characteristics of research centers and institutes at … of research...involved exploring the...

Association ofAmerican Medical Colleges

Characteristics of Research Centers and Institutes at U.S. Medical Schools and Universities

William T. Mallon, Ed.D., and Sarah A. Bunton, Ph.D.

June 2005


June 2005

William T. Mallon, Ed.D., and Sarah A. Bunton, Ph.D.

William T. Mallon is Assistant Vice President and Director of Organization and Management Studies, and Sarah A. Buntonis Research Associate with the Association of American Medical Colleges. This study was funded in part by the BurroughsWellcome Fund. The findings, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not neces-sarily reflect the views of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund or the Association of American Medical Colleges.

© 2005 Association of American Medical Colleges

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of theAssociation of American Medical Colleges.

Free PDF versions of this report are available for download at www.aamc.org/publications

ISBN 1-57754-042-5

Print copies are available from:Association of American Medical CollegesOrder Fulfillment and Customer Service2450 N Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20037Phone: 202 828 0416 Fax: 202 828 1123www.aamc.org/publicationsPrice: $10

More information on the AAMC Project on Centers and Institutes is available at www.aamc.org/members/msmr/centersandinstitutes/start.htm. For questions or comments about this report, please contact [email protected]

Association of American Medical Collegesii


Association of American Medical Colleges

Executive Summary Many observers underscore theineluctable movement toward interdisci-plinarity in biomedical research.Organized research units—that is,centers and institutes—are a commonmechanism for organizing interdiscipli-nary scientific work in universities andmedical schools. Little is known,however, about what constitutes researchcenters and institutes. What do we talkabout when we talk about centers?

In 2003, the Association of AmericanMedical Colleges (AAMC) launched aresearch project designed to explore therole of interdisciplinary centers andinstitutes within the larger structure ofbiomedical research and academicmedicine. Among the project’s salientquestions were: What are centers orinstitutes? How do they work? Whatrelationships do these units have withacademic departments? How do facultymanage the potentially competingallegiances of departments and centers?How is institutional governanceexercised in this milieu? What are theorganizational and management implica-tions of these units for faculty andacademic leaders?

The initial phase of the AAMC initiativeinvolved exploring the characteristicsand status of biomedical and health-related research centers and institutes inresearch-intensive universities. In thisreport, we present the results of a 2004survey of directors of centers and insti-tutes. The findings provide descriptiveinformation about the mission, activities,organizational structure, fundingsources, size, staffing, and governance

relationships of these organizedacademic units, which have emerged asan integral part of the landscape ofbiomedical research in the 21st century.Several intriguing findings emerge fromthis research:

• What Do Centers Do? The mission androle of centers are highly varied,complex, and nuanced. While manyassertions have been made about thefunctions that centers perform inacademic settings, we found thatcenters do not exist solely to conductresearch. Instead, they also contributein many important ways to the educa-tional mission of universities, includinginstruction and training of undergrad-uate and graduate students, medicalstudents, residents, and fellows. Inaddition to education, many researchcenters are also involved in activitiessuch as patient care and service andoutreach. However, research centershave not made patenting andtechnology transfer a high priorityrelative to other activities. Thesenumerous roles and functions ofresearch centers serve an importantpurpose by adding to the richness ofthe university, providing service toindividuals and the community, andconducting research that can increasethe reputation and strength of theuniversity and medical school.

Do research centers structure their workin an interdisciplinary manner?Biomedical and health-related researchcenters show substantially more inter-disciplinary approaches to their workthan similar centers in a previous era.

iii



Centers today also involve investigatorsfrom a greater variety of departments than centers included in past studies.These results suggest that researchcenters are responding to thedemands of science for collaborationand interaction among researchersfrom many fields and that centersmay offer faculty members opportu-nities for interdisciplinary activitiesnot available in the traditional disciplinary-based departmentalstructure.

Furthermore, newer research centers inboth basic and clinical fields embracemore collaborative, less unidisciplinaryapproaches to research than do oldercenters, supporting the idea of a trendtoward interdisciplinarity.

• What Resources Do Research CentersHave? The majority of centers havelimited staff, space, and funding.Although exceptions certainly exist,most centers do not have the status andauthority of departments. Centers andinstitutes sometimes have been criti-cized for draining resources fromdepartments. Our results indicate thatcenters receive most of their fundingfrom sources outside the university, donot control faculty appointments, andcontribute little to faculty salaries. Inmost cases, academic departments aremaintaining their primacy in thework life of faculty members. A selectgroup of “Power Centers” defies thisgeneral trend. Power Centers reportdirectly to major academic decisionmakers (for example, the universitypresident or provost) and have consid-erably larger staffs and financialresources than do other centers.

Centers and institutes receive most oftheir financial resources from govern-ment sources (63 percent, on average),followed by university funds (13percent). Centers derive scant fundingfrom industry and corporations.While most centers and institutes haveassigned space, physical space may notbe, in and of itself, a good indicator ofsize or status. The “virtual” centers inthe study do not differ from centerswith space in terms of staffing, facultyaffiliations, or reporting relationships.

Over 40 percent of centers have one ormore faculty members with appoint-ments in university divisions outsidethe medical school; 12 percent haveone or more faculty with appointmentsin other universities. These findingsindicate that centers can facilitateinteraction among researchers fromdifferent disciplines, schools, andeven institutions to cross traditionalboundaries and work on problems ofmutual interest.

• Are Centers Held Accountable? Whilesome argue that centers often are notheld sufficiently accountable formeeting their goals and objectives, ourresults indicate that research centerstypically are subject to accountabilitymeasures. Almost four-fifths of thecenters in the study are subject toperiodic program review, and three-quarters have at least one advisorycommittee in place.

These findings suggest a number ofimplications for university and medicalschool faculty and administrators:

1. Research centers are important andintegral mechanisms for supporting,sustaining, and growing the biomedicalresearch enterprise.

2. Most research centers remain on themargins of institutional power,prestige, and influence. In general,departments continue to hold primacyover centers.

3. While most centers are subject toprogram review, universities mayconsider the use of term limits as anadded measure of accountability.

4. Universities should consider definingmore precisely the many diverseentities called “centers” and “insti-tutes” to avoid the confusion thatarises when these many disparate unitsare grouped together.

iv


Association of American Medical Colleges v


Contents Acknowledgements vii

List of Tables and Figures ix

Introduction 1

Context 3

Findings 5

What Do Centers Do? 6Involvement in Educational Activities 7How Interdisciplinary are Centers and Institutes? 8

How Are Centers Organized? 10Centers in the University Hierarchy 10Center Directors 12Administrative Organization 13

What Resources Do Centers Have? 14Center Funding 14Space 15People 15

Are Centers Held Accountable? 18Program Review 18Advisory Committees 18Term Limits 19

Conclusion 21

Appendices 23

Appendix A: Description of Project Research Agenda 23Appendix B: Research Methods 24Appendix C: Survey of Directors of Centers and Institutes 26Appendix D: AAMC Project on Centers and Institutes Board of Consultants 35

References 37

Association of American Medical Colleges vii


Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their insightfulcomments, feedback, and advice: Jordan Cohen, Haile Debas, Robert Dickler, MichaelFriedlander, Roger Geiger, Stanley Ikenberry, Martin Ionescu-Pioggia, Robert Jones,Richard Knapp, David Korn, Jack Krakower, Anthony Mazzaschi, Lisa Staiano-Coico,and Michael Whitcomb.

The Burroughs Wellcome Fund generously provided a portion of the funding for thisresearch project.

Mandy Liu, Ph.D., made important contributions to the survey development,administration, and data gathering phases of this study.

Association of American Medical Colleges ix


List of Tables and FiguresTables Table 1: Percentage of Effort Devoted to Various Activities by Research Centers

Table 2: Differences Between Degree-Sponsoring and Non-Degree-SponsoringCenters

Table 3: Comparison of Interdisciplinarity and Faculty Involvement in Centers, 1982 and 2004

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Space (Net-Assignable Square Feet) Assigned to Centers

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Number of Personnel Associated with Centers

Figures Figure 1: Primary Mission of All Centers and Institutes in Study

Figure 2: Percentages of Centers Involved in Various Types of Educational Activities

Figure 3: Reporting Relationships of Centers

Figure 4: Opinions of Center Directors

Figure 5a: Average Funding, by Type of Reporting Relationship

Figure 5b: Average University Funding, by Type of Reporting Relationship

Figure 5c: Average Number of Staff, by Type of Reporting Relationship

Figure 6: Four Models of Center Administrative Structure

Figure 7: Sources of Center Funding

Figure 8: Locus of Primary Appointments of Faculty Affiliated with Research Centers

Figure 9: Percentage of Centers That Provide Faculty Appointment and Percentage of Faculty Who Receive Salary Support

Figure 10: Percentage of Professional Research Staff Eligible for Faculty Benefits

Figure 11: Composition of Advisory Committees

Figure 12: Term Length of Research Centers and Institutes

In what has been called the Century ofBiology (Kafatos & Eisner, 2004), recentdecades have seen a rapid and profoundexpansion of knowledge in the lifesciences. Researchers have madeimportant advancements and discov-eries—in molecular biology,immunology, genomics, proteomics,bioinformatics, and neuroscience, toname a few—contributing to the basicunderstanding of life and the subsequentapplication to new cures for disease andprevention of human suffering.

Biomedical research has grown morequantitative, more complex, and moreinterdisciplinary. In this milieu, investiga-tors do not function solely within theconfines of traditional biomedical disci-plines. Many research efforts requireexperts from mathematics, computerscience, engineering, chemistry, physics,psychology, anthropology, and others.Promising avenues of basic research andclinical application require greater linksamong and beyond disciplines and acrossinstitutions (Cowell, 2002; EuropeanUnion Research Advisory Board, 2004;Institute of Medicine, 2004; Ludmerer,1999; National Academy of Science, 2004;Powell & Owen-Smith, 2002).

Such proclamations are not withoutimpact on the structure and function ofthe academy. Historically, discipline-based academic departments served asgatekeepers of the faculty, generators ofresearch, and guardians of thecurriculum. But as science continues tooutgrow the epistemological borders thatthe university has placed around it,

academic institutions are transcendingdepartments and schools to conduct andtrain for scientific and medical research.As a result, collaborative efforts withinthe medical school and throughout theuniversity make the once-rigid bound-aries between departments, schools, andinstitutions more permeable and fluid.In some medical schools, for example,traditional basic science departmentshave been restructured. Some schoolshave developed new departments, suchas neuroscience and genetics; others haveclosed, consolidated, or merged existingones (Mallon, Biebuyck & Jones, 2003).

In other cases, many of the nation’slargest and most prestigious universitieshave created interdisciplinary researchcenters and institutes. These centers andinstitutes capitalize on the interstices of“Big Biology”—not only to assembleresearchers with diverse skills andexpertise, but also to build and solidifyinstitutional prestige, tap new andexisting sources of funding, and serve asengines of economic development. Incertain cases, interdisciplinary centersand institutes are moving from themargins toward the mainstream of theuniversity—with control over space andfunding and influence over facultyrecruitment. These developments haveled faculty and chairs to worry about aloss of departmental integrity, power,and funding (Fischman, 1998; Galbreath,2004; Ibrahim et al., 2003). While theroles of interdisciplinary centers andinstitutes in research universities andmedical schools have been discussedanecdotally, these organizational units

have received scant systematic attentionin recent years, especially surprisinggiven the vast amount of research thattakes place under their auspices.

Study DesignIn 2003, the Association of AmericanMedical Colleges (AAMC) began aresearch project to explore the role thatinterdisciplinary centers and instituteshave within the larger structure ofbiomedical research and academicmedicine. Questions driving this projectincluded: What are centers and insti-tutes? How do they work (that is, whatare their forms and functions)? Whatrelationship do centers and instituteshave with academic departments? Howdo faculty—especially junior faculty—interact with the potentially competingallegiances of departments and centers?How is institutional governance anddecision-making exercised in this milieu?And what are the organizational andmanagement implications of these unitsfor faculty and academic leaders?1 Giventhat there was no reliable or completedata source for answering the first twoquestions—what is a center and howdoes it work and function?—wedesigned the initial phase of the AAMCinitiative to explore the characteristicsand status of biomedical and health-related centers and institutes.

The purpose of this survey research wasto determine the size, scope, and range ofactivities at centers and institutes affili-ated with research-intensive medicalschools and their parent universities inthe United States.

Introduction

Association of American Medical Colleges 1


1 See Appendix A for a complete project description.


In this report, we will use the terms“center” and “institute” interchange-ably to refer to nondepartmentalorganizational units of the medicalschool or university.2 We focusedprimarily on entities that organize,facilitate, or conduct basic and appliedresearch.

We were less interested in centers thatperform educational, clinical, oroutreach functions, and we were notinterested in service facilities (e.g.,libraries, computer laboratories, andinstrumentation facilities that solelyoffer support services for researchers).

Specifically, we wanted to answer thefollowing research questions:

• What are the organizational characteris-tics of centers, such as primary mission,sources and amounts of funding, size andscope of faculty and research staff, space,frequency of evaluation, and director’srole and reporting relationships?

• In what ways do centers differ fromeach other in organizationalcomplexity, as measured by financing,personnel, space, evaluation, anddirector’s reporting relationships?

See Appendix B for a discussion ofresearch methods.

2


Are “Centers” Different From “Institutes”?Should we make distinctions between entities called “centers” and thosecalled “institutes”? Some schools designate differences in institutionalpolicies. Penn State University College of Medicine, for example, stipu-lates that an institute incorporates all core missions (patient care,research, teaching, and community outreach), while a center includesonly two of those four missions; institutes may involve more than oneuniversity, while centers must be contained within a school; and facultycan have primary appointments in institutes but not in centers. Severalother universities and medical schools have similar policies but theytend to be the exception, not the rule. Most universities have not articu-lated policies identifying differences in terminology.

Data from our survey suggest, however, that institutes are different fromcenters in several key ways. Institutes have, on average, more fundingand more assigned space than centers. Additionally, they are more likelythan centers to report to a higher level in the academic hierarchy (to theprovost, for example, rather than a department chair). The two types,however, are not statistically different in several important parameterssuch as number of faculty affiliates or size of overall staff.

These differences suggest that, while schools may not have policies thatgovern the nomenclature of these entities, in practice, “institutes” mayhave more resources than “centers.”

2 These units may have other names: programs, projects, laboratories, and clinics, to name a few.

Context



Centers and institutes have always beencontroversial in American universitysettings. Some observers excoriate theirform as marginal to the mission of theuniversity—an unwanted distractionfrom core activities. The great highereducation reformer Abraham Flexnerwas perhaps the earliest critic of theseorganizational add-ons. In 1930 hewrote:

What is an “institute”? The word was taken

over from German nomenclature where it

means a laboratory or a group of laborato-

ries. In American it may mean something

or nothing. At the University of Chicago,

the Oriental Institute denotes a group of

instructors who deal with oriental subjects.

The “institute” has no other existence—it is

not a group detached from the faculty, it

has no autonomy, it is merely a number of

persons or departments, supported, like

others, partially out of general funds,

partially by special funds held by the

university for their use. Harvard has in its

faculty of law an Institute of Criminal Law,

which would appear to be simply the name

for the research activities of the chair

devoted to that subject—a dubious

departure, since it implies a possible

separation of teaching and research with

the limits of a university chair. (Flexner,

1930, pp. 110-111)

The criticism has never disappeared.Rossi (1964) noted that throughunplanned and adaptive growth, theuniversity created a “periphery occupiedby institutes and centers… vaguelydefined and discontinuous” (p. 1142).But proponents argue that the prolifera-tion of centers and institutes testifies totheir great strengths—that by focusing onparticular research activities and beingresponsive to societal needs and interests,centers and institutes have contributed tothe ascendancy of the great Americanresearch university (Geiger, 1990).

Whatever one’s inclinations, it would bedifficult for observers not to notice thegrowth of these organizational entitiesand wonder about their rightful role.While exact counts of university-basedcenters may be impossible to determine,evidence suggests a substantial expansionin recent decades. The biannual ResearchCenter Directory, for example, included6,000 centers in 1980; 10,000 in 1990;and over 13,000 in 2003, the bulk ofwhich are affiliated with universities.Moreover, we believe these figures areundercounts because, as discussed in themethods section in Appendix B, weidentified many centers not included inthe published directory.

What is a Center?What constitutes a research center orinstitute? These terms are used todescribe many different entities, not allof which are created equal. Previousresearchers have attempted to createtaxonomies for centers. Ikenberry andFriedman (1972) categorized centers asstandard, adaptive, or shadow—differen-tiated by their stability and ability tostore resources. Standard centers arepermanent bureaucracies with stablegoals, finances, and personnel. Adaptivecenters are defined by their smallpermanent staff, limited resources, andconstant redefinition of goals. Shadowunits, also called letterhead units (Day,1976), are those that primarily exist inthe center director’s mind or file cabinet,having little or no funding, no staff, andno research space.

Day (1976) arranged centers by thenature of their work. Department-basedcenters house faculty from the samediscipline; often they are mechanisms forattracting funding support. A morecomplex form is the interdepartmental

center, in which researchers frommultiple fields collaborate on projectsthat span disciplinary methodologies ororganization.

These classification schemas, developedin the 1970s, offer useful ways to thinkabout the structure of research centersbut have become dated. Some universi-ties have created even more complexcenters: the inter-school or inter-insti-tutional center, which spans schoolswithin a university or even acrossuniversities themselves. Moreover,centers exhibit more variety, nuance,and complexity than these taxonomiescapture. Is there another way to morefully portray what centers are, what theydo, and how they work? This reportprovides greater detail of the variedstructure and function of centers.



Literature on Centers and Institutes:Purposes, Strengths, Weaknesses

Centers and institutes—the historicalantecedents for which can be traced tothe agriculture extension stationscreated by the Hatch Act of 1887—proliferated after World War II withthe development of the federallyfunded university research enterprise(Geiger, 1990). Why are centerscreated, what are their strengths, andwhat are their weaknesses?

Universities have developed centers torespond to external pressures, mostnotably from the federal government,to stimulate scientific, technological,economic, and social innovation insociety (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972;Teich, 1982). Research centers are adirect manifestation of the view thatuniversities ought to contribute to thebetterment of society.

A related reason for the proliferation ofresearch centers is the response to oppor-tunistic funding (Rogers, et al., 1999;Stahler & Tash, 1994). Centers have beendeveloped proactively—in order to drawpublic, corporate, and private foundationsupport—or reactively, in response toimplicit or explicit expectations fromsponsors. Often, funding agencies aremore generous with centers thatmaximize interdisciplinary collaborations(Friedman & Friedman, 1984).Universities sometimes create centers togenerate visibility for particular researchinitiatives. In other cases, institutions maycreate centers because their peers have.

Entrepreneurial faculty members havecreated centers for extra flexibility and,sometimes, additional income (Smith& Karlesky, 1977). Institutes can offerfaculty additional research resources,space, graduate assistants, equipment,and other perquisites that departments

cannot (Ikenberry & Friedman, 1972).Centers also have been created toprovide titles and status to facultymembers the institution wants toretain or placate (Dressler, et al., 1969).

Centers also have been developed topromote interdisciplinary research orprograms of high risk (Cunningham, etal., 1977 Friedman & Friedman, 1982;Rogers, et al., 1999). Outside the rubricof the discipline-based department, theseunits can explore research questions andproblems that transcend traditionaldisciplinary methods and orientations.

This last reason has become increas-ingly important in the biomedicalsciences. Centers and institutes havebeen created not only for purposes ofinstitutional development but also inresponse to the evolution of scienceitself. Researchers are forming theseentities to help nurture and developinterdisciplinary expertise and solvecomplex interdisciplinary problemsthat no one discipline can adequatelyaddress (Blumenthal, 1998; Gabriel,2001; Sproull & Hall, 1987).

Centers have many advantages, propo-nents contend. Geiger (1990) arguedthat the creation of research centerswithin the university framework “wasthe decisive factor in the postwarexpansion” of the academic researchenterprise (p. 3). Through their role ofexpanding university research,organized research centers have madea major contribution to raising insti-tutional reputation and prestige(Geiger, 1990). Traditionally, centersand institutes have complementedacademic departments; they focus ontask-oriented problems and areresponsive to societal needs (Anderson,1976; Stahler & Tash, 1994). They offeradditional visibility to a specific field orarea of research (Friedman & Friedman,

1984) and can react to new policy direc-tions and new research priorities (Smith& Karlesky, 1977). Research centers arealso boundary-spanning organizations,facilitating exchange of information andresources to the external environment(Rogers, et al., 1999).

The literature also notes liabilities withthese organized units. First there is aconcern with “mission creep” awayfrom the educational functions of theuniversity (Rossi, 1964; Stahler & Tash,1994). Rossi (1964) viewed theexpansion of the research center modelas a segregation of the university’sresearch and teaching missions. Theirtypical focus on programmatic researchconflicts with purists’ views of thepurposes of the university (Ikenberry &Friedman, 1972). Centers and institutesalso have been criticized for drainingresources from departments (Friedman& Friedman, 1982, Ibrahim, et al.,2003). Additionally, several studies havedemonstrated that centers often fail intheir efforts to foster interdisciplinarycollaboration (Friedman & Friedman,1982, 1986; Hays, 1991).

Friedman and Friedman (1984) assertedthat centers are typically idiosyncratic,with no defined intellectual core, noaccreditation processes, and often nopeers. Their implicit concern was thatcenters and institutes often run amokwith no quality control mechanismsover their personnel, output, or intellec-tual cohesiveness. Other scholarsexpressed concern that junior facultywho are affiliated with centers can sufferin the department-based promotion andtenure process (Cunningham, et al.,1977; Stahler & Tash, 1994). Some haveasserted that centers and institutes arenot major contributors to the academicmission and governance structure of theuniversity (Friedman & Friedman,1982; Stahler & Tash, 1994).

FindingsFour QuestionsThe results of the 2004 AAMC surveyprovide a glimpse into the organizationalstructure and operations of centers andinstitutes at U.S. medical schools andresearch universities. We have organizedthe findings to answer four questionsraised in the scholarly literature andoften discussed by university andmedical school faculty members andadministrators:

1. What Do Centers Do?What missions do centers serve? Docenters play a role in education andteaching? Do centers structure theirwork in an interdisciplinary manner?

2. How Are Centers Organized?How do centers fit organizationallywithin the university hierarchy? Towhom do center directors report? Howdid they obtain their posts and howare they reviewed? Do centers have arole in university governance?

3. What Resources Do Centers Have?From what sources do centers derivetheir funding? Do they have assignedspace? Do they provide financialsupport to faculty? How manypersonnel are affiliated with centers?

4. Are Centers Held Accountable?What structures and policies are inplace to review the performance ofcenters?

The results in the following sectionsreflect responses from directors ofcenters and institutes at 57 academicinstitutions. The usable responsesrepresent 761 different centers or insti-tutes, which have different missions,organization, and resources. Of the 761respondents, 604 centers (79 percent)focus primarily on some form ofresearch. These 604 are analyzed in depthin this report.




1. What Do Centers Do?Many assertions have been made aboutthe functions that centers perform, or donot perform, in academic settings.Stahler and Tash (1994) for example,declared that centers “are not majorcontributors to the educational missionof universities” (p. 542), a chargerepeated by Crist, et al. (2003). Ourfindings, however, indicate that themission and role of centers are varied,complex, and nuanced.

The 604 research centers in our studyconduct a variety of tasks (Table 1). Forthe purposes of this report, we define“some effort” to be at least 10 percentbut less than 50 percent; “a majority ofeffort” is considered to be 50 percent ormore. Not surprisingly, 77 percent ofresponding research centers focus someor a majority of effort on basic researchand 68 percent on clinical research. Onlyfour research centers did not contributeany effort to basic or clinical research—they were involved in research efforts onpolicy, social science and humanities, orcommunity-based intervention andprevention.

Research-oriented centers are involvedin a number of other activities as well,including education (58 percent providesome effort; 3 percent provide amajority of effort), patient care (20percent devote 10 percent or moreeffort), service and outreach (28 percentof centers commit 10 percent or moreeffort), and patenting or technologytransfer (just under 10 percent providesome or a majority of effort).

It has been argued that one of thepurposes of centers is to provide assis-tance in solving societal problems. Whileone can argue that clinical research activ-ities fit into this category (after all, thepurpose of clinical research is to applybasic knowledge to the improvement ofhealth and the treatment of disease anddisability), commentators have mostoften considered community service andoutreach in this category (Hays, 1991);centers “frequently function as serviceagencies whose goals are shaped by theirclients” (Friedman & Friedman, 1984,p. 28). For example, cancer centers designated as “comprehensive” by theNational Cancer Institute must

“maintain productive outreach efforts toaddress issues of greatest concern to [thelocal] community” (National CancerInstitute, 2004, p. 32). Therefore, it isinteresting to note that more than aquarter of research centers in oursample have no involvement andanother 44 percent devote less than 10percent effort to service and outreachactivities. While a few research centers inour sample have strong commitments tooutreach functions, the majority ofcenters have little or none.

Commentators and scholars often citetechnology transfer as another functionof research centers. As biomedicalscience and technology become increas-ingly commercialized, universities haveemerged as a hub of economic develop-ment through the translation of scien-tific discoveries into commercialproducts (Geiger, 2004; Powell & Owen-Smith, 2002). Geiger found that “adistinguishing feature of the current erahas been the proliferation of…consumer-oriented ORUs [organizedresearch units] linked with industry” (p.177). In a study of 55 research centers atthe University of New Mexico, Rogers, etal. (1999) found that “the stated objec-tives of almost all research centers…include technology transfer” (p. 699).

While technology transfer is undoubt-edly an important function for themodern university and medical school,few of the research-focused centers inthe 2004 survey population devoted anysubstantial amount of effort topatenting or technology transfer activi-ties. Forty-six percent of all researchcenters have no activity in these areas;44 percent devote less than 10 percent.

6


Activity Percent Effort

Table 1: Percentage of Effort Devoted to Various Activities by Research Centers (n = 604)

None Little Some Majority <10% >10%, <50% 50%+

Basic Research

Clinical Research

Education

Patient Care

Service/Outreach

Patenting/Tech Transfer

14.2

15.1

7.8

64.1

27.8

46.1

8.8

17.1

30.4

15.8

43.8

44.4

23.3

44.3

58.4

17.5

27.1

9.2

53.4

23.5

3.3

2.7

1.3

0.3

These findings differ substantially fromthe Rogers study, which used a verybroad definition of technology transfer,including publication in scientificjournals and instruction in universitycourses. They found technologylicensing activities in only 16 percent ofcenters, results much more comparableto our data. These findings temper

contentions about centers’ involvementwith technology transfer.

A small percentage of centers devotesizable amounts of effort to these activi-ties and perhaps that percentage willcontinue to increase over time, but in2004 at least, research centers had notmade patenting and technology transfera high priority relative to other activities.

Involvement in EducationalActivitiesA traditional distinction between centersand departments is that departmentssponsor degrees while centers do not.Clark (1998) identified research centersin the “developmental periphery,” a spaceseparate from the “academic heartland”of teaching and service that departmentsoccupy. To the extent that the academicheartland is defined by sponsorship andcontrol of academic degrees, this distinc-tion holds for the research centers in oursurvey population: 84 percent do notsponsor degree-granting educationprograms at their institutions.

It would be misleading, however, toconclude that research centers have noinvolvement in the educational activitiesof the university. In fact, the academicheartland’s terrain might be less fertilewithout involvement of centers andinstitutes. In this survey, 94 percent ofresearch centers indicated involvement inthe instruction or training of graduatestudents, residents, or fellows (Figure 2).Graduate students may look to opportu-nities in research centers for interdisci-plinary activities that may not be asreadily available in their home depart-ments. Faculty may develop courses onnew cutting-edge subject matter andtechniques by nature of their affiliationswith interdisciplinary centers.

Center involvement in educationalactivities extends beyond graduatestudents. Seventy-five percent ofresearch centers reported that they areinvolved in the instruction or trainingof medical students, 57 percent in theinstruction of undergraduate students,and 62 percent in student advising.



Are All Centers Research Centers?As we have noted, this report focuses on the 604 centers of 761 respondentsthat indicated research as their primary mission. Not all centers in our study,however, identified research as their raisons d’être. The remaining centers inthe study sample cited their primary mission areas as patient care (9%),education (9%), and service or outreach (4%) (Figure 1). While thesepercentages are not generalizable to the universe of centers at medicalschools and research universities nationwide,3 they provide a glimpse intothe varied missions of these entities in higher education.

On one hand, then, not all university centers are research centers, animportant distinction when talking about these organizational entities. Onthe other hand, many of these non-research centers do devote effort toresearch activities. One-third of patient care, education, and service centersdevote at least 10 percent effort to basic research; a majority (54%) focus atleast 10 percent effort on clinical research. These figures indicate that evenwhen centers have primary missions in other areas, many still spend timeand energy on research activities.

Figure 1: Primary Mission of All Centers and Institutes in Study(n = 761)

Basic research

Clinical research

Other type of research

Education

21%

4%

16%

9%

41%9%

Patient care

Service/outreach

3 See Appendix B for greater discussion about generalizability issues.

While the majority of research centers donot sponsor degrees, the 85 centers (16percent) that do are of particular interest.Traditionally the degree-sponsorshipfunction has been the prerogative ofacademic departments. That being thecase, how might we think about centersthat also have this function?

Centers that sponsor degree-grantingprograms have unique resources that setthem apart from other centers—they aremore likely to offer primary appoint-ment and salary support to faculty andthey garner more funding and space—which allow them to function in waysakin to more traditional universitydepartments (see Table 2). For example,degree-granting centers are more likelythan other centers to have one or morefaculty who receive full salary support(46 percent versus 33 percent), and morelikely to have at least one faculty with aprimary appointment in the center (32percent versus 21 percent). The medianfunding for degree-sponsoring centers isgreater than the median for non-degree-sponsoring research centers ($3.9 millionversus $2.0 million). Similarly, universityfunding is significantly greater fordegree-sponsoring centers (means =$808,451 versus $359,233; median =$300,000 versus $49,750). Degree-sponsoring centers also have moreassigned space than other researchcenters (28,516 net-assignable square feetversus 19,810). These elements of facultyresources, university and externalfunding, and physical space provideevidence that these centers have assumedmany of the characteristics of depart-ments. We suggest, therefore, that theyare departments-in-waiting. While itremains to be seen whether this subset ofresearch centers will achieve departmentstatus, our hunch is that some will, andmany already may operate like depart-ments, just without the designation.

How Interdisciplinary are Centersand Institutes?Centers and institutes are typically alliedwith interdisciplinary research. In fact,these units exist, it is often argued, toconvene researchers from many fields(Cunningham, et al, 1977; Friedman &Friedman, 1982; Rogers, et al., 1999).This notion is certainly true in thebiomedical arena. Research centers allowfaculty from a variety of disciplines andschools to join forces around a commonresearch question, technique, organsystem, or disease. Calls for a greateremphasis on interdisciplinary

scientific collaboration abound in theUnited States and throughout the world(Barnhill, 2004; Colwell, 2002; EuropeanUnion Research Advisory Board, 2004;Metzger & Zare, 1999; National Academyof Science, 2004; Rhoten, 2004). Forexample, embedded in the NIH’s recent“roadmap” for medical research is theidea that the future research workforceneeds to develop collaborative teams inaddition to individual scientists(Zerhouni, 2003). These calls for collab-oration in scientific and other disciplineshave been heard for decades (Abbott,2002; Weingart, 1997).



Figure 2: Percentages of Centers Involved in Various Types of Educational Activities

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%Sponsor degree-granting program

Participate in instruction of graduate students, residents, or fellows

Participate in instruction of medical students

Participate in instruction of under-graduate students

Participate in student advising

16%

94%

75%

51%62%

Table 2: Differences Between Degree-Sponsoring and Non-Degree-Sponsoring Centers

Degree-Sponsoring Centers Non-Degree-Sponsoring Centers(n=85) (n=452)

46% 33%

32% 20%

Mean = $6.6 million Mean = $5.6 millionMedian = $3.9 million Median = $2 million

Mean = $808,451 Mean = $359,233Median = $300,000 Median = $49,750

28,516 19,810

One or more faculty who receive full salary support

One or more faculty with primary appointment in center

Total funding

University funding

Assigned space (mean net-assignable square feet)



But do centers really operate in interdis-ciplinary ways? Previous research hasconcluded that they do not. Friedmanand Friedman (1982) found less thanone-third of centers in the biologicalsciences and half of the centers in themedical sciences had interactions withmore than one department; interactionswith more than three departments wereless common. By comparison, centers inthe 2004 AAMC survey involved facultyfrom a greater number of departments(mean = 4.89, median = 4). Only 15percent of centers included faculty froma single department in 2004; 70 percentof centers included faculty representingthree of more departments (Table 3).

Both Friedman and Friedman (1982)and the AAMC study defined an inter-disciplinary approach to research asfaculty from different disciplinesworking together on the same project,and a multidisciplinary approach asfaculty from different disciplinesworking independently on differentaspects of a project.4 In the Friedmans’1982 study, only 20 percent of medicalscience centers and 24 percent of biolog-ical science centers stated that theirapproach to work could be characterizedas interdisciplinary. The 2004 AAMCsurvey found, however, that moderncenters and institutes in the biomedicaland health-related research fieldsembrace more interdisciplinaryapproaches to their work than similartypes of centers in the 1980s. Forty-twopercent of the research centers and insti-tutes indicated that their approach toresearch was interdisciplinary, with anadditional 39 percent indicating multi-

disciplinary, 7 percent unidisciplinary,and 12 percent some combination of thecategories.

These results, coupled with other recentresearch, suggest that research centersoffer faculty members opportunities forinterdisciplinary activities and collabora-tions beyond what exists in the discipli-nary-based departmental structure. In astudy of NSF-funded centers, for example,Rhoten (2003) found that 60 percent ofresearchers believed their research activi-ties within the center qualified as multi-or interdisciplinary, compared with 51percent of their research outside thecenter. Furthermore, the center itself facil-itated these interdiscplinary relationships:84 percent of connections amongresearchers from different fields within acenter were initiated after the founding ofthe center (Rhoten, 2003).

If science has become more interdiscipli-nary over time, is there a trend for newercenters to be more interdisciplinary thanolder centers? We divided the researchcenters in our sample into twocategories—one representing “older”centers (those that were established in1992 or earlier—the median date) andone representing “newer” centers (thoseestablished in 1993 or after). Using thesame definitions of interdisciplinary andmultidisciplinary noted above, we foundthat newer clinical research centers aremore likely to be interdisciplinary andless likely to be multidisciplinary thanolder clinical research centers. Newerbasic research centers are more likely tobe multidisciplinary and less likely to beunidisciplinary than older basic researchcenters. These results lend support to theideas of a trend toward more interdisci-plinary approaches to research.

Table 3: Comparison of Interdisciplinarity and Faculty Involvement in Centers, 1982 and 2004 (in percent)

Friedman & Friedman (1982) AAMC (2004)

Medical Biological Sciences Sciences

Approach to research:Interdisciplinary*Multidisciplinary*Unidisciplinary*Some combination of categories

Departments represented in work:One department3 departments or more

* For comparative purposes, we adopted the same definitions for inter-, multi-, and unidisciplinary as Friedman and Friedman (1982). Interdisciplinary is defined as faculty from different disciplines working together on the same project; multidisciplinary is defined as faculty from different disciplines working independently on different aspects of a project; and unidisciplinary is defined as faculty from a single discipline working together, using consultants from other disciplines as needed.

206020

0

5038

245818

1

6919

42397

12

1570

4 Friedman and Friedman adopted these definitions offered by Alpert (1969).For comparative purposes, we used the same framework in our 2004 survey.


2. How Are CentersOrganized?Unlike academic departments, which havea similar structure from one institution tothe next, centers are diverse in theirorganization. This section describes howcenters are integrated into the structure ofthe university, what characteristics centerdirectors have assumed, and how centersare organized administratively.

Centers in the University HierarchyPrevious research has noted that centersare “at” the university but not “of” it(Ikenberry and Friedman, 1971). That is,centers operate at the periphery of theuniversity, not at the core. Traditionaldepartments, many have argued, “arelocated at the heart of the university”(Rossi, 1964, p. 1160) and are integral tothe very nature of the academy (Abbott,2002; Stahler & Tash, 1994). Whilecenters serve discrete, and important,purposes, traditional orthodoxy instructsthat they “will never replace academicdepartments in terms of… organizationalprimacy” (Stahler & Tash, 1994, p. 552).

More recently, however, commentatorshave noted concern about the preeminenceof the academic department (Fischman,1998; Galbreath, 2004; Ibrahim, et al.,2003). Centers and institutes, it has beenargued, can impinge on departmentalintegrity, usurp power and influence, andcreate divided faculty loyalties.Undoubtedly, there are cases where thesecircumstances have come to pass.

Are centers moving from the margins tothe mainstream? Do they pose a threat tothe organizational structure of depart-ments? The data from our center surveysuggest that the answer to both

questions, for the majority of centers, is“no.” In the main, most centers remainperipheral organizational units that servelimited (albeit important) functions andare not poised to acquire the status andauthority of departments.

Reporting relationships are oneindicator of status and authority. Only15 percent of centers reported to theuniversity president or chancellor,provost, independent board of trustees,or multi-college committee. Reportingto one of these individuals or groupsimplies that the unit has—at least onpaper—access to important campusdecision makers and may suggest anentity of considerable prestige. The vastmajority of centers, however, do notenjoy such relationships. A plurality ofcenters (46 percent) report to themedical school dean or graduate schooldean, which, prima facie, implies an on-par status with academic departments.

Another 34 percent of centers report toan associate dean, department chair, or

another center director. Five percentindicated other types of reportingrelationships (see Figure 3). From astructural point of view (in whichformal organizational components aresuggestive of how the organizationfunctions), these reporting relationshipsimply that more than one-third ofcenters have less status than, and nearlyone-half have similar status as, academicdepartments.

Another way to look at how centers fitinto the university hierarchy is through ahuman resource or political frame, whereopinions and perceptions of power andimportance matter. This perspectivereflects another dimension of the waycenters and institutes function in theuniversity. As measured by the opinionsof center directors themselves, a complexstory emerges: while most center directorsdo not believe their units occupy a placenear the core of the university’s decisionmaking and power, they see an increas-ingly important role nonetheless.

10


34%

46%

15%

5%President, vice president, board of trustees, or multi-college committee

Graduate or medical school dean

Department chair, another center director, or associate dean

Other

Figure 3: Reporting Relationships of Centers



Fifty-seven percent of center andinstitute directors in our study disagreedor strongly disagreed with the idea thatcenters and institutes will eventuallyreplace traditional departments; another23 percent were neutral (Figure 4). Overthree-quarters of the directors did notbelieve that centers and institutes hadmore power than academic departmentsin institutional governance; another 18percent were neutral and only 5 percentagreed. Forty-nine percent of directorsdisagreed or strongly disagreed with thestatement that centers and institutes areadequately represented in institutionalgovernance; another 24 percent wereneutral. These results indicate that, onaverage, directors of biomedical centersand institutes believe that their organi-zations remain in the margins of institu-tional power, influence, and decisionmaking.

These findings do not mean, however,that centers are marginal to mission. Themajority of directors believe that centersat their institution are essential to thefulfillment of the university’s mission (97percent agreed or strongly agreed); over80 percent agreed or strongly agreed withthe idea that there will be more centerscreated at their institution in the future;and 94 percent agreed or strongly agreedwith the idea that interdisciplinaryresearch centers will be more importantin 10 years than they are today.

Taken together, these data suggest that,despite their strong and importantpresence, the vast majority of researchcenters remains in the suburbs, if youwill, of the university metropolis. Butnot all do. Further examination revealsthat a select group of research centersare more closely aligned with theuniversity core.

Agree/strongly agree

Neutral

Disagree/strongly disagree

Figure 4: Opinions of Center Directors

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Interdisciplinary research centers will be more important in 10 years than today

Research centers will eventually replace traditional academic departments

In the future, there will be more research centers created in my institution

Centers at my institution are essential to the fulfillment of the university's mission

Centers have more power than academic departments in institutional governance

Centers at my university are adequately represented in institutional governance



Those centers that report to a universitypresident, provost, independent boardof trustees, or multi-college committee(what we will call “Power Centers”)tend to have more overall funding,more funding from the university, andlarger staffs than other centers (Figures5a, 5b, 5c). These resources lead somePower Center directors to think of theirunits more expansively than mostcenters directors do. A greater propor-tion of Power Center directors, forexample, are more likely to believe thatresearch centers will eventually replacetraditional academic departments thando those reporting to an associate dean,department chair, or another director(27 percent compared to 17 percent).

Center Directors Emmert (1985) notes how importantcenter directors are in sustaining theirunits. Directors work to facilitate thecenter’s integration into the university,thereby influencing how the centerinteracts with departments and the rest ofthe institution. “[Organized research unit]problems are fundamentally politicalproblems with the director serving asboundary spanner between the [center],the rest of the university, and externalclients” (Emmert, 1985, p. 33). In somecases, the very success and continuedexistence of a center may depend on thedirector (Stahler & Tash, 1994). Whattypes of career experiences andbackgrounds do directors typically have?

Center directors tend to be tenured fullprofessors. Ninety-nine percent of theresponding center directors have afaculty appointment, 80 percent are fullprofessors, and 88 percent are tenured.The vast majority do not have othermajor administrative appointments suchas department chair, associate dean,director of another center, or hospitaldepartment chief.

Another Center/Institute Director

Department Chair

Associate Medical School Dean

Medical orGraduate Dean

Multi-College Committee

Provost President

Figure 5b: Average University Funding, by Type of Reporting Relationship(Independent Boards Excluded)

$1,600,000

$1,200,000

$800,000

$400,000

$0

Figure 5c: Average Number of Staff, by Type of Reporting Relationship


Department Chair




Provost President Independent Board of Trustees

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 5a: Average Funding ($ in Thousands), by Type of Reporting Relationship


Department Chair




Provost President Independent Board of Trustees

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0



Forty percent of center directors werethe founding director. Another 36percent worked at the center beforebecoming the director. It is perhapsunsurprising, therefore, that for two-thirds of center directors, no searchcommittee was involved in their appoint-ment as director. The lack of a nationalsearch for many director positions is atelling sign about the degree of integra-tion into academic norms and customs.Academic search processes areceremonies and rituals (Birnbaum, 1988)and legitimize both the process and theoutcome in the eyes of the universitycommunity (McLauglin and Riesman,1990). Thus, a position for which nosearch is conducted may signal that it isnot important to the core mission of theuniversity or worthy of attention. Thefact that many directors are the centerfounders testifies to their entrepreneur-ship; the lack of search committeestestifies to the adaptive and oppor-tunistic ways in which centers arecreated.

Administrative OrganizationAnother element of center organizationis internal structure. Based on our data,we devised four models of center admin-istrative structure. First, the majority ofthe research centers in our sample (57percent) are freestanding—that is, theyare not under the administration of alarger center nor do they control othercenters (Figure 6). Another 95 centers(16 percent) are “umbrella centers”—that is, they have other centers undertheir administrative control; 130 (22percent) are “component centers”—theyexist administratively under anothercenter; and 32 (5 percent) are “offspringcenters”—they are offshoots of a largercenter but also reproduce themselves,creating a family tree of centersdescending from the original.

Component centers and offspringcenters have characteristics suggestive of“mini-centers.” Compared with othercenters directors in the survey sample,the directors of component andoffspring centers are less likely to be fullprofessors or to have tenure and morelikely to be assistant professors. Thisfeature may indicate that componentand offspring centers serve an importantstep in developing talent to lead theresearch enterprise. Directing thesecenters may be similar to serving asdivision chief and program director—animportant role in and of itself and, forsome, a stepping-stone to larger leadership opportunities.

Figure 6: Four Models of Center Administrative Structure

Freestanding Center Umbrella Center

Component Center Offspring Center



3. What Resources DoCenters Have?One of the unknowns in our knowledgeof centers involves resource base: howmuch space, money, and personnel docenters control? What constitutes a largeversus small center in these domains?This survey collected data in order to putparameters around these characteristics.

Center FundingThe 604 research-oriented centers in thesurvey population garnered $2.9 billionin overall funding (as measured byexpenditures5) in the most recent fiscalyear for which data were available—asum that suggests, in toto, these entitiesdo indeed fulfill one perceived benefit, toserve as mechanisms to attract financialresources. The average amount offunding for basic research centers was$5.3 million, compared to $4.7 millionfor clinical research and $8.2 million forother types of research. Although severalvery well-funded centers skew the means,median financial resources ($2 millionfor all research centers) are still sizeable.In comparison, basic science depart-ments at the top-40 research-intensivemedical schools had, on average, $6.3million in research grant funding in2003, suggesting that the typical centeris of similar size to the typical basicscience department in terms of researchfunding. On average, research centersderive a majority of their funds fromgovernment grants and contracts (63percent). Universities supplied 13 percentof the funds, followed by private founda-tions (8 percent), industry/corporate

funding (5 percent), center endowment (4 percent), other resources (3 percent),patient care services (2 percent), anddirect state funds (2 percent). These databelie a common assertion in the literaturethat the vast majority of centers are notfunded by external sources (Stahler &Tash, 1994). For biomedical and health-related centers at major research universi-ties and medical schools, most fundingcomes from outside the university.

These findings also temper anotherperception in the literature: that centersand institutes exist to facilitate interac-tions with industry. For example, Geiger(2004) claimed that centers and insti-tutes “stimulate the development of…‘third-stream incomes sources’—beyondbase budgets and regular researchgrants—that diversify and augmentfunding. Today, third-stream incomecomes largely from engagement withindustry” (p. 69). The centers in thissample, however, derive scant funding

from industry and corporations. In fact,we might reasonably conclude thatcenters and institutes primarily stimulatethe development of mainstream—not“third-stream”—income sources.

Centers appear to benefit (or suffer)from what Robert Merton (1968, 1988)identified as the Matthew Effect inscience—the accumulation of advantageand unequal distribution of resources.6

Large amounts of center funding fromone source are highly correlated withlarge amounts of funding from anothersource. As government research fundinggrows at a slower rate in the future, somehave suggested that universities will turnto industry for support (Powell & Owen-Smith, 2002). Our data suggest thatcenters do not pursue an “either-or”strategy for seeking resources. Rather, thebest-funded centers acquire money fromall sources to create a situation ofaccumulative advantage: “to those thathave, more shall be given.”

5 Medical schools typically account for funding in terms of expenditures, especially important for grantsand contracts when funding is accounted for when the grant is expended, not when it is received.

6 Merton derives the phrase “Matthew effect” from a passage in the biblical book of the same name,which reads: “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from himthat hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (qtd. in Merton, 1988, p. 609).

63%

University funds

Government grants and contracts

Private foundations

Industry/corporate funding

Figure 7: Sources of Center Funding

13%

3%2%

2%

8%

5%

4%

Center endowment

Patient care services

Direct state funds

Other



SpacePhysical space is one of the most valuablecurrencies within higher education insti-tutions. The vast majority of researchcenters (91 percent) are assigned theirown physical space. On average, researchcenters have over 20,000 net-assignablesquare feet of space (Table 4). Researchcenters ranged from having a minimumof 20 square feet (the size of a closet) to amaximum of 360,000 square feet, withthe median at 7,495. As with othermeasures, several very large centers skewthe mean.

When coupled with other indicators oforganizational complexity and control—such as power of appointment, salarysupport, and levels of funding—physicalspace may contribute to understandingthe significance of a center. Assignedphysical space, in and of itself, however,does not appear to be an indicator of sizeor status. The 53 “virtual” centers thathave no space do not differ significantlyfrom those with space in terms ofstaffing, faculty affiliations, or reportingrelationships. The directors of virtualcenters do not view their role in institu-tional governance differently fromdirectors of centers with space. Theabsence or presence of space, therefore,may not be a good indicator of thecenter’s ability to catalyze faculty, coordi-nate other research staff, contribute tothe research mission, or influence peopleand priorities.

Virtual centers do differ significantlyfrom centers with space in two inter-esting ways. First, on average they haveless funding ($1.6 million) than centerswith space ($6.1 million). If they have nolaboratory or office areas to maintain,

they presumably require and seek lessfunding. Second, the directors of centerswithout space were far less likely to havehad a search committee for theirposition than those with space (8 percentversus 37 percent). This difference maysuggest that virtual centers are morespontaneous and less formal than others.Also, directors of virtual centers may beconsidered more of a service orvoluntary position than a formal admin-istrative position within the universityhierarchy.

PeopleAs measured by the number of people,centers are, on average, quite small (Table5). While the average number of facultyand staff give these centers the look of anacademic department, several very largecenters again skew the mean. One cancercenter, for example, reported 2,700 totalpersonnel, including 2,000 professionalresearch staff. Three-quarters of allresearch centers report 20 facultymembers or fewer and 10 or fewer eachof professional research staff, postdoc-toral appointees, and graduate students.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Space (Net-Assignable Square Feet) Assigned to Centers

Lab Space Other Total

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Percentiles

255075

13,322

5,000

0

300,000

3,374

1,200

0

90,000

2,897

0

0

250,000

1,659

0

0

200,000

1,100 5,000

15,000

5001,2003,000

00

500

000

20,899

7,495

360,000

3,0007,495

18,435

AdministrativeSpace

Clinical OfficeSpace

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Number of Personnel Associated with Centers

Grad OtherFaculty Postdocs Students Staff Total

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Percentiles

255075

27

10

0

425

61021

17

5

0

2,000

25

10

11

4

0

200

04

10

10

4

0

325

04

10

3

0

0

101

002

26

9

0

700

39

25

93

44

0

2,700

224492

ProfessionalResearch

StaffResidents/

Fellows


FacultyCenters bring together faculty from avariety of disciplines. The faculty affili-ates identified by center directors haveappointments in clinical departments (45 percent), followed by basic sciencedepartments (26 percent), in universitydivisions outside the medical school (18 percent), in the center (7 percent),in other centers (2 percent), or at anotheruniversity (1 percent) (Figure 8).

When considering the center as the unit ofanalysis, just over 40 percent of centershave one or more faculty members withappointments outside the medical school

(i.e., in other university schools orcolleges), while 12 percent of centers haveone or more faculty members withappointments in other universities. Bothof these findings indicate that centers canfacilitate interaction between researchersfrom different disciplines, schools, andeven institutions to cross traditionalboundaries and work on problems ofmutual interest.

Telling indicators of centers assumingdepartment-like status would be theirability to appoint faculty or pay facultysalaries. Traditionally, academic depart-ments have maintained the sole prerogative

to appoint faculty and serve as the locus offaculty compensation. Centers and insti-tutes with authority in one or both of theseareas would indicate an important shift inuniversity organization and structure.

The survey results indicate that this shifthas not occurred. First, most centers donot appoint faculty. Three-quarters of allresearch centers have no faculty withprimary center appointments (Figure 9).This finding is similar to Ikenberry andFriedman’s 1972 study, which found thattwo-thirds of centers do not have appoint-ment authority. Of the 117 researchcenters in our sample with appointmentauthority, 31 directly appoint all centerfaculty. The remaining 86 (73 percent)have the power to appoint faculty but donot exercise that authority in every case—on average, 56 percent of all faculty affili-ates in these centers are directly appointed.

Second, centers provide no salary supportto the majority of faculty affiliates (63percent); 27 percent of faculty receivepartial salary support, and only 10 percentof center-affiliated faculty receive fullsalary support. These findings support theassertion that academic departments aremaintaining their primacy in the worklife of faculty members.

16


Figure 8: Locus of Primary Appointments of Faculty Affiliated with Research Centers

Clinical Departments

Basic Science Departments

Other University School/College

This Center Other Center Another University

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

45%

26%

18%

7%

2% 1%

Figure 9: Percentage of Centers That Provide Primary Appointment and Percentage of Faculty Who Receive Salary Support

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Centers that provide primary appointment to one or more faculty

Faculty who receive full salary support from center

Faculty who receive partial salary support from center

Faculty who receive no salary support from center

22%

63%

27%

10%



Professional Research StaffFaculty members do not fuel the engineof biomedical research alone, of course. Acadre of graduate students, postdoctoralappointees, residents, fellows, and othersare involved in the complex work ofresearch. Universities also employ non-faculty researchers—often called profes-sional research staff—who are Ph.D.scientists performing similar researchfunctions as faculty but without facultystatus. Emmert (1985) asserted thatprofessional research staff may offer morespecialized skills to the center thanfaculty and may feel a greater sense ofaccountability and identity to centersgiven that they do not have departmentalappointments.

Our survey asked several questions todetermine whether and how profes-sional research staff have access toadvantages and opportunities typicallyreserved for faculty: principal investi-gator status, participation in theacademic senate, participation inschool- or university-level policycommittees, eligibility for institutionalgrievance procedures, and sabbaticalleaves (Figure 10).

The survey results indicate that profes-sional researchers have access to someprerogatives once solely reserved forfaculty, but not for others. The coin ofthe realm for an independent researchcareer is achieving principal investigatorstatus. Fifty-nine percent of respondingresearch centers indicated that profes-sional research staff members can beprincipal investigators. Another symbolof faculty status is eligibility to partici-pate in academic governance. Just overhalf of the research centers (52 percent)indicated that professional research staffare eligible to participate in school- or

university-level policy committees, whereimportant decisions are often vettedand finalized, and one-third of centersindicated that non-faculty researcherscan participate in the academic senate.Professional researchers typically haveaccess to institutional grievance proce-dures as well.

Another indicator of faculty status issabbatical leave. Here, professionalresearch staff are more likely denied aprivilege of faculty members. Only 21percent of research centers indicated that

professional research staff are eligible forsabbatical leave. We asked center directorswhether they felt that their university hasadequate policies to promote and retainnon-faculty professional research staff.Here, respondents were almost evenlysplit: 36 percent agreed with thestatement, almost 30 percent wereneutral, and 35 percent disagreed,suggesting that promotion and retentionpolicies for professional research staffdiffer from institution to institution.

Figure 10: Percentage of Professional Research Staff Eligible for Faculty Benefits

Principal investigator status

Participation in academic senate

Participation in school or university-level policy committee

Sabbatical leave

Institutional grievance procedures

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

77%

21%

32%

52%

59%



4. Are Centers Held Accountable? The scholarly literature on centersincludes criticisms that centers often arenot sufficiently accountable for meetingtheir goals and objectives (Friedman &Friedman, 1984; Stahler & Tash, 1994).This criticism involves both structure andprocess. First, universities are thought tolack structures to review centers on aregular basis. Second, the process bywhich research centers are reviewed andassessed is thought not to be rigorousenough to terminate centers that do notmeet goals or do not contribute substan-tially to the university’s mission.

We will not address the latter criticismhere. The relative strengths and weaknessof the evaluation process is an issue thatpertains not only to organized researchcenters but to academic departments,administrative units, even facultypromotion and tenure decisions. Thecenter director survey did, however,inquire about the existence of particularaccountability structures: program review,advisory committees, and term limits.

Program ReviewFor the research centers in the study, 79percent are subject to periodic programreview: of those, 40 percent are reviewedonce a year; 38 percent are reviewed everyfive years, with the remainder reviewed atdifferent intervals. These findings areconsistent with previous research(Friedman & Friedman, 1986). A formalprogram review is, at least in theory, oneway that the university can ensure that itscenters continue to serve useful purposes,meet goals, and contribute to the school’smission.

About 80 percent of centers have at leastone external reviewer on the reviewcommittee (of those, 51 percent haveboth an internal and external reviewer,

and 31 percent have only an externalreviewer). The presence of externalreviewers may strengthen the credibilityand objectivity in the review process, ascompared to a review by insiders only.

Advisory CommitteesIn addition to program reviews, advisorycommittees can serve as proxies foraccountability, peer-review, and breadth-of-exposure. Advisory committees takedifferent forms—some give advice buthave no authority; others may have somesay in the administrative and financialaspects of the center. About 75 percent ofresearch centers in the sample have atleast one advisory committee.

More telling than just the presence ofthese committees, however, may be theiractual composition. Critics have arguedthat outsiders to the university can heavilyinfluence centers (Friedman & Friedman,1984; Stahler & Tash, 1994). One measureof this influence is the presence ofgovernment, industry, and communityrepresentatives on center advisory boards.Conversely, centers with advisory boardscomposed only of internal faculty suggestunits that may be somewhat insular.

Our results demonstrate that facultymembers largely regulate research centers.On average, sixty-five percent of themembers of advisory boards of researchcenters are faculty members: 41 percentinternal and 24 percent external (Figure11). Government representatives andindustry sponsors rarely constitute anyappreciable percentage of advisory boardmembership (although only one or twomembers from government or industrymay have considerable influence). Rather,most research centers do not includeadvisory board members from the federalor state government or industry, evenwhen they receive financial resourcesfrom those sources. These patterns reflectthe age-old standard of academicfreedom from outside pressures.

Those directors who operate without anadvisory panel are statistically morelikely to report to a department chairthan those with advisory committees,who are more likely to report to medicalschool deans or provosts. When centersare not housed within a department,advisory committees can serve as surro-gates for local faculty oversight. But these

Internal administrators

Administrators from other institutions

Internal faculty

Faculty from other institutions

Figure 11: Composition of Advisory Committees

11%12%

2%3%

Governmental representatives

Industrial sponsors

Community representatives

Other

5%

41%24%

2%



correlations suggest another implicitpurpose of center advisory committees.In addition to providing a source ofguidance, expertise, oversight, andreview, advisory committees—like ahigher-level reporting relationship—mayserve a symbolic function within theuniversity, signaling that the center hasvisibility in and importance to theuniversity. Advisory committees, in otherwords, may be signals of legitimacy in thesocial milieu, a certificate of authenticity.

Term Limits “Once born, the hope is often expressedthat the institute will self-destruct whenits mission is accomplished, but thatrarely happens,” claimed Dressel andcolleagues (1969). Anecdotal dataconfirms the impression that few centersgo away. Centers, however, typically arenot structured from their start to meettheir demise. Most centers do not haveterm limits; their “length of contract”does not appear to be a regularly usedmeans of ensuring accountability tomission and purpose. The contract termof most centers in the sample is indefi-nite or not clearly defined (73 percent

combined). The remaining centers aresubject to a limited number of years withpossibility for renewal (Figure 12).

These terms can be compared to thecontract arrangements universities havewith their faculty. Tenured facultymembers have an indefinite contractlength, dismissible only for cause. Non-tenure-track faculty typically have multi-year contracts with the possibility ofrenewal. Without using the samelanguage, universities operate nearly allcenters on one of two similar arrange-ments—a tenure-like arrangement(those with indefinite term length) ormulti-year contracts.

The existence of specific term limits maynot be the best indicator of whethercenters are appropriately phased out, oras Churchman memorably suggested, ofwhether they are subject to organiza-tional suicide or murder (1976). Giventhe high percentage of financialresources that come from outsidesources, universities may leave the “liveor die” decisions to the funding market-place. Funding agencies are unlikely to

re-fertilize a research center that has notproduced fruit.

The period for the most stringentreview of a center’s length of contractmay well be at its creation. “It is fareasier to deny a building permit than todemolish a finished house” (Friedman& Friedman, 1984, p. 29). Friedman &Friedman (1986) also note, however,that “[organized research units] are atenacious lot. Like all organizations,they build in self-maintenance mecha-nisms to find ways to extend their lifespans beyond their original mandates orsocial utility” (p. 95). When centerscontinually receive (or seize) clemencyfrom termination, other forms ofaccountability become important. Witha high percentage of centers in oursample subject to program review,universities and medical schools caninstill accountability through carefulperiodic reviews of mission, scope, andoutcomes.

Figure 12: Term Length of Research Centers and Institutes

Not clearly defined

Indefinite Limited number of years;possibility for renewal

Limited number of years; no possibility for renewal

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

12%

61%

26%

1%

Conclusion



What do we talk about when we talkabout research centers and institutes?The data in this report indicate that werefer to organizational units with manydifferent purposes, forms, sizes, andscope. When discussing the nature,mission, structure, and organization ofbiomedical and health-related centersand institutes in research-intensivemedical schools and universities, we arereminded that the typical nomenclatureof “center” and “institute” may be toogeneral and too vague to properlyaccount for the variety, nuance, andcomplexity of these research units.Perhaps a more standardized, moreprecise lexicon is needed.

Centers and institutes can be big orsmall, well-heeled or meager inresources, freestanding or embedded in a complex administrative structure.Centers with substantial funding fromone source typically will have substantialfunding from other sources as well.Centers with prestige and visibility inreporting relationships tend to havelarger staffs and substantial financialresources. Despite their contributions toacademic mission, most centers do notappear to be threatening the primacy ofacademic departments, at least not interms of power over faculty appointmentand compensation.

The data in this report have the followingimplications for medical school anduniversity faculty, department chairs,center directors, and administrators:

1. Research centers and institutes makeimportant contributions to the inter-disciplinarity and research mission ofacademic institutions. Research centersare important and integral mechanismsfor supporting, sustaining, and growingthe research enterprise.

2. Most research centers remain on the margins of institutional power,prestige, and influence over institu-tional decision making. In general,departments continue to occupy amore central position than centers.A subset of centers, which we call“power centers,” may be exceptions to this generalization by dint of theirconsiderable reach and resources;they have more funding, larger staffs,and accessibility to institutionaldecision makers.

3. Most centers are subject to accounta-bility measures, but the extent towhich those measures are effectivelydefined and implemented surely vary.We found that the majority of centersdo not have defined lengths of term,contributing to the impression thatcenters never die. Universities andmedical schools may want to considerthe use of term limits—limiting thecenter’s length of contract with thepossibility of renewal after a successfulperiodic review—as an added measureof accountability.



Accountability depends not only onwhether adequate structures exist (e.g.,term limits, program reviews, advisorycommittees), but on how well theywork. Centers and institutes may haveto answer not only to the medicalschool or university but to othergroups as well (e.g., government,private foundations, and other fundingsources), all with different reviewprocesses, different notions of whataccountability is, and differentinterests at stake. We wonder if theproblem that arises is not the failure toreview the center’s ability to meet itsgoals and objectives, but rather thedistraction of having to prepare reviewreports to many stakeholders, each ofwhich may focus on a narrow interestor be of limited scope.

4. More precise definitions are needed sofaculty and administrators cancommunicate more effectively aboutcenters and institutes. Paradoxically,scientific research demands a common,distinct, and exact vocabulary, yet withregard to centers and institutes—wheremuch scientific research takes place—there is a dearth of precise descriptiveterminology. The entities vary sowidely—both among and withinuniversities and medical schools—intheir scope, size, and mission that“centers” and “institutes” meandifferent things to different people. Thelack of common definitions also makesit difficult to categorize the variousforms that centers and institutes take; amore precise taxonomy of these entitieswould aid the academic community’sunderstanding of what they are andhow they work.

For example, universities could use theterm “institute” to designate inter-school entities having multiple missionsof importance to the whole institution,reporting to the president or provost,and having faculty from manyacademic units across the institution.“Center,” by contrast, could designate aschool-wide entity with a more limitedmission and scope, reporting to a dean,and having the majority of faculty affil-iates from that school. “Programs”could refer to interdisciplinary or inter-departmental curricular venturesdesigned to deliver educational materialrather than conduct research.

Our intent here is not to prescribe butonly to remind that language matters.Some of the management and adminis-trative challenges that emerge withcenters and institutes are caused byaggregate groupings of disparate entitieswith little in common. Putting moreprecise definitions around centers, insti-tutes, programs, and departments—andthe responsibilities, rights, and privilegesof each—could go a long way in solvingsome of these challenges.

Future StudiesIt is our hope that this report providesinsight to the organization and structureof centers in the academic researchenvironment; however, descriptive statis-tics can paint only a partial portrait.Other questions remain: How do centersfit into the organizational culture of theacademy? How do faculty—especiallyjunior faculty—relate to and interactwith centers and departments? What arethe implications of the center structurefor academic leaders? Future work of theAAMC Project on Centers and Instituteswill address these additional questions.

Appendices



APPENDIX A:Description of Project Research Agenda

PHASE I: Survey of the Status ofCenters and Institutes in U.S. MedicalSchools and Research UniversitiesIn winter 2003-04, we surveyed thedirectors of 761 centers and institutesaffiliated with medical schools andresearch universities in the United Statesto determine their size, scope, extent ofeffort, and range of activities.

PHASE II: Case Studies of InnovativeModels of Organization

In spring 2004, we completed six sitevisits to medical schools and universitiesthat have significantly grappled with anddeveloped new approaches to organizingtheir medical research enterprise. Wefocused on medical schools that havesignificant research enterprises and havecommitted resources to interdisciplinaryand inter-college initiatives.

PHASE III: Survey of Faculty Work LifeIn winter 2004-05, we conducted a surveyof activity, behavior, and attitudes offaculty who are affiliated with researchcenters and institutes. The literature onuniversity faculty members has repeatedlydocumented that the changing nature offaculty work life is creating angst amongall faculty, especially junior faculty. Thesurvey instrument asked faculty about thedirection and extent of their activities,their involvement with centers, theirperceptions of the tenure and promotionprocess, and their level of satisfaction withthe dimensions of their work.



APPENDIX B: Research Methods

Survey ProcedureThe data discussed in this report comefrom a 37-item survey instrumentadministered to directors of biomedicaland health-related center and instituteslocated within research-intensive medicalschools and research universities.7

Center directors voluntarily participatedin the survey and their identitiesremained confidential. We obtained 761usable responses.

We constructed the instrument based onsurveys used in previous research, partic-ularly Ikenberry and Friedman (1972)and Friedman and Friedman (1982,1986). These surveys contained questionsrelated to structure, staffing, governance,and funding of centers and institutes. Weincluded additional questions andrevisions based on a review of the litera-ture, our perceptions of importantissues, and consultation with a nationaladvisory board.8

Survey PopulationOne of the difficulties in studyingcenters is the absence of a single authori-tative compendium of such entities atmedical schools and research universi-ties. By their very nature, many centersare loosely organized, even transitory.While the university or academic schoolmay officially recognize some centers (sothat they are visible and identifiable),individual faculty members, divisions, ordepartments may unofficially organizeothers—meaning that they may beinformal, unauthorized, or nameless.Consequently, the university itself maynot be able to produce a complete list ofall centers that exist under its aegis. In a

study of research centers at theUniversity of New Mexico, for example,“the actual number of centers… wassurprising to the most knowledgeableindividuals like university administratorsand directors of research centers”(Rogers, et al., 1999, p. 692).

A subset of centers is, in effect, a“hidden” population. A population isconsidered “hidden” when no samplingframe exists—that is, the size andboundaries of the population areunknown (Heckathorn, 1997). Likeanthropologists and sociologists whostudy transient populations, homelesscommunities, or other “geographicallymobile” groups, we were faced with thedifficulty of obtaining a true census ofcenters from which to draw a samplebecause a portion of centers is hidden.

We began to place limits around thispopulation by focusing only on centersand institutes at research-intensive insti-tutions. The history of centers and insti-tutes suggests that they are integrally tiedto the research mission of the university.The universities and medical schoolsmost likely to have sustained, maturecenter populations, we reasoned, wouldbe more likely to have the highlydeveloped research enterprises.Therefore, we targeted centers at institu-tions that met one or both of thefollowing criteria:

(1) The 40 medical schools that receivedthe most research funding from theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) in2002. NIH research funding is the mostcommon measure of research intensityin the medical school community.

7 A copy of the survey is found in Appendix C.

8 A list of advisory board members is found in Appendix D

(2) Members of the Association ofAmerican Universities (AAU) that have amedical school. The AAU is a limited-membership organization of the mostresearch-intensive universities in theUnited States. Thirty universities alreadymet our criteria because their medicalschools were in the top-40 NIH ranking.Another 17 AAU-institutions withmedical schools were included eventhough their medical schools were not inthe top-40 NIH ranking. We includedthis second criterion to broaden the listof institutions included in our universitypopulation.

The Research Centers Directory (RCD), abiannual compendium published byGale Publishers, is a popular source ofinformation about centers and institutesat universities in the United States. Usingthis publication as a sole source of infor-mation, however, is inadequate because(1) the data-collection methods for thedirectory are not published, raisingquestions about the credibility of thedata; and (2) a cursory comparison ofthe RCD with information included onuniversities’ Web sites suggests that theRCD is both dated (i.e., it includescenters that have since closed or changednames) and incomplete (i.e., it excludesmany centers).

Rather than rely on only one data source,we compiled our data from two sources:first, we included centers listed in the

“Biological and Environmental Sciences,”“Medical and Health Sciences,” and“Multidisciplinary Programs” sections ofthe RCD.9 Second, we searched thelistings of centers and institutes on theWeb sites of the medical schools anduniversities in the population. For bothdatabases, we determined that thefollowing types of units should beexcluded from our search:

1. Departments

2. Educational programs

3. Laboratories that are physical spacesfor testing and analysis rather than adiscrete organizational unit forconducting research

4. Centers that are only physicalbuildings or locations

5. Centers and institutes that focusedsolely on outreach (e.g., communityservice) activities

6. Independent organizations withnominal academic affiliations

7. Centers that exclusively performedsurgical or other clinical proceduresand did not have a research function

For each listing, we compiled the centername and mailing address, centerdirector name and e-mail address, anduniversity affiliation. Next, we mergedthe listings from these two sources (RCD

and Web-based) and removed duplicatelistings. Ultimately, we included 1,450centers and institutes at the universitiesin the survey population.

Survey AdministrationWe launched a pilot survey in August2003 to ensure validity and reliability.From November 2003 to February 2004,we administered the full survey to all1,450 center directors. We adapted amodified version of the Tailored DesignMethod (Dillman, 2000) to encourage ahigh response rate.10 An announcementletter preceded the launch of the Web-based survey. E-mail reminders were sentto participants two times: the first, threedays after the survey was launched, andthe second, two weeks after the launchdate. We made a final contact with non-respondents by mailing a print copy ofthe instrument four weeks after the initiallaunch date. The overall response rate ofuseable surveys was 52.5 percent, with761 directors returning the instrument.



9 The Research Centers Directory (2003) contains 17 disciplinary categories. We did not focus onsections such as agriculture, physical sciences and engineering, private and public policy, social andcultural studies, and research coordinating offices and research parks.

10 The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) uses principles of social exchange theory to bolstersurvey completion rates. It consists of carefully constructed communications describing the survey’simportance and usefulness for the survey population. The survey population is contacted five times:(1) a pre-survey announcement, (2) an invitation and survey instrument; (3) a reminder announce-ment; (4) a replacement survey sent to nonrespondents; and (5) a final request with replacementsurvey. The TDM protocol has been associated with higher response rates than traditionally expectedin mail surveys.



APPENDIX C:Survey of Directors of Centers and Institutes

This survey is being conducted as part of a national research project on centers and institutes affiliated with medical schools orresearch universities. The survey will provide national data on characteristics of centers and institutes such as size, scope of activi-ties, organization, management, and governance.

All responses are confidential. Institution- and person-specific identifiers will be removed from responses and only de-identifiedaggregate data will be analyzed and reported.

Thank you for completing this survey. If you have any questions about the survey or the research study, please contact [email protected].

ADMINISTRATION

1. In what year was your center/institute established in its current form?

Year: __________

2. How long is the term of your center/institute?

p Not clearly defined

p Indefinite

p Limited number of years; possibility for renewal

p Limited number of years; no possibility for renewal

3. Please check the one activity that you consider to be your center/institute’s primary mission.

p Basic research

p Clinical research

p Other type of research

(Specify:____________________)

p Education

p Patient care

p Service/outreach



44

4. Please indicate the approximate amount of effort your center/institute devotes in each of the following activities.

5. Are there center(s)/institute(s) under the administration of your center/institute (i.e. does your center/institute serve as anumbrella for other centers)?

p Yes

p No

6. Is your center/institute under the administration of a larger center/institute?

p Yes

p No

7. Which one statement best describes your center/institute’s approach to research?

p Faculty from different disciplines work together on a single project.

p Faculty from different disciplines work independently on different aspects of a project.

p Faculty from a single discipline work together, but have assistance from consultants in other disciplines.

p Other, describe _____________________________________________

8. Does your center/institute have advisory committee(s)?

p Yes

p No (Skip to Question 9)

8a. (If Yes) How many advisory committees does your center/institute have?

_____

Activity Percent EffortMore than

Less 10%, less 50% or None than 10% than 50% more

p p p p

p p p p

p p p p

p p p p

p p p p

p p p p

Basic Research

Clinical Research

Education

Patient Care

Service/Outreach

Patenting/Technology Transfer



8b. (If Yes) How many people are on your main advisory committee? Number of people

a. Administrators from your institution? _______

b. Administrators from other institutions? _______

c. Faculty members from your institution? _______

d. Faculty members from other institutions? _______

e. Governmental representatives? _______

f. Industrial sponsors? _______

g. Community representatives? _______

h. Other? (Specify: __________________________________) _______

9. Is your center/institute subject to periodic program review?

p Yes


9a. (If Yes) What is the frequency of the review? Every ________ year(s)

9b. (If Yes) Who conducts the review? (check one only)

p Internal reviewers only

p External reviewers only

p Both internal and external reviewers

FUNDING AND FACILITIES

10. What is your center/institute’s total amount of expenditures in the most recent fiscal year for which data are available?

$____________

11. Please indicate, in percentages, the following sources of your center/institute’s expenditures.

Percentage of total expenditures

a. University funds? _______ %

b. Government grants and contracts? _______ %

c. Private foundations? _______ %

d. Industry/corporate funding _______ %

e. Center/institute endowment? _______ %

f. Patient care services? _______ %

g. Direct state funds? _______ %

h. Other sources? _______ %

44



12. Is your center/institute assigned any physical space?

p Yes


12a. (If Yes) How many net-assignable square feet is your center/institutecurrently assigned?

Net-Assignable Square Feet

a. Lab/research space? _______

b. Office, Administrative? _______

c. Office, Clinical? _______

d. Other? _______

Total _______

STAFFING

We would like to know about the staff members who currently work at your center/institute. Please use the following definitions:

• Faculty are those who hold professorial rank (i.e. assistant professor, associate professor, professor).

• Professional research staff are those who have similar credentials as faculty but who do not have faculty appointments, often withtitles such as research scientist, research associate, research scholar, etc.

• Postdoctoral appointees are researchers with short (1- or 2-year) renewable appointments.

• Other staff are staff who are not faculty and who do not primarily conduct research, including technicians, administrative staff, andnon-faculty clinicians.

13. According to the above definitions, how many of the following personnel currently work at your center/institute?

Number of people

a. Faculty? ______

b. Professional research staff? ______

c. Postdoctoral appointees? ______

d. Other staff? ______(technician, administrative staff, non-faculty clinician)

e. Graduate students? ______

f. Medical residents/fellows? ______

Total ______

44



FACULTY

14. How many of the following types of faculty currently work at your center/institute?

Number of people a. Faculty who receive full salary support

from your center/institute funds? _______

b. Faculty who receive partial salary supportfrom your center/institute funds? _______

c. Faculty who receive no salary support from your center/institute funds? _______

Total _______

15. How many faculty at your center/institute have primary appointment in each of the following units?

Number of people

a. Your center/institute? _______

b. Medical school basic science departmentsat your university? _______

c. Medical school clinical science departmentsat your university? _______

d. Academic departments outside the medicalschool at your university? _______

e. Other centers/institutes at your university? _______

f. At another university? _______

Total _______

16. Please list the names of the academic departments represented by faculty members working at your center/institute.

PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STAFF

(Reminder: Professional research staff are those who have similar credentials to faculty but who do not have faculty appointments and who are not postdoctoral appointees.)

17. Are your professional research staff generally eligible for: (circle one response for each item)

Yes No

a. Principal investigator status? Y N

b. Sabbatical leave? Y N

c. Participation in academic senate? Y N

d. Participation in school-level or university-level Y Npolicy committees?

e. Institutional grievance procedures? Y N

18. What type of appointment policy is generally available to professional research staff?

p Appointment without term

p Multi-year contract

p One-year contract

p Employees-at-will (no contract)

EDUCATION

19. Is you center/institute a sponsor of any degree-granting education programs?

p Yes

p No

20. Does your center/institute participate in any of the following educational activities?

Yes No

a. Instruction of undergraduate students? Y N

b. Instruction or training of medical students? Y N

c. Instruction or training of graduate students, Y Nresidents, or fellows?

d. Student advising? Y N




ABOUT THE DIRECTOR

21. In what year were you appointed to your current position?

Year: __________

22. Did you work at this center/institute before you became director?

p Yes

p No

p No, I am the founding director

23. In your role as director, to whom do you directly report?

p Department chairperson

p Another center/institute director

p Medical school dean

p Medical school associate dean for research

p Graduate school dean

p Multi-college committee

p Provost/university vice president

p President/chancellor of the university or campus

p Independent board of trustees

p Other, specify ______________________

24. Was there a search committee for your position as center/institute director?

p Yes


24a. (If Yes) The search committee primarily consisted of: (check one only)

p Administrators

p Faculty members

p Combination of administratorsand faculty members

p Other, specify ___________________________________________

32


44



25. What is the duration of your directorship?

p Not clearly defined

p Indefinite

p Fixed term, non-renewable (Length of term: ______years)

p Fixed term, renewable (Length of term: ______years)

p Other, specify ___________________________________________

26. Do you have a faculty appointment?

p Yes


26a. (If Yes) What is your current academic rank?

p Professor

p Associate professor

p Assistant professor

p Other, specify _____________________________________________

26b. (If Yes) What is your tenure status?

p Tenured

p Tenure track

p Non-tenure track, tenure is available at the university

p Non-tenure track, tenure is not available at the university

27. In addition to your directorship, do you currently serve as: (circle one response for each item)

Yes No

a. Academic department chair? Y N

b. Associate dean? Y N

c. Hospital department chief? Y N

d. Director of another center/institute? Y N

44



28. Centers/institutes at my institutionare essential to the fulfillment of theuniversity’s mission.

29. Interdisciplinary research centers/institutes will be more important in 10 years than today.

30. In the future, there will be moreresearch centers/institutes created in my institution.

31. Research centers/institutes willeventually replace traditionalacademic departments.

32. Centers/institutes have more powerthan academic departments in institutional governance.

33. Centers/institutes at my university are adequately represented ininstitutional governance.

34. Faculty at my center/institute play asignificant role in the center/institute’sdecision-making.

35. Appointment in research centers/institutes hinders the advancement ofjunior faculty members.

36. The university has adequate policiesto promote and retain non-facultyprofessional research staff at mycenter/institute.

37. My center/institute is successful inrecruiting the personnel we need.

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyAgree Disagree

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

OPINIONPlease mark the level of your agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

APPENDIX D:AAMC Project on Centers and Institutes

Board of Consultants

Haile T. Debas, M.D.Executive Director, Global Health Sciences, and Dean Emeritus,University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine

Michael J. Friedlander, Ph.D.Professor and Chair, Department of Neurobiology, and Director,Civitan International Research Center,University of Alabama School of Medicine

Roger L. Geiger, Ph.D.Distinguished Professor of Higher Education,Pennsylvania State University

Stanley O. Ikenberry, Ph.D.Regent Professor and President Emeritus,University of Illinois

David Korn, M.D.Senior Vice President for Biomedical and Health Sciences Research,AAMC

Lisa Staiano-Coico, Ph.D.Rebecca Q. and James C. Morgan Dean, College of Human Ecology,Cornell University



Abbott, A. (2002). The disciplines of the future. In S. Brint (Ed.), The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing AmericanUniversity (pp. 205-230). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Alpert, D. (1969, December). The Role and Structure of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research Centers. Paper presentation at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., Washington, DC.

Anderson, G. L. (1976, Summer). Organizational diversity. Examining Departmental Management. New Directions forInstitutional Research, No. 10. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Barnhill, R.E. (2004, April 22). How Sustainable is the Modern Research University? Paper presented at the AAAS Science andTechnology Policy Forum.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). Presidential searches and the discovery of organizational goals. Journal of Higher Education 59: 489-509.

Blumenthal, D. (1998). The research mission of academic health centers. In E.R. Rubin (Ed.), Mission Management: A NewSynthesis, Vol. 2 (pp. 235-262). Washington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers.

Churchman, C.W. (1976). ORU’s and Politics: Or When is Organizational Murder Justified? Berkeley, CA: Center for Research inManagement Science, University of California, Berkeley (Working Paper CP-398).

Colwell, R.R. (2002, August 18). NSF’s Investment in Converging Frontiers. Presentation at the American Chemical SocietyPresidential Symposium, Boston, Mass. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/colwell/rc020818acsboston.htm.

Clark, B.R. (2003). University transformation: Primary pathway to university autonomy and achievement. In S. Brint (Ed.), TheFuture of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University (pp. 322-343). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Crist T.B., et al. (2003, December 15). Centers, institutes, and the future of clinical departments: Part II. American Journal ofMedicine 115: 745-7.

Cunningham, J.L., Cravens, D.W., Heathington, K.W., & Mundy, R.A. (1977, December). Management of Interdisciplinary Researchin Universities: Current Practices, Problems, and Processes. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Transportation Center.

Day, D.N. (1976, July). The Management of Organized Research Units at the University of California, Berkeley: Size, Politics, andInterdisciplinarity. Berkeley: Center for Research in Management Science, University of California. (Working Paper CP-399.)

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dressel, P.L., Johnson, F.C., & Marcus, P.M. (1969, July-August). The proliferating institutes. Change, 21-24.

Emert, M.A. (1985, October). Organized Research Units and Central Administration: The Promise and Problems of Marginality.DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Governmental Studies.

European Union Research Advisory Board. (2004, April). Interdisiciplinarity in Research. Retrieved fromhttp://europa.eu.int/comm./research/eurab/pdf/eurab_04_009_ interdisciplinarity_research_final.pdf.

Fischman, D.A. (1998, June). What role will chairs of discipline-based subjects play in the evolving medical school of the future?FASEB Journal 12, 621-624.

Flexner, A. (1930). Universities: American, English, German. New York: Oxford University Press.

Friedman R.S. & Friedman, R.C. (1982, June). The Role of University Organized Research Units in Academic Science. UniversityPark: Pennsylvania State University Center for the Study of Higher Education.

References




Friedman R.S. & Friedman, R.C. (1984, Winter). Managing the organized research unit. Educational Record 65 (1), 27-30.

Friedman R.S. & Friedman, R.C. (1986, June). Sponsorship, Organization, and Program Change at 100 Universities. University Park:Pennsylvania State University Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.

Gabriel, B.A. (2001, June). New biomedical research centers cut across traditional departmental boundaries. AAMC Reporter, 8-9.

Galbreath, A.D. (2004, Winter). The center of the issue: Structure of centers and institutes within academic medicine. Alliance forAcademic Internal Medicine Insight. Retrieved from www.im.org/AAIM/Pubs/Insight/Winter2004/page6.pdf.

Geiger, R.L. (1990, January/February). Organized research units—their role in the development of university research. Journal ofHigher Education 61, 1-19.

Geiger R.L. (2004). Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

Hays, S.W. (1991, Fall). From adhocracy to order: Organizational design for higher education research and service. ResearchManagement Review 5 (2), 1-17.

Heckathorn, D.D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples ofhidden populations. Social Problems 49 (1), 11-34.

Ibrahim, T., et al. (2003). Centers, institutes, and the future of the clinical department: Part 1. American Journal of Medicine 115,337-341.

Ikenberry, S.O., & Friedman, R.C. (1972). Beyond Academic Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Institute of Medicine. (2004). NIH Extramural Center Programs: Criteria for Initiation and Evaluation. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Kafatos, F.C., & Eisner T. (2004, February 27). Unification in the century of biology. Science 303: 1257.

Ludmerer, K.M. (1999). Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Mallon, W.T., Biebuyck, J.F., & Jones, R.F. (2003, March). The reorganization of basic science departments in U.S. medical schools,1980-1999. Academic Medicine 78, 302-306.

McLaughlin J.B., & Riesman, D. (1990). Choosing a College President: Opportunities and Constraints. Princeton, NJ: CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science 159, 56-63.

Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science II: Cumulative advantage the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 79, 606-623.

Metzger, N., & Zare R.N. (1999, Jan 29). Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science 283, 642-43.

National Academy of Science. (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Cancer Institute. (2004, September). The Cancer Centers Branch of the National Cancer Institute Policies and GuidelinesRelating to the Cancer Center Support Grant. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved from http://www3.cancer.gov/ cancer-centers/download/CCSG_Guide12_04.pdf.

38


Powell, W.W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2002). The new world of knowledge production in the life sciences. In S. Brint (Ed.), The Futureof the City of Intellect: The Changing American University (pp. 107-130). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rhoten, D. (2003). A Multi-Method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. SanFrancisco: Hybrid Vigor Institute, 2003. Retrieved from www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf.

Rhoten, D. (2004, Spring/Summer). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. SSRC Items and Issues 5, 6-11.

Rogers, E.M., Hall, B.J., Hashimoto, M., & Steffensen, M. (1999, December). Technology transfer from university-based researchcenters: The University of New Mexico experience. Journal of Higher Education 70, 687-705.

Rossi, P.H. (1964, Fall). Researchers, scholars, and policy makers: The politics of large scale research. Daedalus 93, 1142-1167.

Smith, B.L. & Karlesky, J.J. (1977). The State of Academic Science: The Universities in the Nation’s Research Effort. New York: ChangeMagazine Press.

Sproull, R.L., & Hall, H.H. (1987, June). Multidisciplinary Research and Education Programs in Universities: Making Them Work.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Stahler, G.J. & Tash, W.R. (1994). Centers and institutes in the research university: Issues, problems, and prospects. Journal ofHigher Education 65, 540-554.

Teich, A.H. (1982). Research centers and non-faculty researchers: A new academic role. In D. I. Powell & B.S. Shen (Eds.), Researchin the Age of the Steady-State University (pp. 91-108). Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.

Weingart, P. (1997). From “finalization” to “mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36: 591-613.

Zerhouni, E. (2003, October 3). The NIH Roadmap. Science 302, 63-72.



characteristics of research centers and institutes at … of research...involved exploring the...

Documents