving federal funding helped scholarly development and increased the opportunity for publication and recognition.

Ikenberry and Hartle (2000) showed that universities experienced a financial crisis as local government support for higher education fell sharply in the 1990s. With an economy pulling out of a recession, great pressure was placed on university budgets. Kennedy (1993) stated that universities were facing a period of serious resource constraint, and that without an infusion of new resources, the future of basic research might resemble the biomedical sciences.

Applications for grants [were] growing faster than the available resources, the success ratio [was] declining, unrealistic demands for university matching [were] accompanied [by] reduced grant support, good research [was] going un-funded, good researchers [were] becoming frustrated, young researchers [were] leaving the field, infrastructure problems [were] being deferred, and the price for it all [was] paid by people who are not around to assert their interest. (pp. 2-3)

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates