A Study of University Research Administration ...

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

8-1973

A Study of University Research Administration; Organizational A Study of University Research Administration; Organizational

Structure, Function and Effectiveness Structure, Function and Effectiveness

Louis H. Steinberg Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Steinberg, Louis H., "A Study of University Research Administration; Organizational Structure, Function and Effectiveness" (1973). Dissertations. 2855. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2855

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2855&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1245?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2855&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2855?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2855&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



A STUDY OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION;

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, FUNCTION AND EFFECTIVENESS

by

L ouis H. S te in b e rg

A D is s e r ta t io n Subm itted to th e

F a c u lty o f The G raduate C ollege in p a r t i a l f u l f i l lm e n t

o f th eDegree o f Doctor o f E ducation

W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs ity Kalamazoo, M ichigan

August 1973

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I t i s w ith g r a te f u l a p p re c ia t io n t h a t I acknowledge th e a d v ic e ,

co opera tion and encouragement th a t I re c e iv e d from th e many in d iv i

dua ls who c o n tr ib u te d to th e com pletion o f t h i s s tu d y . My committee

chairm an. Dr. W illiam P . V ia l l and my committee members. D r. Rodney

Roth, Dr. R ichard T. Burke and D r. E in a rd S. Haniuk, w ere c o n s ta n t

sources o f su p p o rt and te c h n ic a l e x p e r t i s e . I am deeply in d eb ted to

them fo r t h e i r p a tie n c e and u n d e rs ta n d in g . A s p e c ia l n o te o f thanks

must a lso go to Mr. M ichael J . W alters and the s t a f f o f The O ffic e o f

Research S e rv ic e s a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs ity who p rov ided the

i n i t i a l h e lp which made th i s s tudy p o s s ib le .

F in a l ly , i n f i n i t e a p p re c ia t io n must be exp ressed to my w ife ,

E la in e , and to my so n s , J im , R obert and David fo r t h e i r p a tie n c e w ith

my l im ite d a v a i l a b i l i t y du rin g ray d o c to ra l s tu d y .

R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing sc the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms300 North Z eeb RoadAnn Arbor, M ichigan 48106


7 3 - 3 0 ,3 0 2

STEINBERG, Louis Harvey, 1941- A SlUDY OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCIURE, FUNCTION AND EFFECTIVENESS.Western Michigan University, Ed.D., 1973 Education, higher

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

T H IS D IS SE R TA TIO N HAS BEEN M IC R O F IL M E D E X A C T L Y AS R EC E IV ED .


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. i

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... v

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................ 1

S tatem ent o f th e P r o b le m ............................................. 3

Im portance o f th e P r o b le m . ................................... - 5

D e f in i t io n o f Terms.......................................................... 7

O rg an iza tio n o f th e D i s s e r t a t i o n ........................... 8

I I RELATED LITERATURE.....................................................................10

I n t r o d u c t i o n .............................................................................10

An Overview o f U n iv e rs i ty R esearchAdminis t r a t i o n ....................................................................10

C r i t i c a l Is su e s in U n iv e rs i tyR esearch A d m in is tra tio n ..................................................14

The Role and F u n c tio n s o f th e U n iv e rs ityO ffic e o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio n ............................19

S tu d ie s o f U n iv e rs ity R esearch A d m in is t r a t io n .................................... .......................... 23

I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY.................................................................... 26

Review o f th e P roblem ...........................................................26

S e le c t io n o f th e Sam ple...................................................... 27

In s tru m e n ta tio n ........................................................................ 29

C o lle c tio n o f D ata .......................................................... 35

i i


T reatm ent o f D a ta ............................................ 36

Summary............................................ 38

IV REPORT OF THE FINDINGS...........................................................39

D e s c r ip tio n o f th e F in a l Sample.....................................39

A n a ly s is o f D ata from A ll O ffic e si n F in a l Sample................................................................... 42

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0 -10 ,000 E nro llm ent and $0 -5 .5 M illio n R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s . . . . 66

R esearch O ffic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0 -10 ,000 E nro llm ent and $ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 M illio n R esearch and Development A l lo c a t io n s .............................................................................73

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0-10 ,000 E nrollm ent and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s in Excess o f $20.6 M il l io n ........................................................................ 78

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith10.001 - 20,000 E nro llm ent and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s o f $0-5 .5M il l io n ..................................................................................... 82

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith10.001 - 20,000 E nro llm ent and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n so f $5 .6 - 20.5 m i l l i o n ..................................................86

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i tu t io n s w ith10.001 - 20,000 E nro llm ent and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s in Excesso f $20.6 M i l l i o n ...............................................................90

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith E nro llm ent over 20,000 and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s o f $0-5 .5 M il l io n ..................................................................................... 94

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i tu t io n s w ith E nro llm ent over 20,000 and Research and Development A llo c a tio n s o f $5.6 - 20 .5 M i l l i o n ........................................................................99

i i i


R esearch O ffic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith E nro llm ent over 20,000 and R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s i n Excess o f $20.5 M i l l i o n ............................................................. 102

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................106

Review o f th e S tudy ............................................................. 106

D iscu ss io n o f th e F i n d in g s .......................... 107

Im p lic a tio n s f o r the F ie ld o f R esearch A d m in is t r a t io n ..................................................................113

S uggestions fo r F u tu re Study ..................................... 115

C losing S ta tem en t..................................................................116

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................117

APPENDIX A: P i lo t Study Cover L e t te r and Q u e s tio n n a ire . . . 121

APPENDIX B; L is t o f I n s t i t u t i o n s in O r ig in a l S a n p le .................... .125

APPENDIX C: Communications and F in a l Survey In stru m en t . . . 131

iv


LIST OF TABLES

TABLE page

2-1 O rg a n iz a tio n a l C o n tro l o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio nO ff ic e by S ize o f I n s t i t u t i o n ( P i lo t Study) . . . . 13

2-2 O rg a n iz a tio n a l C o n tro l o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio nO ff ic e by T o ta l 1970 R & D ( P i lo t S tu d y ) ....................... 15

3-1 D e s c r ip tio n o f I n s t i t u t i o n s in O r ig in a l Sample (E nro llm ent S ize and Level o f R & D )..................

4 -1 D e s c r ip tio n o f F in a l Sançle Com position (S ize and R & D Le v e l ) . . . . ...............................................................

4-2 Number o f P u b lic and P r iv a te I n s t i t u t i o n s in EachS ize and R & D C ategory o f F in a l Sample . . . . .

4 -3 Y ears in which R esearch O ff ic e s Were E s ta b lis h e d .

4 -4 A d m in is tra tiv e C o n tro l o f R esearch O ffic e s . . . .

4-5 C o n tro l o f R esearch P o lic y F orm ula tion ........................

4-6 Number o f Fu ll-T im e E q u iv a le n t P ro fe s s io n a l and C le r ic a l Employees..............................................................

4 -7 Annual O p era tin g Budgets o f R esearch O ffic e s . . .

4 -8 C o n tro l Over D is t r ib u t io n o f I n d i r e c t Cost Funds .

4-9 R e c ip ie n ts o f I n d i r e c t Cost Funds...................................

4-10 Research O ffice F u n c tio n s . . . ........................................

4-11 P e rce iv ed R esearch O r ie n ta tio n o f F a c u lty and A d m in is tra tio n ...................................................................

28

40

41

43

45

46

47

49

50

52

54

55

56

58

4-12 Sources o f R esearch Funds.......................................................

4-13 Annual Volume o f Awards (In M il l io n s ) ............................

4-14 Annual Number o f P ro p o sa ls Subm itted f o r Funding . . 59

4-15 P e rc e n t o f P ro p o sa ls Funded....................................................... 61


4-16 P e rce n t o f Change in V arious O ff ic e S t a t i s t i c s OverF a s t Three Y e a rs .................................................................... 62

4-17 P o te n t ia l C r i t e r i a fo r E v a lu a tin g th e E ffe c tiv e n e sso f R esearch A d m in is tra tio n ............................................... 64

4-18 C on tro l Over D is t r ib u t io n o f I n d i r e c t Cost Reint- bursem ent Funds; I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith. 0-10,000 E nrollm ent and R fie D $ 0 -5 .5 M i l l i o n ......................... 69

4-19 P e rc e n t o f P ro p o sa ls Funded Among I n s t i tu t io n sw ith 0-10,000 E nro llm ent and R & D $0-5 .5 M illio n . 71

4-20 P e rce n t o f P ro p o sa ls Funded Among I n s t i tu t io n s w ith 0-10,000 E nro llm ent and R fie D $5 .6 -20 .5 M i l l i o n ....................................................................................... 77

4-21 Sources o f R esearch Funds Among I n s t i tu t io n sw ith 10,001 - 20,000 E n ro llm en t and R fie D $0-5 .5 M il l io n .......................................................................... 84

4-22 P e rce n t o f Change in V arious O ff ic e S t a t i s t i c sOver P a s t Three Years Among I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith +20,000 E nro llm ent and R & D $ 0 -5 .5 M illio n . . . . 97

V I


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In tro d u c tio n

In th e p a s t th re e decades, re se a rc h a c t i v i t i e s have become a

m ajor fu n c tio n o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r e d u ca tio n in th e U nited

S c a te s . At b o th o ld e r , more e s ta b l is h e d i n s t i t u t i o n s and a t newer

em erging ones, re se a rc h i s p la y in g an in c re a s in g ly in ç o r ta n t r o le .

World War I I , th e Korean c o n f l i c t , th e R ussian space t r iu n ç h s o f

th e l a t e f i f t i e s and in c re a s in g te c h n o lo g ic a l co m p etitio n from

fo re ig n c o u n tr ie s have a l l combined to p rov ide much o f th e im petus

fo r th e in c re a se d em phasis on b o th b a s ic and a p p lie d re s e a rc h .

Academic i n s t i t u t i o n s have met th e n e c e s s i ty fo r p ro v id in g f o r a

re se a rc h fu n c tio n in many ways. Some have made i t th e r e s p o n s i

b i l i t y o f one in d iv id u a l , w h ile o th e rs have c re a te d an o f f i c e o f

re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o r even a n o n -p ro f i t re se a rc h fo u n d a tio n .

The purpose o f t h i s s tudy was to g a th e r in fo rm a tio n concern ing

the ways in which c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t ie s o rg an ize to c o n tra c t fo r

and a d m in is te r programs o f sponsored re s e a rc h . D ata re g a rd in g re

sea rch a d m in is tra t io n were examined in a 3x3 design which in c lu d ed

sm all (0 - 10,000 s tu d e n ts ) , medium (10,001 - 20,000 s tu d e n ts ) and

la rg e (+ 20,000 s tu d e n ts ) i n s t i t u t i o n s a t th re e le v e ls o f annual

re se a rc h and developm ent funding (R & D). Those le v e ls w ere sm all

($0 - 5 .5 m i l l io n ) , medium ($5 .6 - 20 .5 m illio n ) and la r g e (+$20.5


2

m i l l i o n ) . T h is d esign was a p p lie d to fo u r s e p a ra te c a te g o r ie s o f d a ta .

They w ere: 1) o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , bo th w ith

in th e r e s e a rc h o f f i c e and in re g a rd to th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e 's r e l a t i o n

to th e u n iv e r s i ty a s a w hole, 2) fu n c tio n s o r s e rv ic e s p rov ided by th e

re s e a rc h o f f i c e o r fo u n d a tio n , 3) an e f f e c t iv e n e s s o r perform ance

a ssessm en t o f each o f th e n in e groups in term s o f th e re p o r te d d a ta ,

and 4) d a ta concern ing some p o s s ib le c r i t e r i a fo r a s se s s in g th e e f f e c

t iv e n e s s o f u n iv e r s i ty -b a s e d o f f i c e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n .

The o r ig in s o f o f f i c e s o f r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n stem from th e

trem endous in c re a s e in th e le v e l o f sponsored re s e a rc h th a t has taken

p la c e s in c e th e beg inn ing o f World War I I . Between th e y e a rs 1941

and 1964, th e le v e l o f sponsored re s e a rc h in American u n iv e r s i t i e s

in c re a se d from $50 m il l io n to a lm ost $2 b i l l i o n ( I n d u s t r ia l R esearch ,

A p r i l 1964). In in c re a s in g num bers, c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s have

c re a te d t r a in in g g ra n ts and o th e r s p e c ia l p r o je c t s . These o f f i c e s

a r e a ls o charged w ith th e r e s p o n s ib i l i t y o f a id in g f a c u l ty in th e

a c q u is i t io n o f re s e a rc h fu n d s. O ther r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f te n in c lu d e

m a in ta in in g in fo rm a tio n concern ing ag e n c ie s th a t su p p o rt re s e a rc h ,

a c t in g a s a l i a i s o n betw een th e u n iv e r s i ty and g ra n tin g a g e n c ie s and

a s s i s t i n g f a c u l ty in th e p re p a ra tio n o f p ro p o sa ls . Some o f f i c e s a re

in v o lv ed in th e a d m in is tra t io n o f th e u n i v e r s i t y 's in te r n a l re se a rc h

fund and in develop ing in te r n a l netw orks fo r im plem enting p o l ic ie s

and p r a c t ic e s in su p p o rt o f c r e a t iv e a c t i v i t i e s .

A lthough th e re i s com m onality a s to r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , th e re e x is t s

a g re a t d e a l o f d iv e r s i t y from one i n s t i t u t i o n to an o th e r in term s of


3

th e a d m in is tra t iv e c o n tro l and o rg a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c tu r e o f th e r e

se a rc h o f f i c e . In p a r t , o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e s and fu n c tio n s

appear to have been determ ined by th e le v e l o f re s e a rc h a t a p a r t i

c u la r i n s t i t u t i o n and a lso by the p re v a i l in g power s t r u c tu r e and

o v e ra l l p o l i t i c a l c lim a te which e x is te d a t th e tim e th e o f f i c e was

e s ta b l is h e d . S te in b e rg and W alters (1972), found th a t th e e x is te n c e

o f a v ic e -p re s id e n t f o r re se a rc h was more common in i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith

h igh annual a l lo c a t io n s fo r re se a rc h and developm ent th an in th o se

i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith r e l a t i v e ly low a l lo c a t io n s f o r re s e a rc h and develop

m ent. The n a tu re and e f f e c t s o f th is o rg a n iz a t io n a l and fu n c t io n a l

d iv e r s i ty c o n s t i tu te d a m ajor reason f o r u n d e rtak in g t h i s s tu d y .

S ta tem ent o f th e Problem

The o b je c t iv e s o f t h i s survey focussed upon th e a c q u is i t io n and

i n te r p r e ta t io n o f da ta p e r ta in in g to th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e ,

fu n c tio n s o r s e rv ic e s , e f f e c t iv e n e s s , and p o te n t ia l e f f e c t iv e n e s s

m easures o f u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n .

McBride (1966), re p o r te d a survey o f 18 u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c e s o f r e

se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . He examined the o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e

and p rim ary fu n c tio n s o f th e s e o f f i c e s . However, d a ta were re p o r te d

on ly in raw form and e f fe c t iv e n e s s was n o t examined in r e l a t i o n to

r e le v a n t o rg a n iz a t io n a l c h a r a c te r i s t i c s . McBride d id ask re se a rc h

a d m in is tra to rs how they and o th e rs viewed t h e i r e f f e c t iv e n e s s , b u t

he d id n o t ask them to sp e c ify the c r i t e r i a upon which they based

t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s . The p re s e n t study w i l l seek to p ro v id e answers


4

to some o f th e se q u e s tio n s . A lso , a r e l a t i v e ly sm all sa itp le s iz e

l im ite d th e n a tu re o f conclusions t h a t could be drawn from the

McBride s tu d y .

A la r g e r sa n ç le s iz e and a more comprehensive in q u iry in to

p o te n t ia l m easures o f e f fe c t iv e n e s s were ençloyed in th e c u rre n t

s tu d y . S ince t h i s s tu d y invo lved su rvey re s e a rc h , th e s p e c i f ic

a re a s o f in q u iry were s ta t e d in q u e s tio n form. A few open ended

q u e s tio n s were in c lu d e d so as to maximize the com prehensiveness o f

acq u ired d a ta . The design o f th e s tu d y n e c e s s i ta te d th e s e p a ra tio n

o f su rvey responses in to n in e groups. These groups were based upon

the s iz e o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n and the le v e l o f re p o r te d annual re

se a rc h and developm ent a l l o c a t io n s . I t was decided th a t th is type

o f form at would be most v a lu a b le to th e p r a c t i t io n e r in th e f i e l d

who w ished to compare h i s own o p e ra t io n w ith th o se o f i n s t i t u t i o n s

o f s im i la r s iz e and re se a rc h volume.

S ince th e in te n t o f t h i s su rvey in v o lv ed the a c q u is i t io n o f

d a ta p e r ta in in g to th e a d m in is tra t io n o f sponsored re s e a rc h , r e s u l t s

were re p o r te d p r im a rily in d e s c r ip t iv e form. Survey re tu rn s were

analyzed in each o f n in e c a te g o r ie s . These c a te g o rie s were as

fo llow s :

1. sm a ll i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith sm all R & D,

2. sm all i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith medium R & D,

3. sm a ll i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e R & D,

4. medium i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith sm a ll R & D,

5. medium i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith medium R & D,


5

6. medium i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e R & D,

7. la rg e i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith sm all R & D,

8. la rg e i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith medium R & D, and

9 . la rg e i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e R & D.

Four d i s t i n c t ty p es o f d a ta were analyzed fo r each o f th e above

n in e c a te g o r ie s . The fo u r types o f o b ta in ed d a ta w ere as fo llow s :

1 . d a ta concern ing o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e and c h a r a c te r i s t i c s

b o th i n te r n a l ly and in r e l a t i o n to th e u n iv e r s i ty as a w hole,

2 . d a ta concern ing b a s ic fu n c tio n s and se rv ic e s p rov ided by th e

re s e a rc h o f f i c e o r fo u n d a tio n ,

3. d a ta concern ing some p o s s ib le c r i t e r i a fo r a s s e s s in g th e

e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h adm inis

t r a t i o n , and

4. d a ta concern ing th e perform ance and e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f each o f

th e n in e groups o f i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Im portance o f th e Problem

The r o le o f th e re se a rc h o f f ic e in g ran t a c q u is i t io n has been

e s p e c ia l ly c r u c ia l in th e p a s t few y e a r s . F e d e ra l su p p o rt f o r

u n iv e r s i ty -b a s e d re s e a rc h has le v e le d o f f in re c e n t y ea rs and in some

academ ic a re a s i t has a c tu a l ly d e c lin e d . In a d d it io n , th e re a re more

u n iv e r s i t i e s com peting f o r re se a rc h funds now than ev er b e fo re . Col

le g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s have had to d e a l w ith problems concern ing the

in ç a c t o f re s e a rc h upon te a c h in g , b u t bo th p u b lic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u

t io n s have rec o g n ize d , and in most in s ta n c e s , welcomed t h e i r re se a rc h


6

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The a b i l i t y o f a u n iv e r s i ty to a c q u ire rese a rc h

funds p la y s a r o le in th a t i n s t i t u t i o n 's c a p a c ity to a t t r a c t q u a l i ty

f a c u l ty and to m ain ta in an a c c e p ta b le le v e l o f f a c u l ty m orale . The

e f f e c t iv e n e s s , o r th e lac k o f i t , o f th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e can then be

s a id to have th e p o te n t ia l to e x e r t a s ig n i f i c a n t im pact upon th e

e n t i r e u n iv e r s i ty community. I n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g have

approached th e problem s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n in d iv e rse ways.

The q u e s tio n p re s e n ts i t s e l f as to w hich, i f any, o f th e se d iv e rse

o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e s m ight be more e f f i c i e n t in th e g ran t ac

q u i s i t io n and a d m in is tra t io n p ro cess? Which o f f i c e s t r u c tu r e o r s e t

o f fu n c tio n s i s b e s t s u ite d to th e s m a ll, medium o r la rg e i n s t i t u

t io n , to th e re se a rc h o r ie n te d i n s t i t u t i o n o r to th e tea c h in g o r ie n t

ed in s t i t u t i o n ?

These q u e s tio n s were o f te n b e in g asked by re se a rc h a d m in is tra to rs

th roughou t th e U n ited S ta te s . The form at fo r t h i s s tudy was develop

ed du ring th e course o f an a d m in is tra t iv e in te rn s h ip w ith th e O ff ic e

o f R esearch S e rv ic e s a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty du ring th e summer

o f 1972. At th a t tim e, th is o f f i c e was about to undertake a study o f

th e o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e s o f u n iv e r s i ty based o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h

a d m in is tra t io n . This study (S te in b e rg and W a lte rs , 1972) was be ing

done a t th e re q u e s t o f th e S o c ie ty o f R esearch A d m in is tra to rs . The

d a ta g a th e red in t h i s e a r l i e r s tu d y p rov ided th e i n i t i a l d a ta , te c h

n iq u e and in s ig h t fo r the c u rre n t p r o je c t . The response to and i n t e r

e s t in th e e a r l i e r study p rov ided th e in ç e tu s to engage in the ex

panded and more conqilex d i s s e r ta t io n re s e a rc h .


7

The f in d in g s o f t h i s s tudy sh o u ld be o f s ig n i f i c a n t v a lu e to

u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c e s o f r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n in e v a lu a tin g t h e i r

own e f f e c t iv e n e s s and i n p lan n in g fu tu re o rg a n iz a t io n a l changes.

I t i s hoped t h a t th e s e changes w i l l le a d to in c re a s e d su ccess in

o b ta in in g g r a n ts , more e f f i c i e n t g ra n t a d m in is tra t io n and g r e a te r

d isse m in a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n to f a c u l ty .

D e f in i t io n o f Terms

1. Sponsored R esearch — th a t f in an ced by so u rces o u ts id e th e

u n iv e r s i ty o r , i n some c a s e s , th a t f in a n c ed by a s p e c ia l

u n iv e r s i ty fund u s u a lly c re a te d to i s s u e sm all g ra n ts o r

p re lim in a ry m onies f o r l a r g e r p r o je c ts a w a itin g o u ts id e

fund ing .

2 . I n d i r e c t C osts o f R esearch — those c o s ts r e s u l t i n g from

item s such as p ro v is io n o f b u ild in g sp a ce , u t i l i t i e s o r

d e p re c ia t io n o f equipm ent which may n o t appear in a p ro

p o s a l o r g r a n t .

3. R & D — t o t a l funds a l lo c a te d fo r re se a rc h and developm ent

p u rp o ses .

4 . Sm all i n s t i t u t i o n s — th o se i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g

w ith e n ro llm e n ts o f 0 - 10,000 s tu d e n ts .

5 . Medium i n s t i t u t i o n s — th o se i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g

w ith e n ro llm e n ts o f 10,001 - 20,000 s tu d e n ts .

6 . Large i n s t i t u t i o n s — th o se i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g

w ith e n ro llm e n ts in ex cess o f 20,000 s tu d e n ts .


8

7. Sm all R & D — t o t a l annual re s e a rc h and development funds

from $0 - 5 .5 m il l io n .

8. Medium R & D — t o t a l annual re se a rc h and development funds

from $5 .6 - 20 .5 m il lio n .

9 . L arge R & D — t o t a l annual re se a rc h and development funds

in excess o f $20.5 m il l io n .

10. S o f t money — fund ing which i s te rm in a te d a t th e end o f a

p r o je c t as opposed to th o se funds which a re c o n tin u in g o r

r e a l lo c a te d on a y e a rly b a s i s .

O rg a n iza tio n o f th e D is s e r ta t io n

C hapter I has se rv ed as an overview o f th e b a s ic purposes o f th e

s tu d y . In c lu d e d w ith in th e f i r s t c h a p te r a re an in tro d u c tio n , an

overview o f th e problem and s e c t io n s d e a lin g w ith a problem s ta te m e n t,

m ajor a re a s o f in q u ir y , im portance o f the problem , a d e f in i t io n o f

term s and f in a l ly a b r i e f o u t l in e concern ing th e o rg a n iz a tio n o f th e

d i s s e r t a t io n .

C hap ter I I , R a tio n a le and R e la ted L i t e r a t u r e , co n ta in s a d e ta i le d

rev iew o f l i t e r a t u r e p e r ta in in g to the b a s ic pu rposes o f the s tu d y .

Both t h e o r e t i c a l and re se a rc h o r ie n te d a r t i c l e s a re c i te d to in c lu d e

a b a s is f o r u n d e rs tan d in g th e h i s to r y o f re s e a rc h a d m in is t ra t io n , th e

c u r r e n t s ta tu s o f th e f i e l d and to p rov ide a f u r th e r foundation and

j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r th e c u rre n t s tu d y .

The th i r d c h a p te r , e n t i t l e d D esign o f th e S tudy , c o n ta in s a

d e s c r ip t io n o f th e a re a and p o p u la tio n under s tu d y . I t a lso d e s c r ib e s


9

how th e sample was s e le c te d , how th e survey In strum en t was designed

and th e p rocedure f o r d a ta c o l le c t io n . A d isc u ss io n o f s p e c i f ic a re a s

o f in q u iry and m ethodology f o r t r e a t i n g th e d a ta i s a ls o in c lu d e d .

P re s e n ta tio n and A n a ly sis o f D ata i s th e s u b je c t o f th e fo u r th

c h a p te r . In c lu d ed a re a breakdown o f s p e c i f ic a reas o f in q u iry and

th e a n a ly s is o f d a ta in each a re a . R e su lts and tre n d s a re n o ted when

e v e r p o s s ib le .

C hapter V, Summary, C onclusions and Recommendations, in c lu d e s a

review o f th e problem , a review o f th e p rocedures used in th e s tu d y ,

a summary o f m ajor f in d in g s and a d isc u s s io n o f tre n d s in re se a rc h

a d m in is tra t io n . F in a l ly , recommendations fo r p o s s ib le o rg a n iz a t io n a l

change and fo r f u r th e r re s e a rc h a re p re se n te d .


CHAPTER I I

RELATED LITERATURE

In tro d u c tio n

T his c h a p te r p ro v id e s an overview o f u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h adm inis

t r a t i o n as w e ll as a d isc u ss io n o f r e le v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and re se a rc h

in v e s t ig a t io n s . A lthough th e re have been very few com prehensive s tu d

ie s o f u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is t r a t io n , th e re does e x is t

a good d ea l o f in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e ty p ic a l fu n c tio n s and respon

s i b i l i t i e s o f th e re s e a rc h o f f ic e in prom oting th e re s e a rc h e n te r

p r i s e . I n d iv id u a l re s e a rc h o f f ic e s have been s tu d ie d q u i te th o ro u g h ly ,

b u t l i t t l e com prehensive re se a rc h has been un d ertak en . L i te r a tu r e

d isc u sse d i n t h i s c h a p te r has been s e le c te d fo r th e c o n tr ib u tio n s i t

w i l l make to th e r e a d e r 's u n d ers tan d in g o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n and

f o r th e c o n tr ib u tio n s i t has a lre a d y made to the re s e a rc h problem and

design im plem ented w ith in th is s tu d y .

T his c h a p te r i s o rgan ized and p re se n te d in th e fo llo w in g manner:

a) an overview o f u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h a d m in is t r a t io n , b) is s u e s in

re se a rc h a d m in is t r a t io n , c) the ro le and fu n c tio n s o f the u n iv e r s i ty

re se a rc h o f f i c e s , and d) s tu d ie s o f u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n .

An Overview o f U n iv e rs ity R esearch A d m in is tra tio n

For many y e a r s , re se a rc h has been recogn ized as one o f th e p r i

mary fu n c tio n s o f American c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Today, much o f

10


11

t h i s research , i s sponsored by so u rces o u ts id e the u n iv e r s i ty . F inan

c i a l su p p o rt i s d e riv e d from th e fe d e ra l government as w e ll as numerous

p r iv a te sou rces such as fo u n d a tio n s , c o rp o ra tio n s o r even in d iv id u a ls .

W ilson (1967, p . 51) su g g ested th a t the p rocess o f sponsored re se a rc h

u s u a lly in c lu d e s a c o n tra c t betw een the c h ie f in v e s t ig a to r , th e spon

s o r and th e u n iv e r s i ty . The g ra n t u su a lly i s ad m in is te red and th e p ro

j e c t conducted in accordance w ith th e s p e c i f ic a t io n s o f th e sponso r.

The p ro je c t must a ls o be conducted in compliance w ith p o l ic ie s and

re g u la tio n s e s ta b l is h e d by th e u n iv e r s i ty .

In th e e a r ly days o f f e d e r a l involvem ent in sponsored re s e a rc h ,

th e re was l i t t l e concern ex p ressed over the manner in which i n s t i t u

t io n s managed th e funds they re c e iv e d . Today, much th e o p p o s ite

appears to be t r u e . The government and th e u n iv e r s i ty have e n te re d

in to a p a r tn e rs h ip w herein d e ta i le d c o n tro l by f e d e ra l agencies i s

a f a c t o f l i f e . A ccording to G r i f f in and Gross (1970, p . 5 ) , t h i s

need f o r d e ta i le d c o n tro l has been brought about by; a) an immense

and un fo rseen developm ent o f s c i e n t i f i c in v e s t ig a t io n as a v i t a l p a r t

o f th e n a t io n 's a c t i v i t y , b) a g re a t in c re a s e in the requ irem en ts of

a d m in is te r in g re s e a rc h a c t i v i t i e s , and c) th e in ad eq u a te developm ent

both, by government and academic i n s t i t u t i o n s o f a d m in is tra t iv e con

c e p ts and p r a c t ic e s equa l to the rese a rc h management demands o f the

p re s e n t and fu tu re .

For most i n s t i t u t i o n s , th e in f lu x o f re se a rc h monies has been a

r e l a t i v e ly r e c e n t phenomenon. DeBurlo (1965, p . 366) no ted th a t in

1962 few er than 500 American c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s re c e iv e d


12

f e d e r a l funds f o r research .. E ig h ty p e rc e n t o f th e $613 m il l io n sp en t

f o r re s e a rc h th a t y e a r went to on ly 50 i n s t i t u t i o n s . The m a jo r ity

o f i n s t i t u t i o n s had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e ex p e rien ce i n th e a d m in is tra

t io n o r a c q u is i t io n o f re s e a rc h fu n d s. C onsequen tly , c o lle g e s and

u n iv e r s i t i e s have had to f in d ways o f b o th a c q u ir in g and a d m in is te r

in g th e s e funds. V arious a d m in is tra t iv e approaches have a r i s e n , in

p a r t , ou t o f th e b a s ic p h ilo so p h y o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f . The

im portance o f sponsored re s e a rc h v a r ie s g r e a t ly among i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The s tr e n g th o f re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n as w e ll as the n a tu re o f on

going re se a rc h a re im p o rta n t f a c to r s in the d e te rm in a tio n o f admin

i s t r a t i v e s t r u c tu r e . W ilson (1967, p . 78) su g g ested t h a t one key

in d ic a t io n o f th e em phasis g iven re s e a rc h in any i n s t i t u t i o n i s

r e f l e c t e d by th e p o s i t io n occupied by th e person re s p o n s ib le fo r

th e program . W ilson f e l t t h a t , q u i te o b v io u sly , a d i f f e r e n t s ta tu s

f o r re s e a rc h was in d ic a te d when th e d i r e c to r was a v ic e - p re s id e n t

as opposed to when th e d i r e c to r was a p a r t - t im e c o o rd in a to r respon

s ib l e to one o f th e deans. W ilson surveyed te n i n s t i t u t i o n s and

found re se a rc h a d m in is t ra t io n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to be v e s te d in many

d i f f e r e n t in d iv id u a ls w ith v a ry in g t i t l e s .

S te in b e rg and W alters (1972) su rveyed 90 c o lle g e s and u n iv e r

s i t i e s in re g a rd to th e o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e s fo r re se a rc h

a d m in is t ra t io n . T able 2-1 re v e a ls th e f a c t th a t among th e 75 i n s t i

tu t io n s who responded , th e re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n r e s p o n s ib i l i ty

was v e s te d in th e hands o f a t l e a s t ten d i f f e r e n t types o f u n iv e r

s i t y p o s i t io n s . Most o f te n , re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n was th e u ltim a te


CD■ D

OQ.C

gQ.

■DCD

C/)o'3O

TABLE 2 -1

CONTROL OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BY SIZE OF INSTITUTION*

■ DCD

C/)C/)

CP8■D(O'3"

P r e s id e n tV .P . V .P .

R e se a rc h AcademicV .P .

F in an ceE xec.

P ro v o s t V .P .V .P .

D ev e l.G rad. Dean Dean I n s t r .

Compt r o l l e r TOTAL

iCD

"n c • 3.

S 8 1 8 3 1 2 0 4 0 0 27

CD M 6 5 5 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 26CD"OOO.caO

L 2 4 8 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 22

■D TOTAL 16 10 21 5 5 3 2 11 1 1 75O3"CT1—HCDO. .

$ 1—H3"Oc

S m all S = 0 - 10 ,000

S tu d e n tsM =

Medium 1 0 ,0 0 1 - 20 ,000

S tu d e n ts

L arg e L = 20 ,000 +

S tu d e n ts

* S te in b e rg and W a lte rs (1 9 7 2 , p . 11)

14

r e s p o n s ib i l i ty o f th e academ ic v ic e - p re s id e n t . This was t ru e in i n s t i

tu t io n s o f a l l s iz e s . T able 2-2 re v e a ls th e f a c t th a t th e le v e l o f

annual re s e a rc h and developm ent a t a given i n s t i t u t i o n does have a

b e a r in g upon re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n s t r u c tu r e . R esearch a d m in is tra

t io n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under th e au sp ices o f th e o f f ic e o f th e p r e s id e n t ,

th e academ ic v ic e - p re s id e n t o r under a g rad u a te dean a re most common

among i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith l e s s than a f iv e m il lio n d o l la r annual r e

se a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n . I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith more than a f iv e

m il l io n d o l la r annual re s e a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n tended to

show much g r e a te r d iv e r s i ty in t h e i r re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n s t r u c

tu re s . E igh ty p e rc e n t o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s having a v ic e -p re s id e n t

fo r re se a rc h re p o r te d an annual re se a rc h and development a l lo c a t io n

in ex cess o f te n m il l io n d o l la r s . T his f in d in g lends su p p o rt to the

W ilson c o n te n tio n th a t th e re i s some p o s i t iv e c o r r e la t io n betw een th e

e x is te n c e o f a v ic e - p re s id e n t fo r re se a rc h and the s ta tu s o f re se a rc h

a t a p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n . The in ç o r ta n c e o f th is v a r ia b le stems

n o t o n ly from th e in f lu e n c e o f a v ic e - p re s id e n t w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty

community, b u t a lso because o f th e alm ost c e r ta in e x is te n c e o f one

o r more f u l l - t im e employees devo ting t h e i r e n e rg ie s to th e re se a rc h

a d m in is t ra t io n e f f o r t . These o f f ic e s a re ty p ic a l ly w e ll developed

and p o ssess a h igh degree o f e x p e r t is e .

C r i t i c a l I s s u e s in U n iv e rs ity Research A d m in is tra tio n

The reaso n s why one i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l p lac e re se a rc h a d m in is tra

t io n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the hands o f a dean and an o th e r in the hands


7JCD■DOQ.C

gQ.

■DCD

(/)(/)

8■D3 .

C Û3"

i3CD

3.3"CD

CD■DOQ.CaO3

■DO

CDQ.

■DCD

C/)(/)

TABLE 2-2

§ CONTROL OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BY TOTAL 1970 R & D*o

1970 T o ta l R & D

I n M il l io n s P r e s id e n tV .P .

R esea rchV .P .

AcademicV .P .

F in a n ce P ro v o s tE xec.V .P .

V .P .D e v e l.

G rad .Dean

DeanI n s t r .

Compt r o l l e r TOTAL

0 -5 7 1 13 0 0 2 0 8 1 0 32

5-10 3 1 1I

■ 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 8

10-15 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8

15-20 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8

20-25 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

+25 2 2 3 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 14

TOTAL 16 10 21 5 5 3 2 11 1 1 75

*S te in b e rg & W a lte rs (1 9 7 2 , p . 13)

16

o f th e academ ic v ic e -p re s id e n t a re ex trem ely complex. I n s t i tu t io n a l

p h ilo so p h y , in te r n a l p o l i t i c s and th e problem s o f h an d lin g la rg e sums

o f re s e a rc h money have a l l e n te re d in to th e in d iv id u a l c o l le g e 's

dec ision -m ak ing p ro ce ss . The trem endous growth in sponsored resea rch

b ro u g h t w ith i t many b e n e f i ts to th e u n iv e r s i ty . However, many pro

blems a ls o a ro se . These problem s made th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l d e c is io n

making p ro ce ss even more d i f f i c u l t . I n d u s t r i a l R esearch (A p ril 1966,

p . 34) l i s t e d some o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s caused by th e in c re a se d empha

s i s upon re se a rc h . They w ere:

1 . f in a n c ia l su p p o rt s h i f t i n g from th e i n s t i t u t i o n to th e fed

e r a l government,

2 . a s h i f t i n f a c u l ty lo y a l ty from th e i n s t i t u t i o n to th e spon

so rin g agency,

3. th e p o te n t ia l n e g le c t o f te a c h in g ,

4 . the form ation o f s p e c ia l re s e a rc h i n s t i t u t e s , c e n te rs and

la b o ra to r ie s to han d le the g r e a te r re se a rc h volume, and

5. a change in emphasis from s tu d e n t i n i t i a t e d g radua te resea rch

to sponsored re se a rc h d ic ta te d by o u ts id e needs.

P r ic e (1965, p . 55) suggested th a t th e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f sponsored re

se a rc h has c re a te d a h igh degree o f f r i c t i o n betw een teach in g and re

se a rc h fu n c tio n s . T his f r i c t i o n has le d to con fusion over ad m in is tra

t iv e p o l ic ie s and fundam ental changes in th e n a tu re o f many i n s t i t u

t io n s . In some i n s t i t u t i o n s re s e a rc h i s a p rim ary c r i t e r io n f o r pro

m otion . The d o c tr in e o f p u b lis h o r p e r is h i s common in re se a rc h

o r ie n te d u n iv e r s i t i e s . In some i n s t i t u t i o n s a d m in is tra t iv e p o l ic ie s


17

a re vague and f a c u l ty members a re to m betw een tea c h in g and p re s s u re s ,

r e a l o r Im agined, to do re s e a rc h . The p ro p er b a la n c e betw een te a c h

in g and re s e a rc h has been deba ted a t v i r t u a l l y every m ajor i n s t i t u

t io n . P erhaps th o se i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith the g r e a te s t concern fo r th e

im pact o f re s e a rc h upon te a c h in g have o f te n e le c te d to p la c e th e re

se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under the c o n tro l o f th e academ ic

v ic e - p re s id e n t . T his type o f o r g a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l i s o f te n found in

te a c h in g o r ie n te d i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la r g e c o lle g e s o f e d u c a tio n and

r e l a t i v e ly low annual a l lo c a t io n s f o r re s e a rc h and developm ent. P la c

in g re s e a rc h under th e c o n tro l o f th e academic v ic e - p re s id e n t may have

been done so th a t th o se re s p o n s ib le f o r tea c h in g would be a b le to more

c lo s e ly m on ito r th e im pact o f re s e a rc h upon th e i n s t r u c t io n a l program .

The concern f o r th e im pact o f re s e a rc h upon te a c h in g i s a r e a l i s s u e

a t many i n s t i t u t i o n s .

An a d d it io n a l f a c to r o f concern to c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s

engaged in re se a rc h i s th e c o s t o f re s e a rc h to th a t p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i

tu t io n . Many g ra n tin g ag en c ies make p ro v is io n s f o r reim bursem ent o f

what a re known as " I n d i r e c t c o s t s ." These in c lu d e such item s as

b u i ld in g sp ace , u t i l i t i e s , o f f i c e equipm ent and the h i r in g o f tea c h

ing p e rso n n e l to re p la c e th e f a c u l ty menber engaged in re s e a rc h . The

r a te a t w hich in d i r e c t c o s ts w i l l be reim bursed i s o f te n n e g o tia te d

betw een th e i n s t i t u t i o n and th e sp o n so r. Depending on the i n d i r e c t

c o s t re inbursem en t r a t e , even sponso red re se a rc h may c o n s t i tu te a f in

a n c ia l lo s s to th e c o lle g e o r u n iv e r s i ty . Some u n iv e r s i ty f in a n c ia l

o f f i c e r s go so f a r as to c la im t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l sponsored re se a rc h


18

i s conducted a t a f in a n c ia l lo s s to th e h o s t i n s t i t u t i o n .

To c o u n te r th e u n iv e r s i ty p o s i t io n f o r f u l l i n d i r e c t c o s t reim

bu rsem en t, many sponsors argue th a t th e i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l have to pay

f o r space and u t i l i t i e s r e g a rd le s s o f w hether o r n o t th e re i s an on

going re se a rc h p r o je c t . F u rtherm ore , sponsors contend th a t as p a r t o f

th e p u b lic s e rv ic e o b l ig a tio n s o f an i n s t i t u t i o n o f h ig h e r le a rn in g ,

they shou ld be w i l l in g to sh a re a t l e a s t a p a r t o f th e c o s t o f re s e a rc h .

R egard less o f th e r e s p e c tiv e p o s it io n s in vo lved in t h i s i s s u e , many

c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s a re r e lu c ta n t to a c ce p t re s e a rc h g ra n ts

u n le ss the sponsor i s w i l l in g to reim burse th e i n s t i t u t i o n f o r v i r t u a l

ly a l l i n d i r e c t c o s ts . C.C. Furnas (1967), P re s id e n t E m eritu s , S ta te

U n iv e rs ity o f New York a t B u ffa lo , in ad d re ss in g a group o f u n iv e r s i ty

p re s id e n ts on th e problem s o f i n d i r e c t co st: reim bursem ent, no ted th a t

re se a rc h g ra n ts o f te n do n o t in c lu d e any a l lo c a t io n fo r th e s a la r y o f

th e p r in c ip a l in v e s t ig a to r . Sponsors ig n o re th e f a c t th a t a n o th e r

p ro fe s s o r must be h ire d to tak e ov er a t l e a s t a p o r tio n o f th e te a c h

in g d u tie s o f th e r e s e a rc h e r . Furnas in d ic a te d th a t i f t h i s p o lic y

co n tin u e s , u n iv e r s i ty m ight w e ll p ro sp e r in to bank rup tcy .

F i n a l l y , many i n s t i t u t i o n s have encoun tered s e r io u s f in a n c ia l

problem s when a g ra n t i s te rm in a te d . There a re in c re a s in g numbers

o f employees on s o -c a l le d s o f t money whom th e u n iv e r s i ty may be fo rced

to s a la ry d i r e c t l y when th e g ra n t e x p ir e s . Most c o lle g e s now inform

employees upon h i r in g th a t t h e i r employment i s on ly fo r the d u ra tio n

o f a p a r t i c u l a r p r o je c t . T y p ic a lly , te n u re i s n o t g ran te d th e se

em ployees.


19

The im pact on i n s t r u c t io n , th e problem s of i n d i r e c t c o s t reim

bursem ent and th e i s s u e o f what to do w ith enployees on " s o f t money"

a re a l l c r i t i c a l is s u e s in an i n s t i t u t i o n 's d e c is io n to engage in re

se a rc h and developm ent a c t i v i t i e s . The in d iv id u a l c o l le g e 's approach

to th e se problem s i s c e r t a in to have a b e a rin g on the c o n tr o l , s iz e

and o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e o f th e re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o p e ra tio n .

The scope o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s g iven to the re se a rc h o f f i c e a r e , in

p a r t , the outcome to th e i n s t i t u t i o n 's a t t i tu d e s tow ard th e se is s u e s .

E u rich (1967, p . 1) has s a id th a t " to p u t the problem o f u n iv e r s i ty

re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n in to i t s c l e a r e s t p e rs p e c tiv e , i t must be

viewed in i t s f u l l e s t co n tex t . . . as one m a n ife s ta tio n o f th e peren

n i a l problem o f th e r e la t io n s h ip o f e d u c a tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s to t h e i r

s o c ie ty ."

The Role and F unction o f th e U n iv e rs ity O ff ic e o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio n

Althougji o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o f te n have d i f f e r e n t

names and a re c o n tro l le d and o rg an iz ed in numerous ways, th e re does

appear to be some commanality as to fu n c t io n . W ilin e r and H endricks

(1972) l i s t e d seven b a s ic r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f an o f f i c e o f g ra n ts

a d m in is tra t io n . They a re :

1. th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l programs which m ight suppo rt

p r o je c ts o f i n t e r e s t to th e f a c u l ty ,

2 . communication o f in fo rm a tio n reg ard in g programs to th e

f a c u l ty and th e t r a n s m it t in g o f fa c u lty i n t e r e s t s to appro

p r i a t e government a g e n c ie s .


20

3. a s s is ta n c e In th e p re p a ra tio n o f p ro p o sa ls ,

4 . a d m in is tra t io n o f g ra n ts from th e tim e o f award to th e

tim e o f com p le tion ,

5 . a c t as a cam pus-based W ashington l i a i s o n f o r th e u n iv e r

s i t y

6. m a in ta in c o n ta c ts w ith o th e r u n iv e r s i t i e s and r e la te d

o rg a n iz a tio n s f o r a id in th e s o lu t io n o f g ra n t a d m in is tra

t io n p rob lem s, and

7. keep inform ed o f changes in g ra n t p o l ic ie s and p ro ced u res .

The a b i l i t y o f an o f f i c e to perform th e se and o th e r s e rv ic e s v a r ie s

g r e a t ly among i n s t i t u t i o n s . Some la rg e o p e ra tio n s have f u r th e r ex

panded s e rv ic e s in to the a re a s o f e d i t o r i a l a s s i s ta n c e , te c h n ic a l

ty p in g , i l l u s t r a t i o n s , p h o tog raph ic s e rv ic e s and even the design and

developm ent o f s o p h is t ic a te d ex perim en ta l equipm ent. ' These s e rv ic e s

a re u s u a lly foimd on ly i n u n iv e r s i t i e s g e n e ra tin g a h ig h volume of

annual re s e a rc h .

Perhaps th e most e f f i c i e n t way to view th e fu n c tio n s o f th e

re s e a rc h o f f i c e i s to d iv id e th e numerous r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in to th e

a re a s o f : a) p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s such as co m p ila tio n o f sponsor

in fo rm a tio n and d isse m in a tio n o f g ra n t o p p o r tu n i t ie s to th e f a c u l ty ,

b) p ro p o sa l p r e p a ra t io n in c lu d in g e d i t in g , rep ro d u c tio n and te c h n i

c a l ty p in g , c) a c t iv e account a d m in is tra t io n which in c lu d e s m onitor

in g o f accounts and n e g o tia t io n o f overruns and e x te n s io n s , and d)

accoun ting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y such as c o s t c o n tro l p ro c e d u re s , f i s

c a l r e p o r ts to th e sponsor and com putation o f i n d i r e c t c o s t r a t e s .


21

V ir tu a l ly a l l o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n engage i n p re -p ro p o sa l

a c t i v i t i e s . The v a s t m a jo r ity o f o f f ic e s a ls o in v o lv e them selves in

p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n and th e r e appears to be a tren d tow ard th e e s ta

b lish m en t o f s e p a ra te p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n s . In some u n iv er

s i t i e s , t h i s has gone so f a r .a s to en ab le a f a c u l ty member to b r in g in

th e nuc leus o f a re s e a rc h id e a and have the p ro p o sa l developm ent sec

t io n a c tu a l ly do th e work o f w r i t in g th e p ro p o sa l. R e lie v in g th e fa c

u l ty member o f th e burden o f p ro p o sa l w r i t in g migjht le a d to s ig n i f ic a n t

in c re a s e s in th e number o f p ro p o sa ls subm itted fo r fund ing .

With re g a rd to a c t iv e account a d m in is tra t io n , S te in b e rg and

W alters found t h a t 62% o f th e o f f ic e s surveyed rep o rted t h a t they

engaged in t h i s a c t i v i t y . Only 25% o f re se a rc h o f f ic e s re p o r te d be ing

in v o lv ed in a cco u n tin g and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y . In most c a se s , accounting

and f i s c a l a c t i v i t i e s were hand led by th e budget o r f in a n c e o f f i c e o f

th e p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n .

W ile (p . 180) n o ted th a t th e re e x is te d many s u c c e s s fu l forms fo r

th e o rg a n iz a tio n o f sponsored re s e a rc h . W ile addressed h im s e lf n o t

to o rg a n iz a tio n o r fu n c t io n , b u t to th e so c a l le d human elem ent as

making th e c ru c ia l c o n tr ib u tio n to th e f i e l d o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra

t io n . For W ile , e f f e c t i v e communication c o n s t i tu te d th e key to suc

c e s s fu l a d m in is t ra t io n . The re se a rc h a d m in is tra to r a c ts as th e b u f fe r

betw een th e p e rfo rm ers o f re se a rc h and th e s t r in g e n t r e g u la tio n s and

o b lig a tio n s inposed by o u ts id e sp o n so rsh ip . Depending upon h is a b i l i t y

to communicate, th e r e s e a rc h a d m in is t r a to r , in h is ro le , may be


22

p e rc e iv e d by th e f a c u l ty as an in t r u s iv e impediment o r a s a f r ie n d p ro

v id in g a needed s ie rv ice . L ik ew ise , h i s a b i l i t y to communicate may be

a key in g re d ie n t in a s p o n s o r 's d e c is io n to fund a p a r t i c u l a r p r o je c t .

Mendelsohn (1971) s tu d ie d th e r o le o f th e u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h

a d m in is t ra to r . He found some consensus among f a c u l ty , u n iv e r s i ty ad

m in is t r a to r s and re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to rs as to t h e i r expected r o le .

Consensus o ccu rred in th e p e rc e iv e d ta s k s o f p ro p o sa l p r e p a r a t io n , spon

s o r in fo rm a tio n and c o o rd in a tio n o r management o f th e re se a rc h p ro cess

w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty . However, Mendelsohn found th a t when p re se n te d

w ith more s p e c i f i c b e h a v io ra l e x p e c ta tio n s re g a rd in g th e r o le o f th e

re se a rc h a d m in is t r a to r , th e consensus a c ro ss th e th re e aud iences de

c lin e d s u b s ta n t i a l l y . F a c u lty tended to d e fin e th e re se a rc h adm inis

t r a t o r ' s r o le as in v o lv in g more a s s is ta n c e w ith p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n

th an d id th e re se a rc h a d m in is tra to rs them selves. In e sse n c e , Mendel

sohn ^ound a good d ea l o f ro le c o n f l i c t f o r the re s e a rc h a d m in is t r a to r .

A gain , th e human elem ent i s th e m ost l i k e ly v a r ia b le i n t h i s p e rc e iv e d

r o le c o n f l i c t . I t i s im p o rtan t fo r th e u n iv e r s i ty w ish ing to become

more invo lved in re s e a rc h to c lo s e ly examine t h e i r p ro p o sa l develop

m ent s e r v ic e s . This i s an a re a t h a t re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to rs may be

a v o id in g , b u t c e r ta in ly shou ld examine in t h e i r d e s ir e to improve s e r

v ic e s to the f a c u l ty . The f a c u l ty member d e s i r in g th is s e rv ic e must

a ls o r e a l iz e th a t i t may re q u ire more p e rso n n e l th an the re se a rc h

o f f i c e can a f fo rd and a lso th a t he has an o b l ig a t io n to do much o f

the i n i t i a l work in fo rm u la tin g h i s id e a s i n to a w orkable p ro p o sa l.


23

S tu d ie s o f U n iv e rs i ty R esearch A d m in is tra tio n

The l i t e r a t u r e does p rov ide an ample th e o r e t i c a l u n d e rs tan d in g

o f th e r o le o f th e re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to r a s w e ll a s in s ig h t in to the

m ajor problem s c o n fro n tin g him in h is jo b . However, re s e a rc h d a ta p e r

ta in in g to u n iv e r s i ty based o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n a re r a r e ly

seen in any o rg an iz ed , n a t io n a l p e rs p e c tiv e . The N a tio n a l Science

Foundation does com pile s t a t i s t i c s re v e a lin g th e annual amount o f re se a rc h

and developm ent funds g iven to p a r t i c u la r i n s t i t u t i o n s . In d iv id u a l

i n s t i t u t i o n s g e n e ra te p u b lic a tio n s which d e sc r ib e t h e i r re s e a rc h adm ini

s t r a t i o n s e rv ic e s and t h e i r o v e ra l l re s e a rc h program s. In d iv id u a l and

i s o la te d b i t s o f in fo rm a tio n do e x is t and i f p ro p e rly p u lle d to g e th e r

would p ro v id e a g r e a te r understand ing o f how u n iv e r s i t i e s a d m in is te r

program s of sponsored re s e a rc h .

The need fo r com parative d a ta and th e sh a rin g o f s o lu t io n s to

common problem s have s tim u la te d re se a rc h a d m in is tra to rs to form p ro

f e s s io n a l o rg a n iz a t io n s to f a c i l i t a t e com m unications. The N a tio n a l

C ouncil o f U n iv e rs i ty R esearch A d m in is tra to rs and th e S o c ie ty o f

R esearch A d m in is tra to rs a re two such o rg a n iz a t io n s . Even though

they have p rov ided a forum fo r th e sh a rin g and d isse m in a tio n o f id e a s ,

th e la c k o f p e r io d ic com prehensive re se a rc h i s s t i l l q u i te e v id e n t.

McBride (1966), D ire c to r o f th e O ffic e o f R esearch and P ro je c t

A d m in is tra tio n , U n iv e rs i ty o f R ocheste r, surveyed 18 o f f i c e s o f r e

se a rch a d m in is t ra t io n . He d id ask many q u e s tio n s p e r ta in in g to o rg a n i

z a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e and fu n c tio n s o f th e se o f f i c e s , however, th e d a ta

were never p u b lish ed and rem ained in raw form . Like o th e r s , t h i s


24

,vf;rc-T p ro v id ed d a ta on in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u t because o f l im ite d

sa. s iz e and th e la rg e number o f open ended q u e s tio n s , th e u s e fu l

ness 'f th e d a ta was l im ite d . McBride a ls o asked r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra

to r s how they and o th e rs viewed t h e i r e f f e c t iv e n e s s , b u t he d id n o t

ask them to s p e c ify th e c r i t e r i a upon which they based t h e i r judge

m ents. The m ajor c o n tr ib u t io n o f th e McBride s tu d y l i e s in the f a c t

th a t i t p ro v id ed an u n d ers tan d in g o f many o f th e r e le v a n t v a r ia b le s

one must in v e s t ig a te when doing t h i s type o f re s e a rc h . M ajor v a r ia b le s

in th e McBride s tu d y in c lu d e d p ro p o sa l p re p a ra t io n , c o n tra c t and g ra n t

n e g o t ia t io n , c o n tr a c t and g ra n t a d m in is t ra t io n , s c i e n t i f i c o r te c h

n ic a l r e p o r t s , review o f s t a t e and fe d e ra l l e g i s l a t i o n , s e c u r i ty

c le a ra n c e m a t te r s , r e p o r ts on sponsored a c t i v i t i e s , p a te n t m a tte rs

and n e g o t ia t io n o f overruns and e x te n s io n s . The breakdown o f i n te r n a l

a d m in is tra t iv e a c t i v i t i e s was o f s ig n i f i c a n t h e lp in th e d esig n o f

t h i s s tu d y .

A se a rc h o f th e l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a ls one f u r th e r s tudy concern ing

th e a d m in is tra t io n o f f a c u l ty re se a rc h p r o je c t s . W ilson (1967) in a

d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n a t E as t Texas S ta te U n iv e r s i ty , s tu d ie d re se a rc h

a d m in is tra t io n in te n p u b lic u n iv e r s i t i e s . The W ilson s tu d y found

th a t th e ph ilo so p h y o f a u n iv e r s i ty toward re s e a rc h i s in d ic a te d by

the o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e which i t has e s ta b l is h e d fo r th e adm inis

t r a t io n o f r e s e a rc h . F u rtherm ore , th e s e r io u s n e s s o f a u n iv e r s i t y 's

commitment to re s e a rc h i s r e f l e c t e d i n th e p rocedu res and p o l ic ie s

which have been adop ted to govern such re s e a rc h . The prim ary focus

o f th e W ilson s tu d y c e n te re d on a t t i t u d e s tow ard re s e a rc h and t h e i r


25

e f f e c t s on re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . R esearch p rocedu res were s tu d ie d

from th e p re p a ra tio n o f p ro p o sa ls to f i n a l r e p o r ts and the u ltim a te

d isse m in a tio n o f r e s u l t s .

S e v e ra l ln ç o r ta n t recommendations were made as a r e s u l t o f th e

W ilson s tu d y . W ith re g a rd to a d m in is tra t iv e s t r u c tu r e , I t was su g g ested

th a t every u n iv e r s i ty d e s ig n a te a re se a rc h o f f i c e r to be re s p o n s ib le f o r

th e a d m in is tra t io n o f g r a n ts . I t was deemed d e s ir a b le th a t t h i s I n d iv i

dual be d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s ib le to th e p re s id e n t . W ilson n o ted th a t when

re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n was added to th e o th e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f an

a d m in is t r a to r , I t was reg ard ed as a su b o rd in a te o b l ig a t io n . I t was

s t r e s s e d t h a t the re se a rc h o f f ic e must be p e rc e iv e d by f a c u l ty members

as a s e rv ic e f a c i l i t y w hich encourages t h e i r re s e a rc h e f f o r t s and g iv es

a s s i s ta n c e . W ilson a ls o devoted a good d e a l o f a t t e n t io n to th e admin

i s t r a t i o n o f I n te r n a l re s e a rc h funds and th e e s ta b lish m e n t o f re se a rc h

c o u n c ils to a id In th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f th e se funds.

The W ilson s tu d y concluded w ith a long l i s t o f recommendations

re g a rd in g a re a s In need o f f u r th e r s tu d y . R esearch was recommended

which would p ro v id e a com parison o f a d m in is tra t iv e o rg a n iz a tio n s among

a w id e r range o f b o th p u b l ic and p r iv a te I n s t i t u t i o n s . The need fo r

a l a r g e r sa n p le was c le a r ly reco g n ized . In th is way, com parisons based

upon th e o b ta in e d d a ta would be more g e n e ra llz a b le and o f g re a te r use

to I n s t i t u t i o n s In th e p ro ce ss o f e s ta b l is h in g o r m odifying t h e i r

e f f o r t s In th e a re a o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . I t I s to t h i s p u r

pose th a t th e p re s e n t s tu d y ad d resses I t s e l f . The desig n o f th e c u rre n t

s tu d y , d isc u sse d In c h a p te r th re e . I s In p a r t b ased upon th e recommenda

tio n s found In the W ilson re s e a rc h .


CHAPTER I I I

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Review o f th e Problem

D uring th e summer o f 1972, a s tudy o f th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s tru c

tu re o f u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d o f f ic e s o f r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n was under

taken by th e O ff ic e o f R esearch S e rv ic e s a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs ity .

In develop ing th e in s tru m en t used in th a t s tu d y , in te rv ie w s were con

ducted w ith, re s e a rc h a d m in is t r a to r s , f a c u l ty and v a rio u s u n iv e r s i ty

o f f i c i a l s a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty . These in te rv ie w s had as

t h e i r goal th e developm ent o f a g r e a te r u n d e rs tan d in g on th e p a r t o f

t h i s r e s e a rc h e r a s to th e r o le and fu n c tio n s o f th e u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h

a d m in is t r a to r .

In o rd e r to ga in an even f u r th e r u n ders tand ing o f th e f ie ld o f

u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n and a ls o to f u r th e r d e fin e the

a re a o f in q u ir y , in te rv ie w s were a ls o conducted w ith re se a rc h adm inis

t r a t i o n p e rso n n e l a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs i ty , Governors S ta te Univer

s i t y in I l l i n o i s , and a t th e U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan. As th e se i n t e r

views p ro g re s se d , th e q u e s tio n s asked in c re a se d in s p e c i f i c i t y . The

d a ta g a th e red were in d isp e n sa b le to th e developm ent o f th e p i l o t study

in s tru m e n t (Appendix A ).

R e su lts o f th e p i l o t s tu d y (S te in b e rg and W a lte rs , 1972) were com

p i le d and su b m itted f o r p u b l ic a tio n to th e S o c ie ty o f R esearch Adminis

t r a t o r s . The o b ta in e d d a ta d e a l t p r im a rily w ith o rg a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l

26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited wiwithout permission.

27

and a b r i e f look a t b a s ic fu n c t io n s . The d a ta l e f t many q u e s tio n s

unanswered. A need fo r a d d it io n a l in fo rm a tio n a ro se in th e a re a o f

o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e , c o n tro l and fu n c tio n s in r e l a t i o n to th e

s iz e o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n and th e le v e l o f re s e a rc h a c t i v i t y a t th e

i n s t i t u t i o n . A lso , th e p i l o t s tu d y d id n o t e l i c i t any d a ta concern

in g e f fe c t iv e n e s s o r a c c o u n ta b i l i ty c r i t e r i a . I t was deemed d e s ir a b le

to se cu re in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e se is s u e s and co n seq u en tly , th e

d i s s e r t a t io n re s e a rc h was i n i t i a t e d . Feedback from re s e a rc h admin

i s t r a t o r s who responded to th e i n i t i a l s tudy confirm ed th e need and

d e s ire f o r t h i s a d d i t io n a l in fo rm a tio n .

In th e fo rm u la tio n o f g o a ls f o r th e c u r re n t s tu d y , i t was decided

to examine o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n in n in e i n s t i t u t i o n a l

c a te g o r ie s . These c a te g o r ie s were p a r t i t io n e d on th e b a s is o f th e

s iz e o f th e c o lle g e o r u n iv e r s i ty , i . e . , s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n t, and a ls o

on th e b a s is o f th e annual volume o f re se a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a

t io n s . In fo rm atio n was e l i c i t e d concern ing o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e ,

fu n c t io n s , an e f f e c t iv e n e s s assessm ent based on re p o r te d d a ta and

some p o te n t ia l c r i t e r i a f o r a s se s s in g the e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f a re se a rc h

o f f i c e .

S e le c t io n o f th e Sample

The p o p u la tio n s tu d ie d in c lu d ed a l l c o lle g e s o r u n iv e r s i t i e s

having a c e n tr a l iz e d o f f i c e o r o rg a n iz a tio n fo r th e purpose o f c o n tra c

tin g fo r and a d m in is te r in g program s o f sponsored re s e a rc h . The sample

o f 200 o f f ic e s was drawn from a m aste r l i s t p ro v id ed by th e N a tio n a l


28

S cience Foundation and a ls o from th e membership l i s t o f th e S o c ie ty

o f R esearch A d m in is tra to rs . Table 3-1 c h a ra c te r iz e s th e i n s t i t u t i o n s

sam pled in term s o f en ro llm en t s iz e and l e v e l o f re s e a rc h and develop

ment a l lo c a t io n s .

TABLE 3-1

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTIONS IN ORIGINAL SAMPLE

ENROLLMENTSMALL

($0 - 5 .5 )

R & D (IN MILLIONS)

MEDIUM ($5 .6 - 20 .5 )

LARGE(+20.6) TOTAL

Sm all (0 - 10,000) 55 25 9 89

Medium (10 ,001 - 20,000) 30 26 11 67

L arge(+20,000) 15 12 17 44

TOTAL 100 63 37 200

E ig h ty n in e i n s t i t u t i o n s were i n th e sm all en ro llm en t (0 - 10,000)

c a teg o ry w h ile 67 i n s t i t u t i o n s were in th e medium (10,000 - 20,000) c a te

gory and 44 w ere in the la rg e (+20,000) group. W ith re g a rd to th e 1971-

72 re s e a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n , 100 i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 50% o f the

sample were i n the sm all (0 - $5 .5 m illio n ) g roup , 63 were in the


29

medium ($5.6 - 20 .5 m il l io n ) group and 37 i n s t i t u t i o n s had a l lo c a t io n s

in excess o f $20 .6 m il l io n . F i f t y f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r 27.5% o f th e

o r ig in a l sample were in th e sm all R & D, sm all e n ro llm en t c a te g o ry .

T his re p re s e n te d th e l a r g e s t c a teg o ry in th e sam ple. The s m a lle s t

group was sm all i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e re se a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a

t io n s . Nine i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 4.5% o f th e sample w ere in th is ca teg o ry .

Both p u b l ic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s were in c lu d e d in th e sa n ç le .

O ff ic e s a t 138 p u b l ic c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t ie s and 62 p r iv a te c o l

le g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s w ere su rveyed , ^-oth p u b lic and p r iv a te s e c to r s

o f ed u ca tio n w ere p r e s e n t i n e i ^ t o f the n in e b a s ic c a te g o r ie s under

in v e s t ig a t io n . There w ere no p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n ; in th e la rg e e n r o l l

m ent; la rg e re s e a rc h and developm ent ca te g o ry . A l i s t o f a l l i n s t i t u

t io n s in th e o r ig in a l sample w i l l be found in Appendix B. In summary,

th e sample r e p re s e n te d a b ro ad range o f p u b lic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u

t io n s o f w idely v a ry in g s iz e and annual le v e l o f re s e a rc h and develop

ment a l lo c a t io n s .

In s tru m e n ta tio n

The q u e s tio n n a ire used in t h i s study was developed a f t e r an analy

s i s o f th e p i l o t s tu d y r e s u l t s and a f t e r c lo se c o n s u lta t io n w ith u n iv e r

s i t y re se a rc h a d m in is t r a to r s . The f i n a l in s tru m e n t (Appendix C ), en

t i t l e d "O rg an iz a tio n f o r R esearch A d m in is tra tio n ," con ta ined q u e s tio n s

in fo u r b a s ic c a te g o r ie s . They were; a) o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e ,

b) fu n c t io n s , c) r e p o r te d e f f e c t iv e n e s s o r a c c o u n ta b i l i ty c r i t e r i a , and

d) p o te n t ia l m easures o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s . A d e s c r ip t io n o f th e in s tru m e n t


30

fo llow s :

Q uestions p e r ta in in g to o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e . (Numbers r e f e r to

item number in q u e s tio n n a ire )

1 . What y e a r was your o f f ic e e s ta b lis h e d ? ______

2 . To whom i s your o f f ic e d i r e c t l y re sp o n s ib le ?P re s . V .P. R esearch

V.P. Acad. Dean Grad. S tu d ie s P rovost Exec. V.P. V.P. F inance

V.P. D evel. C om ptro ller O ther (sp e c ify )

3. How a re re s e a rc h p o l ic ie s fo rm ula ted a t your in s t i tu t io n ?

Admin. Admin. Shared Admin. & F a c u lty F acu ltyDominance P r im a rily F a c u lty R esponsib . P r im a rily Dominance

5 . Number o f f u l l tim e e q u iv a le n t p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f in o f f i c e .

1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 4 1 5 - 1 8 1 9 - 2 2 2 3 - 2 6 + 2 7

6 . Number o f f u l l tim e c l e r i c a l enployees in o f f i c e .

1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 18 19 - 22 23 - 26 + 27

7. Using th e most re c e n t d a ta you have a v a i la b le , p le a s e e s tim a te the annual o p e ra tin g budget o f your o f f i c e .

$0-24,999 $25-49,999 $50-74,999 $75-99,999 $100-149,999

$150-250,000 +250,000

9 . Does th e re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o f f ic e have c o n tro l over th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d i r e c t c o s t funds?

Yes No P a r t i a l l y I f no o r p a r t ia l ly , who c o n tro ls th esefunds?


31

10. How a re i n d i r e c t c o s t funds d is t r ib u te d ? P le a se e s tim a te th e p e rcen tag e d i s t r ib u t e d to each o f th e fo llo w in g . (Should t o t a l to 100%)

R esearch a d m in is t ra t io n o f f i c e _̂__

Academic u n i t s o r d ep a rtm en ta l re se a rc h ______________

G eneral u n iv e r s i ty funds__________________ ______________

F a c u lty re s e a rc h funds '

O thers ( sp e c ify )___________________________ ______________

18. W ith re g a rd to th e i n t e r n a l o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e o f youro f f i c e , p la c e a check n e x t to any o f the fo llow ing which appear to be a p p lic a b le .

_______ O ffic e s t a f f a re a ss ig n ed to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs .

JD ffice s t a f f a re a ss ig n e d to v a rio u s c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty .

Our o f f i c e has a s e p a ra te p roposa l development s e c t io n .

19. P le a se sk e tc h a b r i e f diagram o f your in te r n a l o f f ic e s t r u c tu r e .

20. I f you a re co n tem p la tin g any changes in th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e o f y ou r o f f i c e , p le a s e d iscu ss th e se changes b r i e f l y .

Q uestions p e r ta in in g to o f f i c e fu n c t io n s .

8. P le a s e p la c e a check n e x t to any o f th e fo llo w in g which i s a r e s p o n s ib i l i ty o f your o f f i c e .

______ P re -p ro p o s a l a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . - co m p ila tio n o f in fo rm a tio n ,a s s is ta n c e to f a c u l ty in the s e le c t io n o f p o t e n t ia l spons o r s , e t c .

P ro p o sa l p r e p a r a t io n , i . e . - e d i t in g , re p ro d u c tio n , p re p a r a t io n , ty p in g , e t c .

A c tiv e acco u n t a d m in is tra t io n , i . e . - m o n ito ring o f a c c o u n ts , te c h n ic a l r e p o r ts f o r sp o n so r, n e g o tia t io n o f o v e rru n s and e x te n s io n s , e tc .

A ccounting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y , i . e . - c o s t c o n tro l p ro c e d u re s , com putation o f in d i r e c t c o s t r a t e s , f i s c a l r e p o r ts f o r sp o n so rs , e tc .


32

Q uestions p e r ta in in g to e f fe c t iv e n e s s o r a c c o u n ta b i l i ty d a ta »

4. How do you p e rc e iv e the re s e a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f your f a c u l ty and a d n d n ls tra t lo n ?

M inimal Below Average About Average F a ir ly S trong Very S trong

11. P le a s e e s tim a te th e p e rcen tag e o f re se a rc h funds a t your I n s t i t u t io n t h a t come from th e fo llo w in g so u rc e s .

P r iv a te

F ed e ra l

I n te r n a l

0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%

0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%

0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%

12. For th e most r e c e n t y e a r d a ta I s a v a i la b le , p le a s e In d ic a te your t o t a l volume o f awards. (T o ta l R & D In m illio n s )

0 -1 .5 1 .6 -5 .5 5 .6 -1 0 .5 1 0 .6 -1 5 .5 1 5 .6 -2 0 .5 2 0 .6 -2 5 .5 2 5 .6 -3 0 .5

I f g r e a te r than 3 0 .5 , p le a s e In d ic a te approxim ate amount.______

13. For the most re c e n t y e a r d a ta I s a v l l a b le , p le a s e In d ic a te the number o f p ro p o sa ls which your o f f ic e p ro cessed and su bm itted f o r fund ing .

C-99 100fl99 200-399 400-599 600-799 800-999 1000-1199

1200-1399 1400-1599 +1600

14. For th e most re c e n t y e a r d a ta I s a v a i la b le , p le a s e e s tim a te th e p e rc e n ta g e o f p ro p o sa ls which were funded.

29% o r l e s s 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 69-69% 70-79% 80% o r more

15. Using th e l a s t th re e y ea rs as a base p e r io d , p le a s e e s tim a te th e changes w hich have occu rred In your o f f i c e by c i r c l i n g th e a p p ro p r ia te number.


33

Large LargeD ecrease Moder. L i t t l e Moder. In c re a se

-30% D ecrease change In c re a se +30% o r more -29 - 10% ±9% +10 - 29% o r more

Number o f P r o f . s t a f f 1 2 3 4 5

Number o f C le r . S ta f f 1 2 3 4 5

% o f p ro p o sa ls funded 1 2 3 4 5

Annual volume o f awards 1 2 3 4 5

Number o f d i f f e r e n tsponso rs 1 2 3 4 5

Nunfcer o f f a c u l ty subm it t in g p ro p o sa ls 1 2 3 4 5

O pera ting bud g e t o f youro f f i c e 1 2 3 4 5

Q uestions p e r ta in in g to p o t e n t ia l m easures o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s .

16. In re fe re n c e to q u e s tio n 15, p le a s e rank o rd e r from one to fo u r th o se v a r ia b le s which you f e e l to be u s e fu l c r i t e r i a in m easuring r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s . P la c e a 1 to th e l e f to f th e most im p o rta n t v a r ia b le , a 2 b es id e the n ex t im p o rta n t and so on.

17. I f you a re u s in g o r shou ld p lan to use an a c c o u n ta b i l i ty p ro cedure to ju d g e th e e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f your o f f i c e , w hat v a r ia b le s would you c o n s id e r to be v i t a l o r c ru c ia l to t h i s a c c o u n ta b i l i ty scheme? P le a s e l i s t a t l e a s t two.

The face v a l i d i t y o f th e item s in c lu d ed in the q u e s tio n n a ire was

e v a lu a te d by th e s t a f f o f th e O ffic e o f R esearch S e rv ices a t W estern

M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty . T h e ir comments and su g g estio n s as w e ll as th o se

o f my d i s s e r t a t io n com m ittee meubers were o f g re a t h e lp i n im proving

th e c l a r i t y o f in d iv id u a l i te m s . P o te n t ia l a re a s o f am bigu ity were

co n tin u o u sly re e v a lu a te d and a p p ro p r ia te changes were made.

Item s concern ing o rg a n iz a t io n a l c h a r a c te r i s t i c s were m ostly o f


34

a fo rc e d cho ice n a tu re . However, q u e s tio n s 19 and 20 w ere open ended

so as to a llo w fo r th e w id e s t p o s s ib le range o f re sp o n se s . I t was con

s id e re d d e s ir a b le to o b ta in diagram s o f o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e as

w e ll as any in d ic a t io n s o f p o t e n t i a l o rg a n iz a t io n a l changes. Data

concern ing fu tu re d i re c t io n s in re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n i s o f s ig n i

f ic a n t v a lu e to em erging i n s t i t u t i o n s and to th o se con tem pla ting

change.

The in q u iry in to th e fu n c tio n s o f u n iv e r s i ty o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h

a d m in is tra t io n underwent c o n s id e ra b le change as a r e s u l t o f th e p i l o t

s tu d y d a ta . In the e a r l i e r in s tru m e n t (Appendix A ) , a long l i s t o f

p o s s ib le fu n c tio n s was p ro v id e d . A lthough v a lu a b le d a ta w ere g a th e red ,

i t was d i f f i c u l t to c a te g o r iz e . An exam ination o f th a t fu n c tio n l i s t

re v e a le d th a t the d a ta c lu s te re d in to fo u r c a te g o r ie s . In th e f in a l

in s tru m e n t, fu n c tio n item s w ere p a r t i t io n e d in to th e fo u r c a te g o rie s

o f p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s , p ro p o sa l p r e p a ra t io n , a c t iv e accoun t admin

i s t r a t i o n and accoun ting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y .

D ata concern ing perform ance and e f f e c t iv e n e s s were e l i c i t e d by

ask ing th e responden ts to answ er a v a r ie ty o f fo rc e d cho ice item s

re g a rd in g th e o p e ra tio n s o f t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e o f f i c e s . P a r t i c u la r

em phasis was p lac e d upon q u e s tio n s which asked the resp o n d en t to

in d ic a te th e p e rc e n t o f change over th e p a s t th re e y e a rs in a wide

range o f c r u c ia l a r e a s . In p a r t , th e se a re a s in c lu d e d th e number

o f p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f , th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded, th e number

o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls and th e number o f d i f f e r e n t sp o n so rs .

The f i n a l c a te g o ry , p o t e n t ia l m easures o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s , asked


35

th e responden t to r a t e th o se item s which he f e l t m ight be u s e fu l c r i

t e r i a in d e te rm in ing th e e f fe c t iv e n e s s o f o f f i c e s o f re se a rc h adm in is

t r a t i o n . A lso in c lu d ed was an a d d it io n a l open ended q u e s tio n which

asked th e responden t to l i s t a t l e a s t two v a r ia b le s which he f e l t should

be in c lu d ed in any re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n a c c o u n ta b i l i ty p ro ced u re .

T his item was in c luded in th e event th a t th e a c c o u n ta b i l i ty c r i t e r i a

in th e fo rced ch o ic e l i s t were n o t r e le v a n t o r m eaningful to a p a r t i

c u la r o f f i c e . A lso , th e p o s s ib i l i t y e x is te d t h a t re s e a rc h a d m in is tra

to r s in th e f i e l d would g e n e ra te new a c c o u n ta b i l i ty and e f f e c t iv e n e s s

m easures n o t in c lu d ed in th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

One a d d i t io n a l g o a l in th e c o n s tru c tio n o f th e f i n a l in s tru m en t

was to keep th e e s tim a te d tim e o f com pletion a s sh o rt a s p o s s ib le . I t

was f e l t th a t most re s e a rc h o f f i c e s would have th e re q u e s te d d a ta r e a d i ly

a t hand and would n o t have to r e p o r t to re se a rc h in g any p a r t i c u l a r

q u e s tio n . A f te r s e v e ra l r e v is io n s , i t was e s tim a ted th a t most r e

se a rc h a d m in is tra to rs cou ld com plete th e in stru m en t in about te n m in u tes .

By m a in ta in in g a s h o r t com pletion tim e, th e number o f in d iv id u a ls w i l l in g

to respond to th e survey would be in c re a se d .

C o lle c tio n o f Data

The 200 u n iv e r s i ty -b a s e d o f f i c e s of re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n in th e

sample were surveyed by m ail on December 13, 1972. Each o f f i c e was

sen t a copy of th e q u e s tio n n a ire , a l e t t e r o f ex p la n a tio n and a stamped

r e tu r n envelope. The i n i t i a l cover l e t t e r (Appendix C) in d ic a te d th e

h i s to r y and in te n t of th e re s e a rc h , th e f a c t th a t i t was b e in g done fo r


36

d i s s e r t a t io n purposes and th a t i t s c o n te n t had been e v a lu a te d by th e

s t a f f o f th e O ff ic e o f R esearch S e rv ic e s a t W estern M ichigan U n iver

s i t y . The l e t t e r a ls o guaran teed anonymity to in d iv id u a l re sp o n d en ts .

T his was done in o rd e r to m ain ta in th e c o n f id e n t i a l i ty o f d a ta and a lso

to f u r th e r in c re a s e th e r a t e o f r e tu rn .

The o r ig in a l m ailin g occu rred j u s t p r io r to th e C hristm an h o l i

days. Ttie im pact o f th e h o lid a y s on th e r a t e o f r e tu r n was an unknown

f a c t o r , how ever, i t was decided to w a it a t l e a s t f iv e weeks b e fo re a

second re q u e s t would be m ailed . In d iv id u a ls on v a c a tio n would thus be

allow ed some tim e a f t e r th e f i r s t o f th e y e a r to r e tu r n th e in s tru m e n t.

On Jan u ary 19, 1973 a second l e t t e r (Appendix C ) , an a d d it io n a l

q u e s tio n n a ire and ano ther p re -s ta n ç e d envelope w ere m ailed to a l l

o f f ic e s who had n o t y e t responded to th e i n i t i a l r e q u e s t . The second

l e t t e r in d ic a te d th a t approx im ate ly 60% o f th o se sampled has a lre a d y

re tu rn e d th e q u e s tio n n a ire . The pu rposes o f th e re s e a rc h were aga in

e x p la in ed and an a d d it io n a l p le a fo r c o o p e ra tio n was in c lu d e d . Re

sponses to th e second l e t t e r r a is e d th e u sa b le r a t e o f r e tu r n to

76 p e rc e n t.

T reatm ent o f D ata

The methods fo r an a ly z in g th e da ta were s e le c te d acco rd ing to

th e re s e a rc h q u e s tio n s and th e c h a r a c te r i s t i c s o f the d a ta g a th e red

i n the su rv e y . The d a ta from th e re tu rn e d q u e s tio n n a ire s were p laced

on Computer ca rd s fo r p ro ce ss in g and a n a ly s is . Computer programs were

then w r i t te n to f i t th e needs o f t h i s s tu d y . D e s c r ip tiv e s t a t i s t i c s


37

were used to c h a ra c te r iz e th e d a ta g a th e red in t h i s su rvey . D ata from

q u e s tio n s 17, 19 and 20 were open ended in q u i r ie s in to a c c o u n ta b il i ty

c r i t e r i a , o r g a n iz a t io n a l d iagram s and contem plated changes. These d a ta

could no-t be keypunched and , as such , were analyzed s e p a ra te ly in a

d e s c r ip tiv e manner.

The d isc u ss io n o f r e s u l t s in C hapter IV w i l l adhere to th e f o l

lowing fo rm at. Frequency coun ts and p e rcen tag es w i l l be re p o r te d .

I . A n a ly sis o f r a t e o f r e tu r n

A. By e n ro llm en t s iz e

B. By 1971-72 re s e a rc h and development a l lo c a t io n

C. By p u b l ic v s . p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s

I I . A n a ly sis o f a l l re s e a rc h o f f ic e s in the f i n a l sam ple.

A. O rg a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c tu r e and d ia r a C te r i s t i c s

B. F unctions

C. R eported perform ance and e f f e c t iv e n e s s d a ta

D. P o te n t i a l e f f e c t iv e n e s s c r i t e r i a

I I . A n a ly sis by s iz e and R & D c a te g o ry . The fo llo w in g form at

w i l l be u t i l i z e d in each o f th e n in e c a te g o r ie s .

A. O rg a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c tu r e and c h a r a c te r i s t i c s

B. F unctions

C. R eported perform ance and e f fe c t iv e n e s s d a ta

D. P o te n t i a l e f f e c t iv e n e s s c r i t e r i a

E. Summary and f in d in g s o f s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t


38

Summary

The d esign and p rocedu res employed in t h i s s tu d y have been d i s

cussed in t h i s c h a p te r . The s a n ç le s e le c t i o n , in s tru m e n ta t io n , and

a n a ly s is o f d a ta have a ls o been c o n s id e re d . The d a ta g a th e red as w e ll

as the an a ly se s w ere d e s c r ip t iv e in n a tu r e . The fo llow ing c h a p te r w i l l

g iv e a d e s c r ip t io n o f th e f i n a l sam ple, a p r e s e n ta t io n o f r e s u l t s and

a d is c u s s io n o f unusual o r e s p e c ia l ly i n te r e s t i n g f in d in g s .


CHAPTER IV

REPORT OF THE FINDINGS

The d a ta o b ta in e d from the p rocedures and a n a ly se s d isc u sse d in

C hap ter I I I a re p re s e n te d h e re . The fo llow ing in fo rm a tio n i s p re se n te d :

a d e s c r ip t io n o f th e f i n a l sam ple, an a n a ly s is o f th e responses o f a l l

r e s e a rc h o f f ic e s in th e f i n a l sample and an a n a ly s is o f re s e a rc h o f

f ic e s resp o n ses in each o f th e n in e en ro llm en t s iz e and re s e a rc h and

developm ent c a te g o r ie s .

D e s c r ip tio n o f th e F in a l Sample

Two hundred u n iv e r s i ty based o f f ic e s of re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n

were in c lu d e d i n th e o r ig in a l s a n ç le . Of the 200 o f f ic e s su rv ey ed ,

157 responded in tim e f o r in c lu s io n in th is r e p o r t . However, th re e

i n s t i t u t i o n s in d ic a te d they no lo n g e r had a c e n tr a l iz e d o f f i c e o f r e

se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n and! two o th e r re tu rn s were im properly o r on ly

p a r t i a l l y com pleted. T hus, th e e f f e c t iv e and u sa b le r a t e o f r e tu rn

was 152 o r 76% o f th e o r ig in a l sam ple.

T ab le 4-1 d e sc r ib e s th e com position o f th e f i n a l sample in term s

o f en ro llm en t s iz e and re se a rc h and development l e v e l o f th e i n s t i t u

t io n s . Both frequency coun ts and pe rcen tag es ( in p a re n th e se s ) a re

r e p o r te d . Of th e 152 o f f ic e s in th e f in a l s a n ç le , 68 o r 46% were

from sm a ll i n s t i t u t i o n s , 51 o r 33% were from medium en ro llm en t i n s t i

tu t i o n s , and 33 o r 21% were from la rg e enro llm en t i n s t i t u t i o n s . With

reg a rd to re se a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n s , 75 o r 49% had

39


40

a llo c a t io n s in the $ 0 - 5 . 5 m il l io n group, 46 o r 31% were in the $5 .6 -

20 .5 m il l io n group and 31 o r 20% were in the $ +20.5 m il l io n group.

These p e rc e n ta g e s compare q u i te c lo s e ly w ith th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n s t i

tu t io n s in th e o r ig in a l sample (see Table 3 -1 ) .

TABLE 4-1

DESCRIPTION OF FINAL SAMPLE COMPOSITIONBY SIZE AND R & D LEVEL

ENROLLMENTSIZE $0-5 .5

R & D (IN MILLIONS)

$ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 $+20.5 TOTAL

0 - 10,000 42 (.28) 19 ( .1 3 ) 7 (.05 ) 68 (.4 6 )

10,001 - 20,000 22 (.14 ) 18 ( .1 2 ) 11 ( .0 7 ) 51 (.3 3 )

+ 20,000 11 (.07 ) 9 ( .0 6 ) 13 ( .0 8 ) 33 ( .2 1 )

TOTAL 75 (.49 ) 46 ( .3 1 ) 31 ( .2 0 ) 152 (100)

W ith rea g rd to th e p u b lic v s . p r iv a te dim ension o f i n s t i t u t i o n s

in th e f i n a l sam ple, 102 o r 67% were p u b lic and 50 o r 33% were p r i

v a te o r ind ep en d en t. Both p u b lic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s were r e

p re se n te d i n e ig h t o f th e n in e en ro llm en t and R & D c a te g o r ie s . A ll

13 i n s t i t u t i o n s in th e la rg e e n ro llm e n t, la rg e R & D ca teg o ry were

p u b lic . T ab le 4-2 shows th e number o f p u b lic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s


41

TABLE 4 -2

NUMBER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

IN EACH SIZE AND R & D CATEGORY OF FINAL SAMPLE

ENROLLMENT

R & D LEVEL

(IN MILLIONS) PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL

0 - 10,000 $ 0 -5 .5 24 18 42

0 - 10,000 $ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 8 11 19

0 - 10,000 $ +20.5 2 5 7

10,001 - 20,000 $ 0 -5 .5 17 5 22

10,001 - 20,000 $ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 16 2 18

10,001 - 20,000 $ +20.5 5 6 11

+ 20,000 $ 0 -5 .5 9 2 11

+ 20,000 $ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 8 1 9

+ 20,000 $ +20.5 13 0 13

TOTAL 102 50 152


42

In each o f the n in e c a te g o r ie s .

Of th e 138 p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e o r ig in a l s a n ç le , 102 o r 74%

responded w h ile 50 o f 62, o r 81%, o f th e p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s r e

sponded.

A naly sis o f D ata from A ll O ff ic e s in F in a l Sample

D ata re p o rte d in t h i s s e c t io n d e sc r ib e th e su rvey responses g iven

by a l l re se a rc h o f f ic e s in th e f in a l sam ple. F ind ings a re d iscu ssed

in a. fo u r ca tego ry form at as fo llo w s: o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e , func

t io n s , re p o r te d perform ance d a ta , and p o te n t ia l c r i t e r i a fo r e v a lu a tin g

th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f a re se a rc h o f f i c e .

O rg a n iz a tio n a l S tru c tu re

The development o f c e n tr a l iz e d o f f ic e s f o r th e pu rpose o f con

t r a c t in g f o r and a d m in is te rin g programs o f sponsored re se a rc h has p a r

a l l e l e d th e growth in d o l la r a l lo c a t io n s f o r u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h . The

su rvey d a ta rev e a le d the f a c t th a t re s e a rc h o f f i c e s a re a r e l a t i v e ly

re c e n t phenomena on most u n iv e r s i ty cam puses. S even ty-seven p e rc e n t

o f th e o f f ic e s surveyed in d ic a te d they had been e s ta b l is h e d s in c e 1961.

Table 4 -3 shows th e d i s t r ib u t io n in th e age o f o f f i c e s in c lu d ed i n th e

su rv ey . The re p o r te d d a ta in d ic a te s th e y e a r i n which th e v a rio u s

o f f ic e s were e s ta b l is h e d in t h e i r p re s e n t form s. A few i n s t i t u t i o n s

in d ic a te d th a t a rudim entary re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n fu n c tio n d id e x is t

p r io r to th e e s ta b lish m e n t o f a form al o f f i c e . Formal o p e ra tio n s a re

n e v e r th e le s s a re c e n t phenomenon.


43

TABLE 4 - 3

YEARS IN WHICH RESEARCH OFFICES ÏÆRE ESTABLISHED

YEAR ESTABLISHED FREQUENCY PERCENT

1940-45 5 .03

1946-50 5 .03

1951-55 6 .04

1956-60 18 .13

1961-65 44 .31

1966-70 53 .37

1971- 13 .09

TOTALa 144

^Eight responden ts l e f t t h i s ite m b la n k .


44

W ith re g a rd to a d m in is tra t iv e c o n tro l o f re se a rc h o f f i c e s , they

have ty p ic a l ly re p o rte d to many d i f f e r e n t c a te g o rie s o f u n iv e r s i ty

o f f i c e s . T able 4-4 shows th e d i s t r i b u t io n o f to whom th e o f f i c e s a re

d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s ib le . O ff ic e s r e p o r t in g to th e p r e s id e n t , academ ic

v ic e p re s id e n t o r to a g radua te dean accoun ted fo r 56% o f th e t o t a l .

Only 10% o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s su rveyed had a v ic e p re s id e n t f o r re s e a rc h .

Responses to th e q u e s tio n o f c o n tro l o v e r u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h

p o lic y fo rm u la tio n rev e a le d a p a t t e r n o f f a c u l ty -a d m in is t r a t io n co

o p e ra t io n . T able 4-5 in d ic a te s t h a t 74% o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s surveyed

in d ic a te d a sh a red a d m in is t r a t iv e - fa c u ity approach to d e c is io n making

i n t h i s a re a . E igh teen p e rc e n t in d ic a te d re se a rc h p o lic y was formur-

l a t e d p r im a r i ly by a d m in is tra to rs w h ile on ly th re e p e rc e n t in d ic a te d

p rim ary c o n tro l by fa c u l ty . There were no in s ta n c e s in which f a c u l ty

had com plete c o n tro l in re se a rc h p o lic y fo rm u la tio n .

With, re g a rd to th e number o f p ro fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l employees

w orking in re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o f f i c e s , th e s t a f f s iz e s a re r a th e r

sm all in most i n s t i t u t i o n s . Table 4-6 shows th e d i s t r ib u t io n in s iz e

o f p ro fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f s . Seventy th re e p e rc e n t o f th e

o f f i c e s su rveyed had th re e o r l e s s p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members w h ile

66% had th re e o r l e s s c l e r i c a l em ployees. Only n in e p e rc e n t o f th e

o f f i c e s su rveyed had seven o r more p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f members. Most

c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i t i e s s a t i s f y t h e i r re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n r e q u i r e

ments w ith no more than th re e p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f members and a s im i la r

number o f c l e r i c a l em ployees. A f u r th e r breakdown o f s t a f f s iz e in

r e l a t i o n to th e annual l e v e l o f r e s e a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n s


TABLE 4 - 4

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF RESEARCH OFFICE

45

TO WHOM OFFICE REPORTS FREQUENCY PERCENT

P re s id e n t 27 .18

V .P. Research 15 .10

V .P. Academic 35 .23

G raduate Dean 22 .15

P ro v o st 12 .08

Exec. V.P. 7 .05

V .P . F inance 11 .07

V .P. Development 5 .03

C om ptro ller 5 .03

O ther 13 .08

TOTAL 152 100.00


46

TABLE 4-5

CONTROL OF RESEARCH POLICY FORMULATION

FREQUENCY PERCENT

A d m in is tra tio n 8 .05

A d m in is tra tio n P r im a r i ly 28 .18

Shared C on tro l 112 .74

F a c u lty P r im a rily 4 .03

F acu lty 0 .00

TOTAL 152 100.00


47

TABLE 4 -6

NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT PROFESSIONAL AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES

TYPE OF EMPLOYEE PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL

NUMBER FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT

1 - 3 111 .73 100 .66

4 - 6 28 .18 32 .21

7 - 1 0 10 .07 9 .06

11 - 14 0 .00 5 .03

15 - 18 2 .01 4 .02

19 - 22 0 .00 0 .00

23 - 26 0 .00 1 .01

+ 27 1 .01 1 .01

TOTAL 152 100.00 152 100.00


48

w i l l appear in o th e r s e c t io n s o f t h i s c h a p te r .

T ah le 4-7 re v e a ls a w ide range o f o p e ra tin g budgets among th e o f

f ic e s in th e su rv e y . S ix ty p e rc e n t o f th e o f f i c e s surveyed had budgets

o f l e s s th an $75 ,000 , 28% ranged from $75,000 - 149,999 and 12% had bud

g e ts in ex cess o f $150,000.

The n e x t i te m in th e g e n e ra l ca teg o ry o f o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e

d e a l t w ith c o n tro l over th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s t fu n d s. Ten

o f th e o f f i c e s surveyed o r seven p e rc e n t in d ic a te d they had com plete

c o n tro l o v er d i s t r i b u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s ts . F o r ty - th re e o f f ic e s o r

28% in d ic a te d p a r t i a l c o n tr o l , w h ile 99 o f f ic e s o r 65% in d ic a te d they

had no c o n tro l over th e se fu n d s. I n d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ents a re

ty p ic a l ly added to the u n iv e r s i t y 's g e n e ra l fund p ro c e s s . In a l l , 35%

o f th e o f f ic e s su rveyed in d ic a te d com plete o r p a r t i a l c o n tro l over

d i s t r ib u t io n o f I n d i r e c t c o s t funds.

T ab le 4 -8 in d ic a te s w hich u n iv e r s i ty o f f ic e s o r p e rso n n e l c o n tro l

th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s ts in th e i n s t i t u t i o n s sam pled. I t

sh o u ld be n o ted t h a t s e v e r a l c a te g o r ie s might p o s s ib ly be combined.

For in s ta n c e , a budget d i r e c to r a t one i n s t i t u t i o n m ight have the

i d e n t i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a f in a n c e d i r e c to r a t a n o th e r i n s t i t u

t io n . One th in g e v id e n t from an exam ination o f T ab le 4 -8 i s t h a t the

c o n tro l over d i s t r ib u t io n o f th ese funds v a r ie s s ig n i f i c a n t ly from one

i n s t i t u t i o n to a n o th e r . Of th e 53 i n s t i t u t i o n s where th e re s e a rc h

o f f i c e had p a r t i a l o r com plete c o n tr o l , s ix in d ic a te d th a t t h i s was

a r e c e n t change. Two o th e r re se a rc h o f f ic e s in d ic a te d t h a t they would


TABLE 4 -7

ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS OF RESEARCH OFFICES

49

DOLLAR AMOUNT FREQUENCY PERCENT

$ 0 - 24,999 19 .13

$ 25 - 49,999 41 .27

$ 50 - 74,999 30 1 .20

$ 75 - 99,999 23 .15

$100 - 149,999 20 .13

$150 - 250,000 11 .07

+ 250,000 7 .05

TOTALa 151 100.00

®One o f f ic e l e f t t h i s item b lan k .


50

TABLE 4 - 8

CONTROL OVER DISTRIBUTION OF INDIRECT COST FUNDS

CONTROLLING PARTY FREQUENCY PERCENT

R esearch O ff ic e in C onjunction w ith A d m in is tra tio n 43 .28

C e n tra l A d m in is tra tio n 21 .14


V .P . F inance 12 .08

B usiness O ff ic e 11 .07

R esearch O ff ic e o r Foundation 10 .07

U n iv e rs i ty Budget Committee 9 .06

C om ptro lle r 7 .05

V .P. B usiness 4 .03

F inance D ire c to r 4 .03

T re a s u re r 3 .02

V .P . Academic 3 .02

S ta te Board H igher E ducation 3 .02

P ro v o s t 2 .01

T ru s te e s 2 .01

Budget D ire c to r 2 .01

V .P. A d m in is tra tio n 1 .01

R esearch Committee 1 .01

TOTAL& 151 100.00

One o f f ic e l e f t t h i s ite m b lan k .


51

be in v o lv ed in th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d i r e c t c o s t funds in the n e a r

fu tu r e .

Responses to th e su rvey a ls o showed some d if fe re n c e s in how in

d i r e c t c o s t funds a re d i s t r ib u te d w ith in th e u n iv e r s i t i e s s tu d ie d :

Table 4-9 d e sc r ib e s th e number o f i n s t i t u t i o n s w hich a l lo c a te d v a rio u s

p e rc e n ta g e s o f i n d i r e c t c o s t funds in to c e r ta in budget c a te g o r ie s .

Among th e m ajor r e c ip ie n ts o f th e se funds were th e re se a rc h o f f ic e

i t s e l f , academ ic u n i ts such as c o lle g e s o r d epartm en ts, th e g en e ra l

fund and th e f a c u l ty re s e a rc h fund . S ix ty - fo u r i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 42%

in d ic a te d th a t v i r t u a l l y a l l i n d i r e c t c o s t funds went d i r e c t ly in to

th e g en e ra l fund. T h ir ty -n in e i n s t i t u t i o n s a l lo c a te d betw een 21%

and 100% o f th e se funds to v a rio u s academ ic u n i ts w h ile 30 i n s t i t u t i o n s

used betw een 21% and 100% o f th e se funds f o r th e s iç p o r t o f the rese a rc h

o f f i c e . T h ir ty i n s t i t u t i o n s re p o r te d th a t they a l lo c a te d from 11% to

60% o f th e se funds f o r use in th e f a c u l ty re se a rc h fund . These r e s u l t s

su g g est t h a t a lth o u g h in d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds a re in te n d e d

to de fray the c o s ts o f r e s e a rc h , they a re a lso b e in g used to promote

a d d it io n a l re s e a rc h program s.

The f in a l ite m in th e su rvey d e a lin g w ith o rg a n iz a t io n a l charac

t e r i s t i c s in v o lv ed the i s s u e s o f s p e c ia l iz a t io n and d e c e n tra l iz a t io n

o f o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . For th e most p a r t , on ly th e

la r g e r and more e s ta b l is h e d o f f ic e s in d ic a te d th a t they had d iv e r s i

f ie d in te r n a l fu n c tio n s o r had taken s te p s to d e c e n tra l iz e t h e i r opera

t io n s . Twenty-two re se a rc h o f f i c e s , o r 15% o f th e sam ple, in d ic a te d

th a t t h e i r o f f i c e s t a f f were assig n ed to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs . For


CD■DOQ .C

gQ .

"OCD

C /)

o'3O

TABLE 4 - 9

RECIPIENTS OF INDIRECT COST FUNDS

8■D( O '3"

i3CD

"nc3.3"CD

CD"OOQ .CQ

■ D

O

CDQ .

■ DCD

RECIPIENT 0-10 11-20PERCENT OF

21-30 31-40INDIRECT COST FUNDS RECEIVED

41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

R esea rch O f f ic e s 107 15 11 7 3 2 1 2 2 2

Academic U n its 104 9 9 12 11 4 0 2 0 1

G en era l Fund 26 4 9 11 8 8 6 5 11 64

F a c il i ty R e sea rch Fund 118 13 6 6 3 2 1 1 0 2

O th e rs 127 12 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 4

(/)(/)

U iro

53

in s ta n c e , one re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to r would d e a l s o le ly w ith founda

t io n s w h ile a n o th e r would d e a l w ith th e D epartm ent o f D efense.

Of th e 152 re s e a rc h o f f ic e s su rveyed , 30 o r 20% in d ic a te d th a t

t h e i r s t a f f members were a ss ig n e d to v a rio u s c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith

in th e u n iv e r s i ty . T his type o f o rg a n iz a tio n i s l e s s c e n tr a l iz e d and

i s aimed a t b e t t e r se rv in g th e many d i f f e r e n t f a c e ts o f th e u n iv e r s i ty

a t th e lo c a l l e v e l . One a d d it io n a l item r e l a t i n g to i n te r n a l o f f ic e

s t r u c tu r e asked each o f f ic e i f they had a s e p a ra te p ro p o sa l develop

ment s e c t io n . In a l l , 20 o f f i c e s o r 13% o f th e sample in d ic a te d they

d id have a p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n . S ix o th e r o f f ic e s in d ic a te d

they hoped to soon o f f e r in c re a s e d p ro p o sa l developm ent s e rv ic e s to

t h e i r f a c u l ty .

F unctions

The su rvey d esign d iv id e d p o te n t i a l o f f i c e fu n c tio n s in to fo u r

c a te g o r ie s . T able 4-10 d e sc r ib e s th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f o f f ic e s in

vo lved in th e v a rio u s fu n c tio n s . P re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s such as

com p ila tion o f in fo rm a tio n and d isse m in a tio n o f g ra n t o p p o rtu n ity

d a ta were perform ed by 144 o r 95% o f the o f f ic e s su rveyed . P roposal

p re p a ra tio n a c t i v i t i e s were perform ed by 94 o r 62% o f th e o f f ic e s

su rveyed . T his in c lu d e d such ta s k s as e d i t in g , ty p in g and te c h n ic a l

i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Almost an eq u a l number o f o f f i c e s , 97 o r 64%, engage

in a c tiv e account a d m in is tra t io n . T h is in c lu d e s such th in g s as the

m onitoring o f accoun ts and th e n e g o tia t io n o f overruns and e x te n s io n s .

The f in a l c a te g o ry o f fu n c tio n s in v o lv ed accoun ting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y .


54

Only 49 o f f i c e s o r 32% o f th o se su rveyed re p o r te d r e s p o n s ib i l i ty in th is

a re a . R e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s in v o lv in g c o s t c o n tro l p rocedu res, f i s c a l re

p o r ts f o r sponsors and the com putation o f in d i r e c t c o s t r a t e s were more

ty p ic a l ly perform ed by in d iv id u a ls o u ts id e o f th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e .

TABLE 4-10

DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE FUNCTIONS

FUNCTION FREQUENCY PERCENT

P re -p ro p o sa l A c t iv i t i e s 144 .95

P ro p o sa l P re p a ra tio n 94 .62

A ctiv e Account A d m in is tra tio n 79 .64

A ccounting and F is c a l A c t iv i ty 49 .32

R eported Perform ance and E f fe c tiv e n e ss D ata

The i n i t i a l q u e s tio n in t h i s a re a asked th e respondent to r a te

h is i n s t i t u t i o n in term s o f h i s p e rc e p tio n s o f the re se a rc h o r ie n ta

t io n o f th e f a c u l ty and a d m in is tra t io n . T ab le 4-11 d e sc r ib e s th e

responses to t h i s q u e s tio n . Only fo u r i n s t i tu t io n s o r th re e p e rc e n t

o f those surveyed r a te d them selves as having a minimal re se a rc h o r ie n

t a t io n . At th e o th e r ex trem e, 26 i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 17% d e sc rib ed them

s e lv e s as hav ing a s tro n g re s e a rc h o r ie n ta t io n . Many i n s t i t u t i o n s

which r a te d them selves as minimal o r below average were teach in g


55

o r ie n te d i n s t i t u t i o n s such as s t a t e t e a c h e r s ' c o lle g e s . They evidenced

r e l a t i v e ly low le v e ls o f annual a l lo c a t io n s f o r r e s e a rc h and developm ent.

TABLE 4-11

PERCEIVED RESEARCH ORIENTATION OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION

STRENGTH OF ORIENTATION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Minimal 4 .03

Below Average 32 .21

Average 61 .40

S trong 28 .19

Very S trong 26 .17

TOTAL^ 151 100.00

®One responden t l e f t t h i s item b la n k .

Data were a ls o g a th e red re g a rd in g th e so u rces o f r e s e a rc h funds.

The fe d e ra l government has long been the l a r g e s t c o n tr ib u to r to u n iv e r

s i t y based re s e a rc h , how ever, many i n s t i t u t i o n s a re now tu rn in g to

s t a t e and p r iv a te so u rc e s f o r some o f t h e i r re s e a rc h funds. T able

4-12 d esc rib es the number o f i n s t i t u t i o n s re c e iv in g v a rio u s percen

tag e s o f t h e i r re s e a rc h funds from p r iv a t e , f e d e r a l and i n te r n a l o r

s t a t e so u rc e s . One hundred t h i r t y - f i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 89% o f those


:x)CD■oOQ .CsQ .

■oCD

(/)o'=3

CD

85(5'

3CD

Cp.ITCD

CD■oICaO3■oO

&

oc

%

C /)(go'3

TABLE 4 -1 2

SOURCES OF RESEARCH FUNDS

SOURCE 0 -9 10-19 20-29PERCENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED

30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

P r iv a t e 73 53 19 4 1 1 0 0 1 0

F e d e ra l 0 3 1 3 10 8 18 37 45 27

I n t e r n a l 82 38 14 5 5 3 3 1 0 1

vn

57

sampled s t i l l re c e iv e a t l e a s t 50% o f t h e i r r e s e a rc h funds from th e

f e d e ra l government. Seven ty-seven i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 50% o f th o se sampled

re c e iv e d from 10 to 50% o f t h e i r funds from p r iv a te so u rc e s . P r iv a te

i n s t i t u t i o n s tended to re c e iv e a g r e a te r p e rc e n ta g e o f t h e i r funds

from p r iv a te sou rces th an d id p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s . S ix ty -tw o o f f ic e s

o r 40% o f those sampled re p o r te d th a t from 10 to 50% o f t h e i r funds

a re g en era ted i n te r n a l ly . The d i s t r ib u t io n o f funding so u rces w i l l a lso

be examined l a t e r i n r e l a t i o n to th e e n ro llm en t s iz e and l e v e l o f r e

search funds o f th e v a rio u s i n s t i t u t i o n a l c a te g o r ie s under s tu d y .

In d iv id u a l o f f ic e s were a ls o asked to r e p o r t t h t t o t a l volume o f

awards th e i n s t i t u t i o n re c e iv e d du ring th e most re c e n t y e a r t h a t in f o r

m ation was a v a i la b le . T able 4-13 d e sc r ib e s th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f funds

re c e iv e d . Over 49% o f th e o f f ic e s sam pled re p o r te d t o t a l annual r e

search and development awards o f l e s s th an $5 .5 m il l io n . T h irty -o n e

o f f ic e s o r 21% re p o r te d awards in excess o f $20.6 m il l io n . S ix te e n

i n s t i t u t i o n s o r 11% o f th e sample re p o r te d annual awards o f $30.5 o r

more.

The re s e a rc h o f f ic e s surveyed a ls o re p o r te d wide v a r ia t io n s in

th e t o t a l number o f p ro p o sa ls they an n u a lly subm it fo r fu n d in g . Table

4-14 examines th e nunber o f p ro p o sa ls su b m itted fo r funding by th e r e

se a rc h o f f ic e s in c lu d e d in th e su rv ey . One hundred f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s

o r 69% o f th e sa n p le re p o rte d th a t they an n u a lly su bm itted 400 o r l e s s

p ro p o sa ls . Only 11 o f f ic e s o r seven p e rc e n t re p o r te d th e subm ission

o f 1,000 o r more p ro p o sa ls . A lthough th e m a jo r ity o f i n s t i t u t i o n s

g en e ra te a volume o f p ro p o sa ls num bering in th e h und reds, many survey


TABLE 4 - 1 3

ANNUAL VOLUME OF AWABDS (IN MILLIONS)

58

AMOUNT FREQUENCY PERCENT

$ 0 - 1 .5 38 .25

$ 1 .6 - 5 .5 37 .24

$ 5 .6 - 10.5 22 .14

$10.6 - 15.5 15 .10

$15.6 - 20.5 9 .06

$20.6 - 25.5 10 .07

$25.6 - 30.5 5 .03

+ $30.5 16 .11

TOTAL 152 100.00


59

TABLE 4 -1 4

ANNUAL NUMBER OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR FUNDING

NUMBER OF PROPOSALSNUMBER OF OFFICES

FREQUENCY PERCENT

0 - 99 39 .25

100 - 199 33 .22

200 - 399 33 .22

400 - 599 15 .10

600 - 799 10 .07

800 - 999 11 .07

1,000 - 1,199 3 .02

1,200 - 1,399 3 .02

1,400 - 1,599 3 .02

+ 1,600 2 .01

TOTAL 152 100.00


6Û

responden ts in d ic a te d th a t they were t ry in g to in c re a s e t h i s nunfcer

in th e hopes o f g a in ing a d d it io n a l re s e a rc h and developm ent fu n d s.

The l a s t su rvey q u e s tio n r e l a t i n g s p e c i f ic a l l y to p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t y

asked th e responden ts about th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls approved and funded

a t t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e i n s t i t u t i o n s . T ab le 4-15 d e sc r ib e s th e p e rc e n ta g e

range o f p ro p o sa ls approved and funded a t th e i n s t i t u t i o n s s tu d ie d .

A gain , a w ide range o f responses c h a ra c te r iz e d th e sam ple. Some i n s t i

tu t io n s re p o r te d l e s s than 29% ap p ro v a l w h ile fo u r r e p o r te d an approva l

r a t e in ex cess o f 80%. F i f ty fo u r p e rc e n t were below th e 50% approval

r a t e and 46% were above th e 50% p o in t . Many f a c to rs have c o n tr ib u te d

to t h i s v a ry in g su ccess r a t e and on ly some w i l l d i r e c t ly r a t e to th e

perform ance o f th e re se a rc h o f f i c e s t a f f . However, i t i s obvious th a t

some i n s t i t u t i o n s have a much h ig h e r r a t e o f success in g e t t in g p ro

p o s a ls funded than do o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n s . Some o f th e p o s s ib le f a c to r s

in th is i s s u e w i l l be d isc u sse d in th e f in a l c h a p te r.

The l a s t q u e s tio n d e a lin g w ith re p o r te d perform ance d a ta asked th e

resp o n d en ts to in d ic a te th e p e rc e n ta g e o f change during th e l a s t th re e

y e a rs in a v a r i e ty o f v a r ia b le s concern ing t h e i r o f f i c e . Table 4-16

d e sc r ib e s th e se changes. The number and p e rc e n t o f o f f i c e s re p o r t in g

s p e c i f ic changes a re g iven in th e t a b l e . F a r more o f f ic e s have expe

r ie n c e d growth th an d e c lin e du ring th e p a s t th re e y e a rs . Every o f f i c e

v a r ia b le co n sid e red in t h i s q u e s tio n showed more growth th an d e c l in e .

F o rty -tw o p e rc e n t o f th e o f f ic e s su rveyed re p o r te d a 10-29% in c re a s e

in th e t o t a l volume o f aw ards. T w enty-eigh t o f f ic e s o r 19% re p o r te d

a 30% o r g r e a te r in c re a s e i n annual re s e a rc h and developm ent funds.


61

TABLE 4-15

PERCENT OF PROPOSALS FUNDED

NUMBER OF OFFICES FREQUENCY PERCENT

< 29% 19 .13

30 - 39% 29 .20

40 - 49% 32 .21

50 - 59% 31 .21

60 - 69% 23 .15

70 - 79% 10 .07

> 80% 4 .03

TOTAL® 148 100.00

Four resp o n d en ts l e f t t h i s item b la n k .


CD■DOQ.C

gQ.

■DCD

C/)Wo'303CD

8■Dë '3"

13CD

3.3"CD

CD■DOQ.C

aO3

■DO

CDQ.

■DCD

C/)C/)

TABLE 4-16

PERCENT OF CHANGE IN VARIOUS OFFICE STATISTICS OVER PAST THREE YEARS

-30% o r more

-29-10% ±9% +10-29% +30% o r more

d id n o t re sp o n d

Number o f 5 4 101 25 13 4P r o f e s s io n a l s t a f f ( .0 3 ) ( .0 3 ) ( .6 6 ) ( .1 6 ) ( .0 9 ) ( .0 3 )

Number o f 4 5 102 23 13 5C l e r i c a l S t a f f ( .0 3 ) ( .0 3 ) ( .6 7 ) ( .1 5 ) ( .0 9 ) ( .0 3 )

P e rc e n t o f 1 18 75 40 12 6P ro p o s a ls Funded ( .0 1 ) ( .1 2 ) ( .4 9 ) ( .2 6 ) ( .0 8 ) ( .0 4 )

A nnual Volume o f 1 15 40 64 28 4R & D Awards ( .0 1 ) ( .1 0 ) ( .2 6 ) ( .4 2 ) ( .1 9 ) ( .0 3 )

Number o f D i f f e r e n t 0 3 79 53 13 4Sponso rs ( .0 0 ) ( .0 2 ) ( .5 2 ) ( .3 5 ) ( .0 9 ) ( .0 3 )

Number o f F a c u lty 0 5 46 79 17 5S u b m ittin g P ro p o s a ls ( .0 0 ) ( .0 3 ) ( .3 0 ) ( .5 2 ) ( .1 1 ) ( .0 3 )

O p e ra tin g B udget 0 8 82 47 9 6o f O f f ic e ( .0 0 ) ( .0 5 ) ( .5 4 ) ( .3 1 ) ( .0 6 ) ( .0 4 )

CTvN>

63

L arge in c re a s e s w ere a ls o re p o r te d in th e number o f p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f ,

th e number o f sp o n so rs and in th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g pro

p o s a ls . Some i n s t i t u t i o n s d id ex p e rien ce d e c lin e s . However, they

were r e l a t i v e l y few in number. E igh teen re se a rc h o f f i c e s o r 12% o f

th e sample r e p o r te d a 10-29% d ec rease i n th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls fund

ed . The o v e r a l l p i c t u r e , however, i s one o f growth in th e a re a o f spon

so red program s and t h e i r a d m in is tra t io n .

P o te n t i a l M easures o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio n E ffe c tiv e n e ss

D ata concern ing p o te n t ia l m easures o f e f fe c t iv e n e s s were e l i c i t e d

i n two ways. Respondents were f i r s t asked to rank o rd e r a g iven l i s t

o f v a r ia b le s in term s o f t h e i r u se fu ln e ss in m easuring, re se a rc h adm inis

t r a t i o n e f f e c t iv e n e s s . In o rd e r to a llo w th e w id e s t p o s s ib le range o f

re sp o n ses an a d d it io n a l open-ended q u e s tio n asked re s e a rc h a d m in is tra

to r s to l i s t a c c o u n ta b il i ty c r i t e r i a they f e l t m ight be o f use in

e v a lu a tin g t h e i r own o f f i c e s .

I n term s o f th e l i s t e d v a r ia b le s , responden ts ranked th e number

o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls as th e most im p o rtan t i te m . O thers in

d ec reas in g o rd e r were th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded, th e t o t a l annual

volume o f re s e a rc h and developm ent funds and th e number o f d i f f e r e n t

sp o n so rs .

The open-ended d a ta y ie ld e d a long l i s t o f p o t e n t ia l e f f e c t iv e

n e ss c r i t e r i a . T ab le 4-17 l i s t s th e re p o r te d c r i t e r i a and th e f r e

quency w ith w hich they were m entioned. The c r i t e r i a item s a re l i s t e d

as they were re c e iv e d . Most a re o b je c t iv e and q u a n t i f ia b le , however.


TABLE 4 - 1 7

POTENTIAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

64

CRITERIA FREQUENCY

1. P e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. 36

2 . Nunber o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls . 34

3 . Annual volume o f aw ards. 33

4 . Number o f p ro p o sa ls subm itted f o r fund ing . 20

5. R apport w ith f a c u l ty . 18

6 . Nunber o f d i f f e r e n t sp o n so rs . 10

7. R apport w ith sp o n so rin g a g e n c ie s . 7

8. O pera ting budget o f o f f i c e . 4

9 . Nunber o f sponso r c o n ta c ts made on b e h a lf o f f a c u l ty . 4

10. D issem in a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n to f a c u l ty . 4

11. R a tio o f p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f to p ro p o sa ls funded. 4

12. T ech n ica l r e p o r ts subm itted on tim e . 3

13. Q u a lity o f p ro p o sa ls . 3

14. Awards as a r a t i o o f o p e ra tin g budget o f o f f i c e . 3

15. A b i l i ty to su p p o rt f a c u l t y / i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . 3

16. P e rc e n t o f a u d it d isa llo w an ces v s . e x p e n d itu re s . 2

17. P e rc e n t o f o v erex p en d itu res v s . t o t a l budget. 2

18. Nunber o f o f f ic e p u b l ic a t io n s . 2


TABLE 4-17 (con tinued)

65

CRITERIA FREQUENCY

19. P e rc e n t o f f a c u l ty w ith awards. 2

20. Overhead r a t e n e g o tia t io n d isa llo w a n ce . 2

21. Number o f r e q u e s ts by g ra n tin g agencies fo rp ro p o sa ls . 2

22. D o lla r volume o f I n d i r e c t c o s t reco v ery .

23. Number o f p ro p o sa ls funded.

24. Nunber and amounts o f p r o je c t c o s t overruns

25. Achievement o f p r e - s e t g o a ls , I . e . , d o l l a r s , r a t eo f growth, e tc .

26. Number o f p ro p o sa ls p ro cessed as a r a t i o o fo p e ra tin g budget o f o f f i c e .

27. R a tio o f d o l la r s rec e iv e d from sponsors to d o l la r sre q u e s te d .

28. E f fe c tiv e u n o b tru s iv e a d m in is tra t iv e su p p o rtp ro ced u res.

29. R e su lts v s . Investm en t o f fu n d s .

30. S a t is f a c to ry a u d i t s .

31. P e rc e n t o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls .

32. Top a d m in is t r a to r 's co n fidence .

33. Q u a lity o f r e p o r ts to sp o n so rs .

34. Avoidance o f f i s c a l o r l e g a l e r r o r s .

35. P roposal g e n e ra tio n In new a re a s .


66

item s such as r a p p o r t w ith f a c u l ty o r sponsors a re n o t o b je c t iv e p e r

formance c r i t e r i a . They a re notquantifiiahLe in p re s e n t form , b u t a re

r a th e r p re s e n te d as item s w hich were in p o r ta n t to p r a c t ic in g re se a rc h

a d m in is t r a to r s . T h e ir u se fu ln e ss w i l l be dependent on th e a b i l i t y o f

th e in d iv id u a l r e s e a rc h a d m in is t ra to r to adap t them to h i s own unique

s i t u a t i o n .

The th re e most commonly m entioned e f f e c t iv e n e s s c r i t e r i a were the

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded , th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls

and th e annual volume o f aw ards. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t w ere two c o s t-

b e n e f i t r a t i o s . These w ere th e t o t a l volume o f awards as a r a t i o o f

th e o p e ra t in g bud g e t o f th e o f f i c e and th e number o f p ro p o sa ls p ro

cessed as a r a t i o o f th e o p e ra tin g budget o f th e o f f i c e . These r a t i o s

would be p ro b ab ly a p p lic a b le to both la rg e and sm all re se a rc h o f f ic e s

and shou ld be c o n s id e red in any ongoing p ro cess o f i n te r n a l e v a lu a tio n .

B efore moving on to a d isc u ss io n o f d a ta p e r ta in in g to re se a rc h

o f f ic e s in v a rio u s c a te g o r ie s o f re se a rc h and developm ent fund ing ,

and i n s t i t u t i o n a l e n ro llm en t s i z e , i t shou ld be n o ted t h a t th e group

as a whole showed g r e a t d iv e r s i ty on most v a r ia b le s . P a t te rn s o f

o rg a n iz a tio n and perform ance w i l l be more r e a d i ly d isc e rn a b le in th e

d isc u s s io n o f th e n in e re s e a rc h o f f ic e c a te g o rie s th a t fo llo w s .

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0 -10 ,000 E nrollm ent and $0-5 .5

M ill io n R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s

There w ere a t o t a l o f 42 re se a rc h o f f ic e s in the f i n a l sample th a t

met th e c r i t e r i a o f sm a ll en ro llm en t and sm all re se a rc h and developm ent


67

a l lo c a t io n s . Tw enty-four were p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s and 18 w ere p r iv a te .

T h is group con ta in ed many r e c e n tly e s ta b l is h e d s t a t e c o lle g e s and u n iv e r

s i t i e s and some sm all p r iv a te c o lle g e s .

O rg a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c tu r e

R esearch a d m in is tra t io n i s a r e l a t i v e ly new fu n c tio n a t most o f

th e i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s ca te g o ry . T h i r ty - e ig h t o f th e se o f f ic e s o r

90% have been e s ta b l is h e d s in c e 1961. T w enty-th ree o f th e se o f f ic e s

r e p o r t to e i t h e r the p re s id e n t o r academic v ic e p r e s id e n t . T his p a t te r n

o f c o n tro l accounts fo r 55% o f th e o f f ic e s in t h i s c a te g o ry . The r e

m ainder r e p o r t to v i r t u a l l y every o th e r u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c e m entioned

in th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

W ith reg a rd to the fo rm u la tio n o f re s e a rc h p o l ic y , 34 o f th e 42

o f f i c e s in d ic a te d i t was a sh a red f a c u l ty -a d m in is t r a t io n r e s p o n s ib i l i t y .

Only fo u r o f f ic e s o r 10% in d ic a te d th a t the a d m in is tra t io n had s o le o r

p rim ary r e s p o n s ib i l i ty in th is a re a . Most re se a rc h o f f ic e s in t h i s

c a te g o ry a re r e l a t i v e ly sm all o p e ra t io n s . T h i r ty - e ig h t o f f ic e s o r

90% in d ic a te d they had one to th re e p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members. O rgani

z a t io n a l diagram s rev ea led th a t over 75% o f th e se o f f ic e s had only one

p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f member. The same p ro p o rtio n s were g e n e ra lly a ls o

t ru e o f c l e r i c a l employees. T h i r ty - f iv e o f f ic e s o r 83% re p o r te d they

had one to th re e c l e r i c a l em ployees.

S ince th e s t a f f s iz e s a re g e n e ra lly s m a ll, th e o f f i c e budgets a re

co rresp o n d in g ly r a th e r low. Twelve o f f ic e s o r 29% re p o r te d annual o f

f ic e budgets o f under $25,000 w h ile 17 o f f i c e s r e p o r te d budgets o f


68

$25,000 - $49,999. Ten o f f i c e s o r 24% were in th e $50,000 - $99,999

ran g e .

In responding to th e is s u e o f c o n tro l over th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f

in d i r e c t c o s t fu n d s, one o f f i c e in d ic a te d com plete c o n tr o l , 17 p a r t i a l

c o n tro l and 24 no c o n tr o l . Table 4-18 d e s c r ib e s th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f

u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c e s c o n tr o l l in g in d i r e c t c o s ts w ith in th e i n s t i t u t i o n s

in t h i s group. A gain , many v a r ia t io n s occur in th e s t r u c tu r e o f con

t r o l over th e s e fu n d s . The p e rcen tag e o f re s e a rc h o f f i c e s p a r t i c i

p a tin g in th e d e c is io n making p ro cess in t h i s group compares fav o rab ly

to th e p e rc e n t invo lved in th e sample as a w hole. With reg a rd to the

r e c ip ie n t s o f in d i r e c t c o s t funds, a v e ry h igh number o f th e re s e a rc h

o f f i c e s in t h i s group a re dependent upon th e s e funds to support th e i r

own o p e ra t io n . S ix teen o f f i c e s re c e iv e d from 11-100% o f th e s e funds

to support t h e i r own o p e ra t io n . Only e leven re s e a rc h o f f i c e s rep o rted

t h a t any o f th ese funds were given d i r e c t l y to academ ic u n i t s . Seven

te e n o f th e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s put in d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds

d i r e c t l y in to th e g e n e ra l fund and e ig h t i n s t i t u t i o n s p laced 31% o r

more o f th e se funds in to an in te r n a l f a c u l ty re se a rc h fund.

I n te r n a l d iv e r s i f i c a t io n o r s p e c ia l iz a t io n was r a r e among th e se

o f f i c e s . T h e ir sm all s t a f f s iz e does no t lend i t s e l f to s p e c ia l iz a t io n

o r d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n . Three o f f ic e s re p o r te d a s s ig n in g o f f i c e s t a f f to

p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs . Three o f f i c e s a ls o in d ic a te d t h e i r s t a f f was

a ss ig n ed to v a r io u s c o lle g e s o r u n iv e r s i ty u n i t s and s ix o f f ic e s in d i

c a te d th e e x is te n c e o f a p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n .


TABLE 4 - 1 8

CONTROL OVER DISTRIBUTION OR INDIRECT COST

69

CONTROLLING PARTY FREQUENCY PERCENT

R esearch O ff ic e w ith Adminis t r a t i o n 16 .38

U n iv e rs i ty Budget Committee 1 .02


B usiness O ff ic e 5 .12

C e n tra l A d m in is tra tio n 3 .07

R esearch O ff ic e 1 .02

V.P. F inance 4 .10

V.P. B usiness 1 .02

F inance D ire c to r 2 .05

C om ptro lle r 4 .10

V.P. Academic 1 .02

S ta te 1 .02


70

Functions

P re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s were perform ed by 39 o f th e 42 o f f ic e s In

th is ca teg o ry . T h i r ty - f iv e o f f i c e s engaged in p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n

s e rv ic e s w h ile on ly 22 had r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in th e a re a o f a c tiv e

account a d m in is tra t io n . Only 16 o f f i c e s engaged in accoun ting and f i s

c a l a c t i v i t i e s .

Reported perform ance and e f f e c t iv e n e s s d a ta

Because t h i s group c o n ta in s many sm all p r iv a te c o lle g e s and emerg

ing s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s , th e p e rc e iv e d re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f f a c u l ty

and a d m in is tra t io n were ty p ic a l ly low. Four o f f ic e s r a te d the re se a rc h

o r ie n ta t io n as m inim al, 15 as below average , 17 as average and s ix as

s tro n g o r very s tro n g . An exam ination o f d a ta p e r ta in in g to t o t a l r e

search and developm ent a l lo c a t io n s in each o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s ten d s

to confirm th e accu racy o f th e se r a t in g s .

Data on funding , so u rces re v e a le d th a t 27 i n s t i t u t i o n s rec e iv e d

70% o r more o f t h e i r funds from f e d e r a l ag e n c ie s . E ig h teen o f f ic e s

rep o rted th a t from 10-39% o f t h e i r re se a rc h funds were g en e ra ted in

te r n a l ly , Only 22 o f f ic e s r e p o r te d the r e c e ip t o f funds from p r iv a te

so u rces . In most cases t h i s amounted to 29% o r l e s s o f t o t a l revenues.

By d e f in i t io n a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s in th is ca tego ry had a t o t a l annual

volume o f awards under $5 .5 m il l io n . Twenty f iv e o f th e re se a rc h o f

f ic e s re p o r te d awards o f under $1 .5 m il l io n . The t o t a l annual number

o f p ro p o sa ls su b m itted fo r fund ing was under 299 a y e a r f o r a l l excep t

one o f f ic e . Twenty seven o f f i c e s su bm itted l e s s than 99 y e a r ly . D e sp ite


71

th e c o n s is te n c ie s i n le v e l o f re s e a rc h and developm ent funding and in

th e number o f p ro p o sa l s u b m iss io n s ,th e re was c o n s id e ra b le v a r ia t io n

among i n s t i t u t i o n s as to the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. T able 4-19

shows th e range o f th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa l ap p ro v a ls among th e i n s t i t u

t io n s in t h i s ca te g o ry . The d a ta in d ic a te s th a t some i n s t i t u t i o n s a re

much more s u c c e s s fu l than o th e r s in g e t t in g t h e i r p ro p o sa ls funded.

A d d itio n a l re s e a rc h w i l l be re q u ire d to i s o l a t e th e v a rio u s f a c to r s

in v o lv ed in t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y to g e t p ro p o sa ls funded. The

type o f funds be ing sought and even th e way in which, th e p e rcen tag e o f

ap p ro v a l i s c a lc u la te d may b o th have a b e a rin g on t h i s outcome m easure.

TABLE 4-19

PERCENT OF PROPOSALS FUNDED AMONG SMALL INSTITUTIONS WITH SMALL R & D

PERCENT FUNDED FREQUENCY PERCENT

< 29% 7 .17

30 - 39% 9 .21

40 - 49% 7 .17

50 - 59% 10 .23

60 - 69% 5 .12

70 - 79% 4 .10

>80% 0 .00

TOTAL 42 100.00


72

As in th e sample as a w hole, th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s in t h i s group

re p o r te d f a r more in c re a s e s th an d e c lin e s on a l l o f th e r e le v a n t v a r i

a b le s . The nunbers o f p ro fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f had in c re a se d

over th e p a s t th re e y e a rs and 17 o f f ic e s re p o r te d a 10% o r g r e a te r in

c re a se in th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. The t o t a l volume o f awards

in c re a se d 10-29% in 11 i n s t i t u t i o n s and 30% o r more in 13 i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Only f iv e o f f ic e s re p o r te d a d e c lin e in th e t o t a l volume o f awards.

The t o t a l number o f sp o n so rs , th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls

and the o f f ic e budget a l l showed s tro n g in c re a s e s .

P o te n t ia l m easures o f R esearch a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

R esearch a d m in is tra to rs in th is group l i s t e d th e number o f f a c u l ty

su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls as th e b e s t index o f t h e i r e f f e c t iv e n e s s . O ther

im p o rtan t m easures were th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded and the t o t a l

volume o f awards. Responses to open-ended q u e s tio n s reg a rd in g e f fe c

tiv e n e s s y ie ld e d s im i la r answ ers. In a d d it io n to look ing a t th e num

b e r o f f a c u l ty s u b m ittin g , s e v e ra l responden ts a ls o s t r e s s e d th e im

p o rtan ce o f ra p p o r t w ith f a c u l ty , a d m in is tra t io n and p o te n t i a l sp o n so rs .

Respondents in t h i s c a teg o ry r e s i s te d th e concep t o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s

m easures fo r re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to rs more th an resp o n d en ts in any o th e r

group. Eleven d id n o t respond to th e q u e s tio n and s e v e r a l o th e r s com

mented th a t t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s could n o t be e v a lu a te d by a "nunbers

game."


73

Sumnary and f in d in g s o f s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t

R esearch o f f i c e s in th e c a te g o ry o f sm a ll en ro llm en t i n s t i t u t i o n s

w ith low re s e a rc h and developm ent a l lo c a t io n s a re g e n e ra lly sm a ll opera

t io n s . T y p ic a lly th e re i s one p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f member and two o r

th re e c l e r i c a l em ployees. The o f f i c e most o f te n re p o r ts to the p r e s i

den t o r academ ic v ic e p r e s id e n t . Most o f f ic e s subm it few er than 99 p ro

p o sa ls a y e a r . However, g re a t d if f e re n c e s e x i s t among i n s t i t u t i o n s as

to the p e rc e n t o f th e se p ro p o sa ls t h a t a re funded.

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0-10,000 E nro llm ent and

$ 5 .6 -2 0 .5 M illio n R esearch and Development A llo c a tio n s

There were 19 o f f ic e s among t h i s groiqj o f i n s t i t u t i o n s who re

sponded to th e su rv ey . In c lu d ed w ere e ig h t p u b lic and 11 p r iv a te

i n s t i t u t i o n s . Many o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s a re p r e s t ig io u s en g in e e rin g

and sc ie n c e sch o o ls w ith e x c e l le n t academ ic re p u ta tio n s .


The re se a rc h o f f ic e s in th is c a teg o ry a re a ls o r e l a t i v e ly re c e n t

in t h e i r o r ig in s . None were in e x is te n c e p r io r to 1956 and n in e o f

them have been e s ta b l is h e d s in c e 1966. The p a t te r n o f to whom th ese

o f f ic e s a re r e s p o n s ib le i s ex trem ely v a r ie d . Four o f f ic e s r e p o r t d i

r e c t ly to th e p r e s id e n t , one to a v ic e -p re s id e n t fo r re s e a rc h , fo u r to

a v ic e -p re s id e n t f o r f in an ce and th re e to th e academic v ic e - p re s id e n t .

R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n i s e i t h e r sha red (12 i n s t i t u t i o n s ) o r i s


74

c o n tro l le d com pletely o r In p a r t by th e a d m in is tra t io n (seven i n s t i t u

t io n s ) .

The p r o fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f o f th e se o f f ic e s tended to be

somewhat l a r g e r than th a t o f th o se o f f ic e s in th e low re s e a rc h and

developm ent a l lo c a t io n g roup. F if te e n o f f ic e s re p o r te d hav ing one -

th re e p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f members, th re e o f f ic e s had fo u r - s ix w h ile

one o f f i c e had seven - te n . Budgets were co rresp o n d in g ly l a r g e r . Nine

had budgets o f $25,000 - 49,999 and n in e o th e rs had budgets o f $50,000 -

149,999. One re s e a rc h o f f i c e l i s t e d i t s annual budget as be ing in excess

o f $250,000.

Only one re s e a rc h o f f i c e in th is group in d ic a te d com plete c o n tro l

over th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t co st re inbursem en t fu n d s, f iv e o f

f ic e s in d ic a te d p a r t i a l c o n tro l and 13 re p o r te d no c o n tro l o r in v o lv e

ment. C o n tro l o f th e s e funds v a rie d g re a t ly among th e i n s t i t u t i o n s

su rveyed . No dominant p a t t e r n was d is c e r n ib le . Nine i n s t i t u t i o n s

p laced a l l the I n d i r e c t c o s t re inbursem en t funds i n to a g e n e ra l u n iv er

s i t y fund . One re se a rc h o f f i c e in th e group rec e iv e d a l l funds and

d i r e c te d t h e i r a l lo c a t io n . Academic u n i ts were th e n e x t m ajor r e c i

p ie n t o f th e s e funds and on ly two i n s t i t u t i o n s a l lo c a te d any o f th ese

funds f o r th e f a c u l ty re s e a rc h fund.

Few o f f i c e s in th is group rep o rted any degree o f d e c e n tra l iz a

t io n o r i n t e r n a l s p e c ia l i z a t io n . Only two o f f ic e s assig n ed s t a f f mem

b e rs to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs , th re e assigned s t a f f members to co lle g es

o r u n i ts w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty and one had a p ro p o sa l development

s e c t io n . The f in d in g o f l i t t l e in te r n a l d iv e r s i f i c a t io n i s , i n p a r t .


75

due to s tro n g e n ç h as ls on th e f e d e ra l governm ent as the on ly sou rce o f

re s e a rc h funds.

F unc tions

A ll b u t one o f the re se a rc h o f f ic e s i n t h i s ca teg o ry engaged in

p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s . Ten o f the n in e te e n o f f ic e s p rov ided p ro p o sa l

p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s , 14 engaged in a c t iv e account a d m in is tra t io n and

n in e had r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s in th e a re a o f accoun ting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y .

The fu n c tio n s perform ed by th e se re se a rc h o f f i c e s ty p ify th o se fu n c tio n s

perform ed by o th e r o f f ic e s in th e v a rio u s c a te g o r ie s under s tu d y . A

somewhat lower p e rc e n ta g e o f o f f ic e s in v o lv e d in p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n

a c t i v i t i e s i s th e on ly notew orthy d i f f e r e n c e .

R eported perform ance and e f f e c t iv e n e s s d a ta

Respondents from th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s r a te d the research , o r ie n ta t io n

o f t h e i r fa c u lty and a d m in is tra t io n as b e in g r e l a t i v e ly h ig h . Ten were

r a te d as s tro n g o r very s tro n g , seven as average and two as below aver

age. As a group, th ese o f f ic e s a re h e a v ily dependent upon th e f e d e ra l

government as th e sou rce o f most o f t h e i r re s e a rc h fun d s. Fourteen

i n s t i t u t i o n s rec e iv e d 80% o r more o f t h e i r re se a rc h and developm ent

funds from the f e d e r a l governm ent. Only e ig h t o f f ic e s re p o r te d th e r e

c e ip t o f any p r iv a te funds fo r r e s e a rc h and only th re e re p o r te d having

any in te r n a l re se a rc h funds. F u r th e r developm ent o f p r iv a te funding

so u rces i s a m a tte r many o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s may w ant to c o n s id e r .

The range o f re se a rc h and developm ent funds acq u ired by i n s t i t u t i o n s


76

In t h i s group was $5 .6 - 20 .5 m il l io n . W ithin th a t range 11 i n s t i t u

t io n s re c e iv e d $5.6 - 10 .5 m il l io n , s ix re c e iv e d $10.6 - 15 .5 m il lio n

and two re c e iv e d $15.6 - 20 .5 m il l io n . The t o t a l number o f p ro p o sa ls

su b m itted each y e a r by th e se o f f ic e s v a r ie d from few er than 99 to more

than 500. S ix te e n o f th e o f f i c e s re p o r te d p ro p o sa l subm issions o f

from 100 - 399.

A gain , g r e a t d if f e re n c e s in th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded were

re p o r te d by th e re se a rc h o f f ic e s in t h i s c a te g o ry . T ab le 4-20 d e sc rib es

th e d i s t r i b u t io n o f p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded among th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s .

An a d d it io n a l exam ination o f d a ta re v e a le d th a t th e r e la t io n s h ip b e t

ween the t o t a l volume o f awards and the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded

i s n o t ve ry h e lp f u l i n e x p la in in g th e g re a t v a r ia t io n s in p e rc e n t o f

p ro p o sa ls funded . Some i n s t i t u t i o n s a t the low er end o f th e $5.6 -

20.5 m il l io n range had th e g r e a te s t p e rc e n ta g e o f p ro p o sa ls approved.

D ata concern ing changes in o f f i c e c h a r a c te r i s t i c s over th e p a s t

th re e y e a rs re v e a le d th a t s t a f f s iz e s have rem ained r e l a t i v e ly s ta b le .

The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded has in c re a s e d only s l i g h t l y , however,

s tro n g in c re a s e s have o ccu rred in th e t o t a l annual re se a rc h and develop

ment funds a c q u ire d and in th e number o f d i f f e r e n t sponsors and number

o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls .

P o te n t ia l m easures o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c tiv e n e s s

The number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls was conside red th e most

s e n s i t iv e in d ic a to r o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s in t h i s group. The number o f d i f

f e r e n t sponso rs and th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded were a ls o ranked as


77

TABLE 4 -2 0

PERCENT OF PROPOSALS FUNDED

FREQUENCY PERCENT

< 29% 1 .05

30 - 39% 3 .16

40 - 49% 5 .26

50 - 59% 4 .21

60 - 69% 3 .16

70 - 79% 2 .11

> 80% 1 .05

TOTAL 19 100.00


78

h ig h in in ç o r ta n c e . I n open-ended responses th e most f re q u e n tly men

tio n e d c r i t e r i a were r a p p o r t w ith f a c u l ty and sp o n so rin g a g e n c ie s , th e

number o f sponsor c o n ta c ts made on b e h a lf o f th e f a c u l ty and th e e f f e c

t iv e d issem in a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n to f a c u l ty .

Summary and fin d in g s o f s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t

R esearch o f f ic e s in t h i s ca teg o ry vary g r e a t ly in s i z e , p a t te r n o f

o r g a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l and in th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. They

ten d to r e ly h e a v ily upon th e f e d e r a l government f o r re s e a rc h funds

and l e s s than h a lf r e p o r t any s ig n i f i c a n t awards from p r iv a te so u rc e s .

A few o f f ic e s have s p e c ia l iz e d i n te r n a l fu n c tio n s w here in o f f i c e s t a f f

members a re assigned to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs . S trong c l e r i c a l and tec h

n i c a l s t a f f s a re p re s e n t in a number o f th e se o f f i c e s .

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith 0 -10 ,000 E nro llm ent and R esearch

and Development A llo c a tio n s in Excess o f $20.6 M illio n

T his group o f re s e a rc h o f f ic e s c o n s t i tu te d th e s m a lle s t ca tego ry

in th e s tu d y . Seven o f f ic e s responded to th e su rv ey . In c lu d ed were

f iv e p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s and two p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s . T his group con

ta in s some o f the most e x c lu s iv e and p re s t ig io u s i n s t i t u t i o n s in the

U nited S ta te s .


Of th e seven o f f ic e s in t h i s group, two were e s ta b l is h e d from

1946-50, two from 1956-60, one from 1961-65 and two from 1966-70. In


79

term s o f a d m in is tra t iv e c o n tr o l , one re s e a rc h o f f ic e r e p o r ts to a p ro

v o s t , two to a v ic e - p re s id e n t fo r developm ent, one to a c o m p tro lle r

and th re e d i r e c t l y to th e p r e s id e n t . R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n i s

a sh a red a d m in is t r a t io n - f a c u i ty r e s p o n s ib i l i ty in s ix o f th e seven r e

sponding i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The s i z e o f th e p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f ranged from one - th re e in fo u r

o f f i c e s , fo u r - s ix in one o f f ic e and seven - te n in two o f f i c e s . The

number o f c l e r i c a l employees c lo s e ly p a r a l le l e d th e number o f p ro fe s

s io n a l s t a f f . O pera ting budgets were $50,000 - 74,999 in two o f f i c e s ,

$75,000 - 99,999 in one o f f i c e , $100,000 - 149,999 in two o f f i c e s and

$150,000 - 250,000 in two o f f i c e s .

Only one o f th e seven o f f ic e s re p o rte d b e in g invo lved in d e c is io n s

reg a rd in g th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s t fu n d s. C on tro l o v e r d i s t r i

b u tio n o f th e se funds v a r ie d g re a t ly among th e i n s t i t u t i o n s . In th re e

i n s t i t u t i o n s th e se d e c is io n s were made by e i t h e r the v ic e -p re s id e n t

fo r f in a n c e o r th e t r e a s u r e r . F ive o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s p lac e d a l l i n

d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds in to th e g e n e ra l fund. One i n s t i t u t i o n

re b a te d a l l th e se funds back to academic u n i t s . In no case d id th e

re s e a rc h o f f i c e re c e iv e any o f th e se funds fo r t h e i r own b u d g e t.

A lthough none o f th e o f f ic e s in t h i s group had a s e p a ra te p ro p o sa l

developm ent s e c t io n , fo u r o f f ic e s assigned s t a f f members to the v a rio u s

c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty . One o f f i c e assigned s t a f f mem

b e rs to in d iv id u a l sp o n so rs . The c le a r tre n d in th is group i s d e c e n tra l

iz a t io n w herein s t a f f members a re assigned throughout the i n s t i t u t i o n .


80

F unctions

The usual range o f fu n c tio n s were perform ed by th e seven o f f ic e s

in t h i s group. S ix o f f ic e s engaged in p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s , f iv e

in a c tiv e account a d m in is tra t io n and two in accoun ting and f i s c a l

a c t i v i t i e s . Only th re e o f fe re d p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s .


The re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s was ra te d average

by one responden t, s tro n g by th re e o th e rs and v e ry s tro n g by th e o th e r

th re e in the group. Only one i n s t i t u t i o n re p o r te d alm ost com pletely

dependency upon th e f e d e ra l government fo r re se a rc h fu n d s. F ive re

ce ived from 10-29% of t h e i r awards from p r iv a te so u rces and fo u r re

p o rte d having s ig n i f ic a n t income from i n te r n a l so u rc e s .

Three o f f ic e s re p o rte d a t o t a l annual volume o f awards o f $20.5 -

25 .5 m illio n , two re p o rte d $25.6 - 30 .5 m il l io n and two o th e r in d ic a te d

awards in excess o f $30.5 m il l io n . P ro p o sa l subm issions were c o n s is t

e n t ly h igh among i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s group. Two w ere in th e 400-599

ran g e , th ree in th e 800-999 ran g e , one in th e 1 ,000-1 ,199 range and

one in the 1 ,200-1 ,399 range.

D esp ite th e s im i la r i ty o f th e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s in term s o f th e t o t a l

annual volume o f aw ards, th e re w as, again a g re a t d e a l o f v a r ia t io n in

the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. The range o f p e rc e n t o f approval

v a r ie d from 30-39% to over 80%.

In terms o f changes in o f f ic e s t a t i s t i c s over th e p a s t th re e y e a rs .


81

th e number o f employees and o f f i c e b udge ts have rem ained f a i r l y con

s t a n t . L i t t l e change has a ls o been observed in th e number o f spon

s o rs o r the t o t a l volume o f aw ards. Three o f f i c e s re p o r te d a 10-29%

d e c lin e in the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded . The o n ly s tro n g in c re a s e

o c c u rre d in the number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls . I t appears

t h a t th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s have m ain ta in ed h ig h l e v e l s o f re s e a rc h and

developm ent awards by su b m ittin g h ig h numbers o f p ro p o sa ls and by in

v o lv in g more and more f a c u l ty in th e p ro c e s s .

P o te n t i a l measures o f re s e a rc h adm inis t r a t i o n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

Among th e p o t e n t ia l e f f e c t iv e n e s s m easures m entioned by t h i s group

w ere th e number and p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded , th e number o f d i f f e r

e n t sp o n so rs , top a d m in is t r a t io n 's c o n fid en ce , r a p p o r t w ith f a c u l ty

and th e number o f s e rv ic e s p ro v id ed .

Summary and f in d in g s o f s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t

The re s e a rc h o f f i c e s in t h i s group p ro ce ss a h ig h number o f p ro

p o s a ls . They have em phasized in v o lv in g a d d i t io n a l f a c u l ty in th e pro

p o s a l subm ission p ro c e s s . R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n i s sh a red by

f a c u l ty and a d m in is t ra t io n . O rg a n iz a tio n a lly th e re i s a tendency to

ward p a r t i a l d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n . S ta f f members in s e v e ra l o f f i c e s were

a ss ig n e d to v a rio u s c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty . Though

th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded has dec reased in s e v e ra l i n s t i t u t i o n s ,

th is appears to have been o f f s e t by an in c re a s e i n th e t o t a l number o f

p ro p o sa ls subm itted and by h ig h e r numbers o f f a c u l ty a t te n p t in g to


82

g e t aw ards.

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith10,001 - 20,000 E nro llm ent and R esearch

and Development A llo c a tio n s o f $0 - 5 .5 M ill io n

A t o t a l o f 22 re se a rc h o f f ic e s i n t h i s c a teg o ry responded to the

su rv ey . Of th e s e , 17 were p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s and f iv e were p r iv a te

i n s t i t u t i o n s . Included a re many newer s t a t e u n iv e r s i t i e s which a re

p a r t o f s t a t e system s o f h ig h e r e d u c a tio n and a number o f p r iv a te urban

u n i v e r s i t i e s .

O rg a n iz a tio n a l s t r u c tu r e s

Seventeen o f th e 22 o f f ic e s in t h i s c a te g o ry were e s ta b l is h e d a f t e r

1961. The most common p a t te rn s o f o r g a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l i n t h i s group

f in d th e re se a rc h o f f ic e b e in g re s p o n s ib le to e i t h e r a g rad u a te dean

o r to the academ ic v ic e -p re s id e n t . T h is o ccu rred in over 54% o f th e

c a se s . R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n was sh a red in 17 i n s t i t u t i o n s and

hand led p r im a r i ly by the a d m in is tra t io n i n f iv e o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

P ro fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f s iz e s rem ained alm ost e x c lu s iv e ly in

th e one - th re e range. O pera ting b udge ts ranged from under $25,000

to a maximum o f $74,999.

E ig h t re s e a rc h o f f ic e s in d ic a te d they had p a r t i a l c o n tro l over th e

d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d i r e c t c o s ts . I n d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds were

d i s t r ib u t e d w idely th roughout v a rio u s f a c e ts o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s in

th is group. Only e ig h t u n iv e r s i t i e s p la c e d th ese monies i n t h e i r gen

e r a l fund . Seven re b a te d from 11-39% back to th e re s e a rc h o f f ic e and


83

te n o th e rs gave 10-49% o f th ese funds d i r e c t l y to v a rio u s academic

u n i t s . The f a c u l ty re se a rc h fund a ls o re c e iv e d some o f th e s e funds

in f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s .

I n t e r n a l l y , l i t t l e d e c e n t ra l iz a t io n o r s p e c ia l iz a t io n was p re s e n t

i n th e s e o f f i c e s . Only one a ssig n ed s t a f f to sp o n so rs . Three o f f ic e s

a ss ig n e d s t a f f to u n i ts w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty and one had a p ro p o sa l

developm ent s e c t io n .

F unctions

A ll th e responding o f f ic e s in t h i s c a te g o ry in d ic a te d th a t they

w ere in v o lv ed in p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s . Fourteen o f fe re d p ro p o sa l

p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s , 14 were invo lved in a c tiv e account a d m in is tra

t io n and fo u r in d ic a te d r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s f o r accoun ting and f i s c a l

a c t i v i t i e s .

R eported perform ance and e f fe c tiv e n e s s d a ta

Nine responden ts r a te d the re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f t h e i r f a c u l ty

and a d m in is tra t io n as below average . Ten responden ts r a te d t h e i r

i n s t i t u t i o n as average and two as b e in g s tro n g . The so u rces o f fund

in g were ex trem ely v a r ie d among th ese i n s t i t u t i o n s . T able 4-21 examines

th e so u rces o f re se a rc h funds in th ese i n s t i t u t i o n s . F ou rteen i n s t i t u

t io n s rec e iv e d 79% o r l e s s o f t h e i r re se a rc h funds from th e f e d e r a l

governm ent. Nine i n s t i t u t i o n s a cq u ired 10-19% of t h e i r awards from

p r iv a te so u rc e s . O v e ra ll , t h is group appears to have s u c c e s s fu l ly

d iv e r s i f i e d t h e i r funding so u rc e s .


84

TABLE 4 -2 1

SOURCES OF RESEARCH FUNDS MEDIUM INSTITUTIONS WITH LOW R & D

PERCENT FUNDS RECEIVED PRIVATE

SOURCEFEDERAL INTERNAL

0 - 9% 9 0 11 ■

10-19% 9 0 6

20-29% 3 0 1

30-39% 0 1 2

40-49% 1 3 1

50-59% 0 3 1

60-69% 0 2 0

70-79% 0 5 0

80-89% 0 5 0

90-100% 0 3 0

In term s o f th e t o t a l volume o f aw ards, 11 i n s t i t u t i o n s rece iv ed

$0 - 1 .5 m il l io n and 11 re c e iv e d $1 .6 - 5 .5 m il l io n . The annual num

b e r o f p ro p o sa l subm issions was 0-99 in e ig h t u n i v e r s i t i e s , 100-199

in n in e i n s t i t u t i o n s and 200-399 in f iv e o th e r s . The p e rc e n t o f p ro

p o sa ls funded ag a in v a r ie d g r e a t ly , how ever, 17 o f th e o f f ic e s re p o r te d

the fund ing r a t e as be ing under 49%.

S ta f f s iz e h as rem ained c o n s ta n t du rin g th e p a s t th re e y e a rs . The


85

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded in c re a se d in seven i n s t i t u t i o n s , rem ained

th e same in n in e and decreased i n f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s . These c o lle g e s

and u n iv e r s i t i e s re p o r te d mixed r e s u l t s in term s o f th e t o t a l volume

o f aw ards. F ive re p o r te d 10-29% d e c re a s e s , fo u r rem ained unchanged,

e ig h t ex p e rien ced 10-29% in c re a s e s and fo u r in c re a s e s o f 30% or more.

The g r e a te s t in c re a s e s occurred in the number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g

p ro p o sa ls . These o f f ic e s appear to have made s tro n g e f f o r t s in en

courag ing f a c u l ty to subm it p ro p o sa ls and in developing t h e i r sou rces

o f fu n d in g .

P o te n t i a l m easures o f re se a rc h adm inis t r a t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

R espondents ranked changes in number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro

p o s a ls as th e b e s t in d ic a to r o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s . Open-ended responses

ranked th e annual volume o f awards and th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls fund

ed as b e in g im p o rtan t e f fe c tiv e n e s s c r i t e r i a . O thers in c lu d ed ra p p o r t

w ith f a c u l ty , the number o f o f f ic e p u b lic a tio n s and th e number o f spon

s o r s .

Summary and f in d in g s o f sp e c ia l i n t e r e s t

These re se a rc h o f f ic e s are r e l a t i v e ly re c e n t in o r ig in . T h e ir

o f f i c e s iz e s a re sm a ll, b u t h e a v ily s e rv ic e o r ie n te d . Many a re in vo lved

in d e c is io n s reg a rd in g in d ir e c t c o s t reim bursem ents. E f fo r ts have been

made to in c re a s e the number of sponso rs and th e number o f f a c u l ty sub

m it t in g p ro p o sa ls . The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded tended to be low,

b u t s t i l l v a r ie d g re a t ly among th e i n s t i t u t i o n s .


86

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith10,001 - 20 j 000 E nro llm ent and R esearch and

Development A llo c a tio n s o f $5.6 - 20 .5 M illio n

E ig h teen re s e a rc h o f f ic e s in t h i s group responded to th e su rvey .

S ix te e n were p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s and two w ere p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s .

T his i s a he te rogeneous group o f s t a t e and p r iv a te u n i v e r s i t i e s . Many

a re lo c a te d in th e so u th o r f a r w e s t. Most a re co n sid e red to be av er

age to above average in academic s ta n d in g .


F if te e n o f th ese o f f ic e s were e s ta b l is h e d a f t e r 1961. Three o th e rs

were somewhat o ld e r w ith one d a tin g back to th e 1946-1950 p e r io d . Four

o f th e o f f i c e s r e p o r t d i r e c t l y to th e p r e s id e n t , th re e to th e v ic e -

p re s id e n t fo r re s e a rc h , fou r to th e academ ic v ic e - p re s id e n t and fou r

to a g rad u a te dean. R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n i s a sh a red re sp o n s i

b i l i t y o f f a c u l ty and a d m in is tra t io n in 13 o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s . In fo u r

i n s t i t u t i o n s t h i s was p r im a r i ly an a d m in is tra t io n r e s p o n s ib i l i ty and in

one i n s t i t u t i o n i t was com pletely an a d m in is tra t io n r e s p o n s ib i l i ty .

Most re s e a rc h o f f ic e s in th is group re p o r te d having one - th re e

p ro fe s s io n a l and one - th re e c l e r i c a l s t a f f members. Four o f f ic e s had

from fo u r - s ix p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members and one had from seven - te n .

Twelve o f th e o f f ic e s had budgets rang ing from $50,000 - $100,000. One

o f f ic e in d ic a te d i t s budget exceeded $150,000.

Two o f f ic e s in d ic a te d com plete a d m in is tra t iv e c o n tro l over the

d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds. F iv e o f f ic e s had


87

p a r t i a l c o n tro l and 11 had no c o n tro l a t a l l i n t h i s m a tte r . Among

th e 11 i n s t i t u t i o n s w herein th e re se a rc h o f f ic e had no c o n tro l over

th e se fu n d s, no c o n s is te n t p a t te r n o f c o n tro l was d i s c e r n ib le . Many

d i f f e r e n t o f f ic e s o r in d iv id u a ls were in v o lv ed . These v a r ie d from

th e p re s id e n t to th e u n iv e r s i ty budget committee to th e v ic e -p re s id e n t

f o r f in a n c e .

Only fo u r o f th e se u n iv e r s i t ie s p u t in d i r e c t c o s t monies in to

th e g e n e ra l fund . Academic u n i ts were the prim ary r e c ip ie n t s in

e ig h t o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s . Two u n iv e r s i t ie s d i r e c t a l l i n d i r e c t

c o s t funds in to the f a c u l ty re se a rc h fund. S ix re s e a rc h o f f ic e s

rec e iv e d approx im ate ly 11-20% o f in d i r e c t c o s t funds to supplem ent

t h e i r own o p e ra tio n s .

Three re s e a rc h o f f ic e s a ssig n ed s t a f f members to p a r t i c u l a r

sp o n so rs . Three o f f ic e s a ss ig n e d s t a f f members to u n i ts w ith in

th e u n iv e r s i ty and fo u r o f f ic e s re p o rte d having p ro p o sa l develop

ment s e c t io n s .

Functions

A ll b u t one o f th e r e p o r t in g o f f ic e s were Involved in prerprppbsal

a c t i v i t i e s . Only n in e o f th e o f f ic e s o f fe re d p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n

se irv ic e s . Fourteen o f f ic e s had r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s f o r a c t iv e account

a d m in is tra t io n , b u t on ly fo u r o f f ic e s perform ed accoun ting and f i s c a l

a c t i v i t i e s .


88


S ix resp o n d en ts r a te d t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as s tro n g o r very s tro n g

in re s e a rc h o r ie n ta t io n . E leven were r a te d as average and one as below

a v e rag e . W ith reg a rd to fund ing so u rc e s , e ig h t o f th e o f f ic e s re p o r te d

having i n te r n a l funds a v a i la b le to su p p o rt f a c u l ty i n t e r e s t . Nine o f

f i c e s re c e iv e d 10-29% o f t h e i r awards from p r iv a te s o u rc e s . F if te e n

i n s t i t u t i o n s re p o r te d t h a t 60-80% o f t h e i r award funds came from th e

f e d e r a l governm ent. The d i s t r ib u t io n o f th e t o t a l annual volume o f

awards among i n s t i t u t i o n s in th is group had ten in the $5.6 - 10.5

m il l io n ra n g e , fo u r in th e $10.6 - 15 .5 m il lio n range and fo u r in th e

$15.6 - 20 .5 m il l io n range .

Both th e number o f p ro p o sa ls su b m itted and the p e rc e n t funded

v a r ie d g r e a t ly among th ese i n s t i t u t i o n s . E igh t o f f ic e s re p o r te d p ro

c e ss in g 200-399 p ro p o sa ls w h ile f iv e o f f i c e s p rocessed 600-799. The

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded v a r ie d from le s s than 29% in one case to

a maximum o f 60-69% in th re e ca se s . Most o f f ic e s were in th e 40-49%

range on t h i s v a r ia b le . T his f ig u re i s s l i g h t ly low er th an in most

o th e r o f f i c e c a te g o r ie s s tu d ie d .

P r o fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f s iz e s rem ained f a i r l y c o n s ta n t

among th e re se a rc h o f f ic e s in th is c a te g o ry . Two o f f i c e s , however,

r e p o r te d s u b s ta n t ia l d ec reases in s t a f f s iz e over the p a s t th re e y e a r s .

The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded, th e t o t a l annual volume o f awards and

th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls a l l r e g is te r e d in c re a s e s

i n alm ost one h a l f o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s group. The number o f


89

sponsors ev idenced a 10-29% in c re a s e in e ig h t i n s t i t u t i o n s and rem ained

f a i r l y c o n s ta n t in th e rem ainder.

P o te n t ia l m easures o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

F re q u en tly m entioned c r i t e r i a in t h i s group w ere th e p e rc e n t o f

p ro p o sa ls funded, th e t o t a l volume o f awards and th e number o f f a c u l ty

su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls . S ev e ra l responden ts rem arked t h a t g e t t in g more

f a c u l ty to subm it p ro p o sa ls was a p rim ary goa l o f t h e i r o f f i c e . Open-

ended responses were q u i te s im i la r w ith number o f in v o lv ed f a c u lty

topp ing th e l i s t . One responden t su g g ested th a t th e annual volume of

awards ( in d o l la r s ) as a r a t i o o f th e o p e ra tin g budget o f th e o f f ic e

was a u se fu l s t a t i s t i c in judg ing o f f i c e e f f e c t iv e n e s s .

Summary and f in d in g s o f s p e c ia l in te r e s t

The re se a rc h o f f ic e s in t h i s group have ex p erien ced s ig n i f ic a n t

growth during the p a s t th re e y e a rs in s e v e ra l d im ensions. These in

c lude t o t a l volume o f awards and number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g propos

a l s . Funding sou rces a re d iv e r s i f i e d and the p e rc e n ta g e o f p ro p o sa l

approva ls appears to be on th e in c r e a s e . There i s l i t t l e in te r n a l

s t a f f s p e c ia l iz a t io n and s t a f f s iz e has rem ained f a i r l y c o n s ta n t. In

d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds a re o f te n re b a te d back to academic

u n i ts perhaps in th e hope o f f u r th e r s t im u la tin g re se a rc h a c t i v i t i e s .


90

R esearch O ffices a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith10,001 - 20,000 Enrollm ent and R esearch and

Development A llo ca tio n s in Excess, o f $20.6 M illio n

E leven re s e a rc h o f f ic e s met th e c r i t e r i a fo r in c lu s io n in t h i s

c a te g o ry . Of th e s e , f iv e were in p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s and s ix were in

p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s . This group has many w e ll known p u b lic and p r i

v a te i n s t i t u t i o n s . Most a re o ld e r , e s ta b l is h e d sch o o ls w ith e x te n s iv e

g rad u a te program s.


The age o f th e se rese a rc h o f f ic e s v a r ie d g r e a t ly from one to

a n o th e r . Two o f f i c e s were e s ta b l is h e d p r io r to 1950, fo u r from 1956-

1960 w h ile th re e o th e rs have been e s ta b l is h e d s in c e 1966. In term s

o f o rg a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l , two o f f ic e s re p o r te d to a v ic e -p re s id e n t

f o r r e s e a rc h , two to an academic v ic e - p re s id e n t and th re e to a v ic e -

p re s id e n t f o r f in a n c e . Research p o lic y fo rm u la tio n was sh a red in

e ig jit u n iv e r s i t i e s and in th ree u n iv e r s i t i e s i t was handled p r im a r i ly

by th e a d m in is tra t io n .

S ta f f s iz e s w ere q u ite la rg e in some o f th e o f f ic e s in t h i s c a te

gory . Three o f f i c e s had as many as seven - te n p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f

members and seven o f f ic e s had anywhere from fo u r - fo u rte e n c l e r i c a l

e n ç lp y e e s . The m a jo r ity o f o f f ic e budgets were in excess o f $100,000

w ith th re e o f f i c e s b e in g in the $150,000 - 250,000 range.

Only one re s e a rc h o f f ic e in d ic a te d h av ing any c o n tro l w hatsoever

over th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d ir e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds. T his stem s


91

from th e f a c t t h a t n in e o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s p la c e a l l i n d i r e c t c o s t

monies in to th e g e n e ra l fund . This p r a c t ic e appears to be more com

mon in th e h ig h re s e a rc h and developm ent i n s t i t u t i o n s . In t h i s way

th e re i s no need fo r s p e c ia l d e c is io n s to be made reg a rd in g th e use o f

th e s e funds. R e s p o n s ib i l i ty r e s t s w ith in th e g e n e ra l bud g e ta ry appa

r a tu s o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n .

With re g a rd to i n t e r n a l s p e c ia l iz a t io n o r d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n , th e

t re n d in th e se re s e a rc h o f f i c e s i s c le a r ly toward p a r t i a l d e c e n t r a l i

z a t io n . Seven o f th e se o f f ic e s in d ic a te d t h e i r s t a f f members were

a ss ig n e d to v a rio u s c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith in the i n s t i t u t i o n . Only

one a ss ig n e d s t a f f members to sponsors and on ly one had a p ro p o sa l

developm ent s e c t io n .

F unctions

Ten o f th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s engaged in p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s ,

b u t on ly two o f fe re d p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e r v ic e s . Seven w ere in

vo lved in a c t iv e accoun t a d m in is tra t io n and f iv e had accoun ting and

f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . P o s s ib le e x p la n a tio n s f o r the la c k o f pro

p o s a l p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s in c lu d e th e p o s s ib i l i t y th a t th e s e s e rv ic e s

m ight be a v a i la b le a t th e departm ent o r c o lle g e l e v e l and f u r th e r th a t

th e f a c u l ty m ight be s u f f i c i e n t l y s o p h is t ic a te d in t h i s a re a so as to

need l i t t l e o u ts id e h e lp .


P e rce iv ed re s e a rc h o r ie n ta t io n was very h ig h among t h i s group o f


92

i n s t i t u t i o n s . One was ra te d as av e rag e , two as s tro n g and e ig h t as

very s tro n g . Four u n iv e r s i t i e s re c e iv e d v i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e i r awards

from th e f e d e ra l governm ent. F ive had re c e iv e d 10-29% of t h e i r r e

se a rc h funds from p r iv a te so u rc e s . Only th re e re s e a rc h o f f ic e s in d i

c a te d th e e x is te n c e o f s ig n i f i c a n t income from in te r n a l so u rc e s .

E xam ination o f th e annual d o l la r volume o f awards showed th a t th re e

i n s t i t u t i o n s were betw een $20.6 - 25 .5 m il l io n , one was in th e $25.6 -

30.5 m il l io n range and seven w ere o v e r $30.5 m il l io n .

A wide range o f annual p ro p o sa l subm issions e x is te d among th e o f

f ic e s i n th is group. R eported d a ta showed one o f f i c e in the 200-399

range and two o f f ic e s as h ig h as 1 ,200-1 ,399 annual subm issions. No

dom inant p a t te r n e x is te d w ith responses b e in g found throughout th e

s c a le . As in o th e r g roups, g r e a t v a r ia t io n s were a ls o observed i n th e

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded . Response o ccu rred throughout th e s c a le

w ith two o f f ic e s r e p o r t in g a 30-39% approval r a t e and two re p o r t in g

an app rova l r a t e i n excess o f 80%.

L i t t l e change has o ccu rred in th e s t a f f s iz e o r o p e ra tin g budget

o f th e s e o f f ic e s du rin g th e p a s t th re e y e a rs . Sm all in c re a se s have

o ccu rred in th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded and in the number o f spon

s o r s . S u b s ta n t ia l in c re a s e s in t o t a l re se a rc h and development funds

and in th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls were re p o rte d by

more than two th i r d s o f th e o f f ic e s in th is c a te g o ry . In most in

s ta n c e s th e se in c re a s e s ranged from te n to 29%, b u t in some cases i t

was in excess o f 30%.


93

P o te n t i a l m easures o f re se a rc h a d m ln ls tra t lo n e f fe c tiv e n e s s

The number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls and the p e rc e n t funded

w ere th e two most f re q u e n tly ranked i te m s . More than in o th e r c a te

g o r ie s , th e o p e ra t in g budget o f th e re se a rc h o f f ic e was a ls o seen as

an i n d i r e c t measure o f perform ance. In c re a se d o f f ic e budgets were

viewed as a v o te o f confidence from top a d m in is tra t io n .

Comments to open-ended q u e s tio n s in d ic a te d th a t ra p p o rt w ith fac

u l ty and th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded were conside red to be o f im

p o r ta n c e . The number o f p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f in r e l a t i o n to award volume

was a lso c o n s id e red to be u s e fu l in e v a lu a tin g perform ance.


The i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s group have a very s tro n g re se a rc h o r ie n ta

t io n . The re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o f f ic e s vary g r e a t ly in number o f

p ro p o sa ls p ro cessed and in p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded. For the most

p a r t , i n d i r e c t c o s t re inbu rsem en ts go d i r e c t ly in to the g e n e ra l fund.

P ro p o sa l p r e p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s a re n o t g e n e ra lly o f fe re d . Large in c re a s e s

in t o t a l awards and in th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls have

o ccu rred d u rin g th e p a s t th re e y e a r s . There i s a tre n d toward p a r t i a l

d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n in th a t o f f i c e s t a f f a re being a ssig n ed to c o lle g es

o r u n i ts w ith th e u n iv e r s i ty .


94

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith E nro llm ent Over 20,001 and R esearch and

Development A llo c a tio n s o f $0 -5 .5 M ill io n

E leven re s e a rc h o f f i c e s met th e c r i t e r i a fo r in c lu s io n i n t h i s

c a te g o ry . Of th e s e , n in e were p u b lic and two w ere p r iv a te . In c lu d ed

a re many s t a t e im iv e r s i t i e s b e lo n g in g to la rg e s t a t e system s. Most

have r a th e r l im ite d g rad u a te program s. Emphasis i s on underg radua te

program s.


Only fo u r o f th e s e o f f ic e s w ere in e x is te n c e p r io r to 1960. F ive

were formed betw een 1961 and 1965 and two o th e rs w ere c re a te d w ith in

th e p a s t f iv e y e a rs . T y p ic a lly th e s e o f f ic e s r e p o r t to an academ ic

v ic e -p re s id e n t o r to a g radua te dean. Only one re s e a rc h o f f ic e r e

p o r te d to a v ic e - p re s id e n t f o r re s e a rc h . R esearch p o lic y fo rm u la tio n

was a sh a red a d m in is t r a t iv e - f a c u i ty r e s p o n s ib i l i ty in n in e o f th e 11

i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s group.

Only th re e re s e a rc h o f f ic e s re p o r te d having more than th re e p ro

f e s s io n a l o r th re e c l e r i c a l s t a f f members. C le r ic a l s t a f f s iz e d id

exceed seven in a t l e a s t two o f th e o f f i c e s . Budgets ranged from

under $25,000 to over $150,000 a n n u a lly . Most budgets ranged from

$25,000 to $75,000.

W ith reg a rd to c o n tro l over i n d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent fu n d s,

fo u r o f f ic e s in d ic a te d p a r t i a l c o n tro l w h ile seven o th e r s re p o r te d

no involvem ent. C o n tro l over th e s e funds fo llow ed th e u su a l b u d g e ta ry


95

p ro ce ss o f th e in d iv id u a l u n iv e r s i ty . Only th re e i n s t i t u t i o n s p laced

th e s e monies i n t h e i r g e n e ra l fund . In four u n iv e r s i t i e s th e re se a rc h

o f f i c e re c e iv e d some o f th e se funds. In two cases t h i s amounted to

over 60% o f a l l i n d i r e c t c o s t funds. Academic u n i ts re c e iv e d a sm all

p e rc e n ta g e o f th e se funds in th re e u n iv e r s i t ie s . F ive i n s t i t u t i o n s

used th e se funds to su p p o rt t h e i r in te r n a l f a c u l ty re s e a rc h fund.

Responses to q u e s tio n s concern ing in te r n a l o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c

tu re rev e a le d th a t two re se a rc h o f f ic e s assigned s t a f f to p a r t i c u l a r

sp o n so rs , two o f f i c e s assigned s t a f f to co lleg es o r u n i ts w ith in the

u n iv e r s i ty and two o f f ic e s had s e p a ra te p roposa l developm ent s e c t io n s .

S p e c ia l iz a t io n o r p a r t i a l d e c e n tra l iz a tio n did n o t occur i n the over

whelming m a jo r ity o f th e se o f f ic e s .

F u nc tions

A ll th e re se a rc h o f f ic e s in t h i s category engaged in p re -p ro p o sa l

a c t i v i t i e s . E ig h t o f th e 11 o f f ic e s o ffe red p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e r

v ic e s and were re s p o n s ib le fo r a c t iv e account a d m in is t ra t io n . Account

in g and f i s c a l a c t i v i t i e s were hand led by only th re e o f th e o f f ic e s in

t h i s group.

R eported perform ance and e f f e c tiv e n e s s data

With reg a rd to re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n , th re e re se a rc h o f f ic e s r a te d

t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as below average , seven as average and one as s tro n g .

Awards from p r iv a te so u rces amounted to le s s th an n in e p e rc e n t o f th e

t o t a l in s ix i n s t i t u t i o n s , 10-19% in th ree i n s t i t u t i o n s , 20-29% in one


96

i n s t i t u t i o n and 30-39% in th e rem ain ing u n iv e r s i ty . Only one c o lle g e

appeared to be a lm ost com pletely dependent upon th e f e d e ra l government

f o r re s e a rc h fu n d s . Seven i n s t i t u t i o n s re c e iv e d from 60-79% o f t h e i r

re se a rc h d o l la r s from f e d e r a l s o u rc e s . F ive re se a rc h o f f i c e s re p o rte d

h av ing in te r n a l re se a rc h fu n d s. T y p ic a l ly , th e s e funds accounted fo r

l e s s than 19% o f th e t o t a l a l lo c a te d f o r re s e a rc h .

The t o t a l volume o f awards re c e iv e d by each i n s t i t u t i o n in t h i s

c a teg o ry was l e s s th an $5.5 m il l io n . W ith in th a t ran g e , two i n s t i t u

t io n s rec e iv e d $0 - 1 .5 m il l io n and n in e re c e iv e d $1 .6 - 5 .5 m il l io n .

The number o f p ro p o sa ls p ro ce sse d was r e l a t i v e l y low. Three o f f ic e s

p ro cessed and su b m itted 0-99 p ro p o s a ls , seven o f f i c e s 100-199 and one

o f f i c e 200-399. The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded a lso tended to be

r a th e r low. Two o f f i c e s re p o r te d l e s s than a 29% ap p ro v a l r a t e , two

o f f ic e s 30-39%, fo u r o f f ic e s 40-49%, and th re e o f f i c e s 50-59%.

D esp ite th e r e l a t i v e ly low subm ission and p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa l

r a t e s , t h i s group o f i n s t i t u t i o n s ev idenced th e s t ro n g e s t and most

c o n s is te n t p a t t e r n o f growth on th e t e s t e d v a r i a b le s . T able 4-22

d e sc r ib e s t h i s r a t e o f grow th. S trong in c re a s e s were re p o r te d in

s t a f f s i z e , p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded , t o t a l volume o f aw ards,

number o f d i f f e r e n t sp o n so rs , number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g and in

the o p e ra tin g budgets o f th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s . The number o f spon

s o rs in c re a se d 10-29% in e ig h t o f th e respond ing o f f i c e s . A s im i la r

in c re a s e was observed in th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls .

S ince th ese a re la rg e i n s t i t u t i o n s w hich have n o t , in th e p a s t , con

c e n tra te d on re s e a rc h they have many o f th e re so u rc e s re q u ire d to


CD■ D

OQ .C

gQ .

■ DCDC/)o'3O

8" O

(O'

CDI(/)Wo'3

TABLE 4-22

PERCENT OP CHANGE IN VARIOUS OFFICE STATISTICS OVER PAST THREE YEARS AMONG LARGE INSTITUTIONS WITH LOW R & D

i3CD -30% -29-10% ±9% +10-29% +30%"nc

o r more o r more

3.o Number P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f 0 0 7 2 2CD■DQ Number C l e r i c a l S t a f f 0 0 7 4 0Q.1 P e rc e n t P ro p o s a ls Funded 0 1 6 4 03■Dg

A nnual Volume Awards 0 1 4 5 13"CT1—H

Number D i f f e r e n t Sponsors 0 0 2 8 1CDQ. Number F a c u lty S u b m ittin g 0 1 2 8 03"O

T3O f f ic e B udget 0 0 6 4 0

98

con tin u e th e p a t te r n o f growth re p o r te d in th e d a ta . The s t a r t i n g

p o in ts were i n i t i a l l y q u i te low and consequen tly la rg e p e rcen tag e

growth i n th e r e le v a n t v a r ia b le s may be m is lea d in g . W hether t h i s

r a t e o f growth can con tinue rem ains to be seen .

P o te n t ia l m easures o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f fe c t iv e n e s s

Changes in the number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g was seen as th e most

im p o rtan t m easure o f e f fe c t iv e n e s s among re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to rs in

t h i s group. The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded was n e x t in im portance

and was c lo s e ly fo llow ed by change in th e t o t a l volume o f aw ards.

Open-ended responses y ie ld e d s im i la r r e s u l t s . In c re a s in g f a c u l ty

involvem ent in re se a rc h was seen as a p rim ary r e s p o n s ib i l i ty .


T his group o f i n s t i t u t i o n s i s showing in c re a s in g involvem ent in

th e re se a rc h p ro c e s s . S trong growth has been ex p erienced du ring th e

p a s t th re e y e a r s . Funding sou rces a re becoming more d iv e r s i f ie d .

I n te r n a l f a c u l ty re s e a rc h funds a re b e in g made a v a i la b le to f u r th e r

s tim u la te th e re se a rc h p ro c e s s . T y p ic a lly th e se o f f ic e s r e p o r t to

a dean o r to th e academ ic v ic e - p re s id e n t . P ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n

s e rv ic e s a re a v a i la b le . From an o rg a n iz a t io n a l s ta n d p o in t, th e re

has only been m inor movement toward d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n o r i n te r n a l

s p e c ia l i z a t io n .


99

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i tu t io n s w ith E nro llm ent over 20,000 and R esearch and

Development A llo c a tio n s of $5.6 - 20 .5 M ill io n

Nine o f f i c e s met th e c r i t e r i a fo r in c lu s io n in t h i s c a te g o ry . Of

th e s e , e ig h t were p u b lic and one was p r iv a te . T h is group i s com prised

p r im a rily o f la rg e s t a t e u n iv e r s i t i e s w ith h igh academ ic s ta n d a rd s and

e x te n s iv e g rad u a te program s.


Four o f th e s e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s were e s ta b l is h e d p r io r to 1955.

One was e s ta b l is h e d between 1956 and 1950, th re e betw een 1961 and 1965

and one betw een 1966 and 1970. As a group th ey have been fu n c tio n in g

lo n g er than re s e a rc h o f f i c e s in o th e r c a te g o r ie s . Two o f f i c e s r e p o r t

d i r e c t l y to th e p r e s id e n t , two re p o r t to a v ic e - p re s id e n t , two re p o r t

to a v ic e -p re s id e n t fo r re s e a rc h and th e o th e r s an academ ic v ic e - p r e s i

d en t, a dean, a p ro v o st and a v ic e -p re s id e n t fo r developm ent. R esearch

p o lic y fo rm u la tio n i s shared in f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s , dom inated by adm in is

t r a t o r s in th re e i n s t i t u t i o n s and by f a c u l ty in th e rem ain ing i n s t i t u

t io n .

S ta f f s iz e s were r a th e r la rg e in th ese re s e a rc h o f f i c e s . Six o f

f ic e s re p o r te d having from 4 - 10 p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members w hile

seven o f f i c e s re p o r te d having from 4 - 1 4 c l e r i c a l em ployees. O ffic e

budgets ranged from $75,000 - 99,999 in fo u r o f f i c e s , $150,000 -

250,000 in two o f f i c e s and in excess o f $250,000 in th re e o f f i c e s .

Two re s e a rc h o f f i c e s re p o rte d com plete c o n tro l o v e r th e d i s t r ib u t io n


100

o f i n d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent fu n d s, s ix re p o r te d no c o n tro l and d i s t r i

b u tio n o f th e se funds fo llow ed th e normal b u d g e ta ry p ro ce ss in th e ma

j o r i t y o f th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s . Three re se a rc h o f f ic e s re c e iv e d anywhere

from 11-50% o f th e se funds to su p p o rt t h e i r own o p e ra t io n . Only th re e

u n iv e r s i t i e s gave any o f th ese funds d i r e c t ly to academ ic u n i t s . Three

p laced th e e n t i r e amount in to g e n e ra l fund and two p lac e d sm all amounts

in to a f a c u l ty re s e a rc h fund.

I n te r n a l ly , two o f th ese o f f ic e s assig n ed p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f mem

b e rs to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs , th re e assigned s t a f f to u n i ts w ith in the

u n iv e r s i ty and th re e rep o rted hav ing a p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n .

F unctions

E ig h t o f th e n in e o f f ic e s re p o rte d be ing in v o lv ed in p re -p ro p o sa l

a c t i v i t i e s . Only f iv e o f f ic e s o f fe re d p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s .

S ix were in v o lv ed in a c tiv e account a d m in is tra t io n w h ile only fo u r had

accoun ting and f i s c a l r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s .

R eported perform ance and e f fe c tiv e n e s s da ta

R esearch o r ie n ta t io n was r a te d as below average in two i n s t i t u

t io n s , average in th r e e , s tro n g in th re e and very s tro n g in th e rem ain

in g i n s t i t u t i o n . Awards from p r iv a te sou rces amounted to 0-9% o f th e

t o t a l in f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s , 10-19% in th re e and 20-29% i n the rem ain

in g i n s t i t u t i o n . F e d e ra l c o n tr ib u tio n s were a t l e a s t 70% in e ig h t o f

th e n in e i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n te r n a l funds accounted f o r 10-19% o f th e

t o t a l i n f iv e o f th e n in e i n s t i t u t i o n s .


101

R eported t o t a l volume o f awards was $5.6 - 10 .5 m il l io n in one

i n s t i t u t i o n , $10.6 - 15.5 m il l io n in f iv e i n s t i t u t i o n s and $15.6 -

20.5 m il l io n in th re e i n s t i t u t i o n s . The number o f p ro p o sa l submis

s io n s was 200-399 in th re e c a se s , 400-599 in th re e c a se s , 600-799 in

two cases and 800-999 in one c a se . The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded

again ev idenced wide v a r i a t io n s , how ever, f iv e o f th e n in e o f f ic e s

r e p o r te d an app rova l r a t e o f 40-49%.

R eported changes over th e p a s t th re e y e a rs showed s l i g h t in c re a s e s

in s t a f f s i z e , l i t t l e change i n the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded o r in

the t o t a l volume awarded and m oderate to s tro n g in c re a s e s in th e num

b e r o f sp o n so rs , number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls and in the

o p e ra tin g budgets o f the re s e a rc h o f f i c e s . These o f f ic e s appear to

be working h a rd e r to m a in ta in t h e i r c u r re n t le v e ls o f re se a rc h and

developm ent fund ing .

P o te n t i a l m easures o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

R esearch a d m in is tra to rs in th is group r a te d changes in th e num

b e r o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls as th e p rim ary in d ex o f t h e i r

perform ance. The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded was a ls o co n sid e red to

be o f g re a t im portance . Open-ended responses y ie ld e d s im i la r r e s u l t s .

A lso l i s t e d were ra p p o r t w ith f a c u l ty and th e tim ely subm ission o f

te c h n ic a l r e p o r t s .


R esearch o f f ic e s in t h i s group tended to be l a r g e r and more


102

e s ta b l is h e d than th o se in o th e r g roups. Budgets were co rrespond ing ly

h ig h e r . A lthough th e t o t a l volume o f awards has rem ained f a i r l y con

s t a n t , th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g and th e number o f sponsors

has in c re a s e d . More e f f o r t i s b e in g expended to m ain ta in c u rre n t le v e ls

o f fu n d in g . O rg a n iz a tio n a lly , on ly a few o f f ic e s have s p e c ia l iz e d

s t a f f o r have d e c e n tra l iz e d t h e i r o p e ra t io n s .

R esearch O ff ic e s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith E nro llm ent over 20,000 and R esearch and

Development A llo c a tio n s in Excess o f $20.6 M illio n

T h ir te e n o f f ic e s met th e c r i t e r i a fo r in c lu s io n in t h i s group.

A ll were based in p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s . A ll a re m ajor s t a t e u n iv e r

s i t i e s w ith e x c e l le n t academ ic s ta n d a rd s , la rg e m edical sch o o ls and

h ig h g rad u a te en ro llm e n ts .


Even in th e se h ig h ly re se a rc h o r ie n te d i n s t i t u t i o n s , o f f ic e s of

re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n a re a r e c e n t phenomenon. In f a c t , te n o f th e

13 o f f ic e s have been e s ta b l is h e d s in c e 1961. Three o f f ic e s re p o r t to

a v ic e - p re s id e n t f o r r e s e a rc h , fo u r to an academic v ic e -p re s id e n t and

th e rem ainder to a v a r ie ty o f u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c i a l s . R esearch p o lic y

fo rm u la tio n i s sha red in e ig h t o f th e se u n iv e r s i t i e s , a d m in is tra to r

dom inated in fo u r and f a c u l ty dom inated in only one i n s t i t u t i o n .

S ta f f s iz e s a re ty p ic a l ly la r g e . Seven o f f ic e s re p o r te d having

a t l e a s t fo u r to s ix p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members. C le r ic a l s t a f f s iz e

ranged from fo u r to s ix in seven o f f ic e s to 23 - 26 in one o f f i c e .


103

Most o f f i c e b u d g e ts were in th e $100,000 - 150,000 range and two ex

ceeded $250,000.

None of th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s had com plete c o n tro l over in d i r e c t

c o s t reim bursem ent fu n d s. F ive o f f i c e s had p a r t i a l c o n tro l and e ig h t

had no c o n tr o l . Only two re se a rc h o f f i c e s re c e iv e d any o f th e s e funds.

Academic u n i ts were r e c ip ie n t s in on ly fou r i n s t i t u t i o n s . Seven u n iv e r

s i t i e s p laced th e s e m onies in to th e g e n e ra l fund . Three p laced sm all

amounts in to th e f a c u l ty re s e a rc h fund.

In term s o f in te r n a l o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e , seven o f f i c e s

a ss ig n e d s t a f f members to p a r t i c u la r sp o n so rs , two a ss ig n ed s t a f f to

u n i t s w ith in th e u n iv e r s i ty and two had p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n s .

F u nc tions

A ll o f th e o f f i c e s in t h i s c a te g o ry perform ed p re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s ,

E igh t p rov ided p ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s , seven engaged in a c t iv e

account a d m in is tra t io n and two had r e s p o n s ib i l i t y fo r acco u n tin g and

f i s c a l a c t i v i t i e s .


R esearch o r ie n ta t io n was ra te d a s average in fo u r i n s t i t u t i o n s ,

s tro n g in fo u r and a s v e ry s tro n g in f iv e . Data on fund ing so u rc e s

re v e a le d s tro n g e r th an average r e l ia n c e on in te r n a l so u rc e s . T y p ic a lly

in te r n a l funds accounted f o r 10-29% o f t o t a l aw ards, bu t in two cases

t h i s was a s h igh a s 69% o f th e t o t a l . F e d e ra l funds accounted fo r

70-79% of th e t o t a l in more than h a lf th e i n s t i t u t i o n s . P r iv a te funds


104

t y p ic a l ly accounted f o r 10-19% o f th e t o t a l .

The t o t a l volume o f awards ranged from $20.5 - 25 .5 m il l io n in

fo u r u n i v e r s i t i e s , $25.6 - 30.5 m il l io n in two u n iv e r s i t i e s and over

$30.5 m il l io n in seven u n iv e r s i t i e s . P ro p o sa l volume v a r ie d from

200-399 in one i n s t i t u t i o n to over 1 ,000 in an o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n . The

m a jo r ity r e p o r te d su b m ittin g 600-999 p ro p o sa ls y e a r ly . As fo r p e rc e n t

o f p ro p o sa ls funded , one o f f ic e re p o r te d a su ccess r a t e o f 30-39%, f iv e

o f f ic e s re p o r te d 50-59% and seven o f f ic e s re p o r te d 60-69%. In s p i t e

o f th e h igh annual volume o f awards in d o l la r s , th e p e rc e n t o f app rova l

r a t e does n o t s u b s ta n t ia l ly d i f f e r from th a t o f o th e r g roups. The h ig h

volume o f p ro p o sa l subm ission may, in p a r t , e x p la in th e h ig h y ie ld o f

r e se a rc h and developm ent funds.

D ata reg a rd in g changes over the p a s t th re e y e a rs re v e a le d s tro n g

growth i n a l l th e v a r ia b le s surveyed . E leven o f th e 13 i n s t i t u t i o n s

r e p o r te d a 10% o r g r e a te r in c re a s e in t o t a l volume o f aw ards. S im ila r

growth was observed in th e number o f f a c u l ty 'bubm itting p ro p o sa ls .

The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded in c re a se d s l i g h t l y . These d a ta c le a r

ly in d ic a te growth in th e re se a rc h and developm ent program s a t th ese

i n s t i t u t i o n s .

P o te n t i a l m easures o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c tiv e n e s s

The t o t a l volume o f awards was co n sid e red to be o f prim e impor

tan ce by t h i s group o f re se a rc h a d m in is t ra to rs . T his response undoubted

ly r e f l e c t s t h e i r p a s t success in a c q u ir in g re se a rc h and developm ent

funds. The p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded and th e number o f f a c u l ty


105

su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls w ere a lso ranked h ig h ly . Open-ended responses

were s im i la r , b u t a ls o m entioned c r i t e r i a l ik e th e im portance o f th e

number o f re q u e s ts by g ra n tin g agencies fo r p ro p o sa ls and th e r a t i o

o f p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f to th e number o f p ro p o sa ls funded.


The re s e a rc h o f f i c e s in t h i s group a re la r g e , handle a h ig h num

b e r o r p ro p o sa ls and have a id ed th e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s in a c q u ir in g the

funds to su p p o rt m assive re s e a rc h and developm ent program s. O rgani

z a t io n a l ly , they ten d ûo a ss ig n p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members to a c t as

l i a i s o n s w ith p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs . I n te r n a l re se a rc h funds c o n tr ib u te

to th e o v e ra l l re se a rc h e f f o r t . The d a ta would tend to su p p o rt th e

im pression t h a t re s e a rc h e f f o r t s a t th e se i n s t i t u t i o n s a re co n tin u in g

to grow and develop a t a f a i r l y s tro n g r a t e .

This concludes th e d isc u ss io n o f d a ta r e p o r te d by re s e a rc h adm inis

t r a t i o n o f f ic e s in th e v a rio u s c a te g o rie s s e t f o r th by th e desig n o f

t h i s s tu d y . C hap ter V, to fo llow w i l l summarize th e s tu d y , c i t e r e l e

v a n t conc lu sio n s and o f f e r recommendations fo r f u r th e r re s e a rc h .


106

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Review o f th e Study

In th e p a s t th re e decades th e le v e l o f re se a rc h conducted in

American u n iv e r s i t i e s has in c re a se d d ra m a tic a lly . For th e most p a r t ,

th e s e re se a rc h a c t i v i t i e s have been sponsored by so u rces o u ts id e th e

u n iv e r s i ty . Funding from th e f e d e ra l government and from p r iv a te

fo u n d atio n s has made i t p o s s ib le fo r many i n s t i t u t i o n s to g r e a t ly in

c re a se t h e i r involvem ent in programs o f b a s ic and a p p lie d re s e a rc h .

U n iv e rs ity -b a se d o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tr io n have been e s ta b l is h e d

in o rd e r to more e f f i c i e n t l y c o n tra c t fo r and a d m in is te r r e s e a rc h p ro

grams.

The o b je c t iv e o f t h i s survey was to a c q u ire and i n t e r p r e t d a ta

p e r ta in in g to the o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e , fu n c t io n s , e f f e c t iv e n e s s

and p o te n t ia l m easures o f th e e f fe c t iv e n e s s o f u n iv e r s i ty -b a s e d o f

f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . The re se a rc h o f f ic e s in th e sample

were p a r t i t io n e d in to n in e s e p a ra te cageto r i e s based upon th e s iz e o f

th e i n s t i t u t i o n (s tu d e n t en ro llm en t) and the c u rre n t le v e l o f re se a rc h

and development a l lo c a t io n s (R & D ). A 3x3 design was u t i l i z e d . The

th re e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s iz e s w ere: sm all (0 - 10,000 s tu d e n ts ) , medium

(10,001 - 20,000 s tu d e n ts ) and la rg e (o v er 20,000 s tu d e n ts ) . The

th re e re se a rc h and developm ent le v e ls w ere: sm all ($0 - 5 .5 m i l l io n ) ,

medium ($5 .6 - 20.5 m illio n ) and la rg e (over $20.5 m i l l io n ) . In

106


107

r e p o r t in g d a ta , th e study has thus c o n tro l le d fo r i n s t i t u t i o n a l s iz e

and th e annual volume of awards.

Two hundred u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n

were in c lu d e d in th e o r ig in a l sam ple. The e f f e c t iv e and u sab le r a t e

o f r e tu r n was 152 o r 76% o f the o r ig in a l sample. Of th e s e , 102 were

p u b lic i n s t i t u t i o n s and 50 were p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The methods f o r ana ly z in g th e d a ta were s e le c te d acco rd ing to the

re s e a rc h q u e s tio n s and th e c h a r a c te r i s t i c s o f th e d a ta ga thered in

th e su rv e y . Frequency counts and, in some in s ta n c e s , p e rcen tag es were

re p o r te d f o r d a ta on the sample as a whole and then f o r d a ta in each

o f th e n in e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c a te g o r ie s .

D iscussion o f th e F ind ings

T his d isc u s s io n w i l l fo llow the g e n e ra l form at used fo r re p o r t in g

d a ta in th e p rev io u s c h a p te r . R e su lts w i l l be d isc u sse d in th e a re a s

o f o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e , fu n c t io n s , re p o r te d e f f e c t iv e n e s s d a ta

and p o t e n t i a l m easures o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s .


O ff ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n a re r e l a t i v e ly re c e n t in o r ig in

a t most u n i v e r s i t i e s . The da ta showed t h i s to be t r u e even in a g re a t

many re s e a rc h o r ie n te d i n s t i t u t i o n s . Over 72% o f th e s e o f f ic e s were

n o t in e x is te n c e p r io r to 1961. Because o f t h e i r r e c e n t o r ig in s , admin

i s t r a t i v e p ro ced u res a re s t i l l evo lv ing in many o f th e re se a rc h o f f ic e s

th a t responded to t h i s su rvey .


108

Only te n p e rc e n t o f th e o f f ic e s surveyed in d ic a te d th a t they r e

p o r te d to a v ic e -p re s id e n t f o r re s e a rc h . T his tended to occu r m ainly

in th e h igh re s e a rc h and developm ent i n s t i t u t i o n s . Many o th e r schoo ls

o f e q u a lly h igh re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n p laced re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the hands o f a g rad u a te dean, academ ic v ic e -p re s id e n t

o r o th e r u n iv e r s i ty o f f i c i a l . The W ilson s tu d y contended th a t th e e x i s t

ence o f a v ic e -p re s id e n t fo r re se a rc h i s in d ic a t iv e o f a h ig h e r re se a rc h

s ta tu s in t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n . The c u r re n t s tu d y f a i l s to s u b s ta n t ia te

t h i s c o n te n tio n . A v ic e -p re s id e n t fo r re se a rc h may be h e lp f u l in ad

vancing an i n s t i t u t i o n 's re s e a rc h a c t i v i t i e s , b u t based on th e d a ta o f

th e p re s e n t study i t i s n o t a n e c e s s i ty .

One f u r th e r f in d in g re g a rd in g o rg a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l i s t h a t sm all

and m edium -size i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e re se a rc h and developm ent rev e

nues f re q u e n tly reg a rd re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n as a developm ent o r f i

nance fu n c t io n . This was e s p e c ia l ly t ru e among p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s

w herein re se a rc h was, in p a r t , a fund r a i s in g endeavor. From a p u re ly

f in a n c ia l s ta n d p o in t, t h i s type o f o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e appears to

have been s u c c e s s fu l .

R esearch p o l ic ie s in 74% o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s surveyed a re formur

l a t e d by a co o p e ra tiv e f a c u l ty -a d m in is t r a t io n e f f o r t . A d m in is tra to rs

tend to dom inate th e se p o lic y d e c is io n s in a few very sm all p u b lic in

s t i t u t i o n s and in some p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s . In b o th in s ta n c e s , th ese

a re u s u a lly i n s t i t u t i o n s w here in f a c u l ty do n o t t r a d i t i o n a l l y p a r t i c i

p a te in any form o f governance.

On th e w hole, th e p ro fe s s io n a l and c l e r i c a l s t a f f s iz e s tended to


109

be sm a ll. R esearch o f f ic e budgets were correspond ing ly ' low. In sm all

i n s t i t u t i o n s the re se a rc h o f f ic e s t a f f t y p ic a l ly c o n s is te d o f one pro

f e s s io n a l employee and one s e c r e ta r y . L a rg er i n s t i t u t i o n s tended to

have l a r g e r o f f i c e s t a f f s re g a rd le s s o f t h e i r le v e l o f re s e a rc h and

developm ent fund ing . I n te r n a l ly , th e re was a tre n d toward p a r t i a l de

c e n t r a l i z a t io n . P ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f members were in c re a s in g ly be ing

a ss ig n e d to v a rio u s u n i ts o r c o lle g e s througjhout the u n iv e r s i ty . Only

la r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith la rg e re se a rc h and development a l lo c a t io n s d id

n o t appear to be moving in th is d i r e c t io n . In those o f f i c e s , s t a f f were

b e in g a ss ig n e d to sponsors r a th e r than to i n te r n a l u n i t s . This f in d in g

i s c o n s is te n t w ith th e f a c t th a t p ro p o sa l developm ent a c t i v i t i e s a re

more common i n th e sm all and medium re s e a rc h and developm ent i n s t i t u

t io n s . In th e la rg e re se a rc h o r ie n te d u n iv e r s i t i e s th e f a c u l ty i s typ

i c a l l y more a c q u a in te d w ith th e p ro p o sa l development p ro ce ss and re q u ire s

l e s s a s s is ta n c e from th e o f f i c e o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . L ikew ise ,

th e need f o r a s s ig n in g o f f ic e s t a f f to in d iv id u a l c o lle g e s i s n o t as

g re a t and th e re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n s t a f f i s ab le to c o n c e n tra te on

c u l t iv a t in g sponsor r e la t io n s h ip s . Emerging re se a rc h i n s t i t u t i o n s re

q u ire more f a c u l ty l i a i s o n and th i s need i s o f te n b e in g met by a ss ig n

in g s t a f f to v a rio u s u n i ts th roughou t th e i n s t i t u t i o n .

The c u r r e n t survey y ie ld e d some i n te r e s t in g d a ta reg a rd in g the

c o n tro l and d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds. F o rty -

two p e rc e n t o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s surveyed p lac e d a l l th ese monies in to

the g e n e ra l fund and then fo llow ed th e u su a l budgetary p ro ce ss fo r a l

lo c a t io n . These tended to be la rg e s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s o r i n s t i t u t i o n s


110

r e q u ire d to do th i s by s t a t e law . The tendency to d i s t r i b u t e th e se

funds d i r e c t l y to v a rio u s im its was observed in a w ide range o f bo th

p u b lic and p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s . O fte n , re s e a rc h o f f i c e p e rso n n e l

p a r t i c ip a te d in th e d e c is io n s as to how th e se funds w ere to be expend

ed . In a l l , 88 i n s t i t u t i o n s a l lo c a te d i n d i r e c t c o s t funds to a v a r ie ty

o f r e c ip ie n t s . In 55 in s ta n c e s th e re s e a rc h o f f ic e had a t l e a s t p a r

t i a l c o n tro l over d i s t r ib u t io n . The p rim ary r e c ip ie n ts o f th e s e monies

were th e re se a rc h o f f i c e i t s e l f , academ ic u n i t s and f a c u l ty re s e a rc h

fu n d s . The m a jo rity o f i n s t i t u t i o n s were u sing th e se funds more to

expand t h e i r re s e a rc h e f f o r t s th an to d e fray in d i r e c t c o s ts .

F unctions

The d a ta on r e s e a rc h o f f ic e fu n c tio n s rev e a le d t h a t a lm ost a l l

re se a rc h o f f ic e s engage in p re -p ro p o s a l a c t i v i t i e s . There seems to be

alm ost com plete agreem ent as to t h i s phase o f r e s p o n s ib i l i t y . Agree

ment i s more d i f f i c u l t to o b ta in in reg a rd to o th e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

P ro p o sa l p re p a ra tio n s e rv ic e s a re o f fe re d by 62% o f th e o f f i c e s . How

e v e r, some o f th e rem ain ing r e s e a rc h o f f i c e s in d ic a te d th a t t h i s was

a d epartm en ta l o r c o lle g e r e s p o n s ib i l i t y . A ccounting and f i s c a l

a c t i v i t i e s were perform ed by le s s th an a t h i r d o f th e o f f i c e s su rveyed .

Some o f th e la r g e r re se a rc h o f f i c e s in d ic a te d they had a p r o je c t account

a u d ito r housed in t h e i r o f f ic e even though he was d i r e c t l y re sp o n s ib le

to a f in a n c e o f f i c e . This arrangem ent was s a id to f a c i l i t a t e com

m unications betw een th e re se a rc h o f f i c e , th e g ran t a d m in is t ra to r and

th e re s e a rc h e r . T h is arrangem ent m ight be o f c o n s id e ra b le i n t e r e s t to


I l l

i n s t i t u t i o n s where c o n s id e ra b le communications problem s e x i s t .


In s p i t e o f a l l th e c u rre n t s p e c u la tio n and t a lk about d e c lin in g

f e d e r a l fund ing f o r h ig h e r e d u c a tio n , the d a ta rev e a le d a c le a r and

c o n s is t e n t p a t t e r n o f growth in u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d re s e a rc h . Many i n s t i

tu t io n s a re a tte m p tin g to become le s s dependent on th e f e d e ra l d o l la r

and a re look ing more to p r iv a te so u rces to sponsor r e s e a rc h . More than

50% o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n s surveyed re c e iv e d te n p e rc e n t o r more o f t h e i r

re s e a rc h funds from p r iv a te sp o n so rs . Sm all i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith h igh

re s e a rc h a l lo c a t io n s tended to r e ly on f e d e ra l funds more than d id o th e r

g roups. T his group a ls o showed th e l e a s t growth in t o t a l re se a rc h fu n d s,

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded and number o f sp o n so rs . Heavy r e l ia n c e on

f e d e r a l funds w as, in p a r t , r e sp o n s ib le f o r t h i s weak perform ance.

D ata re g a rd in g th e t o t a l number o f p ro p o sa ls su bm itted and th e

p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded v a r ie d g re a t ly among th e i n s t i t u t i o n s s u r

veyed. I n te r e s t in g l y , th e se v a r ia t io n s o ccu rred w ith in re se a rc h o f f ic e s

c a te g o r ie s as w e ll as among c a te g o r ie s . Even among i n s t i t u t i o n s r e c e iv

in g over $20.6 m il l io n a y e a r , th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls approved v a r ie d

from under 30% to over 80%. P a r t o f t h i s d isc repancy can be e x p la in ed

by th e f a c t t h a t some u n iv e r s i t i e s subm it more p ro p o sa ls than do o th e r s .

The h ig h volume o f subm issions s t i l l en ab les them to re c e iv e m illio n s

o f d o l la r s i s s p i t e o f a low app rova l r a t e . S im ila r v a r ia t io n s in

app rova l r a t e w ere re p o r te d a t a l l funding le v e l s . The reasons fo r

th e se v a ry in g app rova l r a te s a re n o t c le a r . Some p o s s ib le e x p la n a tio n s


112

n ig h t be found by exam ining th e form ulas used to c a lc u la te th e p e rc e n t

o f a p p ro v a l, th e p r e s t ig e o f the i n s t i t u t i o n , th e s u b je c t m a tte r o f th e

p ro p o sa ls and th e r a p p o r t o f th e re se a rc h s t a f f w ith sp o n so rin g a g e n c ie s .

The d a ta re g a rd in g changes over th e p a s t th re e y e a rs in v a rio u s o f

f i c e s t a t i s t i c s showed s tro n g growth on most v a r ia b le s . A lthough the

v a r ia b le o f s t a f f s iz e in c re a s e d only s l i g h t l y , s tro n g growth o ccu rred

in th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded , th e t o t a l annual volume o f aw ards,

th e number o f d i f f e r e n t sponso rs and e s p e c ia l ly in th e number o f f a c u l ty

su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls . More u n iv e rs ity -b a s e d re s e a rc h i s b e in g undertaken

today than ev e r b e fo re .

P o te n t i a l m easures o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s

The developm ent o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s m easures fo r r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra

to r s i s a d i f f i c u l t t a s k . No s e t o f c r i t e r i a taken in i s o l a t i o n i s

m ean ingfu l. C r i t e r i a must be developed taking into account: the unique s i t u a

t io n in each in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n . The re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to r shou ld

n o t n e c e s s a r i ly b e a r th e blame f o r a sm all annual volume o f awards and

a poor p e rcen tag e o f p ro p o sa l app ro v a l. The re s e a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f

th e f a c u l ty must be tak en in to account in any e v a lu a tio n e f f o r t . Changes

in th e nunher of p ro p o sa l su b m issio n s, th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa l app rova l

and th e t o t a l annual volume o f awards may be th e b e s t ways to a s se s s

w hether o r n o t th e re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to r i s e f f e c t iv e ly s t im u la tin g

re s e a rc h and a id in g th e f a c u l ty in f in d in g in te r e s t e d sp o n so rs . By

exam ining th e base r a t e s o f th e se v a r ia b le s and then by s e t t in g up

g o a ls fo r im provem ent, th e re se a rc h a d m in is tra to r w i l l be in an e x c e l le n t


113

p o s i t io n to judge th e im pact o f h i s a c t io n s . For example, th e re s e a rc h

o f f i c e m ight e s t a b l i s h a goal o f in c re a s in g th e number o f p ro p o sa ls sub

m itte d by f a c u l ty by te n p e rc e n t over a 12 month p e r io d . Success o r

f a i l u r e would be q u i te s in p le to e v a lu a te .

Some o f th e c r i t e r i a most f re q u e n tly m entioned by re s e a rc h adm inis

t r a t o r s were the p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls funded , th e number o f f a c u l ty sub

m it t in g p ro p o sa ls and th e annual volume o f aw ards. A lthough n o t f r e

q u e n tly m entioned, two c o s t- b e n e f i t r a t i o s were c i te d which a re w orthy

o f a d d i t io n a l c o n s id e ra tio n . These were th e t o t a l annual volimie o f

awards as a r a t i o o f th e o p e ra tin g budget o f th e o f f ic e and th e number

o f p ro p o sa ls as a r a t i o o f th e o p e ra tin g budget o f th e o f f i c e . The

r a t i o s can be examined by re se a rc h a d m in is tra to rs i n b o th la rg e and

sm a ll o f f i c e s and in u n iv e r s i t i e s w ith w idely v a ry in g le v e ls o f r e

se a rc h and developm ent. The r a t i o by i t s e l f would n o t be p a r t i c u l a r l y

h e lp f u l . However, changes in th e r a t i o over a s p e c i f ic p e rio d o f tim e

would c o n s t i tu te a s e n s i t iv e in d ic a to r o f perfo rm ance. The achievem ent

o f p r e - s e t goa ls as to r a t e o f growth in th e t o t a l volume o f aw ards,

th e number o f f a c u l ty su b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls and th e p e rc e n t o f p ro p o sa ls

approved as w e ll as th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f c o s t - b e n e f i t r a t i o s c o n s t i tu te

th e most sy s te m a tic approach to examining th e e f f e c t iv e n e s s i s s u e .

Im p lic a tio n s fo r R esearch A d m in is tra tio n

T h is s tudy was designed and execu ted fo r th e purpose o f g a in in g

a b e t t e r and more com prenensive unders tand ing o f u n iv e r s i ty re se a rc h

a d m in is t ra t io n . The fo llo w in g im p lic a tio n s a re exp ressed in o rd e r to


114

f u r th e r summarize th e s tu d y and to f u r th e r s t im u la te though t on th e

s u b je c t .

1 . R esearch a d m in is tra t io n i s a new and expanding f i e l d . As

su ch , th e re i s g r e a t o p p o rtu n ity fo r growth, and in n o v a tio n .

2. Many d i f f e r e n t types o f o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e s a re suc

c e s s f u l ly perfo rm ing t h e i r app o in ted ta s k s . S u c c e ss fu l

program s a re b e in g run by g rad u a te deans, academ ic v ic e -

p r e s id e n ts and by v ic e -p re s id e n ts fo r re s e a rc h . The manner

o f o rg a n iz a t io n a l c o n tro l does n o t appear to be c r u c ia l to

th e su ccess o f th e re se a rc h program .

3. I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith emerging re se a rc h program s need to have

o f f i c e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n th a t a re h ig h ly s e rv ic e

o r ie n te d . P ro p o sa l developm ent s e rv ic e s a re ex trem ely

h e lp f u l to f a c u l ty menbers who a re r e l a t i v e ly new to

research-.

4. The s iz e o f th e research , o f f ic e s t a f f i s more h ig h ly r e la te d

to th e s iz e o f th e u n iv e r s i ty than to th e annual number o f

p ro p o sa l subm issions o r to th e annual volume o f aw ards. The

e x te n t o f su p p o rt an d /o r te c h n ic a l s e rv ic e s a v a i la b le a t the

departm ent o r c o lle g e le v e l w i l l have a b e a r in g on the s iz e

o f th e re s e a rc h o f f i c e s t a f f .

5. In c re a s in g numbers o f re se a rc h o f f ic e s a re p a r t i a l l y de

c e n tr a l iz in g t h e i r o p e ra tio n s by a ss ig n in g s t a f f to v a rio u s

c o lle g e s o r u n i ts th roughout th e u n iv e r s i ty . T h is i s p ro

b a b ly most h e lp f u l in term s o f in c re a s in g th e number o f facu lty


115

In v o lv ed in resea rch ..

6 . R esearch o f f ic e s a re becoming more in v o lv ed in d e c is io n s re

gard ing th e d i s t r ib u t io n o f in d i r e c t c o s t reim bursem ent funds.

7. There i s a need to d iv e r s i f y funding so u rces and tu rn more

tow ard the p r iv a te s e c to r .

8. The la c k o f com prehensive re s e a rc h reg a rd in g how u n iv e r s i t i e s

c o n tr a c t f o r and a d m in is te r programs o f sponsored re s e a rc h

p o in ts o u t th e need fo r more s e l f s tu d y and exam ination .

There i s a need f o r improved d isse m in a tio n o f t h i s type o f

re s e a rc h d a ta among th o se in the f i e l d .

S uggestions fo r F u tu re Research

The c u rre n t s tu d y was ex trem ely comprehensive in n a tu re . Many

i n te r e s t in g q u e s tio n s a ro se i n the course o f t h i s r e s e a rc h w hich could

n o t be answered by an exam ination o f th e da ta in hand. The focus o f

fu tu re re s e a rc h needs to be narrow ed. Two a re a s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t

come to mind. There i s a need to examine th e i s s u e o f w idely v a ry in g

r a te s o f p ro p o sa l ac ce p tan c e . I n s t i t u t i o n s o f s im i la r award volume,

b u t w ith w ide ly v a ry in g p ro p o sa l accep tance r a t e s shou ld be i s o la te d

and s tu d ie d . F a c to rs w hich c o n tr ib u te to th is type o f su ccess would

be ex trem ely i n t e r e s t i n g and v a lu a b le to the p r a c t ic in g re s e a rc h adm inis

t r a t o r .

A nother i s s u e w hich w a rra n ts a d d it io n a l in v e s t ig a t io n i s t h a t o f

d e c e n t r a l iz a t io n o f o f f i c e s t a f f . A re s e a rc h design which examined

o f f ic e s th a t a s s ig n e d s t a f f to sponsors as opposed to o f f ic e s th a t


116

a ssig n ed s t a f f to v a rio u s u n i ts w ith in th e i n s t i t u t i o n would a ls o be

o f g re a t i n t e r e s t . O ther q u e s tio n s o f equal o r g r e a te r in ç o r ta n c e may

a r i s e in th e minds o f o th e r s who examine th e c u r r e n t research ..

C lo sing S tatem ent

T his s tu d y o f re s e a rc h a d m in is tra tio n has been ex trem ely rew ard

in g and s t im u la tin g fo r th e in v e s t ig a to r . I am deep ly in d eb te d to the

many com petent and em pathie in d iv id u a ls who have h e lp e d me du rin g the

course o f t h i s re s e a rc h . I t i s hoped th a t th.e r e s u l t s and su g g estio n s

in t h i s s tu d y have c o n tr ib u te d to the f i e l d o f r e s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n

and to th e p ro fe s s io n a l re s e a rc h a d m in is tra to r .


117

BIBLIOGRAPHY


118

B urroughs, R obert E. The a d m in is tra t io n o f sponso red re s e a rc h a t the U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan. In S. S tic k la n d (E d .) , Sponsored re se a rc h in American u n iv e r s i t i e s and c o l le g e s . W ashington, B .C .: American C ouncil on E d u ca tio n , 1967.

Cherm side, H erbert B. E ducation f o r re s e a rc h a d m in is t r a to r s . J o u rn a l o f th e S o c ie ty o f Research A d m in is tra to rs . 1970, 2 , 1 -4 .

Commission on R esource A llo c a t io n . I n d i r e c t c o s ts o f r e s e a rc h . Ann A rbor: The U n iv e rs i ty o f M ichigan, 1972.

D an ilov , V ic to r J . Trends in u n iv e r s i ty r e s e a rc h . I n d u s t r i a l R esearch , A p r il 1964, 6 , 31-37.

DeBurlo, C. R u s s e ll . Government and e d u c a tio n . Review o f E d u ca tio n a l R esea rch , O ctober 1965, 35, 366.

E u ric h , A lv in C. R e f le c tio n s on u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n .In S tephen S tr ic k la n d (E d .) , Sponsored r e s e a rc h in American u n iv e r s i t i e s and c o l le g e s . W ashington, D .C .: American Councilon E duca tion , 1967.

Glueck, W illiam F. and Thorp, Gary D. The management o f s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a rc h . Colum bia, M isso u ri: The C u ra to rs o f th e U n iv e rs ityo f M isso u ri, 1971.

G r i f f in , G erald and G ross, Norman H. R esearch a d m in is tra t io n in the s e v e n t ie s . J o u rn a l o f th e S o c ie ty o f R esearch A d m in is tra to rs ,1970, 2 , 4-24.

Herzog, John D. The p ro d u c t iv i ty o f undermanaged re s e a rc h : Fivey ea rs o f th e H arvard R & D C en te r. Paper p re s e n te d a t th e meetin g o f the American E d u ca tio n a l R esearch A s s o c ia t io n , Chicago,A p ril 1972.

H o ffe r , W illiam . Uncle Sam’s b i g n o t t e y game a t M ichigan. C ollege Management. 1972, 7 ( 8 ) , 25-26.

Johnson, Gary R. Ten b a s ic s o f re se a rc h a d m in is t ra t io n . C ollege Management, 1972, 7 ( 8 ) , 14-16.

K aplan, Norman. The r o le o f re se a rc h a d m in is t r a t io n . A d m in is tra tiv e S cience Q u a r te r ly , 1959, 4 , 20-42.

K aplan, Norman. R esearch a d m in is tra t io n and th e a d m in is t r a to r . Admini s t r a t i v e S cience Q u a r te r ly , 1961, 6 , 57-72 .

K ash, Don E. Research and development a t the u n iv e r s i ty . S c ien c e ,1968, 160, 1313-1318.


119

Kidd, C harles V. American u n iv e r s i t i e s and f e d e ra l r e s e a rc h . Cambridge: H arvard U n iv e rs i ty P r e s s , 1959.

M cBride, David. Survey on re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n : O rg a n iz a tio n andfu n c tio n a t s e le c te d u n i v e r s i t i e s . U npublished , U n iv e rs i ty o f R o ch es te r, 1966.

M endelsohn, R obert D. A s tu d y in r o le c o n f l i c t ; The r o le o f th e u n iv e rs i t y re se a rc h a d m in is t ra to r . U npublished M asters T h e s is , W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty , 1971.

M ichaels, Jo sep h . G u id e lin es fo r e s ta b l is h in g ah o f f ic e o f i n s t i t u - t io n a l re s e a rc h and developm ent. Pasadena C ity C o lleg e , ERIC,ED 014 275.

O ffic e o f R esearch A d m in is tra tio n . P r o je c t d i r e c to r 's m anual. Ann A rbor: The U n iv e rs i ty o f M ichigan, 1970.

O ffic e o f R esearch Development. Sponsored u n iv e r s i ty program s fo rre se a rc h and e d u c a tio n . E as t L ansing : M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs i ty ,P u b l ic a tio n No. 12, 1971.

P r ic e , D an ie l 0 . I s s u e s in re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . I n d u s t r i a l R esearch , 1965, 4 ( 7 ) , 55-59.

S te in b e rg , L.H. w ith W alte rs . M .J. M icro o p e ra tio n s and in fo rm a tio n re p o r t on u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n : o rg a n iz a t io n a ls t r u c tu r e . U npublished , W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty , 1972.

S to ck to n , Rex. R esearch management: A u n iv e r s i ty p o s i t io n . 1970,ERIC, ED 046 337.

S tr ic k la n d , Stephen (E d.) Sponsored re se a rc h in American u n iv e r s i t i e s and c o l le g e s . W ashington, D .C .: American C ouncil on E du ca tio n ,1967.

Weber, C. Edward, R oss, L e s l ie W., and McGhee, W alter P . Academic a u th o r i ty and a d m in is tra t io n o f r e s e a rc h . The E d u ca tio n a l R ecord. S p rin g , 1966, 218-229.

Wheadon, W illiam C. O rgan izing u n iv e r s i ty re s e a rc h . I n d u s t r i a l R esearch , 1964, 4 , 38.

W ile, Howard P . The human elem ent in re se a rc h a d m in is tra t io n . InStephen S tr ic k la n d (E d .) , Sponsored re se a rc h in American u n iv e rs i t i e s and c o l le g e s . W ashington, D .C .: American C ouncil onE duca tion , 1967.

W illn e r , W illiam and H end ricks, P e r ry . G rants a d m in is tra t io n . Washingto n , D .C .: N a tio n a l G raduate U n iv e rs i ty , 1972.


120

W ilson, James R. The a d m in is tra t io n o f f a c u l ty r e s e a rc h p r o je c ts in s e le c te d p u b l ic u n iv e r s i t i e s . U npublished D o c to ra l D is s e r t a t io n , E a s t Texas S ta te U n iv e rs i ty , 1967.


121

APPENDIX A


WESTERN M ICHIGAN UNIVERSITY _122

OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES Phona 616 383-1632 I KALAMAZOO, MI CHI GAN6*001

August 21, 1972

Dear

The O ff ic e o f R esearch S e rv ices a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs ity i s cond u c tin g a su rvey o f th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e o f u n iv e r s i ty o f f ic e s o f re s e a rc h a d m in is t ra t io n . The f in d in g s w i l l be forw arded to th e S o c ie ty o f R esearch A d m in is tra to rs fo r in c lu s io n in The R esearch Admini s t r a t o r ' s Notebook.

We a re i n te r e s t e d in your o f f i c e 's r e l a t i o n to th e u n iv e r s i ty as a whole and a ls o in you r o f f i c e 's in te r n a l s t r u c tu r e . On th e fo llow ing pages you w i l l f in d a b r i e f s e r i e s of q u e s tio n s p e r ta in in g to :

1. th e pu rposes o f your i n s t i t u t i o n ;2. the p o s i t io n o f your o f f i c e i n th e u n iv e r s i ty

o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e ;3. th e p rim ary fu n c tio n s o f your o f f i c e and4. th e d iv is io n o f r e s p o n s ib i l i ty w i th in your o f f i c e .

These q u e s tio n s can be com pleted in a few m in u tes . A lso , i f your in s t i t u t i o n has a v a i la b le any o rg a n iz a t io n a l c h a r ts o r d iagram s, p e r ta in ing to your o f f i c e , th e subm ission o f th e se a long w ith th e com pletedq u e s tio n n a ire would be g re a t ly a p p re c ia te d . An envelope has been enc lo se d f o r t h i s p u rpose .

I t i s im p o rtan t to n o te th a t names o f in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l n o t be in c lu d e d in th e f i n a l r e p o r t . I t i s hoped th a t s u f f i c i e n t o rg an iz a t io n a l in fo rm a tio n w i l l be o b ta in ed so as to be o f s ig n i f ic a n t use to deve lop ing i n s t i t u t i o n s and to th o se i n s t i t u t i o n s con tem pla ting change.

T h is in fo rm a tio n about your o f f i c e and i n s t i t u t i o n i s im p o rtan t to the outcome o f t h i s su rvey and a response a t your e a r l i e s t convenience w i l l be much a p p re c ia te d .

Yours g r a te f u l ly ,

Louis S te in b e rg R esearch A sso c ia te

L S /ja s

E ncl.


123

Q u estio n n a ire O rg a n iz a tio n fo r R esearch A d m in is tra tio n

1. I s your i n s t i t u t i o n p r im a rily co nside red ; a . An underg radua te i n s t i t u t i o n b . An upper d iv is io n an d /o r g rad u a te i n s t i t u t i o n c . A combined undergraduate and g radua te i n s t i t u t i o n

d . O ther: d e sc r ib e

2 . I s your i n s t i t u t i o n : a . P u b lic b . P r iv a te , non-church r e la te d c . P r iv a t e , church re la te d

3. I s your i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r ie n ta t io n : a . L ib e ra l a r t s b . N a tu ra l sc ie n c es c . A pplied sc ie n c e s d. Conprehensive

e . O ther: d e sc rib e

4 . How do you p e rc e iv e the re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f your f a c u l ty and adm inis t r a t i o n

Very S trong F a i r ly S trong Aboit Average Below Average Minimal

5 . How a re re s e a rc h p o lic ie s : e s ta b l is h e d a t your i n s t i tu t io n ? __

6. What i s th e t i t l e of your o f f ic e ?

7. To whom i s your o f f ic e d i r e c t ly resp o n s ib le ?

P re s id e n t V .P. R esearch V,P. AcademicV.P. F inance D ean :sp ec ify o th e r :s p e c ify

8. I s your o f f i c e re sp o n s ib le fo r the: a d m in is tra t io n o f a l l sponsoreda c t i v i t i e s , f e d e ra l and p r iv a te ? ___ __

Yes No

I f no , p le a se p la c e a check n e x t to the fo llo w in g a c t i v i t i e s f o r which your o f f i c e ^ re s p o n s ib le . F e d e ra l agreem ents only P r iv a te agreem ents only R esearch g ra n ts and c o n tra c ts R esearch g ra n ts on ly R esearch c o n tra c ts only A c q u is it io n o f su rp lu s p ro p erty F in a n c ia l a id s T ra in in g G rants O ther: p le a s e sp e c ify ___________________________________________


124

9 . P le a s e p lac e a check n e x t to th e fo llow ing fu n c tio n s an d /o r a c t i v i t i e s in which your o f f i c e i s ty p ic a l ly in v o lv ed : E d itin g p roposa ls P re p a ra tio n o f c h a r ts a n d /o r draw ings Typing p roposa ls R eproduction of p ro p o sa ls

Ma in ta in in g in fo rm atio n on so u rc e s o f su p p o rt A s s is t in g in s e le c t io n o f p o te n t ia l sponsors C o s t-sh a r in g arrangem ents Budget p re p a ra tio n fo r sponsored a c t i v i t i e s Development of c o s t c o n tro l p rocedu res S e c u rity m a tte rs fo r government c l a s s i f i e d in fo rm a tio n P a te n t m atte rs Com putation o f in d i r e c t c o s t r a t e s P re p a ra tio n and d i s t r ib u t io n o f r e g u la r p u b lic a tio n s to fa c u l ty N e g o tia tio n o f overruns and e x te n s io n s

Mo n ito r in g sponsored accounts F i s c a l re p o r ts fo r sponsor

T ech n ica l re p o r ts fo r sponsor 0 th e r________________________________________________________________

10. D escribe b r ie f ly how your o f f i c e i s o rg an ized .

11. Do you have any a d d it io n a l comments which you f e e l a re p e r t in e n t to t h i s survey?


125

APPENDIX B


126

INSTITUTIONS IN ORIGINAL SAMPLE

A & T S ta c j U n iv e rs ity ; North C a ro lin aA delphi U n iv e rs i tyA lf re d U n iv e rs i tyAmerican U n iv e rs i tyA ntioch C ollegeA rizona S ta te U n iv e rs ityAuburn U n iv e rs i tyB a l l S ta te U n iv e rs ityB aylor U n iv e rs ityB oston C ollegeBowling Green S ta te U n iv e rs ityB randeis U n iv e rs i tyB ridgew ater S ta te C ollegeBrigham Young U n iv e rs ityBrown U n iv e rs i tyB ucknell U n iv e rs ityC a l if o r n ia I n s t i t u t e o f TechnologyC a l ifo rn ia S ta te C o llege: C a l if o r n ia , P en n sy lv an iaC a l if o r n ia S ta te C ollege a t Long BeachC a l ifo rn ia S ta te C ollege a t Los AngelesC a l i f o r n ia S ta te U n iv e rs ity a t N o rth rid g eC arnegie - M ellon U n iv e rs ityCase W estern R eserve U n iv e rs ityC a th o lic U n iv e rs ity o f AmericaC e n tra l M ichigan U n iv e rs ityC e n tra l S ta te U n iv e rs ity : OhioChicago S ta te C ollegeChico S ta te C ollegeC ity U n iv e rs ity o f New York: H unter C ollegeC lark U n iv e rs ityClemson U n iv e rs ityC leveland S ta te U n iv e rs ityC o lga te U n iv e rs ityC o llege o f W illiam and MaryColorado S ta te U n iv e rs ityColumbia U n iv e rs ityC o rn e ll U n iv e rs ityDarmouth C o llegeDe P au l U n iv e rs ityD rexel U n iv e rs ityDuke U n iv e rs ityDuquesne U n iv e rs i tyE ast C a ro lin a U n iv e rs ityE ast Texas S ta te U n iv e rs ityE a s te rn Kentucky U n iv e rs ityE a s te rn M ichigan U n iv e rs ity


127

E a s te rn New Mexico U n iv e rs i tyE a s te rn W ashington S ta te C o llegeEmory U n iv e rs i tyF a i r f i e l d U n iv e rs i tyF a lrle lg jh D ickinson U n iv e rs i tyF lo r id a A t la n t ic U n iv e rs i tyF lo r id a S ta te U n iv e rs i tyFordham U n iv e rs i tyF ra n k lin and M arsh a ll C o llegeFresno S ta te C o llegeGeorge W ashington U n iv e rs i tyGeorgetown U n iv e rs i tyG eorgia S ou thern C o llegeG eorgia S ta te U n iv e rs ityG lassboro S ta te C ollegeGoshen C o llegeGram bllng C o llegeH o fs tra U n iv e rs ityI l l i n o i s S ta te U n iv e rs i ty a t NormalIn d ia n a U n iv e rs i ty a t Bloom ingtonIn d ia n a U n iv e rs i ty a t In d ia n a p o lisIowa S ta te U n iv e rs i tyJohn C a r ro l l U n iv e rs i tyKent S ta te U n iv e rs i tyL o u is ia n a S ta te U n iv e rs i tyLoyola U n iv e rs i ty a t New O rleansM arquette U n iv e rs i tyMemphis S ta te U n iv e rs ityMiami U n iv e rs i ty : OhioM is s is s ip p i S ta te U n iv e rs i tyM )rehead S ta te U n iv e rs i tyNew Mexico S ta te U n iv e rs i tyNew York U n iv e rs ityN orth C a ro lin a S ta te U n iv e rs i tyN orth D akota S ta te U n iv e rs i tyN orth Texas S ta te U n iv e rs i tyN o rth e a s t L o u is ia n a S ta te U n iv e rs ityN o rth e a s te rn U n iv e rs ityN o rth ern A rizona U n iv e rs i tyN o rth ern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs i tyN o rth ern M ichigan U n iv e rs i tyN orthw este rn U n iv e rs i tyO akland U n iv e rs ityOhio S ta te U n iv e rs i tyOhio U n iv e rs i tyOld Dominion U n iv e rs i tyOklahoma S ta te U n iv e rs i tyOregon S ta te U n iv e rs i tyP en n sy lv an ia S ta te U n iv e rs i tyP r in c e to n U n iv e rs ity


128

Purdue U n iv e rs ityQueens C o llegeR utgers U n iv e rs i tySan Diego S ta te C o llegeSan Jo se S ta te C ollegeSouth. Dakota S ta te U n iv e rs i tySouthern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs ityS t . Cloud S ta te C o llegeS t . Johns U n iv e rs i tyS t . L ouis U n iv e rs i tyS ta n fo rd U n iv e rs ityS ta te U n iv e rs i ty o f New York à t B u ffaloS ta te U n iv e rs ity o f New York a t PotsdamS ta te U n iv e rs i ty o f New York a t Stony BrookSyracuse U n iv e rs ityTemple U n iv e rs i tyTexas A & M U n iv e rs i tyTexas S ou thern U n iv e rs i tyTexas T e c h n ic a l U n iv e rs ityT u fts U n iv e rs ityTulane U n iv e rs i tyTuskegee I n s t i t u t eU n iv e rs i ty o f AkronU n iv e rs i ty o f Alabama a t BirminghamU n iv e rs i ty o f Alabama a t T uscaloosaU n iv e rs i ty o f A rizonaU n iv e rs ity o f ArkansasU n iv e rs i ty o f C a l ifo rn ia a t DavisU n iv e rs i ty o f C a l if o r n ia a t San ta B arbaraU n iv e rs i ty o f ChicagoU n iv e rs i ty o f C in c in n a tiU n iv e rs ity o f ColoradoU n iv e rs ity o f C onnec ticu tU n iv e rs i ty o f DaytonU n iv e rs i ty o f DelawareU n iv e rs i ty o f DenverU n iv e rs i ty o f F lo r id aU n iv e rs i ty o f G eorgiaU n iv e rs i ty o f HawaiiU n iv e rs i ty o f HoustonU n iv e rs i ty o f IdahoU n iv e rs i ty o f I l l i n o i sU n iv e rs i ty o f IowaU n iv e rs i ty o f KansasU n iv e rs i ty o f KentuckyU n iv e rs i ty o f L o u is v i l leU n iv e rs i ty o f MaineU n iv e rs i ty o f M arylandU n iv e rs i ty o f M assachusetts a t AmherstU n iv e rs i ty o f M assachusetts a t Boston


129

U n iv e rs i ty o f MiamiU n iv e rs i ty o f M innesotaU n iv e rs i ty o f M is s is s ip p iU n iv e rs i ty o f M issou ri a t ColumbiaU n iv e rs i ty o f M isso u ri a t Kansas C ityU n iv e rs i ty o f MontanaU n iv e rs i ty o f N ebraska a t L inco lnU n iv e rs i ty o f N ebraska a t OmahaU n iv e rs i ty o f NevadaU n iv e rs i ty o f New HampshireU n iv e rs i ty o f New MexicoU n iv e rs i ty o f N orth C a ro lin a a t Chapel H i l lU n iv e rs i ty o f N orth C a ro lin a a t GreensboroU n iv e rs i ty o f N orth C a ro lin a a t WilmingtonU n iv e rs i ty o f N orth DakotaU n iv e rs i ty o f N orthern IowaU n iv e rs i ty o f N otre DameU n iv e rs i ty o f OregonU n iv e rs i ty o f th e P a c i f i cU n iv e rs i ty o f P ennsy lvan iaU n iv e rs i ty o f P i t ts b u rg hU n iv e rs i ty o f P o r tla n dU n iv e rs i ty o f Rhode I s la n dU n iv e rs i ty o f R ochesterU n iv e rs i ty o f South. C a ro lin aU n iv e rs i ty o f South DakotaU n iv e rs i ty o f Southern F lo r id aU n iv e rs i ty o f Southern M is s is s ip p iU n iv e rs i ty o f TampaU n iv e rs i ty o f TennesseeU n iv e rs i ty o f Texas a t A u stinU n iv e rs i ty o f Texas a t E l PasoU n iv e rs i ty o f ToledoU n iv e rs i ty o f T u lsaU n iv e rs i ty o f UtahU n iv e rs i ty o f VermontU n iv e rs i ty o f V irg in iaU n iv e rs i ty o f W ashingtonU n iv e rs i ty o f W isconsin a t Green BayU n iv e rs i ty o f W isconsin a t MadisonU n iv e rs i ty o f W isconsin a t MilwaukeeU n iv e rs i ty o f W isconsin a t OshkoshU n iv e rs i ty o f WyomingU tah S ta te U n iv e rs i tyV a n d e rb ilt U n iv e rs i tyW ashington U n iv e rs i ty a t S t . LouisW ashington S ta te U n iv e rs ityWayne S ta te U n iv e rs i tyWest V irg in ia U n iv e rs ityW estern C o n n ec ticu t S ta te C ollege


130

W estern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs ity W estern W ashington S ta te C ollege W ich ita S ta te U n iv e rs ity W illiam Marsh R ice U n iv e rs i ty Y ale U n iv e rs i ty


131

APPENDIX C


132

QUESTIONNAIRE ORGANIZATION FOR RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

Name o f I n s t i tu t io n :_

Name o f O ff ic e :

Name o f Respondent

T i t l e :

1. What y e a r was y ou r o f f i c e e s ta b lis h e d ?2 . To whom i s your o f f i c e d i r e c t ly re sp o n s ib le ?

P re s . V.P. R esearch V.P. Academic Dean Grad S tu d ie s P ro v o st Exec. V.P.and R esearch

V.P. Development C om ptro lle r O ther (sp e c ify )

3. How a re re s e a rc h p o l ic ie s fo rm u la ted a t you r i n s t i tu t io n ?

A d m in is tra tio n A d m in is tra tio n Shared A d m in is tra tio n & F a c u lty F acu lty Dominance P r im a rily F acu lty R e s p o n s ib i l i ty P r im a r i ly Dominance

4. How do you p e rc e iv e th e re se a rc h o r ie n ta t io n o f your f a c u l ty and a d m in is tra t io n ?

Minimal Below Average About Average F a i r ly S trong Very S trong

5. Number o f f u l l tim e e q u iv a le n t p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f in your o f f i c e .

1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 4 1 5 - 1 8 1 9 - 2 2 2 3 - 2 6 +27

6 . Number o f f u l l tim e c l e r i c a l enp loyees in your o f f i c e .

1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 4 1 5 - 1 8 1 9 - 2 2 2 3 - 2 6 +27

7. Using the most r e c e n t d a ta you have a v a i la b le , p le a s e e s tim a te th eannual o p e ra t in g budget f o r your o f f i c e . ____________ _____________

$0 - 24,999 $25 - 49,999

$50 - 74,999 $75, - 99,999 $100 - 149,999 $150 - 250,000 +250,000


133

8. P le a s e p la c e a check n e x t to any o f the fo llo w in g which i s a r e s p o n s ib i l i ty o f your o f f i c e .

P re -p ro p o sa l a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . - com pila tion o f in fo rm a tio n , a s s i s -ancs to f a c u l ty in th e s e le c t io n o f p o te n t ia l sp o n so rs , e tc .

P ro p o sa l p r e p a ra t io n , i . e . - e d i t in g , r e p ro d u ttio n , p re p a ra tio n ,ty p in g , e tc .

A c tiv e account a d m in is t r a t io n , i . e . - m onito ring o f acco u n ts , te c h n i c a l r e p o r ts f o r sp o n so r, n e g o tia t io n o f overruns and e x te n s io n , e tc .

A ccounting and f i s c a l a c t i v i t y , i . e . - c o s t c o n tro l p ro ce d u re s , comp u ta t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s t r a t e s , f i s c a l r e p o r ts f o r sp o n so r, e t c .

9 . Does th e re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n o f f ic e have c o n tro l over the d i s t r ib u t io n o f i n d i r e c t c o s t funds? ___ __ __________

Yes No P a r t i a l l y I f no o r p a r t i a l l y , who c o n tro ls th e se funds?____________________________

10. How a re in d i r e c t c o s t funds d is t r ib u te d ? P le a s e e s tim a te th e p e rcen tage d i s t r ib u te d to each o f th e fo llo w in g . (Should t o t a l to 100%)

R esearch A d m in is tra tio n __________________ ___________

Academic u n i ts o r dep artm en ta l re se a rc h ___________

G eneral u n iv e r s i ty funds_________________ ___________

F a c u lty re s e a rc h fund____________________ ___________

O ther (sp e c ify )___________________________ ___________

T o ta l

11. P le a se e s tim a te th e p e rc e n ta g e o f re se a rc h funds a t your i n s t i t u t io n th a t come from th e fo llo w in g so u rc e s . (Should approxim ate 100%)

P r iv a te ____ ________________________0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

F ed e ra l ________________________________________________________________0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

I n te r n a l ________________________________________________________________0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

12. For th e most re c e n t y e a r d a ta i s a v a i la b le , p le a s e in d ic a te your t o t a l volume o f aw ards. (T o ta l R&D in m illio n s )

0 -1 .5 1 .6 -5 .5 5 .6 -1 0 .5 1 0 .6 -1 5 .5 1 5 .6 -20 .5 2 0 .6 -2 5 .5 25 .6 -30 .5

I f g r e a te r than 3 0 .5 , p le a s e in d ic a te approxim ate amount.


134

13. For th e m ost re c e n t y e a r d a ta i s a v a i la b le , p le a s e in d ic a te th e t o t a l nunber o f p ro p o sa ls which your o f f ic e p ro cessed and su b m itted f o r fund ing .

0-99 100-199 200-399 400-599 600-799 800-999 1000-1199

1200-1399 1400-1599 +1600

14. For th e most re c e n t y e a r d a ta i s a v a i la b le , p le a se e s tim a te the p e rc en tag e o f p ro p o sa ls which were funded.

29% o r le s s 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80% o r more

15. Using th e l a s t th re e y e a rs as a b ase p e r io d , p le a s e e s tim a te th e changes which have o ccu rred in your o f f i c e by c i r c l i n g th e a p p ro p r ia te number.

Large LargeD ecrease M oderate L i t t l e M oderate In c re a se

-30% D ecrease Change In c re a se +30% o r more -29 -10% ±9% +10 -29% o r more

Number o f p ro fe s s io n a ls t a f f 1 2 3 4 5

Number o f c l e r i c a l s t a f f 1 2 3 4 5 % o f p ro p o sa ls funded 1 2 3 4 5

Annual volume o fawards (R&D) 1 2 3 4 5

Number o f d i f f e r e n tsponsors 1 2 3 4 5

Number o f f a c u l tysu b m ittin g p ro p o sa ls 1 2 3 4 5

O pera ting budget o fyour o f f i c e 1 2 3 4 5

16. In r e fe re n c e to q u e s tio n 15, p le a s e rank o rd e r from one to fo u r th o se v a r ia b le s which you f e e l to be u s e fu l c r i t e r i a i n m easuring re s e a rc h a d m in is tra t io n e f f e c t iv e n e s s . P lace a 1 to th e l e f t o f th e most in ç o r ta n t v a r i a b le , a 2 b e s id e and n e x t im p o rtan t and so on.

17 . I f you a re u sing o r shou ld p lan to use an a c c o u n ta b i l i ty p ro cedure to judge the e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f your o f f i c e , what v a r ia b le s would you c o n s id e r to be v i t a l o r c ru c ia l to t h i s a c c o u n ta b i l i ty scheme? P le a se l i s t a t l e a s t two.

A. _____________________________________________________B. _____________________________________________________C.


13518. With, re g a rd to th e I n te r n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s t r u c tu r e o f your o f f i c e , p la c e a check n e x t to any o f th e fo llow ing w hich appear to be a p p lic a b le .

O ff ic e s t a f f a re a ss ig n ed to p a r t i c u l a r sp o n so rs . O ff ic e s t a f f a re a ssig n ed to v a rio u s c o lle g e s o r u n i ts w ith in th e

u n iv e r s i ty . Our o f f ic e has a s e p a ra te p ro p o sa l developm ent s e c t io n .

19. P le a se sk e tc h a b r i e f diagram o f your i n te r n a l o f f i c e s t r u c tu r e .

20. I f you a re con tem p la ting any changes in the o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu re o f your o f f i c e , p le a s e d isc u ss th ese changes b r i e f l y .

I f you would l i k e to re c e iv e a summary o f th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s su rv ey , p le a s e p la c e a check i n the box below .

R eturn t h i s survey in th e enc lo sed envelope to :

Mr. Louis S te in b e rg C/0 O ff ic e o f R esea rch S erv ices A d m in is tra tio n B u ild in g W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty Kalamazoo, M ichigan 49001


WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY _1

OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES Phone 616 383-1632 | KAI AMAZOO, MI CHI GAN« 0 0 1

December 13, 1972

Dear

T his p a s t summer, in conjunction w ith th e O ff ic e o f Research S e rv ices a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs ity , a p re lim in a ry su rvey was conducted o f th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s tru c tu re s and fu n c tio n s o f n in e ty u n iv e rs ity -b a se d o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is tra tio n . We were ex trem ely g r a t i f i e d in th a t responses were received from over 80% o f the o f f ic e s c o n ta c te d . These d a ta a re c u rre n tly being p rep a red fo r fu tu re p u b lic a tio n by the S o c ie ty o f R esearch A d m in is tra to rs .

The e n c lo sed in s tru m e n t was designed a f t e r a c a re fu l a n a ly s is o f the d a ta re c e iv e d in the e a r l i e r s tu d y . I t has been developed fo r purposes o f d i s s e r t a t io n re se a rc h and th e a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f i t s co n ten t has been e v a lu a te d by th e s t a f f of the O ff ic e o f R esearch S e rv ices a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty .

The c u rre n t sample involves two hundred o f f ic e s ac ro ss th e coun try and consequen tly a much more comprehensive poo l o f d a ta w i l l be c o l le c te d .A check n ex t to th e most a p p ro p ria te answer i s a l l th a t i s req u ired fo r most q u e s tio n s . I t i s im portan t to n o te th a t th e e s tim a ted tim e o f com pletion i s l e s s than ten m inu tes.

T his in fo rm a tio n about your o f f ic e and i n s t i t u t i o n i s v i t a l to th e outcome o f t h i s su rv ey . Names o f in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l n o t be lin k e d to any p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f d a ta in th e f i n a l r e p o r t . A response a t your e a r l i e s t convenience w i l l be very much a p p re c ia te d .

Your g r a t e f u l ly .

L ouis S te in b e rg

L S /ja s

E nclo su res


WESTERN M ICHIGAN UNIVERSITY _' 137

OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES Rhone 616 383-1632 | KAI AMAZOO, MI CHI GAN« 0 0 1

January 19, 1973

D ear

S ev e ra l weeks ago we s e n t you a survey designed to ex p lo re th e o rg a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e and fu n c tio n s o f u n iv e r s i ty based o f f ic e s o f re se a rc h a d m in is t ra t io n . A pproxim ately s ix ty p e rc e n t o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n ta c te d have a lre a d y re tu rn e d th e su rv ey . However, we have n o t as y e t re c e iv e d a com pleted q u e s tio n n a ire from your o f f i c e .

Your co o p e ra tio n in t h i s p r o je c t i s very in p o r ta n t to i t s success and w i l l be g r e a t ly a p p re c ia te d . The e s tim a te d c o rç le t io n tim e i s l e s s than te n m in u tes , and responses o f in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l rem ain c o n f id e n t ia l . The in s tru m en t has been developed fo r purposes o f d i s s e r t a t io n r e s e a rc h , and th e a p p ro p ria te n e s s o f i t s c o n te n t has been e v a lu a te d by th e s t a f f o f th e O ff ic e o f R esearch S e rv ic e s a t W estern M ichigan U n iv e rs i ty .

Undoubtedly you have many demands on your tim e, and I ex tend my ap o lo g ies f o r adding t h i s a d d it io n a l bu rden . However, i f you a lre ad y have n o t done s o , p le a s e com plete and r e tu r n th e survey as q u ick ly as you r l im ite d tim e might a llow .

Thank you f o r your a s s i s ta n c e .

S in c e re ly ,

Louis S te in b e rg

L S /ja s

E nclosu re


A Study of University Research Administration ...

Documents