Articles University Research Centers: Heuristic Categories, Issues, and Administrative Strategies Kelly Hall, PhD Pathology Faculties International, LLC 830 Xenia Avenue Yellow Springs, OH 45387 Tel: (937) 269-3028 Email: [email protected] Author’s Note This paper includes research that was originally published as the author’s doctoral dissertation, Profile and Distinguishing Characteristics of Educational Centers in the United States (Hall, 2005). Abstract University-based research centers can bring prestige and revenue to the institutions of higher education with which they are affiliated. Collaborating with corporations, units of government, and foundations, centers provide services to organizational leaders, policy makers, and communities. University research centers continue to increase in number and influence. Despite these increases and unique attributes of centers, center leaders are subject to cultural norms, political moves, and traditional flows of resources within their institutions. Survey and secondary data analyses of 176 educational centers confirmed and provided a ranking for characteristics associated with Ikenberry and Friedman’s standard, adaptive, and shadow heuristic introduced in 1972. Interviews with 12 center directors yielded a list of center administrative issues and strategies to address issues of planning, leadership, institutional relations, funding, and management. Center and university leaders can use findings to categorize and better understand the organizational behavior of centers to improve effectiveness. Keywords: university research center, research center administration, research center strategy, research center planning, research center funding, research center management, research center assessment, research center evaluation Introduction University-based research centers can bring prestige and revenue to the institutions with which they are affiliated (Brint, 2005; Feller, 2002). Collaborating with corporations, governments, and foundations, centers provide services to organizational leaders, policy makers, and communities. Growth in the number of centers since the 1950s reflects their increased presence in the university setting. There are 17,000 research centers in the US and Canada, an increase of 1,500 since 2009, when there were 15,500 (Miskelly, 2011; Wood, 2009). Growth is estimated at a rate between 5% and 10% a year since 1965, when 3,500 Journal of Research Administration Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 25 Articles centers were first identified (Palmer & Kruzas, 1965). In the United States, unlike in other nations, most research organizations are housed at institutions of higher education and are not independent (Orlans, 1972). For the purpose of this study, centers are defined as non-department entities, encompassing a broad range of sub-organizational structures in higher education: bureaus, clinics, institutes, laboratories, programs, and units. Here, the term center is used to connote all forms of organized units that may exist beyond and between academic departments (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972). Beyond research and training as their primary services, centers vary across a number of dimensions: size of support and research staff; the position of faculty versus professional staff researchers; level of separation from academic departments; degree of integration with the university; funding mix; extent of inter- or multidisciplinary focus; and relative emphasis on applied research (Vest, 2005; Klein, 1996; Stahler & Tash, 1994). Universities considering creating or evaluating research centers are urged to plan carefully before launching or maintaining them. A number of inter-related issues affect center success. This article presents survey and interview data to illuminate center types, issues, and strategies used to address issues. Center stakeholders can use findings to create policy regarding center start-up and maintenance. Center type categories provide a frame in which to place different types of centers to serve different functions within a university system. Resources could be allocated based on the promise and purpose of the center as aligned with the university’s mission. University and center policies and priorities could be informed by research findings presented. Heuristic Categories Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) proposed a heuristic to categorize university- based centers into three types: standard, adaptive, and shadow. Types were distinguished by four characteristics: (a) the ability to store resources; (b) the degree to which procedures are specified; (c) stability in goals and tasks; and (d) stability of resources to achieve goals and tasks. For this study, these and characteristics available from The Research Centers Directory (2002) were operationalized into survey questions to confirm and rank heuristic characteristics. Survey responses were received from 176 of 296 (60%) educational research center directors to whom the survey was sent. Cramer’s V was used to calculate nominal variable coefficients of association based on center type for each characteristic. The result was a rank of characteristics that differentiate between center types. Table 1 presents ranked characteristics. Note that nine heuristic characteristics are better at distinguishing among center types than six directory characteristics. Nine heuristic variables were strongly associated at varying levels of strength based on a moderate interpretation of the Cramer’s V. Six other variables, operationalized from The Research Centers Directory, were weak to moderately strong as coefficients measuring characteristics among center types. Note that the moderate strength of having a presence on the World Wide Web is a distinguishing characteristic among center types. The Internet is a new phenomenon since Ikenberry and Friedman’s heuristic was developed that has affected centers’ reach into the external environments they serve. After 40 years, Ikenberry and Friedman’s heuristic categories are 26 Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 Journal of Research Administration Articles still valuable as a way to categorize center types. Standard, adaptive, and shadow designations can be used to categorize different types of center. A description with examples follows. Table 1: Center Characteristics Ranked by Association Value for Distinguishing among Center Types Strength Heuristic (H) and or Directory Characteristic (D) Variable V Rank Extremely Strong Stability of financial resources H .504 1 Employment of administrative/professional personnel H .496 2 Very Strong Employment of clerical personnel H .474 3 Employment of faculty personnel H .387 4 Policies and procedures in addition to institutional ones H .368 5 Strong Employment of student personnel H .306 6 Moderately Strong Permanent allocation of space H .298 7 Active advisory committee H .297 8 Publication of training materials D .297 8 Presence on the World Wide Web D .289 10 Moderate Locus within institution D .242 11 Written mission and goals H .234 12 Federal designation D .233 13 Institutional financial support D .220 14 Weak Federal government support D .174 15 Standard Type A standard center or institute has stability in goals and resources to house, equip, and support employment of a full cadre of administrative/professional, clerical, faculty, and student personnel. Financial resources are from diverse streams including institutional and federal funding (Brint, 2005). A standard center holds status similar to other academic or administrative units within an organization of higher education, such as a computing lab or admissions office, occupying permanent allocation of space and sometimes an entire building. A standard center has its own advisory board and its own policies and procedures Journal of Research Administration Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 27 Articles that its personnel follow in addition to university governance guidelines. Based on these characteristics, two examples of standard type centers were selected—the National Center for Rural Health Professions and Learning Systems Institute. The Learning Systems Institute was selected as a standard type based on survey data and the National Center for Rural Health Professions was selected based on the author’s personal knowledge about its characteristics, having served on its founding national advisory board. National Center for Rural Health Professions. In 1998, the Director of the Rural Medical Education Program, Michael Glasser exclaimed to me from across a small hospital conference room in rural Illinois, “We should start a center!” Dr. Glasser was the faculty champion with the vision needed for center start-up. Today, the National Center for Rural Health Professions (NCRHP) serves as the centerpiece program for University of Illinois College of Medicine Rockford’s campus, where Glasser now serves as assistant dean. The campus is undergoing a major building transformation after a campaign that leveraged federal, state, and local dollars to raise capital using the national center as a signature program. NCRHP was granted center status by the Illinois Board of Higher Education in 2003 after three years of holding temporary designation. Statewide, the purpose of the NCRHP is to meet the health care needs of rural Illinois residents and communities. Nationally, the center serves as a place for research and development of programs effectively training and retaining rural healthcare practitioners. NCRHP is the lynchpin of inter-disciplinary projects involving multiple health professions: dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, public health, and social work. The center employs 12 staff members and is guided by a 23-member advisory board comprised of the dean; representatives of partner disciplines; state agency and network representatives; outreach, recruitment, and retention specialists; and a hospital administrator. NCRHP houses three programs that focus on five activities: interdisciplinary education, faculty development, community outreach, research and evaluation, and policy. Learning Systems Institute. Florida State University’s Learning Systems Institute’s History webpage describes an exemplar of a standard center. Dating back four decades, the Learning Systems Institute (LSI) has evolved over the years to adapt to changes in technology, educational trends and client needs. The institute began as two separate organizations launched in the late 1960s on Florida State University’s campus. The Center for Educational Technology helped institutions outside the university with training needs, while the Division of Instructional Research and Service provided similar services to Florida State faculty. In the mid 1970s the two organizations combined to create a more robust LSI. LSI founder Robert Morgan served as the organization’s director for 30 years. Under his leadership, the institute attracted some $150 million in projects and earned a reputation as an expert manager of international development projects related to education. Among the largest of these was a U.S. Agency for International 28 Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 Journal of Research Administration Articles Development project to revamp South Korea’s public school system, a highly successful multi-year, $60-million effort. Morgan drew top talent to the LSI, including renowned educational psychologists Robert Gagne and Robert Branson. As the organization evolved, these and other faculty designed and conducted major training for the U.S. Army, developed educational technology for several foreign countries, and pioneered Florida State’s distance learning, among other efforts. In 2001, Laura Lang was named LSI director. Building on Morgan’s legacy, she has continued to move the institute forward, expanding the institute’s range in K-12 education and the study of expert performance. Between 2000 and 2009, contract and grants funding increased significantly, spurred in part by the creation of two major educational research centers (the Florida Center for Reading Research and the Florida Center for Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) entrusted to LSI by the Florida Legislature. Standard centers are easily recognized and are perceived not only as part of the institutions with which they are affiliated but also as separate organization entities. Adaptive centers are less easily recognized as viable organizational units beyond the universities with which they are affiliated. Adaptive Type “Adaptive institutes undergo a continuous process of redefining their goals, initiating and terminating projects, securing and releasing staff: in short, adapting to a persistent instability” (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972, p. 36). Using resources not owned by the center, faculty and other personnel can be configured to meet the needs of a specific contracted project or service provision: for example, to respond to a state or federal request for research or to provide educational psychology or curriculum development services. Given their resource dependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), adaptive centers might lay dormant from time to time, thus becoming shadow centers. With the advent of the World Wide Web, adaptive centers can appear bigger and more stable than they truly are. The Center for the Study of Education Policy and Fitz Center for Leadership in Community are two examples of adaptive centers. The Center for the Study of Education Policy was selected as an adaptive type based on survey data and the Fitz Center for Leadership in Community was selected based on the author’s personal knowledge about its characteristics. Center for the Study of Education Policy. The Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University is an example of how a departmental unit can use an adaptive center “umbrella” to house and showcase research, professional development, service, publication, and database products and services. Established in 1960 to study public school financing, the center now houses activities related not only to finance but to current and emerging policy issues affecting the whole education continuum: pre-kindergarten through grade 16 and beyond. Attributes such as the publication of several journals, organization of regular conferences within the center, and the number of people associated with the center— Journal of Research Administration Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 29 Articles two co-directors, several research associates, and 31 faculty or staff affiliates—create the look and feel of a standard center. The Center for the Study of Education Policy is not a separate entity with its own personnel structure. Rather, the center serves as a place to house ongoing faculty and independent center projects, expanding and contracting to meet departmental and client needs. Fitz Center for Leadership in Community. The Fitz Center for Leadership in Community at the University of Dayton initiates and sustains partnerships for community building and leadership opportunities for students. Directed by Dick Ferguson, the center is named for Brother Ray Fitz, who serves as Ferree Professor of Social Justice after having served 23 years in the presidential post. Based in the College of Arts and Sciences, the Fitz Center offers six civic leadership development opportunities that move students along a service- learning leadership continuum. These six programs were developed over a number of years as the Fitz Center responded to community and university opportunities and needs. The Fitz Center is an example of how centers sometimes serve as a unit to coordinate multi-disciplinary student learning outcomes that require formal collaboration with external stakeholders. Both adaptive center examples presented—the Fitz Center and Center for the Study of Education Policy—operate as extensions for academic functions coordinating research and student learning opportunities across departments. Adaptive centers function at the periphery between academic departments and external organizations. Shadow centers, presented next, are less likely to have this coordinating feature. Shadow Type Shadow centers have no staff, space, budget, or current observable accomplishments. Sometimes called paper centers or institutes, shadow centers might exist to provide a forum in which teams of faculty from different disciplines can work or to monitor a cross-departmental function. Shadow centers might also exist to provide less commendable functions: . . . the provision of comfortable sinecures for faculty members and administrators the institution wishes to move out of the mainstream; the satisfaction of private and solely personal faculty ambitions; the luxury of faculty fantasy; and a means for institutional and self deception. (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972, p. 39) The Applied Social Research Unit and Smart Communities are examples of shadow center types. Smart Communities was categorized as a shadow center through response to the study survey and the Applied Social Research Unit, a center in which the author worked for a decade, and is categorized as a shadow center based on its current characteristics. Applied Social Research Unit. The Applied Social Research Unit of Illinois State University is an example of how centers can move between center types over a number of years based on inter-related internal and external factors influencing center operations. Once a standard center with multiple revenue streams, permanent office space for 10, and 30 Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 Journal of Research Administration Articles employment of full-time administrative and graduate assistant personnel, the Applied Social Research Unit became an adaptive center as revenue streams dried up. Personnel changes resulted. A flooding and then demolition of the professional office building the unit occupied forced the relocation to one of the residential properties the university had purchased. These factors, combined with internal competition for resources support from other centers, led to the Applied Social Research Unit turning into a shadow center. Core staff complete a couple of ongoing projects annually. With a cadre of professional faculty and staff who could be readily engaged, the Applied Social Research Unit is poised to adapt and fulfill project consultancies and contracts for external agencies that are consistent with its mission. Smart Communities. San Diego State University’s Smart Communities center is an example of how the Internet has changed the face of centers. An endowed faculty member, John Eger, is not only passionate about building creative and innovative communities, but is also a media communications expert. Eger uses Internet and other media to promote an idea he champions and to offer his expertise in service to communities. He has no interest in hiring permanent staff or acquiring university office space. Eger’s interest lies in the long-term engagement of communities to effect positive change. Smart Communities is an example of how a center structure can be used to “shadow” a concept and consultancy services of a faculty member. Advantages and Disadvantages of Center Types Each center type operates with structural and functional advantages and disadvantages. Standard centers function as institutionalized departments with loyal personnel and recognition as viable units. Compared to the bureaucratic inflexibility of standard centers, adaptive centers have the advantage of being flexible organizational units. Their survival depends on being responsive and changing to meet societal or market needs. Adaptive centers however, lack access to permanent personnel and resources. Shadow centers have no permanent resources or staff but may be better positioned than a department to marshal resources for special projects. Understanding advantages and disadvantages across the center type continuum, combined with an understanding of issues and strategies used to address issues, presented next, will help stakeholders designate and evaluate center functions and structures to meet client and affiliated institutional needs. Administrative Issues and Strategies Interviews with 12 directors of education-focused centers were held to gather information about issues and strategies to address issues of center administration. Selection criteria for formal interviewees included directors’ willingness to be interviewed as indicated on their returned survey, having 5 or more years of experience as center director, and directors who were one of the first 60 respondents to the survey described above. Hence, selection criteria included principles of both purposeful and convenience sampling methods (Maykut & Morehouse, 1998). Of the 12 center directors interviewed, 2 were directors of shadow centers, 4 represented adaptive centers, and 6 were from standard centers. Those Journal of Research Administration Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 31 Articles directors interviewed had been affiliated with their centers for an average of 13 years. Table 2 presents 5 issues and 23 related strategies coded from interviews. As with survey data, Cramer’s V was calculated for each strategy as a way to rank strategies. Issues that emerged fell into these categories: planning, leadership, institutional, funding, and center management. Table 2: Categories and Ranks of Administrative Issues and Strategies Issue Categories and Related Strategies V Rank Planning Strategies Concentrating on the center’s mission .85 1 Holding conferencing events .64 6 Doing applied work .61 7 Meeting requirements and standards of university approval and review .56 18 Leadership Strategies Holding a broad spectrum vision of what could be .71 2 Making leadership transition within center .58 8 Balancing multiple roles .56 18 Being a founding director .55 21 Institutional Strategies Working beyond traditional faculty roles .71 2 Limiting commitments to university committee activities .56 18 Garnering support from higher administration .53 23 Funding Strategies Being involved with federal funders .69 4 Maintaining operations during times of dwindling funding .58 8 Being self-supporting .58 8 Relationship building .58 8 Writing grants .54 22 Management Strategies Using or promoting available technology .64 5 Managing projects: accountability, deadlines, priorities .58 8 Employing a core staff .58 8 Creating a cooperative work environment .58 8 Delegating work within the center .58 8 Hiring quality people .58 8 Mentoring student workers .58 8 32 Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 Journal of Research Administration Articles Planning Planning is the most important topic of center administration. The longevity of centers is directly related to their ability to adapt, and so plans must be flexible and must allow a center to change. At the same time, centers should remain true to their vision. A dynamic mission statement helps keep centers actively focused on their identified niche. Concentrating on mission, successful center directors are able to build capacity through niche specialization as recommended by Leslie and Fretwell (1996). Focusing on a center’s mission rather than on creating a formalized planning document coincides with the “soft” planning approach (Tornatzky, Gray, & Geisler, 1998) that is part of an embedded “smart structure” (Clark, 1998, p. 77). This serves to monitor needs and to adapt to university-based entrepreneurial units such as research centers. A director of an adaptive center observed, “We spend our time surviving and recreating ourselves.” External and internal constituents must be addressed at all points of the planning process. By finding a niche and continually assessing client needs, the center is better able to make a place for itself within institutional guidelines. Directors report directing evaluation primarily toward their external environments and clients by conducting regular needs assessments. Defining the appropriate niche can guide marketing plans and attract faculty as well as clients. Conferences and training workshops are also a way for a center to brand itself relevant its affiliate institution of higher education. Aligning center activities with university expectations is recommended not only by center directors interviewed but by authors who have addressed center functions (Perlman, Gueths, & Weber, 1988; Friedman et al., 1982). Holding conferencing events and doing applied work are direct services (Veres, 1988) that not only maximize institutional prestige but also support scholarly activities (Matkin, 2001; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Lindlof, 1995). Support of the scholarly core is recommended by center directors interviewed and by seminal authors on research centers, R. S. and R. C. Friedman (1984). Planning such conferences and seeking out cutting edge projects—applied research projects and projects that promote technology—are essential to the life of a center. Advisory boards are useful for testing project ideas. Standard centers have standing advisory boards, but boards can be informally established to help adaptive and shadow centers plan their work and work their plan. Leadership Centers need an entrepreneurial champion with vision and passion for their purpose (Clark, 1998; Friedman & Friedman, 1977; Kerr, 1998; Perlman, Gueths, & Weber, 1988). Center leaders balance multiple roles, carefully navigating their work within the institution by dealing with director employment issues, and by collaborating with higher administration, their affiliated departments, other departments, faculty, and institutional systems. Connected to the core of their center, these individuals are often the founders of the centers they lead. “This is my baby!” exclaimed one interviewee. Promoting the mission of Journal of Research Administration Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 33 Articles the center requires four skill sets in communication, academic expertise, time management, and administration. Center leaders come from a variety of backgrounds, but agree that individual vision and passion drives their entrepreneurial behavior and ability to use skills to administer their centers. Center leaders must be able to delegate, provide a strong sense of direction, and focus on the task at hand while still being willing to shift gears. Flexibility is especially crucial in adaptive and shadow centers for which survival of the center is the focus. Role strain is common in center work (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007), but is more likely present in adaptive and shadow centers, in which directors consider themselves first as faculty members with teaching and research responsibilities, and second as center leaders. This leads to a situation in which leaders in shadow and adaptive centers have shorter tenure in their center position than directors of standard centers who are founders and keepers of their institutionalized center roles. Institutional Support Centers need university support in terms of mission, money, and space (Fink, 2004). The definition of support varies between center types. Standard center directors define support more in terms of mission and money, while adaptive centers define support more in terms of people power and other tangible resources such as space. The politics of garnering support from higher administration to work beyond faculty roles involves compromise, e.g., between centers’ ability to offer “additional visibility to a defined area of study important to the university” (Friedman & Friedman, 1984, p. 27) and academic traditions that support discipline-based faculty publication and funding (Clark, 1998). Interactions between centers and their affiliated departments and/or institutions can be challenging and, at times, strained (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007). Faculty ignorance about a center’s purpose and role in the larger context of an institution is detrimental to the center. It is important that departments understand centers to avoid competition. Center directors must make a concerted effort to work within the institution’s boundaries and guidelines to mitigate tensions (Friedman & Friedman, 1984; McCarthy, 1990; McCarthy, Jones, & St. John, 2000; Veres, 1988). “Centers are do-tanks rather than think-tanks,” as described by one director interviewed. Dealing with the culture of the traditional academy and misconception of center roles, directors had recommendations about how center leaders can navigate within their institution at different levels. These levels include higher administration, faculty, their affiliated departments, other departments, and institutional administrative systems. Directors typically serve as the key point person for the center, broadening the center’s sphere of influence among institutional constituents. Incorporating institutional representatives in center activities, coordinating activities with the center’s department, promoting affiliated departments, supporting departmental faculty with professional development opportunities and other means of funding, and partnering with disciplines are among the variety of successful methods center directors employ to tackle institutional issues or tensions. To make 34 Volume XLII, Number 2, 2011 Journal of Research Administration