Research Extensive Universities Research Articles

The True Genius of America at Risk: Are We Losing Our Public Universities to de Facto Privatization? (review)

Reviewed by: The True Genius of America at Risk: Are We Losing Our Public Universities to de Facto Privatization? D. Bruce Johnstone The True Genius of America at Risk: Are We Losing Our Public Universities to de Facto Privatization?, by Katharine C. Lyall and Kathleen R. Sell. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006. ISBN 0275989496. The True Genius of America at Risk is a richly documented portrayal of the declining tax support for America's public universities. Much of this portrayal is from firsthand experience in Wisconsin, where Katharine Lyall served as system chancellor from 1991 through 2004 and Kathleen Sell as the system's chief budget officer from 1987 through 2002. In these capacities, they struggled with what they describe as "jerk and fit" state budgeting, which, as in most states, was a debilitating combination of budget cuts frequently combined with a general ignorance of, and great impatience with, the complexity of managing a very complicated system with appropriately multiple and difficult-to-measure products. The resulting fiscal austerity was (and still is) often made worse by dysfunctional bureaucratic intrusion and a stew of political agendas dominated by conservative and neoliberal attacks on public institutions, public employees (especially faculty), and public taxation. The book's subtitle suggests that we are losing our public universities to de facto privatization. That term, however, connotes a variety of quite different policies, both de facto and deliberate, that may include heightened competition for costly scholarly prestige, a legislative or even constitutional shift from the total state control associated with a state agency to a model of state steering associated with a public corporation, a more aggressive quest for philanthropic support, a shift of more instructional costs to parents and students, and/or a contracting out of nonacademic functions such as dormitories, food services, bookstores, and sometimes operations like maintenance and printing. While there are some who may lament most or all of these trends, most higher educational leaders and thoughtful observers (Lyall and Sell certainly included) would acknowledge that these shifts in themselves are neither new nor wrong nor likely to be avoidable. The real problem, I would submit, lies less with these examples of what Lyall and Sell label a de facto privatization and more with the widespread and peculiarly American political fear of taxation, coupled with a conviction (as with the fear of taxation, found among Democrats and Republicans alike) that public universities are wasteful and badly managed because . . . well, everyone just knows they are. The strength of Lyall and Sell's book is the rich and quite up-to-date documentation of the financial austerity that has befallen most public universities. A minor flaw is that the authors sometimes are citing figures on the worsening [End Page 712] financial situation of, and diminishing public tax support for, the entire public higher educational sector and at other times are referring to the fiscal austerity peculiar to the elite or flagship public research extensive universities (especially relative to their private elite research university brethren). But their portrayal of the last 15 or 20 years as a "perfect storm" of fiscal uncertainty and austerity for public higher education, especially for the public elite research university, is well drawn. The authors point out the unfortunate consequences of higher educational and fiscal federalism, especially as this feature of the American political landscape affects the public research university, whose "products"—be they the discoveries of applied and basic research or the education and training of undergraduates, graduates, or advanced professionals—are clearly national and international. As such, a funding base of mainly state budgets—particularly when most states are constrained in their abilities to deficit finance—is clearly going to be inadequate. The squeeze is exacerbated by the ability of the federal government to impose so-called unfunded mandates not just upon states but also upon enterprises like public universities. Congress and the federal executive branch worsen the situation when politicians at the national level (with no constitutional authority over the nation's public colleges and universities) fan the flames of tuition anxiety as well as the public's belief that their universities cannot be well managed, regardless of the many steps these institutions have taken over many...

Influential Journals, Institutions and Researchers in Real Estate

A threshold citation approach is used to measure the research influence of academic real estate journals, institutions and individual researchers. Real Estate Economics followed by The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics and Journal of Real Estate Research are the most influential real estate journals. Almost 63% of heavily cited works in core real estate journals are published in real estate journals. Twenty-one percent of the heavily cited works are published in Real Estate Economics. An overwhelming 80% of the citations of the 21 most heavily cited papers in real estate come from articles published in real estate journals. Even when real estate articles are published in top-tier finance and economics journals, the majority of the citations associated with these articles come from top real estate journals. This provides strong evidence of the existence of a distinct real estate research discipline. As compared to prior studies, an expanded universe of institutions is found to influence real estate research. Research-extensive universities generating high-quality economics, statistics and finance research influence the real estate discipline. The individuals that are most influential, however, are generally those with substantial real estate discipline specific research.

Scientists’ Participation in University Research Centers: What are the Gender Differences?

University-affiliated multidisciplinary research centers have grown in importance in academia. Most research to-date has focused on these centers from an institutional perspective, with recent work only beginning to explore the ways in which such centers affect the development of academic careers. Hence, little is known about how scientists who are center-affiliated differ from those who are not affiliated. Clearly, both selection and influence effects may be expected to operate in terms of research productivity, timing, and resources. A further puzzle is how center affiliation may differ between male and female scientists. In this study, we use a new, nationally representative dataset of scientists and engineers working in Carnegie Research Extensive universities to develop an understanding of how center-affiliated scientists differ from exclusively department-based academic scientists and engineers, and investigate the extent to which gender moderates the effects of centers. As expected, our national sample shows that women are younger, whiter, less likely to be tenured, and at a lower rank than their male colleagues. We find that women are as likely to join centers as men, and do so at a similar stage in their career. Most of the male–female differences observed in disciplinary settings are sustained in centers, but women appear to have greater research equality in them (compared to the departmental setting). In particular, men and women in centers spend the same amount of time writing grant proposals, conducting both grant-supported and unfunded research, and administering grants. This suggests that centers may constitute an institutional context in which some aspects of gender equity in science may be achieved.