Research Extensive Universities Research Articles

The Research‐Intensive Community Model has the Necessary Properties for Successful Propagation at Research‐Extensive Universities

Novel research education models often fail to propagate widely because they typically only include two of four necessary properties to successfully propagate and maintain their impacts: scalability, adaptability, sustainability, and inclusivity. Furthermore, research education models typically address the unmet needs of one stakeholder at a time. First, undergraduates need greater access to limited research opportunities at research‐extensive universities. Second, graduate students and postdoctoral scholars need mentoring and management experience to prepare for leadership roles in the next stage of their careers. Third, faculty need to maximize research productivity and recruit future graduate students with sufficient preparation. Fourth, administrators need to stretch their limited resources to support the competing institutional missions of research and education. The Research‐Intensive Community (RIC) model developed at Texas A&M University has the properties that are both necessary and sufficient to propagate broadly at research‐extensive universities because it turns the competing needs of diverse stakeholders into opportunities. Briefly, instead of a traditional 1‐on‐1 research apprenticeship, research is performed by a diverse undergraduate research team led by a graduate student or postdoctoral scholar. Research teams are productive because they leverage each undergraduate’s unique assets (talents, skills, perspectives, and experiences) to advance the research of the graduate student or postdoctoral scholar. Team leaders meet monthly to discuss best practices for leadership and mentoring that increase their own research productivity through effective team management. Because team leaders are empowered to run their team by their faculty mentors, economies of scale are leveraged to efficiently centralize program marketing, participant registration, project advertisement, and program evaluation. Since 2016, the Aggie Research Program (ARP) has implemented the RIC model to cultivate mutually beneficial relationships to meet the diverse needs of diverse stakeholders. As the ARP has grown, team leader meetings have become a nexus for specific research leadership programs that are either interdisciplinary or focused on specific life science disciplines. The ARP exhibits the necessary and sufficient properties for successful propagation: 1) Scalability: participation has grown 30% each of the first 5 years to currently serve over 800 participants/year 2) Adaptability: research teams are distributed across diverse disciplines in 12 colleges. 3) Sustainability: administrative costs are limited to $50,000/year. 4) Inclusivity: 41% of participants belong to underrepresented groups (financially disadvantaged, first‐generation, disabled and underrepresented minorities), which matches the demographics of the undergraduate student population at Texas A&M University.

Doing the work: curating resistance and solidarity among black and Chicana womyn faculty

Inspired by Black and Chicana feminists who came before us and are leading our paths, we critically examine how to build solidarity among womyn of color faculty, support each other’s political projects by uplifting critical raced-gendered epistemologies, and disrupt white supremacy that seeps into the everyday experiences in academia via neoliberal logics at predominantly white research-extensive universities. Through plática methodology, we demonstrate the importance of critical reflexivity, responsibility-taking, and our labor as womyn of color in academe; our complicity in protecting whiteness and patriarchy; and cultivating resistance through solidarity building as an active and on-going process.

Performance Benchmarks for Scholarly Metrics Associated with Fisheries and Wildlife Faculty.

Research productivity and impact are often considered in professional evaluations of academics, and performance metrics based on publications and citations increasingly are used in such evaluations. To promote evidence-based and informed use of these metrics, we collected publication and citation data for 437 tenure-track faculty members at 33 research-extensive universities in the United States belonging to the National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs. For each faculty member, we computed 8 commonly used performance metrics based on numbers of publications and citations, and recorded covariates including academic age (time since Ph.D.), sex, percentage of appointment devoted to research, and the sub-disciplinary research focus. Standardized deviance residuals from regression models were used to compare faculty after accounting for variation in performance due to these covariates. We also aggregated residuals to enable comparison across universities. Finally, we tested for temporal trends in citation practices to assess whether the “law of constant ratios”, used to enable comparison of performance metrics between disciplines that differ in citation and publication practices, applied to fisheries and wildlife sub-disciplines when mapped to Web of Science Journal Citation Report categories. Our regression models reduced deviance by ¼ to ½. Standardized residuals for each faculty member, when combined across metrics as a simple average or weighted via factor analysis, produced similar results in terms of performance based on percentile rankings. Significant variation was observed in scholarly performance across universities, after accounting for the influence of covariates. In contrast to findings for other disciplines, normalized citation ratios for fisheries and wildlife sub-disciplines increased across years. Increases were comparable for all sub-disciplines except ecology. We discuss the advantages and limitations of our methods, illustrate their use when applied to new data, and suggest future improvements. Our benchmarking approach may provide a useful tool to augment detailed, qualitative assessment of performance.

Factors affecting scholarly performance by wildlife and fisheries faculty

Publication- and citation-based metrics are commonly used to summarize the productivity and impact of individuals, institutions, and journals. We examined factors hypothesized to explain variation in 5 author-based performance metrics among 437 fisheries and wildlife faculty from 33 research-extensive universities in the United States. Regression analyses revealed that the elapsed number of years since conferral of the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree (academic age) was a strong predictor of performance metrics, with non-linear age effects for Hirsch's h-index, Brown's hb-index, the annual rate of increase in h (i.e., m quotient), and number of publications. Greater performance was observed for faculty with greater research appointments. Performance did not vary between Wildlife and Fisheries disciplines but did vary across sub-disciplines; metrics indicated that genetics and disease-related sub-disciplines had the greatest positive effect sizes, social sciences and management-oriented sub-disciplines had the smallest effects, and ecology, conservation, quantitative methods, and aquatic science showed intermediate effect sizes. On average, male faculty published more articles than females, but no sex differences were evident for the other 4 performance metrics. Earlier publication relative to attainment of the Ph.D. degree (publication precocity) was associated with performance for all metrics. Regression models explained 28–54% of the deviance and may prove useful in placing reported values for performance in context of performance by peers. As an alternative point of reference, named (i.e., distinguished) faculty on average exhibited performance 31–96% greater than the performance predicted for otherwise comparable faculty. Our regression models allow for more meaningful comparison of publication and citation performance relative to peers, but they represent only one aspect of faculty performance and should not replace qualitative peer review of productivity and impact. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

Pending Matters

Pending Matters David William Foster (bio) Necessarily—and, indeed, almost as an imperative—one takes advantage of writing a note such as this to promote an intellectual agenda. Our selection process for these essays on film has been an interesting and rather anomalous one, since we each examined a range of possible contributions, without knowing what the overall pool of topics might be beyond just those each of us saw individually. This made it difficult for any one of us to favor a particular range of submissions—that is, to nudge the selection process towards any one individual’s intellectual agenda. Of course, I might have favored the essays I did see that matched that agenda, but the process was complex and anonymous enough for me to have been of little influence in that regard. As a consequence, I recognize that the final list of essays accepted was highly aleatory, even if it was designed to result in an overarching consensus as regards a selection of the very best, no matter how they distributed themselves thematically or intellectually. Ours is a conjunctive organization, Spanish and Portuguese, and it is possible to debate what the implications of that conjunction are. For those of us working in Brazilian studies (and I am fully aware of the way in which I am an unabashed interloper, not having been fully trained as a Brazilianist and counting myself primarily as an Argentinist), the conjunction here has served always to mark a fundamental disjunction: one was either a Hispanist or one was a Luso-Brazilianist. Hispanists and Brazilianists were brought together in the same organization for geohistorical reasons, but not because their research agendas overlapped, and it has been, with few exceptions, only in recent years that doctoral students—at least in research extensive universities where Portuguese is likely to be taught—are emerging with a solid grounding in both areas, or, at least, with a decent familiarity across the conjunction. Integrated projects, of the sort envisioned by the Beyond Tordesillas initiative, still are quite lacking, although one is confident that they will eventually prosper. It is, therefore, with regret that I note the lack of a substantial set of essays on Brazilian film in our final roster: only one deals with Brazil. I do not know what Brazilian film submissions were examined and, in the end, rejected, although I am willing to be firmly convinced that rejections were for reasons of critical deficiency and not out of any desire to slight Brazil (or Portugal)! While the Portuguese film industry remains modest (especially in comparison to Spain), there can be no doubting the vigor of film in Brazil. And unlike Mexico, where it is difficult to view a Mexican film in general because commercial and art house bookings favor a heavy preponderance of foreign films (e.g., US films in the former case), almost any Cineplex in Brazil’s major cities includes national titles. To be sure, the Brazilian film industry is uniquely different—but, then, so are the Argentine, the Mexican, the Cuban ones—and glitzy commercial productions (very much as part of a continuum with the television industry; the so-called O Globo network phenomenon) figure prominently, and these are not usually likely to attract serious critical analyses except within a sociology of culture context. Although Mexico has a certain amount [End Page 385] of such titles—mostly recently, something like Pedro Pablo Ibarra’s A la mala (2015)—they have largely faded into the background in Argentina, with the very vigorous putatively serious filmmaking now coming out of that country, and, of course, they have not existed in Cuba since the Revolution. But serious filmmaking is thriving in Brazil, and it merits the same level of interpretive scrutiny as the Hispanic materials that rose to the top of our complex selection process. Another gap in our final inventory—and here, I can legitimately claim a position of disciplinary centrality—concerns queer filmmaking. I don’t mean just films in which theme and characters are manifestly queer-centered, but rather, the application of queer film theory to the entire corpus: I am much more interested in a queer analysis of the Mexican legendary...

LGBTQ Alumni Philanthropy

Using a constructivist case study analysis, we explore philanthropy toward higher education among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) alumni, examining how a person’s LGBTQ identity and experiences (un)consciously affects his, her, or hir1 decision to give philanthropically. Data come from focus groups with 37 advancement staff and 23 LGBTQ alumni at two research extensive universities. Findings reveal unconscious influences of LGBTQ identities on giving, importance of campus climate for LGBTQ individuals, and LGBTQ alumni affinity group involvement. We draw implications from our findings, discussing the need to create a warm campus climate for current students, increase and encourage involvement within LGBTQ affinity groups, systematize data collection to include LGBTQ identities, and develop culturally sensitive solicitations.

Rank Advancement in Academia: What are the Roles of Postdoctoral Training?

This article reports on a study that investigated whether postdoctoral training contributes to scientists' and engineers' attainment of tenure and full professorship in research-extensive universities. It was found that training does not assist scientists in climbing the career ladder faster nor does it help them to secure more prestigious appointments once scientists land tenure-track appointments.

Rank Advancement in Academia: What Are the Roles of Postdoctoral Training?

This article reports on a study that investigated whether postdoctoral training contributes to scientists’ and engineers’ attainment of tenure and full professorship in research-extensive universities. It was found that training does not assist scientists in climbing the career ladder faster nor does it help them to secure more prestigious appointments once scientists land tenure-track appointments.

Power to Do…What? Department Heads’ Decision Autonomy and Strategic Priorities

Using questionnaire data from the 2010 Survey of Academic Chairs, the study focuses on decision autonomy, a component of the power wielded by science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) department chairs in U.S. research extensive universities. A “power index” is developed to measure chairs’ decision autonomy, specifically their control of resources employed in negotiations with faculty job candidates. The study asks: What determines the degree of decision autonomy power possessed by department heads; and, what are the strategic implications of department heads’ degree of this particular aspect of power? Results of an ordered logistic regression model show that having more power is associated with being hired from outside the current university, being male, and with department size. The power index is employed to predict departmental strategic priorities. Results show that the power index is positively associated with a strategic priority for research. The results show a negative relationship between degree of chair decision autonomy and a priority to increase faculty lines. A student-focused strategy is not predicted by the power index but is related to the size, with larger departments placing less emphasis on numbers or quality of students.

The Benefits of Multi-Year Research Experiences: Differences in Novice and Experienced Students’ Reported Gains from Undergraduate Research

This mixed-methods study explores differences in novice and experienced undergraduate students’ perceptions of their cognitive, personal, and professional gains from engaging in scientific research. The study was conducted in four different undergraduate research (UR) programs at two research-extensive universities; three of these programs had a focus on the biosciences. Seventy-three entry-level and experienced student researchers participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews and completed the quantitative Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) instrument. Interviews and surveys assessed students’ developmental outcomes from engaging in UR. Experienced students reported distinct personal, professional, and cognitive outcomes relative to their novice peers, including a more sophisticated understanding of the process of scientific research. Students also described the trajectories by which they developed not only the intellectual skills necessary to advance in science, but also the behaviors and temperament necessary to be a scientist. The findings suggest that students benefit from multi-year UR experiences. Implications for UR program design, advising practices, and funding structures are discussed.

Academic Faculty Affiliated with University Research Centers: Selection Dynamics

University research centers constitute a new part of the science policy repertoire committed to strategic use of science and technology and prove influential to individual career development. The existing literature casts much light on the challenges arising from managing centers and the potential benefits participants may receive, with little attention paid to the selection dynamics through which individuals gain affiliation with centers. The selection process not only shapes the extent to which centers fulfill their missions, but also structures the distribution of potential career benefits. Based on a representative sample of academic scientists and engineers in research extensive universities, this article investigates the dynamics of individual affiliation with centers. The findings suggest that university research centers represent a combination of cumulative advantage and equal treatment, reinforcing advantages on prolific scientists and those in prestigious departments and providing equal treatment for scientists with different demographic backgrounds. Instead of being career distractions, center affiliation proves more appealing to junior scientists than tenured peers. The study concludes with a discussion of the policy implications in the science enterprise.

Rank Advancement in Academia: The Roles of Postdoctoral Training

The proliferation of postdoctoral training in academia calls for an empirical assessment of its roles in trainees’ career development. This study fills in the gap by examining a representative sample of academic scientists and engineers working at research extensive universities, finding that postdoctoral training hardly facilitates scientists’ pursuit of early tenure or promotion, nor helps to better off individual niches in the prestige hierarchy once they successfully land academic employment. Academic success proves to be shaped by the interplay between organizational context and individual efforts, the latter further constrained by both career and organizational structures.

Realized Publicness at Public and Private Research Universities

Although research extensive universities in the United States produce similar outcomes – research, teaching, and service – they vary substantially in terms of the publicness of their environments. In this paper, we adopt the public values framework (Moulton 2009) to examine how regulative, normative/associative, and cultural cognitive components affect realized public outcomes by faculty. Using survey data from a random sample of faculty scientists in six fields of science and engineering at Carnegie Research I universities, we find that organizational and individual public values components are predictably associated with different realized individual public outcomes. For example, individual support from federal resources and affiliation with a federal lab (associative) are related to increased research outcomes, while tuition and fee levels (regulative) explain teaching outcomes, and perceived level of influence in the workplace (cultural cognitive) explains teaching and service outcomes. Overall, university-level public values have a stronger influence on individual public outcomes than individual-level public values. We conclude with a discussion of the findings.

The Role of Student-Advisor Interactions in Apprenticing Undergraduate Researchers into a Scientific Community of Practice

Among science educators, current interest in undergraduate research (UR) is influenced both by the traditional role of the research apprenticeship in scientists’ preparation and by concerns about replacing the current scientific workforce. Recent research has begun to demonstrate the range of personal, professional, and intellectual benefits for STEM students from participating in UR, yet the processes by which student-advisor interactions contribute to these benefits are little understood. We employ situated learning theory (Lave and Wenger, Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge in 1991) to examine the role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers, particularly in terms of acculturating students to the norms, values, and professional practice of science. This qualitative study examines interviews with a diverse sample of 73 undergraduate research students from two research-extensive institutions. From these interviews, we articulate a continuum of practices that research mentors employed in three domains to support undergraduate scientists-in-training: professional socialization, intellectual support, and personal/emotional support. The needs of novice students differed from those of experienced students in each of these areas. Novice students needed clear expectations, guidelines, and orientation to their specific research project, while experienced students needed broader socialization in adopting the traits, habits, and temperament of scientific researchers. Underrepresented minority students, and to a lesser extent, women, gained confidence from their interactions with their research mentors and broadened their future career and educational possibilities. Undergraduate research at research-extensive universities exemplifies a cycle of scientific learning and practice where undergraduate researchers are mentored by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, who are themselves apprentices to faculty members. As such, research mentors of undergraduate students should be aware of the dual scientific and educational aspects of their advising role and its significance in shaping students’ identities and career trajectories.

Adult Learners in a Research University: Negotiating Undergraduate Student Identity

Adult undergraduate student identities at research extensive universities were uniquely coconstructed, shaped by this selective and competitive youth-oriented cultural context. Drawing upon social constructivist theory, this study explored this coconstruction through positional and relational adult student identities. Positional identities were coconstructed through negotiating academic acceptance in meeting demanding academic challenges and through facing otherness as a mature adult. These adults also viewed their positional identity based in an evolving sense of agency to academically succeed through goal oriented efforts, as well as through their adult maturity and life experiences. These adults articulated relational identities predominantly based in faculty’s tacit or explicit academic acceptance of them in one of four types of relationships. This study suggests that the adult undergraduate student identity is multi-layered, multi-sourced, evolving, and at times, paradoxical in beliefs of self, position, relationships, and learning contexts within the research extensive university setting.

Chapter 15: Essential Faculty Development Programs for Teaching and Learning Centers in Research-Extensive Universities

Chapter 15: Essential Faculty Development Programs for Teaching and Learning Centers in Research-Extensive Universities

Chapter 15: Essential Faculty Development Programs for Teaching and Learning Centers in Research–Extensive Universities

Chapter 15: Essential Faculty Development Programs for Teaching and Learning Centers in Research–Extensive Universities

Integrating research and education at research-extensive universities with research-intensive communities

Although the Boyer Commission (1998) lamented the lack of research opportunities for all undergraduates at research-extensive universities, it did not provide a feasible solution consistent with the mandate for faculty to maintain sustainable physiology research programs. The costs associated with one-on-one mentoring, and the lack of a sufficient number of faculty members to give intensive attention to undergraduate researchers, make one-on-one mentoring impractical. We therefore developed and implemented the "research-intensive community" model with the aim of aligning diverse goals of participants while simultaneously optimizing research productivity. The fundamental organizational unit is a team consisting of one graduate student and three undergraduates from different majors, supervised by a faculty member. Undergraduate workshops, Graduate Leadership Forums, and computer-mediated communication provide an infrastructure to optimize programmatic efficiency and sustain a multilevel, interdisciplinary community of scholars dedicated to research. While the model radically increases the number of undergraduates that can be supported by a single faculty member, the inherent resilience and scalability of the resulting complex adaptive system enables a research-intensive community program to evolve and grow.

The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry

We ask whether informal interactions between university and industry scientists result in collaborative research. Using data from a national survey of tenured and tenure-track scientists and engineers in U.S. research extensive universities, we demonstrate that university scientists’ informal interactions with private sector companies increase both the likelihood and intensity of collaborative research with industry.

Demographic Inertia Revisited: An Immodest Proposal to Achieve Equitable Gender Representation among Faculty in Higher Education

Progress toward equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education has been “glacial” since the early 1970s (Glazer-Raymo, 1999; Lomperis, 1990; Trower & Chait, 2002). Women, who now make up a majority of undergraduate degree earners and approximately 46% of Ph.D. earners nationwide (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2003), rarely make up more than 30% of faculty at Research Extensive universities. Although the total number of tenure-track women faculty in higher education has increased steadily for the past 35 years, this increase and women’s advancement through faculty ranks are described as excruciatingly slow (Valian, 1999).