In-Brief
An ACE-Huron collaborative initiative
The American Council on Education (ACE) and Huron are collaborating to develop practical and innovative solutions to the challenges faced by educational institutions. Given the many benefits for colleges and universities to engage in research, ACE and Huron focused the first area of its partnership on building a high-impact research enterprise in the context of a primary academic and instructional mission.
Following is the result of their initial work, including:
- An overview of the ACE and Huron pilot joint-community program initiative
- Questions to guide the development of a flexible research model that institutions can consider and adapt to their own environments and contexts
- Key considerations for establishing a CRSO role, including required experience and responsibilities
- A downloadable CRSO job description
- Guidelines for adapting and expanding existing policy framework to accommodate and elevate research activities and a list of additional ways to document institutional commitment to research and scholarship
- A downloadable institutional commitment and policy checklist
- Lists of working group participants
ACE and Huron: Collaborating to build the research enterprise for learner success
Introduction
ACE unites higher education under a vision for the future, galvanizes member institutions to make change, and leads collaboration across the sector to design solutions for today’s challenges. In service of this mission, ACE has seeded communities that foster partnership and the exchange of ideas among higher education institutional leaders. By creating these communities, ACE seeks to provide a platform where leaders can share their experiences, challenges, and solutions, ultimately shaping a more equitable and sustainable future for postsecondary education.
In parallel, Huron enables the research enterprise within these institutions by enhancing their research capabilities through strategic planning and expert guidance, as well as with technology and supporting resources. Passionate about the vital role of robust research in advancing knowledge and societal progress, Huron is dedicated to helping institutions overcome obstacles and maximize their research potential.
To achieve their goals together, ACE and Huron are collaborating to develop practical and innovative solutions for the challenges faced by educational institutions, breaking down challenges, and developing an industry-shared perspective to guide institutions and leaders towards their unique objectives.
Challenge topic overview
Enhanced institutional reputation and distinction, attraction and engagement of faculty and students, and addressing common and community challenges are just a few of the many easily recognized benefits for colleges and universities to engage in research. Large-scale research universities support hundreds of millions of dollars in extramural research activities annually. However, there are also many institutions that remain focused on instruction and learning as a primary mission and are also motivated to support and enable research activity and considering its broad benefits and impacts.
An active research enterprise comes with its own set of obstacles, the greatest of which may be making the substantial investment required to build and support a research enterprise in an ever-more competitive landscape while maintaining academic centricity. Institutions will need effective leaders, a defined strategy and intentional planning and execution to successfully tackle these challenges — which is perhaps why so many colleges and universities are appointing and formalizing inaugural research leadership roles. To better prepare member institutions and stakeholders, Huron and ACE selected the first focus area for our partnership: building a high-impact research enterprise in the context of a primary academic and instructional mission.
Challenge exploration and working group pilot
ACE and Huron convened university and college leaders to discuss the objective of building a high-quality research enterprise aligned to the academic and instructional mission. In this learning and teaching-focused cohort, the dialogue centered around recognizing complications and difficulties specific to the research enterprise, determining what constitutes "high impact" research, identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) for research growth, and integrating research into institutional priorities, such as financial investment and space planning.
Overall, the group collectively agreed the challenge was worth further definition and Huron and ACE’s leadership in developing a framework and associated tools and enablers would be welcome and impactful across this peer community.
Outcomes
From the pilot session a set of questions emerged to guide the development of a flexible research model within instructional settings, which institutions can consider and adapt to their own environments and contexts. These questions were divided into six target areas:
Institutional commitment and policy: What is required of the institution to support research as a component of the organizational mission? What is the overlap of research into other institutional administration and policy areas, and how can this overlap be accommodated within policy? How can the strategy for research best support institutional and instructional strategy? How does investment align with both strategies?
Leadership and structure: What type of involvement is required of institutional leaders? What positions and roles are critical to success, and how are roles and responsibilities best aligned? What administrative infrastructure is required for successful research in support of the instructional mission? Administrative infrastructure can include personnel, policies, and technology.
Curriculum and co-curriculum: How can faculty be engaged to identify new and more equitable ways that will expand research into the educational experience? How can research be identified and pursued as a complement to academic programs and course-based instruction? What support and enablement will be needed to develop research programs and activities in new areas?
Faculty and staff support: How do institutional policies and practices around faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure best accommodate the research contributions? How can faculty be developed into researchers and educators? What are the competencies for effective administrative support staff? How can this workforce be built and developed?
Mobility (translation): What are the structures and frameworks necessary to translate research into the classroom and community at large? How can the educational research experience translate to postsecondary education or career placement? How can the research experience be recognized within academic programs?
Partnerships: How can institutions collaborate with other educational institutions (K through postsecondary), as well as industry, government, and non-profit stakeholders for the betterment of the community? How can these partnerships be identified and optimized to enable research and instructional missions as well as to address global community needs?
Next steps and work to accomplish
These six target areas echo findings from the ACE Model for Comprehensive Learner Success, a framework for implementing lasting institutional change, which presents an opportunity to continue the collaborative, cooperative effort to further build out each of these areas.
Leadership and structure and institutional commitment and policy were identified as the most foundational areas with outcomes that will most likely drive the other areas of focus. Two working groups were then formed — one for each of these target areas — to explore the more detailed ways in which universities and colleges can optimize the benefit and impact of research activities on the teaching and learning-centric mission.
Over six months, these groups convened regularly to analyze these topics, develop a shared point of view and codesign resources to support the development of high-quality research enterprise aligned with learner success.
We are excited to share the outcomes of these working groups, including tangible tools and actionable approaches they produced.
Working group participants
Higher education leaders who participated in the working group included:
- April Bowling, vice president, research, Merrimack College
- Paul Bracke, associate provost, Institute for Research and Interdisciplinary Initiatives
- Maureen McCarthy, executive director, Office of research and sponsored programs, Quinnipiac University
- Rebecca Kohn, provost and vice president for academic affairs, Elon University
- Poorna Kushalnagar, strategic research officer, Gallaudet University
Leadership and structure
Introduction
Many colleges and universities that focus primarily on teaching and learning are seeking to enhance research and scholarship activity as an opportunity to elevate and distinguish the student learning experience. Numerous institutions have either recently recruited for or currently have an inaugural chief research and scholarship officer (CRSO) role. With no precedent, these institutions are exploring what positions and roles are critical to success and how these roles and responsibilities are best aligned across the many institutional units, functions, and leaders. These high-level leadership questions are followed by more tactical administrative infrastructure questions, such as what are the personnel, business unit, and staff needs for successful research in support of the instructional mission?
With these driving questions in mind, Huron and ACE convened the leadership and structure working group.
Resource: Position description
The leadership and structure working group, which consisted of individuals in a role akin to that of a CRSO, as well as other administrative and academic colleges and university leadership roles had conversation that focused heavily on the ultimate leadership role, including what makes this role successful and impactful. A useful tool emerged from this discussion — a CRSO position description, a framework that institutions can apply to outline this critical role that will shape and lead the institution's research and scholarship agenda. Discussion themes that informed the required experience and institutional alignment included:
- Using the word research is limiting and is too closely associated with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The title should be framed as a CRSO, and the role should be open to individuals with demonstrated research and scholarship success in any field of study — including the humanities and fine arts.
- Demonstrating research success and impact is critical, but research success is not a standalone qualification. A successful CRSO recruit must also have a demonstrated record of engaging students and the building research and scholarship activity into the learning environment to underscore this primary institutional objective.
- Having leadership skills, including communication, partnership, innovation, and motivation, is necessary to meet the training and mentorship demands of a research-emerging faculty and cultivate a research-collaborative culture.
- Defining a new role and building infrastructure around the research and scholarship mission is not a small undertaking; the individual should have prior administrative leadership experience, such as a department chair or associate dean for research.
- Aligning the CRSO role to report to the provost or chief academic officer and engage as a member of their cabinet as a peer and partner to academic deans is the best practice, especially when this role is the first of its kind at the institution.
Best practice roles and responsibilities
In addition to focusing on the qualifications and what is necessary to make an individual successful in a CRSO role, the working group further defined the CRSO roles and responsibilities, keeping in mind how the performance and impact of the CRSO will be measured on a regular and ongoing basis. The following themes should inform the development of the CRSO institutional responsibilities and the implementation of a CRSO role.
- The purpose of the CRSO is to lead the institution in enhancing the impact, capabilities, and positioning of the research mission within the student learning experience. This enterprisewide aspiration can only be achieved through a strategic and comprehensive approach, effective planning, and success monitoring and reporting.
- As the leader of the research and scholarship enterprise, one KPI for the CRSO role is the level (dollar value and diversity) of externally sponsored research and scholarship. Though not responsible for the success of any one proposal, the CRSO should coordinate strategic, institutional efforts to secure funding and support research initiatives.
- A primary role of the CRSO is to establish faculty support and research development mechanisms. The CRSO must focus time and effort on the faculty — especially for a faculty that is newly engaging in research and initiating opportunities in scholarly activity — including providing guidance, resources, and mentorship to facilitate their scholarship and research endeavors and motivate the integration of research into instruction.
- Operational units that are responsible for the administration of research, such as an institutional review board or office of sponsored programs, should also report to this leadership position and enable and facilitate the operational aspects of compliance. The CRSO must set the faculty standard and have a strong appreciation for adherence to ethical standards, regulatory requirements, and compliance protocols, and they must also work with deans to hold faculty accountable and provide necessary support for compliance.
- This role will certainly be focused on external engagement, including with industry and federal, state, and local government agencies to build collaborative opportunities. The CRSO must also engage with the community as another critical external partner; this partnership should foster relationships that can enhance the institution’s research mission, create additional opportunities for learners, and make a lasting impact on the community.
- The effectiveness of the CRSO is reliant upon adequate and appropriate data, metrics, and reporting in a transparent environment so that the objective of both the CRSO and the university’s research enterprise can be harmoniously aligned and measured. Clearly defined KPIs for both the role and the enterprise and frequent reporting of success, wins, and lessons learned will enable collaboration and administrative harmony.
Closing
This initial guidance and outline for a key institutional role is just one aspect of the broader leadership and structural considerations necessary for supporting and advancing an institution’s research and scholarship. However, it is likely that this leader will champion the work ahead and will undertake the additional efforts needed to address the other framework target areas.
Download the CRSO position description.
Working group participants
Higher education leaders who participated in the working group included:
- Rebecca Kohn, provost and vice president for academic affairs, Elon University (working group chair)
- Truc Ngo, associate provost for research administration, University of San Diego
- Poorna Kushalnagar, strategic research officer, Gallaudet University
- Wayne Glasgow, senior vice provost for research, Mercer University
- Julye Bidmead, director, Center for Undergraduate Excellence, Chapman University
Institutional commitment and policy
Introduction
Many colleges and universities consistently reaffirm their primary focus on teaching and learning through ongoing investment and prioritization of the educational mission. However, when these institutions endeavor to expand their research and scholarship capabilities — especially in support of the education and service missions — it prompts important questions about the level of institutional commitment and the policies that are necessary to support research activities. To fully grasp this, it is important to understand the interplay between research and other administrative policies within the university by exploring ways to integrate research within the existing framework or recognizing the need for new policy creation. Ensuring that research investments align with the institution’s mission and strategy is also important, as is supporting both research and instructional strategies to effectively allocate resources, further the institution’s goals, and enhance the student experience.
With these concepts and questions in mind, Huron and ACE convened the institutional commitment and policy working group.
Institutional commitment and policy needs
The working group focused heavily on the policy concept, beginning with the enterprise vision and approach to deploying policies that elevate research activities within instructional-focused universities and colleges. Several themes were identified to guide institutions as they adapt and expand their existing policy frameworks to accommodate and elevate research activities.
- Policies should be developed with intentionality in mind. For research and scholarship-related policies, the purpose and intent should consider institutional goals, objectives, and risk tolerance, in addition to federal or regulatory requirements.
- Institutional policies that guide the research rhetoric need to enable research and encourage participation in research and scholarly activities; they need to have appropriate flexibility and not be burdensome.
- Research and external engagement carries an inherent amount of risk. Therefore, institutional policies that impact research have to allow for an appropriate amount of risk. The institutional culture may need to adjust by adopting a different risk tolerance.
- Stakeholder buy-in is critical for successful implementation of policies (and advancement of the research agenda); the process for developing and implementing policies should be collaborative and create a receptive, shared-success culture.
- Policies are distinct from procedures. Policies provide the overarching principles and guidelines that inform the decision making, and procedures detail the specific steps and actions that are required to implement those policies.
Resource: Policy checklist
From these more global and conceptual considerations the working group drilled down into the more tactical aspects of policy development. They examined the overlap between research and other university policies, how and when research activities can be governed within existing policies, and when research-specific policies or embedded considerations may be necessary. The institutional commitment and policy checklist emerged as a useful tool for gauging an institution’s support of its research and scholarship objectives, as well as for providing a structured approach in identifying gaps.
Other institutional commitment support
Beyond those key indicators of institutional commitment and essential policy attributes, the working group also discussed the many ways beyond just institutional commitment policy that institutional commitment to research and scholarship can be documented:
Faculty handbook: Understanding and defining faculty alignment with research and scholarship is a key component of demonstrated institutional commitment. As such, an institution’s faculty handbook is a tangible way to demonstrate institutional commitment to research. It offers clarity and structure as to how research and scholarship are integrated into expectations of faculty and their professional development and consistently promotes a scholarship culture.
Specific provisions or topics in an institution’s faculty handbook are necessary to define and underscore faculty’s responsibilities, expectations, and opportunities for success in research and scholarship.
Institutional strategic plans: An institution-level or research-focused strategic plan can be a clear and decisive way of communicating the commitment to research expansion and growth. However, not all institutions have such plans — or they may not dive as deep into these details — so these more formal plans were not noted as a primary method of documenting intent, commitment, and goals.
There are demonstratable benefits of an enterprise strategic plan in accelerating research and scholarship growth and impact and unifying an institution. The alignment of resources and investment in an institutional strategic plan that elevates the research mission in the instructional context is critical.
Institutional policies: Given the regulatory linkage and level of federal government oversight, a core set of policies is required for the compliant and effective administration of research and externally sponsored activities. Many institutions, regardless of the size of the research enterprise, recognize this fact and focus on developing those minimally required policies to enable compliance and manage risk.
Even more challenging, and perhaps less obvious, is the institutional task of adapting those broader, enterprise-wide policies for the considerations and nuances of a research environment and sponsored funding.
Financial policies: Clear guidelines must be set for indirect cost recovery, sponsored travel, and other research-related financial policies to showcase the institution's commitment to research and to enable the necessary administrative tasks associated with externally funded activities. Institutions must proactively and carefully consider the impact of growing research expenditures on their overall budget model and make strategic investments in research infrastructure and support.
As an example of such a policy that underscores the requirements of a successful strategic plan, colleges and universities incorporate extramural activities into the institution’s financial operations as both a revenue source and investment opportunity.
Other visible indicators: A variety of other means can communicate, document, and reinforce an institution’s recognition of the value of research and scholarship within a learning and teaching-centered institution, particularly in enriching education and the student experience. Working group members identified websites that are dedicated to research, resource, and funding support for research and scholarly efforts (e.g., support staff, funding for faculty development, adequate library resources).
Closing
Flexible policies and visible support structures can advance the research and scholarship goals of any higher education institution. This is perhaps most imperative for instructionally oriented institutions that are looking to integrate research because research must be woven into a policy structure that is focused on teaching.
The working groups have provided a useful approach for institutions to successfully accomplish this objective. Building on this foundation, future efforts will expand to other areas, as informed by the ACE Model for Comprehensive Learner Success.
Download the institutional commitment and policy indicators checklist.
If you are interested in participating in future conversations about building the research enterprise for learner success, contact Lindsey Myers, director and principal program officer, Education Futures Lab, ACE, at lmyers@acenet.edu.