Independent Research Centers Research Articles

Federal Policy on Higher Education Research

2 Education Research Institute, representing independent research centers. Their comments, revised for publication, are contained in the following pages. We would like to express appreciation to Jonathan Fife, Director, ERIC, Clearinghouse on Higher Education, for his work in organizing the symposium, and to Samuel Kellams, RHE Editor, for his cooperation and assistance in pub­ lishing the results of the symposium so quickly. We hope that this publica­ tion will facilitate continuing discussions between researchers and sponsors of research in postsecondary education. We also hope that the issues and concerns contained in the following pages may help in establishing guidelines that could be used by the research community in the preparation of future proposals and activities. FEDERAL POLICY ON HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH John F. Hughes American Council on Education and Anne 0. Hughes University of the District of Columbia If higher education hopes to survive the fierce competition for resources that lies ahead, it must learn what other industries have learned: namely, that progress in any human system depends on a research base which produces information leading to better practice. Unfortunately, this message has gone unheeded for decades, and the condition of research on the higher education is so limited that it scarcely exists as a visible national process. Two widely recognized exceptions at the present time are NCHEMS in the area of management and the ACE/UCLA freshman survey. Research by the institutions on themselves is extremely limited. Typi­ cally academic institutions have, at best, established small offices of "in­ stitutional research," which usually include a research person and a part-time secretary supported by a tiny budget. The chief function of such an office is usually to collect data on students, faculty, finances, and course offerings on a year-to-year basis. Another time-consuming function of these overworked units is responding to government questionnaires. The focus is on the immedi­ ate survival of the institution, and little attention is given to long-range planning or to longitudinal research. Institutions lack the profit margin that enables industry to make the kind of investment in R & D that is needed to enhance product viability. In­ deed, in times of an institutional budget crunch, the research office and the library are often the first to feel the pinch. Institutions simply lack the wherewithal to perform an adequate research function. At the national level, leadership for higher education research in the past has come from the major foundations, such as the Carnegie Commission with its comprehensive ten-year survey of the system, plus the special programs of the Ford, Rockefeller, Sloan, Lilly, and Kellogg Foundations. However, as their portfolios have declined, the foundations have grown less forthcoming in their support. National private organizations, such as the Educational Test­ ing Service, The College Board, American College Testing Program, and others conduct research on problems that reflect their special missions, and they are more likely to be seekers of research support rather than providers of it. As public supporters of higher education research, state governments only show an interest in rare instances, and they are likely to support specialized concerns that are responsive to current political pressures. 3 The federal R & D effort in behalf of higher education is concen­ trated in the Education Division of HEW. The National Institute of Education performs the R & D function, and its small budget is heavily concentrated on elementary, secondary, and vocational education. Other HEW activities— not classified as R & D— include the demonstration projects of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) and the data-gathering proces­ ses of National Center for Education Statistics. Federal research priorities have generally ignored higher education, and except for the Congressionally mandated study of postsecondary education finance in 1973-74 (1972 Amend­ ments), the federal government has not addressed higher education as an area of research interest. As an industry, higher education employs 1.9 million people and spends $50 billion annually on operating costs; but only an estimated $75 million is spent for R & D in the higher education system. This amounts to .15 of one percent. By comparison, medicine spends 22 percent of its industrial resour­ ces on R & D, and agriculture invests 14 percent. Bell Telephone is one pri­ vate industry that...

Interdisciplinary policy research in independent research centers

The growth of independent research centers after World War II reflected the federal government's concern for defense-related research and policy studies. These centers had more independence than government laboratories; greater emphasis on interdisciplinary, policy-oriented research than universities; and fewer conflicts of interest than industrial laboratories. The same factors carry over to interdisciplinary policy research in nondefense fields. The major problems of managing interdisciplinary team, selecting and motivating project leaders, maximizing institutional support, selecting the right projects and clients, and linking research to policy-making.