National Survey of APLU Vice Presidents and Vice Chancellors for Research

1. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Lori A. Snyder, and Alicia J. Knoedler University of Oklahoma Caroline Whitacre The Ohio State University Howard Gobstein, Christine Keller, Teri Lyn Hinds, KacyRedd, and Nathalie Argueta APLU APLU Annual Meeting November 10-12, 2013 Washington, DC National Survey of APLU Vice Presidents and Vice Chancellors for Research

2. Motivation • The Vice President/Vice Chancellor for Research (VPR/VCR)... • Is a key(though perhaps not well understood) position in public and private research universities • Is structured and deployed in a wide variety of ways with a wide variety of responsibilities • Is facing many newchallengesin the face of problematic budgets, compliance requirements, and dramatic changes in the higher education landscape

3. Motivation • No comprehensive survey has been conducted of VPRs/VCRs to understand • Administrative structuresutilized and their strengths and weaknesses • Characteristics and experiences of individualsholding the position • Current roles and responsibilities of the position • New and emerging challenges, and skillsneeded to meet them • Strategies for effectively preparing the next generation, including possible roles for CRPGE and other APLU organizations

4. Goal and Audience • Via scholarly analyses of data from a national, web-based survey of APLU VCRs/VPRs, our goal is to provide information that builds greater understanding of these important positions and assists senior university administrators in assuring excellence in the structure, function and leadership of the university research enterprise now and in the future

5. Topical Focal Points • Organizational structureof office/position and how it has changed or may need to change • Characteristics and experiences of peopleholding the position • Challengesfor the future and strategiesfor addressing them • Preparation of next generation leaders and possible roles for APLU

6. Process and Timeline • Concept discussed at February, 2013 CRPGE meeting and approved by Executive Committee • Short draft survey given to CRPGE Executive Committee in late spring, 2013 • Results discussed at Summer, 2013 meeting • Special breakfast session to dig deeper and develop new questions/areas of emphasis • Full survey finalized and (OU) IRB approval received on 20 September 2013 • Survey conducted from 23 September – October 5 2013 • Response rate = 56 out of ~ 155 invitations (36%)

7. Structure of the Survey: 64 Questions About... • Your Institution (6) • You (5) • Your Professional Experience (8) • The Structure of your Current Position (19) • Training (5) • Current State of the VPR/VCR Position (18) • Succession Planning (3)

8. Status and Products • Initial results are presented herein and some are excluded because of time (budgets, size of organization) • Cluster and other analyses have be performed and are being evaluated • Survey may be re-issued to improve response rate • At least one formal archive publication is planned • Products and key findings will be made available on the APLU web site • Note: VPR/VCR is referred to hereafter as VPR

9. Statistical Significance • We continue to evaluate the statistical significance of differences presented herein and thus no such significance should be assumed at this time

10. Characteristics of Sample

11. VPR Demographics • 86% from Research Universities • 54% Very high research activity • 32% High research activity • 96% from public universities • 42% from land grant universities

12. Institution Demographics Mean: 1381 Std. Dev: 912 N: 53 Mean: $196M Std. Dev: $193M N: 56 Yearly Research Expenditures for Institution (in $millions) Faculty FTE at Institution

13. VPR Gender and Ethnicity Asian White Female Hispanic Male Prefer not to Disclose Prefer not to Disclose

14. VPR Gender Differences • A comparison of male and female VPRs detected two small but interesting differences • Institution size • Female VPRs reported 1,622 FTE • Male VPRs reported 1,308 FTE • Annual institution research expenditures • Female VPRs reported $252,614,116 • Male VPRs reported $176,414,605 314 FTE difference $76,199,511 difference

15. Year VPR received PhD Discipline of Degree 25% Biomedical and Biomedical Sciences 23% Physical Sciences 23% Engineering 10% Social Sciences 7% Agriculture and related sciences Mean: 1983 Std. Dev.: 7 N: 56 40 yrs ago 30 yrs ago 20 yrs ago 10 yrs ago

16. Questions to Consider • What is contributing to the lack of diversity in terms of ethnicity, gender, and discipline of terminal degree (behavioral & economic sciences, humanities), and how can it be addressed? • Might people enter VPR positions earlier in their career?

17. Structure of Position

18. VPR Reporting Structure President/Chancellor VP for Academic Affairs/Provost President/Chancellor & VP for Academic Affairs/Provost Vice Chancellor for Research Other

19. VPR Organization Demographics Mean: 184.6 Median: 60 Std. Dev.: 272.9 N: 55 Mean: 10.0 Median: 8 Std. Dev.: 7.5 N: 55 Number in VPR organization Number reporting directly to VPR

20. Most Common VPR Responsibilities

21. Other VPR Responsibilities • 32% have purview over Health Campus/Organization • 30% have purview over Veterinary Medicine Campus/Organization • 58% have responsibility for a 501(c)3 non-profit research organization

22. Questions to Consider • Considerable time and attention are devoted by VPRs to compliance issues. Are we therefore wasting VPR talent that could be devoted to building strategic research activities, establishing collaborations among faculty and institutions, focusing on regional initiatives, etc?

23. Budget, Spending and Facilities

24. VPR Budget • 62% have budget linked to indirect cost recovery Percentage IDC Contributing to Budget

25. Indirect Cost Recovery Differences • Notable differences existed in VPRs that did and did not have budgets linked to institutional indirect cost recovery (IDC) • Institution size • VPRs with IDC link reported 1,405 FTE • VPRs without IDC link reported 1,338 FTE • Annual institution research expenditures • VPRs with IDC link reported $166,385,277 • VPRs without IDC link reported $252,312,769 67 FTE difference $85,927,492 difference

26. VPR Budget (in millions of dollars) In Millions of Dollars

27. VPR Budget Normalized by Research Expenditures

28. What is your role in deciding whether cost sharing should be provided to a given grant proposal submission?

29. What is your role in providing money for grant proposal cost sharing relative to other offices once the decision to provide it has been made?

30. VPR Role in Retention Packages • 59% have role in funding retention packages, relative to other offices Percentage funded by VPR

31. VPR Role in Startup Packages • 79% have a role in funding startup packages Percentage of start-up funded by VPR

32. I have control over the allotment of space and facilities for research.

33. Questions to Consider • Is linking the VPR budget to research expenditures and/or IDC recovery an effective practice (this question is being debated nationally with regard to IDC)? • Could the VPR position be more effective if provided with greater funding and/or discretion over spending?

34. Strategic Planning

35. I am very involved in budget planning at the university level.

36. I am very involved in strategic planning at the university level.

37. Research Strategic Planning • 75% of universities have institution-wide strategic plan for research and/or graduate education • VPR led creation of plan in 72% of schools • 21% of universities have institution-wide strategic plan for undergraduate research • VPR led creation of plan in 18% of schools

38. Graduate Education and Research Strategic Plan Differences • Differences reported by VPRs that did and did not have institution-wide strategic plans for grad education and/or research • Institution size • VPRs with a plan reported 1,413 FTE • VPRs without a plan reported 1,213 FTE • Annual institution research expenditures • VPRs with a plan reported $200,651,168 • VPRs without a plan reported $178,107,142 200 FTE difference $22,544,026 difference

39. Topics in Strategic Plan for Research

40. Undergraduate Research Plan Differences • Different patterns were reported by VPRs that did and did not have institution-wide strategic plans for undergraduate research • Institution size • VPRs with a plan reported 1,275 employees • VPRs without a plan reported 1,412 employees • Annual institution research expenditures • VPRs with a plan reported $218,978,551 • VPRs without a plan reported $189,146,711 137 FTE difference $29,831,840 difference

41. Questions to Consider • What role does/should the VPR office play in undergraduate research? • What ROI is perceived to arise from establishing an institution-wide strategic plan for undergraduate research? • Do VPRs tend to be managers or leaders in the institutional research agenda? • Would additional control over funding provide greater value to the VPR position and help attract people into it?

42. Preparation for and Views Toward Holding the VPR Position

43. Recall: VPR Demographics • 86% from Research Universities • 54% Very high research activity • 32% High research activity • 96% from public universities • 42% at land grant university

44. VPR Gender and Ethnicity Asian White Female Hispanic Male Prefer not to Disclose Prefer not to Disclose

45. Year VPR received PhD Mean: 1983 Std. Dev.: 7 N: 56 Discipline of Degree 25% Biomedical and Biomedical Sciences 23% Physical Sciences 23% Engineering 10% Social Sciences 7% Agriculture and related sciences 40 yrs ago 30 yrs ago 20 yrs ago 10 yrs ago

46. On how many professional Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Councils external to your institution do you currently serve?

47. I received formal or informal TRAINING that allowed me to be a competitive candidate for my current position(s).

48. I received formal or informal PERSONAL MENTORING that allowed me to be a competitive candidate for my current position(s).

49. What else was instrumental in helping you to get your position?

50. The opportunities for professional development I receive at my institution are helping me to excel in my current position.