|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 FACTORS INFLUENCING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING TO HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By JOHN WARFORD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 John Warford
3 To Dr. Israel Tribble and Dr. Ryan Poehling
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Barbara McDade-Gordon and the committee members, Dr. Timothy Fik, Dr Abraham Goldman, and Dr. Sally Williams for their time, advice, direction, and patienc e. I thank the facu lty and staff of the Geography Department; I am especia lly grateful for the effort s of Mrs. Desiree Price and Dr. Peter Waylen, department chair. My colleagues at Florida A&M University have been very supportive, in particular Dr. David Jackson, Dr. Richard Wilson, and Dr. Amber Golden. I thank my colleagues at Tallahassee Community College, espec ially Ms. Valerie Clements, Dean Monte Finkelstein, Dr. Jeanne OKon, and Dr. Mo rolake Buggs, my savior in the 11th hour. I am eternally grateful to the Flor ida Education Fund, which has made my graduate education at the doctora l level possible. Without Dr. Israel Tribble and Dr. Lawrence Morehouse and their able staff, I c ould not have taken on and completed this journey. I thank my departm ent classmates and black gr aduate student classmates at the University of Florida for their consist ent moral support and friendship. I thank my son Anwar and my daughter Jalia for their sacrif ices and loving respect during this long journey. I hope you are proud of me. I thank my parents, John and Carrie Warford, for instilling in me a love for learning, the re spect for knowledge, and the willpower to work hard and persevere. Dr. Karen Webb, Dr. Edward Male cki, Dr. Barbara McDade-Gordon, Ms. Desiree Price, Dr. Sean Jones, and Dr. Deborah Austin, I thank so much for the early days, and the middle passage, the days that have made this ending possible. Infinity and eternity have recorded the weight of your influences on me.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS.....................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................7 LIST OF FI GURES................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STAT EMENT OF THE PROBLEM............................11 The Purpos e and Goals of this Study........................................................12 Questions and Hy potheses .......................................................................14 Struct ure of the Resear ch.........................................................................16 2 ACADEMIC R&D FUNDI NG..........................................................................19 The Basics of Re search and Development F unding ..................................19 Recent U. S. R&D Expenditures Characte r of Work, Performing Sector, and Source of F unds.............................................................................. 20 An Overview of Academic R& D Fundin g...................................................21 Fundi ng by Academic Fiel d.......................................................................23 Fundi ng by Federa l Agenc y......................................................................24 F unding by I ndustry...................................................................................25 Non-Science and Engineering Expenditur es.............................................25 Pass-Through Funds .................................................................................26 Top R&D Performing Univ ersiti es..............................................................27 Top R&D Performi ng Stat es......................................................................28 The Nati onal Innovation Systerm..............................................................30 Federa l R&D Funding to HB CUs...............................................................35 Chapter Su mmary.....................................................................................37 3 HISTORICALLY BLACK CO LLEGES AND UNIVE RSITIES..........................52 Histo rically Black Colleges and Universities and the Relevance Questi on...............................................................................52 The Evol ution of Historically Black Colleges and Univ ersities...................55 Federal Po licies.........................................................................................65 More Recent Init iatives..............................................................................67 Competit ion and Perceptions Related to Research and HBCU s...............68 Chapter Su mmary.....................................................................................70
6 4 RESEARCH DESIGN.....................................................................................78 The Restated Pu rpose and Goals of this Study .........................................78 Choice of Met hod and Vari ables...............................................................78 Area of Study, Sample Size and Time Fram e of St udy...........................78 Variables in this St udy..............................................................................80 Data Collection Me thod and Sour ces.......................................................84 Operationalizing the Vari ables ..................................................................87 The Chosen Statistical Te chniques and t heir Goal s.................................88 Regression Analysis Presentat ion of the Model Formation...................89 Regression Analysis Diagnos tics of the Fitted M odel............................90 Chapter Summary....................................................................................90 5 RESEARCH ANALYSI S.................................................................................92 Research Questions and Te st Hypotheses Restat ed...............................92 Discussion of t he Final Model ...................................................................93 Unanticipated Findings and Directi ons for Future Research....................95 The Results of t he Tested Hy potheses .....................................................98 Chapter Summary..................................................................................100 6 CONCLUSIONS A ND IMPLICAT IONS........................................................102 Further Discussion of Research Findings and Conclusi ons...................102 Implications and Recommendat ions .......................................................105 Chapter Summary..................................................................................107 APPENDIX A STATISTICAL DA TA TABL ES................................................................113 B VARIABLE DATA TABL ES..................................................................... 128 C DESCRIPTIONS A ND DEFINT IONS.....................................................145 LIST OF RE FERENCE S...................................................................................150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................159
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 R&D Expenditures, by Character of Work, Performing Sector, and Source of Funds: 2006 (pro jected) ........40 2-2 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Science and Engineering Field: FY 2004-05 .42 2-3 Federally Financed R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Source of Funds and Science and E ngineering Field: FY 2005... ...43 2-4 Science and Engineering Expendit ures at Universities and Colleges: FY 2000 2005 ... ...45 2-5 Research and Development Expenditures in Non-Science and Engineering Fields at Universities and Colleges: FY 2005...... ..45 2-6 Twenty Institutions Reporting the Largest FY 2006 academic R&D Expenditures in Science and Engineer ing Fields: FY 2005-06 .. ..46 2-7 Federal Academic S&E support to the Leading Universities in Order of S&E Obligations, by Agency: FY 2007 .........47 2-8 Leading States in Total R&D Pe rformance, R&D Sector, and R&D as a Percentage of Gross State Product: 2000 .......48 2-9 Federal Academic S&E Suppor t to the Leading HBCUs, Ranked by Total Amount Received by Agency: FY 2006 .....49 2-10 Top HBCUs and Non-HBCUs Provided Federal R&D Funds: FY 2002.........50 3-1 The Sample Population of HBCUs and Their Home Locations ....74 3-2 HBCUs, by Control of Institution ....76 3-3 HBCUs with Land Grant Status .....77 5-1 Descriptive Statistics: Stepwise Regression...101 6-1 Research Non-HBCUs in the Metro Ar eas with HBCUs, by Location........110
8 Table page A-1 Descriptive Statistics: Li near Regression Mean, Standard Deviations, and Significance Levels....13 A-2 Descriptive Statisti cs: Linear Regression Model R2, Adjusted R2, Significant F Change, and AN OVA Significance...114 A-3 Correlation Results of Predict or Variables on the RDEXP..14 B-1 Number of Other HBCUs in St ate Receiving Federal R&D Funds: by State & Region: FY 2000.....129 B-2 HBCUs, Location by State....130 B-3 Capital City Home Pres ence of HBCUs.....131 B-4 Metropolitan Statistical Area Population Size: 2000....132 B-5 Number of Doctorat e Degrees Conferred by HBCUs: FY 2000.....134 B-6 HBCUs Total Student Enrollment, Total Number of Degrees Conferred, and Graduation Ratios: 1999 2000......135 B-7 HBCUs Student / Faculty Ratios :1999 2000...137 B-8 HBCUs Library Holdings: 2000 2001....148 B-9 HBCUs by Carnegie Classi fication: 2000..............140 B-10 HBCUs by Carnegie Classification: 2009...141 B-11 Personal Income, R&D Concentra tion, Higher Education Current Fund Expenditures, and Academic R&D Performance: by State: FY 2000...142 B-12 HBCU Research & Development Expenditures: FY 2000...143
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 U.S. R&D, by Performing and Funding Sector: 1953-2004...41 2-2 Industry Financed R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges: FY 1972 2005 ...44
10 Abstract of Dissertati on Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degr ee of Doctor of Philosophy FACTORS INFLUENCING R ESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING TO HISTORICALLY BLAC K COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By John Warford December 2009 Chair: Barbara McDade-Gordon Major: Geography This study is an analysis of geographi c, economic, and institutional factors that effect the amount s of research and development dollars historically black colleges and universities receive from external sources. Funds received in fiscal year 2000 by fifty-seven institutions are examined to determine which fa ctors are relevant, and to what degree. The findings of this study show that in stitutional proximity, to resource-rich centers performing academic research and devel opment directly and indirectly support historically black colleges and universities that are high in degree production. Some of these institutions have active degree docto rate degree programs which further enhance their attraction. The combination of num ber of total degrees c onferred, number of doctorate degrees conferred, and shared me tropolitan location with research class mainstream universities explains sixty-six percent of the influencing factors on research and development expenditures received by the black colleges and universities in this study.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Historically black colleges and universiti es (HBCUs) came into being during a time when blacks were denied access to instit utions of higher learning in the United States, primarily in the South, and they face d restricted access outside of the racially segregated South. Their collective purpos e has been to provide black students with opportunities for scholarship and professional training. Now in a more racially and ethnically integrated society, HBCUs still rema in very relevant. The general relevance of black colleges and universities can be seen in their abilities to provide a more socially cohesive environment for minor ity students. They are also remarkably successful at preparing students for leadership roles in t heir community and the greater society. Lastly, and most pertinent to this study HBCUs successfully prepare students for the job market, particularly in the fields of the hard sciences and engineering (Wenglinsky 1997). The economic advancement and stability of the United States is linked to a number of critical factor s, none more important than a strong science and technology labor force that draws from homegrown talent. With ever-increasing regional and international competition, as a given, t he development, retention, and growth of the American science and technology labor force strengthens the competitive advantages the United States holds in terms of scope and scale. The ongoing global competition for the best ideas, talent, facilities, and financin g makes the development of human capital a national priority. Funding for science and technology relat ed activities, conducted by colleges and universities, is the lifes blood of what is called academic research and development.
12 The tremendous administrative and operational costs involved with these activities cannot be met and maintained without support fr om outside sources. The very nature of institutions of higher learning as center s principally formed to create and facilitate knowledge place some limit s on the degree to which and how they generate financial profits. Therefore fu nding from outside sources is crit ical for every academic institution engaged in research. The hist ory, accomplishments, and co mparative status of HBCUs to non-HBCUs make the support for scientific research at HBCUs worthy of study. The Purpose and Goal s of this Study The purpose of this research is to ident ify what factors influence R&D funding to HBCUs. Geographic, economic, and institutional variables examined in this study based the literature that fa ctors of agglomeration, such as size, scope, access, proximity, resource concentration, ur banization, formal political and economic relationships, and regional development, along wit h academic prestige are relevant in answering the research questions examined here (Malecki 1986, 1991, and 1991a; Smilor and el at. 1991; Gertler 1995; Feldman 1994, 1994a, 2003; Feldman and Desrochers 2003; Florida 1995; Storper 1995; Storper and Walker 1989; Mowery and Rosenberg 1993, 1996; Rosenberg and Nelson 1996). The independent variables used in this resarch are good indicators for these factors. The geographic themes of location, place, and region are particularly relevant to this study. The theme of location is signifi cant because it conceptualizes the power that fixed sites have to draw (o r not draw) specific human activities, and the opportunities and growth that may ultimately re sult. The theme of place is critical as it represents the importance of the hum an and physical differences of each location. The general
13 similarities of any two or gr oup of locations also informs us in this research endeavor. Yet it is the uniqueness of locations (in a re lative sense) that reinforces the geographic value of this study. The theme of region is germane to this study because the formal (i.e.), administrative boundaries of states, academic instit utions, and populated areas largely determine the nature and function of the places and institutions examined (Camagni 1991; Malecki 1991; Tassey 1991; Sweeney 1991; Feldman 1994; Gertler 1995; Smilor and el. at. 1993; Feldman and Desrochers 2003; Storper 1995). In essence, form defines function, so re cognizing region conceptually, and how it is perceived, will be very useful in this res earch. Development outcomes often hinge on the perception of region (Storper 1995; Tassey 1991; Malecki 1991). With regard to the broader national percept ion of historically black colleges and universities, the significance of HBCUs as a group can be easily overlooked considering the academic prestige and more visible social impact, better known elite research universities and ivy-league in stitutions. HBCUs have had an under-valued, yet important role in Americas national scientific and tec hnological infrastructu re. The U.S. science and technology community is comprised of the worlds of academia, industry, and of course, government local, state and federal. Channels to funding and maxim use of those channels are indispensable to the per petuation of science and technology (S&T) activities by U.S. universities and colleges. My basic underlying assumption prior to the st art of this research was as follows: access to and possession of more res ources by HBCUs produces more college graduates and higher graduation ra tes, and these are therefore likely to attract greater outside funding support.
14 Research Question and Hypotheses The research question explored in this st udy is: What are the main factors that influence external R&D funding received by HBCUs? The test hypotheses capture the re levance of each independent variable employed in this study. All si xteen variables are examined. Ho1:Metropolitan statistical area size (MSA) has no effect on funding. Ha1: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) size affects funding. Ho2: State (or federal) capital home lo cation has no effect on HBCU funding. Ha2:State (or federal) capital home location affects funding. Ho3: The number of other HBCUs in the state receiving federal R&D funds has no effect on funding. Ha3: The number of other HBCUs in the st ate receiving federal R&D funds affects funding. Ho4: The number of research non-HBCU s in the same (MSA) with HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha4: The number of research non-HBCUs in the same (MSA) with HBCU effects funding. Ho5: State personal income level (per capita) has no effect on funding. Ha5: State personal income level (per capita) affects funding. Ho6: State R&D concentration has no effect on funding. Ha6: State R&D concentration affects funding. Ho7: State higher education cu rrent fund expenditures have no effect on funding. Ha7: State higher education current f und expenditures affect funding. Ho8: State academic R&D performanc e has no effect on funding. Ha8: State academic R&D per formance affects funding. Ho9: Control of institution has no effect on funding. Ha9: Control of institution affects funding. Ho10: The size of student enrollm ent has no effect on funding. Ha10: The size of student enr ollment affects funding. Ho11: The total number of degrees co nferred has no effect on funding. Ha11: The total number of degrees conferred affects funding.
15 Ho12: The number of doctorate degrees confe rred by a HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha12: The number of doctorate degrees co nferred by a HBCU affects funding. Ho13: HBCU graduation ratios have no effect on funding. Ha13: HBCU graduation ratios affect funding. Ho14: The size of HBCU library hol dings has no effect on its funding. Ha14: The size of HBCU libr ary holdings affects funding. Ho15: HBCU student / faculty ra tio have no effect on funding. Ha15: HBCU student / facult y ratio affects funding. Ho16: Land-grant status held by a HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha16: Land-grant status held by a HBCU affects funding. The significance of these test hypo theses can lead to an advancement of research and possible theorization that will help us be tter understand what combination of factors for HBCUs best attract R&D dollars. The si gnificance can lead to better understanding and support, both internally and externally, of the factor endowments HBCUs have and need to develop in order to compete more effe ctively and consistently for R&D dollars. Testing of these hypotheses also gives us an opportunity to discover more about the role of place, location, and region as geographic themes in a decentralized system of multiple institutions and agencies, multiple needs and expectations, interdependencies and economic pressures.
16 Structure of the Research Chapter 1 is the introduction and includes the rationale, significance and need for the study, statement of the problem to be investigated, hypotheses and research questions to be answered, and the limit ations of this study. Chapter 2 focuses on the nature and dynamics of university funding and academic research and development (R&D). What is known and not known about this relationship will be examined as it has been addressed in the research literature. This chapter will conclude with a statement about contributions this study will make to the research literature in the areas of university funding and HBCUs. Chapter 3 presents a profile of historically black colle ges and universities, their origin and history, objectives, and role in higher education. Also included is a comparison of HBCUs as a group will be made to a comparable set of non-HBCUs in the United States. A brief comparison helps to contextualize HBCUs as institutions in the decentralized American educational system in which they co-exist, collaborate, and compete. Chapter 4 presents the research design. The chosen general method, specific procedures, and the research population will be described here. Instrumentation and data collection methods used will precede a discu ssion of the treatment of the data. Chapter 5 reports the research findings. The tested research questions of the study will be reviewed in light of the findings. Chapter 6 is the final chapter with ex planations and conclusions based on the findings. Strengths and limitatio ns of the study will be exam ined followed by a section on the implications of the studys findings Recommendations for further research,
17 changes in professional prac tice, theoretical constructs and institutional policies and organization will be given. There are limitations in this study in se veral areas. This study does not include all of the HBCUs in the United States The primary reason is the absence of suffic ient data. However this sample population of fifty-se ven schools is very r epresentative of the diversity and range of black inst itutions of higher education in the U.S. The National Science Foundations requirements related to acquisition and use of funding restricted the sample population size. Nevertheless ov er half (55%) of all HBCUs in the United States are included in this research. The independent variables number sixteen. There was a need to work with a manageable number of indicators so the cut off point was made at sixteen as an arbitrary limit. This research is undertaken to make a cont ribution towards the literature on external funding of academic research as it relates to the HBCUs. The literature primarily focu ses on the necessity of funding academia, and technology transfer an institutional activity that attracts R&D funds, but a broader approach at capturing less competitive in stitutions like HBCUs has not been done. Thanks to the National Science Foundation (NSF) data on t he distribution of academic research and development funding and subsequent acad emic research and development performance is consistently made available to the public. Conceptual limitations are per ceived in an exploratory study of this type because of the political dimensions of institutional and system-level interactions that will not or cannot be measured here. Governmental, i ndustrial, and academic components form a
18 complex and changing environment that result s in the nature and look of academic R&D funding. Notably, at times, it was necessary to use data from the closest approximate years to the time frame of the study. Also in a few cases, HBCU data for some variables are approximated or not available. A list of selected ke y terms and definitions useful to this study are to be found in Appendi x C.
19 CHAPTER 2 ACADEMIC R&D FUNDING This chapter presents the basics of research and development funding, a general overview of U.S. academic R&D funding, a summary report of R&D expenditures in the U.S., a section on t he concept of a national innovation system, followed by a look at HBCUs in the cont ext of academic research and development funding. The Basics of Research and Development Funding Basic research, applied research, and development form the character of the work called research and development (R&D). Those who conduct R&D are the recipients of the funding for the work. Pe rformers of R&D include the federal government, industry, academia, non-profit instituti ons, and federally funded R&D c enters. There are four possible funding sources for research and devel opment, regardless of who conducts the work and the character of the work: feder al government, state and local government, industry, academia, and non-prof it institutions. The funds that finance research and development are in the monetary unit of curr ent U.S. dollars. These funds are spent, and the work is performed geographically within the nations 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. It is important to remember that, in this study and in science resource statistical reports, R&D expenditures are used as a proxy for R&D performance, meaning once research and development expenditures are received the funds are reported as research and development performance (NSF 2006, 06-306).
20 Recent U.S. R&D Expenditures Character of Work Performing Sector & Source of Funds Distribution percentages best tell the st ory of the relationships between the entities and factors that define and creat e research and development. Table 2-1 tells us much about the character of work of the main ent ities of the R&D system, industry, federal government, universities and colleges, and other non-profit institutions. In total research and development performance, industry is by far the largest R&D performer. In 2006, industry at 65% did twice the work of the federal gover nment (28.2%), with universities and colleges at only 3.5%. I ndustry does more than half of the applied research in the U.S. with 61%, receiving 65.5% of its R&D expenditures in 2006. Industry performed 82.2% of the developm ent and received 90% of all funding for development activities in 2006. For its l eading role in R&D, the industrial sector garnered 70.5% of the total amount of R&D expendit ures ($342,886,000,000). Industry received only 15.9% of expenditu res for basic research, doing 16.2% of its work in 2006. The federal government is the primary facilitator of 60.4% of basic research receiving 9.8 % of the expenditures, 31.7% of appl ied research with 9.8% of the total funds spent on applied research in 2006. The federal government performed 16.6% of development with 5. 9% of the expenditures. The role of the federal government as R&D performer intentionally is minimized through its establishment and support of federally funded research and dev elopment centers (FFRDCs) administered by industry, universities and colleges, or non-pr ofit institutions (NSF 2006, 06-306). Universities and colleges (U&C) str ongest work percentage contribution is in the area of basic research (13.1% in 2006, with 58% of all basic research funds). In applied R&D, universities and colleges performed only 3.8% of the work and 0.3% respectively
21 in 2006. Academias percentage of applied research performed in 2006 (3.8%) dropped from its 2004 percentage in 2004 (at 4.2%). As with basic research, universities and colleges received greater percentages of the expenditures for the work performed, with 13% of the total funds for applied research and less than 1% (0.9%) of the total funds for development (NSF 2006, 06-306). Univer sities and colleges traditionally have provided much of the foundatio nal work that is advanced at the development stage by industry (Feller 1999). Figure 2-1 shows that during the 50-year period of 1953 to 2004, there was a large increase in both the R&D perfo rmance and R&D funding sectors. Industry-financed R&D is mostly for internal pr ojects or R&D projects contracted to other businesses. Less than 2% of industrial funding is external to other non-industry performers. In contra st, the federal government supports external funding with only 40% of its funding to federally funded re search and development centers (FFRDCs) and its own agencies. Beneficiaries of external federal R&D funding include universities and colleges, state governments, non-profit orga nizations, and industry (NSF 2006, 06-306). An Overview of Academic R&D Funding This section will expl ore the current trends of R&D f unding in the United States. The most current detailed data available is from fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Several themes will be addressed here: t he general dispersion of academic research in the past 20 years, funding by academic field and fe deral agency, the federal government and industry as funding sources, non-science and engineering R&D expenditures, top academic research performers, pass-thr ough funds, and top ranking R&D performing states.
22 Geiger and Feller (1995) looked at two of the prominent feat ures of the American research system during the 1980s the features of growth and dispersion. Growth was measured in terms of dollar increases for ac ademic R&D. Dispersion was measured in terms of changes in shares of total R& D expenditures for the top 200 academic institutions between FY 1979-80 and FY 198990 (two-year averages). Their findings revealed a clear dispersal pattern of expenditures within the quality hierarchy determined by peer ratings of research doctorate programs. Four tiers were formed based on their findings. The most evident loss of research share was among distinguished instituti ons (tier I). Share gain was greatest in the group of schools directly below top institutions (tier II). However, smaller below-average performing institutions (tier III) exhibited an overall loss of research share (Geiger and Feller 1995, 346). Tier IV schools (medical and quasi-medical universities) did not fit t he general dispersion pattern. These schools tended to gain research share irrespective of their institutional size or quality rating. The unique production function of medical schools explains why they do not fit the general pattern. From this study, we l earn that an instituti ons share of a given funding source could rise or fall while that sources share of total R&D might be risi ng or falling. This is a very important point to remember as it speaks to the relative effects of changes in funding sectors shares and in the institutional s hares from these sect ors (Geiger and Feller 1995, 340-349). Due to the selection of va riables and the single time frame of this study it would be possible to examine the re lative effects of changes over time in funding sectors on our sa mple population.
23 A brief, yet current, sense of academic research funding and its dispersion is possible through a consideration of several of its key aspects: funding by academic field, by federal agency and industry, and the role of pass-through funds. Top performing institutions and top performing states also will be briefly discussed. Funding by Academic Field When considering fund ing by academic field, incl uding all sources of funding, the medical sciences (at $14.9 billion) and biol ogical sciences (at $8.8 billion) account for the largest field shares of academia s R&D performance to tal (Table 2-2). Together, these two fields account for about one-half of R&D at universities and colleges. The largest percentage increases for FY 2005 were in the life sciences not elsewhere classified (15.3%) and in bioeng ineering biomedical (1 3.4%). There has been a significant rise in spending by uni versities and colleges on bioengineering and biomedical R&D in the last four years, with the amount almost doubling between FY 2001 ($213 million) and FY 2005 ($420 million). A Rand Corporation s Science and Technology Institute report by Fossum and et al. (2004) highlighted issues of funding proportionality. From 1996 to 2002, the twothirds of federal funds to academia for R&D concentrated on only one field of science life science; also the funding was concentra ted at only a relatively few research universities. The report addresses concerns about the implications of unmet national research and development needs in the ar eas of energy, environment, education, and homeland security, in addition to the shortch anging of science students at schools that receive little to no federal R&D funding (Fossum and et al. 2004).
24 Funding by Federal Agency The most generous so urce of academic R&D funding is the federal government. Two federal agencies dominate as funding sour ces. The U.S. D epartment of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided the larges t share of federal funding in FY 2005 ($15.9 billion), primarily in support of the medical and biol ogical sciences (Table 2-3). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has provided the second largest amount of federal funding ($3.5 billion), with most (84%) of the funding going toward research and development in engineering and in the bi ological, computer, environmental, and physical sciences. Health and Human Services accounted for 60% of all federal FY 2006 academic science and engineering (S&E) obligations. Three federal agencies, National Science Foundation (14%), Department of Defense (10%), and Health and Human Services, when combined provided 85% of total f ederal academic science and engineering funding. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and NASA provided most of the remaining academic S&E total ( 11%). Of these si x agencies, only the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation showed increased constant 2000 dollar levels for academic S& E in FY 2006 (NSF 2008, 08-316). Federal funding of academic R&D r eached $29.2 billion in FY 2005 and maintained its 64% share of total academic R&D sup port. Research and development that is federally financed grew by a comparatively moderate 5.6% in FY 2005, ending the trend of annual double digit growth seen earlier th is decade (13.75 in FY 2002, 13.2% in FY 2003, and 11.6% in FY 2004). Research an d development expenditures financed by state and local government funding grew by 2.2% in FY 20005, to $2.9 billion.
25 From nongovernmental sources, res earch and development expenditures increased by their largest percentage this same year. In addition to the increase in industrial funding, institutional (internal) f unding increased 6.5% in 2005 to $8.3 billion, and funding from all sources combined (n on-profits and other non-governmental entities) increased 8.4% to $3.1 billion (NSF 2007, 07-311). Funding by Industry Industrial funding of academic R& D has much to do with the changing role of universities in the present day U.S. R&D system. In FY 2005 industrial funding for R&D in academic science and engineering (S&E) fields saw a recovery from a 3-year decline and grew by 7.7%, representing an all-time high of $2.3 billion. This increase was enough to stabilize the corresponding decline in industrys share of total academic funding, which fell from a high of 7.4% in 1999 to 4.9% in 2004 (Figure 2-2). Industrys share in FY 2005 of 5% is compar able to the share it held in FY 1983 (NSF 2007, 07-311). Overall, universities and colleges report ed R&D expenditures of $45.8 billion in 2005. This is 5.8% more than in the prev ious year ($43.2 billion) and a total that represents an increase of 52.1% over the $30.1 billion report ed in FY 2000. In short, when adjusted for inflation, academic resear ch & development rose 3% in FY 2005 to $45.8 billion, as s hown in Table 2-4. Non-Science and Engi neering Expenditures Not all academic research and developm ent is performed in the fields of science and engineering. A total of $1.4 billion in non science and engineering R&D expenditures was reported in 2003 (this $1.4 billion is the amount from approximately 82% of the
26 institutions surveyed providing data in th is area). In FY 2004, a slightly higher percentage of schools provided data (83.3%), and the reported amou nt of expenditures in these areas increased to $1. 6 billion. The percentage of institutions providing nonscience & engineering ex penditures increased to 94.1% in FY 2005, and the reported amount of non science and engineer ing R&D expenditures in creased to 1.8 billion (Table 2-5). This amount is in addition to t he $45.8 billion ex panded on science and engineering R&D. The largest amounts re ported for individual non science and engineering fields were in education ( $761 million), business and management ($220 million), and humanities ($194 m illion). More than half of the federally funded non science and engineering expenditures (55.8% or $426 million) were in the field of education. Pass-Through Funds To the extent that research and development collabor ation can be measured briefly and mentioned here, some data is availabl e that reflects the portion of R&D expenditures that pass from the original recipient in stitutions through to other institutions. Pass through funds reflect the amount of joint work performed on R&D projects as well as funds received by sub -recipient institutions. Academic research and development expenditures that were passed through to higher education sub recipients increased from $1.3 billion in FY 2004 to $1.5 billion in FY 2005. This is compared to $1 billion passed through to non-higher edu cation sub-recipients during the same period. Almost 90% ($1.4 b illion) of the funds passed th rough to higher education sub recipients originated fr om federal sources.
27 Universities also reported an increase in R&D exp enditures received as a subrecipient from other higher education pass-thr ough entities, from $1.4 billion in FY 2004 to $1.5 billion in 2005. As noted above, mo re than 90% ($1.4 b illion) of the funds received from higher education pass-through ent ities originated from federal sources. Top R&D Performing Universities A small group of universities perform a significant percentage of academic research and development in the United States. The top 20 institutions, in terms of total R&D expenditures, accounted for nearly hal f a third (30%) of total academic R&D spending of the 640 institutions surveyed (Tabl e 2-6). The top 100 research performers accounted for 80% of all research and devel opment dollars in fiscal year 2005. There were some position changes in the rankings between 2005 and 2006. Two universities were displaced from the top 20 in FY 2005: the University of Colorado slipped from 20th in 2004 to 22nd in FY 2005, and the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign fell from 18th in FY 2004 to 24th in FY 2005. The institutions replacing them were Columbia University in New York, which rose from 23rd in FY 2004 to 18th in FY 2005, and the University of Fl orida, which rose from 27th position to 20th place. The most significant change of rank withi n the top 20 was Duke University, which had an increase of more than $100 million in academic R&D spending. This change elevated Duke from 14th place in FY 2004 to 10th place in FY 2005. (NSF 2007, 07-311) Table 2-7 shows the federal academic S&E support to the 20 leading universities in order of total S&E obligations by federal agency in FY 2006. John Hopkins University (including its Applied Physics Laboratory) continued to be the leading academic recipient of federal S&E obligations. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the
28 Department of Defense (DOD) combined gave John Hopkins Univer sity 86% of its federal S&E funds. The overwhelming majority (93%) of the universitys total science & engineering obligations ($1.34 billion) supported R&D programs, with other S&E activities and FTTGs accounting for most of the remainder. The leading 20 universities in Table 2-7 represent a little ov er one-third (35%) of the federal academic S&E total in fiscal year 2006. Nineteen of these 20 schools were also ranked among the top 20 in FY 2005. Vanderbilt University (ranked 20th in FY 2006, after being 23rd the prior year) replaced Cornell Univ ersity, all campuses which ranked 22nd in FY 2006, after being 19th the previous year (NSF 2008, 08-316). Top R&D Performing States As it is with R&D performance am ongst academic institutions, a significant percentage of R&D performance in the United States takes place in a relatively small number of states. Research and development expenditures are highly concentrated in a limited number of st ates in the union. A little le ss than ten years ago, R&D data became available on a state by state basis. In 2000, the twenty highest ranking states in R&D expenditures accounted for 87% of t he national total (Table 2-8). The lowest ranking 20 states had only 4% of the total (NSF 2003, 03-303). The same year, California led the nation in R&D performanc e with one-fifth of the U.S. total of $247 billion with $55 billion. Ca lifornias expenditure total increased by nearly $11 billion (from its $44 billion) in fisca l year 1998. The six states wit h the highest levels of R&D expenditures California, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois (in decreasing order of magnitude) accounted for one-half of the total national effort.
29 Going further, adding (in descending order) Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, the top ten states were responsible for two-thirds of t he entire U.S. effort. Considering the high level of concentrati on of R&D spending am ong U.S. states, it may not be surprising that among the top ten stat es there is also a high level of concentration. With $55 bil lion, California performed mo re than three times the dollar amount of the second ranking state Mich igan (over $18 billion). In the 2000, Pennsylvania and Maryland, in 9th and 10th positions respectfully, performed approximately one half of the re search and development of the state of Michigan. Both states were under $10 billion in R&D expenditures. Most of the states that l ead the nation in total R&D perfo rmance are also the top ranked leaders in academic and industrial performance. Maryland is replaced by Ohio as a top 10 industrial R&D state. North Caroli na and Georgia replaced New Jersey and Washington in the top 10 academic R&D states in 2000. This is most likely because of the strength of the major resear ch universities that comprise in North Carolina Research Triangle and growing research activities at Georgia Tech and Emory University in the city of Atlanta. States vary greatly in the size of thei r economies, population profiles, land areas, natural resources, infrastructu re systems, and histories. Therefore variations in R&D expenditure leve ls of states to a large degree reflect these differences (NSF 2003, 03-303). Several of the top R&D performing st ates are ranked highly because they are the geographic locations of major national R&D cent ers. Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia are states that fo rm the metropolitan statistical ar ea of the nations capital.
30 This area has a strong concentration of f ederal R&D facilities and the administrative offices of federal agencies. Florida, Al abama, and New Mexico are homes to major national laboratories, national defense and aerospace facilities (NSF 2001, 01-320). The most recent statistics from the Na tional Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of Federal Science and Engineer ing Support to Universiti es, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions show that gov ernment agencies reached a new hi gh in current dollars of $28.7 billion to 1,226 academic institutions for science and engi neering (S&E) activities in FY 2006. However, this new high does represent in 2.3% inflation-adjusted decrease in constant 2000 dollars over FY 2005. Betw een FY 2004 and FY 2005 there was a 3.8% current dollar increase or a 0.6% increase in constant 2000 dollars (NSF 2008, 08-316). Overall, American universities and colle ges reported scienc e and engineering R&D expenditures of $47.8 billion in FY 2006. This is 4.3% more than FY 2005 ($45.8 billion). When adjusted for inflation, acade mic research and development rose by 1.2% in fiscal year 2006. There are larger cont extual reasons why academic R& D funding is important. They have to do with innovation and national resour ce investments. Therefore, some discussion of a U.S. or national innovation system is fitting. The National Innovation System What is the national innovation system? In this st udy, the term national innovation system is interpreted quite broadly to capt ure the dynamic activities and investments that result in economic, scientific, and technological gains on the national and
31 international level. No presumption exis ts that this system has been consciously designed or even that the ent ities involved work together in a smooth manner. Any analysis or description of a nations in novation system would be forced if it was presented as something separable fr om that nations ec onomic system if its innovation policies were presented as distin ctive from issues related to national education and national security (Rosenberg and Nelson 1993, 13). The concept of a national system of innovation is based on the competitive prowess of Americas firms and the technological capabi lities rooted in national resources and national action. Firms, universities, and governmental entities represent the three central components that interact in systematic patterns to promote innovation associated with economic performance. National economic conditions are in fluenced greatly by the successes and setbacks of innovative firms. This intricat e, massive innovative system relies heavily on the formation of new companies and firms. Also relying he avily on a diversity of resources and ideas, it has evolved to establish a large role for universities and colleges. Nelson and Rosenberg (1993) remind us that the modern industrial laboratory and the modern research university ma tured together as companions. Academic institutions have a critical role to play in technological advancement, as places where industrial scientists and engi neers are trained and as the source of research findings and techniques pertinent to technical advance in industry. Universities, through applications-oriented fiel ds like computer science, materials
32 science, and pathology, help dev elop the foundations of indus trial technologies (Nelson and Rosenberg 1993, 11-12). Some scholars, like Gregory Tassey ( 1991, 350), refer to this system as the U.S. technology infrastructuredefi ned as the combination of indus try, the public sector, and increasingly by joint public-private operat ions, with academia providing scientific and technical expertise. He points out that jo int industry university research programs have helped to reshape university curricula over time. This technology infrastructure also includes the important subgroup of 22 labs that are known as the Federal Laboratory System committed to basic scientif ic knowledge, the development of early phase technology research and the producti on of nonproprietary infra-technologies. Smilor, Dietrich, and Gibson (1993, 2) have investigat ed academic institutions as entrepreneurial universities hi ghlighting the role of U. S. higher education in Americas technology commercialization and economic deve lopment efforts. In responding to environmental changes, the original parad igm of the American university has been altered to accommodate the hypercompetitive r ealities of globalizati on. Smilor et al. (1993) remind that the traditional norms, values and professional standards are still present as the need to profit from research efforts that add economic value to the institution and all invested parti es have been added to the paradigm. Mowery (2001) suggest s that despite the long-standi ng link between industrial innovation and the American university research, the role of U.S. un iversities within the national R&D system is changing due to shifts in sources of academic R&D funding. He and others (Mowery and Sampat 2001; Mowery, and et. al 2001) point to the rise in university patents and licensing, and ot her related trends.
33 Eckel and King (2004) at the American Council on E ducation report that many believe that the marketplace has surpass ed state government, across the board, as the dominant external force shaping and reshapi ng American higher education. The above studies uncover evidence of the presence of the entrepreneurial university in concept and in practice. There are critical di fferences between the traditiona l U.S. university paradigm and the entrepreneurial U.S. unive rsity paradigm. The differences can be seen in the drivers and the outcomes reflected in the model of each paradigm. Often the worldview of academic institutions in the past could a fford to be more insula r and highlight its own distinctiveness. Along with funding sources, universities and colleges in the past were driven by academic prestige and basic research yielding the then acceptable outcomes of professional and instituti onal recognition, in addition to educated students and broad understanding that comes wit h knowledge creation. However, the impact of fast changing ti mes has brought about the need to face growing realities that make this earlier thin king dangerously ineffective. The universitys more contemporary purpose is to reflect the challenges and opport unities brought about by economic globalization and the hyper-compet itive international environment. There exists a combination of internal and external forces that drive academic institutions, which of course include bas ic and applied research. However there are many drivers that go well bey ond these two mainstays. Sm ilor et al. (1993) remind us that public policy, industrial needs, entr epreneurial faculty, and the nature of revolutionary technologies are but a few.
34 The means by which the factors that dr ive universities translate into positive outcomes in academia have everything to do with the support systems and linkage mechanisms that perpetuate ac ademic institutions. The complexities are required as part of the research-oriented schools survival Therefore, the need for external funding of academic R&D is not debated as optional. Some of the contemporary outcomes for a university operating under an entrepreneurial paradigm are as broad as global competitiv eness, job creation, and technology transfer, and as specific to t he institution as handson programs, course development, and new funding sources (Smilor et al. 1993). Gemunden and et al. ( 1992) found from empirical study that there are kinds of technology-oriented external relationships pr oven to be of special importance: close contacts with customers, R&D co-operations with other companies, and linkages to universities and research institutes. Mansfields study ( 1998) provided an update of empi rical findings that confirm the cause and effect relationship between academic research and commercial outcomes. His research presents evidence from 1986 to 1994 that confirms earlier results for the ten year period of 1975 to 1985 that more than 10% of the new products and processes introduced in six select industr y sectors could not ha ve been developed (without significant delay) in the absence of timely academic research. Mansfield also notes that in this second period, average lack time between academic research and commercial application decreased. This is evidence of greater cohesion and partnership in American innov ation over time. Greater synchronicity has economic
35 rewards for all parties involved. Adaptations have led to the (still) changing structure of the U.S. national innovat ion system (Mowery 1998). Federal R&D Funding to HBCUs Federal science and engineeri ng obligations for HBCUs in the 1995 fiscal year increased by 17% over the previous year totaling $328 million. Research and development programs accounted for 62% of all HBCU funding, smaller than the 84% share among all U.S. universities and colle ges (NSF 2007, 07-326). By fiscal year 2006, federal academic S&E obligations to 78 HBCUs (from a total of 102 institutions) totaled $444 million, representi ng a decrease of 7.3% from FY 2005. This level was the first current-dollar decrease in HBCU funding since FY 1998. The Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) contributed appr oximately one-third of all federal academic S&E expenditures to HBCUs with USDA funding over one-fourth of the total (Table 2-9). R&D programs acc ounted for over three-fifths of the HBCU total with other S&E activities totaling near 25 percent. Howard University was the leading HBCU recipient of federal S&E expenditures, receiving $34 million (of which $28 million was for research and development) in FY 2006, with 70% of the total from HHS. The leading 20 HBCUs ranked by federal academic S&E support accounted for 70% of the academic science and engineering total for HBCUs in FY 2006. Fifteen of thes e 20 institutions were also ranked among the leading 20 HBCU recipients in fi scal year 2005 (NSF 2008, 08-316). A side by side comparison of HBCUs and non -HBCUs with regards to federal R&D funding is a useful reminder of the dominanc e of non-HBCUs as a group in the realm of R&D funding acquisition and R&D performanc e. Table 2-10 shows the top 50 HBCUs
36 and non-HBCUs, including medical schools, prov ided federal R&D funds in FY 2002. The average amount of t he top 50 HBCUs receiving federal R&D funds was $5,200,875. Compared to th is the average amount of t he top 50 non-HBCUs receiving R&D funds at $28,320,186. The amount differences represent the research and development capacity and R&D performance advantages top non-HBCUs have over the top HBCUs. The figures from FY 2002 show that t he top 50 non-HBCUs in R&D expe nditures garner over five times the funding amounts of the top HBCUs. The least funded of the top non-HBCUs the University of Texas, MD Anderson C ancer Center, at $137,474,907 is a dollar amount approximately three and on half times greater than the highest funded HBCU Howard University, at $39,489, 251. The top non-HBCU in federal R&D expenditures John Hopkins University at $968,346,779 had a dollar advantage of over 24 to one compared with Howard University (NSF 2008, 08-319). Going beyond the comparison of the top sc hools in both categories, the average of all HBCU receiving federal R&D exp enditures in FY 2002 is $3,596,350, to be compared to $12,083,713 which is the av erage amount of all non-HBCUs receiving R&D federal funds (Fossum and et al. 2004). In this instance, we find a better than three to one dollar advantage for non-HBCUs. Also notable is the fa ct that the average research and development funding amount of a ll non-HBCUs is over twice that of the top 50 HBCUs in fiscal year 2002. These figures for FY 2002 are reflective of consistent funding patterns in the highly stratified and concentrated funding patterns that are a part of the ac ademic R&D funding environment.
37 Chapter Summary The character of the work called res earch and development (R&D) is comprised of basic research, applied research, and developm ent. The federal government, industry, academia, non-profit institut ions, and federally funded R&D centers perform research and development. There are five possi ble funding sources for research and development activities: industry, federal government, state and local government, academia, and non-profit institutions. On ce research and development expenditures are received, the funds are reported as R&D performance. Industry is by far t he largest R&D performing sector conducting more than half of the applied research in the U.S. and most of the development. Considering all funding sources, industry also garners the majori ty of R&D expenditu res. The federal government is the primary funding facilitator of basic research in the United States; its role as a major R&D performer is intentiona lly minimized through its establishment and support of federally funded research and dev elopment centers (FFRDCs) administered by industry, universities and colleges, or nonprofit organizations. Federal-financing goes directly to non-federal R&D performers not operating as FFRDCs. Academias strongest wo rk percentage contribution to t he national R&D effort is in the area of basic research. From 1996 to 2002, two-thirds of federal funds to academia for R&D concentrated on one field of sci ence life science; the funding was concentrated at only a relatively few res earch universities. Two federal agencies dominate as funding sources for academic R& D the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), followed by the Nationa l Science Foundation (NSF). The top 20 institutions, in terms of total research and development expenditures, accounted for
38 nearly a third (30%) of total academic R&D s pending of the 640 institutions surveyed in FY 2005. The top 100 research performers a ccounted for 80% of all R&D dollars in FY 2005. As academic R&D performance is highl y concentrated, so is total R&D performance by geographic location. For example, in 1998, the 20 highest ranking states in research and development expenditures acc ounted for 85% of the national total, and the lowest ranking 20 states had only 4% of the total. Most of the states that lead the nation in total R&D performance are al so the top ranked leaders in academic and industrial performance. The concept of a national system of i nnovation is based on the competitive prowess of Americas firms and the technol ogical capabilities rooted in national resources and national action. Firms, univers ities, and governmental entities represent the three central and indispensable components that interact in sy stematic patterns to promote innovation associated wi th economic performance. So me scholars refer to this system as the U.S. technology infrastructure defined as t he combination of industry, the public sector, and increasingly by join t public-private operations, with academia providing scientific and technical expertise. The universitys more contemporary pur pose is to reflect the challenges and opportunities brought about by the realities of economic globalization and the hypercompetitive global environment. This has given birth to the notion of the entrepreneurial university paradigm which has become a contemporary development model for American colleges and universities. Federal funding of HBCUs, like that for all of academia, has benefited
39 from a pattern of currentdollar increase until 2006. T he research and development funding disparities between HBCUs and non-HBCUs, overall and among topuniversities, is reflective of the R&D per formance levels and institutional capacity disparities that exist between HBCUs and non-HBCUs.
40 Table 2-1. U.S. R&D Expenditures, by Character of Work, Performing Sector, & Source of funds: 2006 Performing sector and character of work Total in Federal Other Total Exp. Million $ Industry government U&C Non-profits (percentage) R&D 312,068 199,025 93.384 11. 095 8.565 100.0 Industry 219.226 195,691 23,535 NA NA 70.2 Industry-administered FFRDCs 2.584 NA 2.584 NA NA 0.8 Federal government 24.742 NA 24.742 NA NA 7.9 U&C 42.431 2,135 26.115 5 3.087 13.6 U&C-administered FFRDCs 7.500 NA 7.500 NA NA 2.4 Other nonprofit institutions 12.750 1.199 6.072 NA 5.478 4.1 Nonprofit-administered FFRDCs 2.834 NA 2.834 NA NA 0.9 Percent distribution by source 100.0 63.8 29.9 3.6 2.7 NA Basic research 58.356 9,551 36.075 7.579 5.150 100.0 Industry 9.278 1.427 1.851 NA NA 15.9 Industry-administered FFRDCs 706 NA 706 NA NA 1.2 Federal government 4.887 NA 4.887 NA NA 8.4 U&C 31.735 1.458 20.589 7.579 2.109 54.4 U&C-administered FFRDCs 3.917 NA 3.917 NA NA 6.7 Other nonprofit institutions 6.651 666 2.944 NA 3.042 11.4 Nonprofit-administered FFRDCs 1.181 NA 1.181 NA NA 2.0 Percent distribution by source 100.0 16.4 61.8 13.0 8.8 NA Applied research 66.364 35.975 25.315 2.883 2.190 100.0 Industry 41.009 35.117 5.892 NA NA 61.8 Industry-administered FFRDCs 1.268 NA 1,268 NA NA 1.9 Federal government 8.407 NA 8.407 NA NA 12.7 U&C 9.223 555 4.983 2.883 802 13.9 U&C-administered FFRDCs 1.806 NA 1.806 NA NA 2.7 Other nonprofit institutions 4.287 304 2.595 NA 1.388 6.5 Nonprofit-administered FFRDCs 365 NA 365 NA NA 0.5 Percent distribution by source 100.0 54.2 38.1 4.3 3.3 NA Development 187.349 153.498 31.993 633 1.224 100.0 Industry 168.939 153.147 15.792 NA NA 90.2 Industry-administered FFRDCs 610 NA 610 NA NA 0.3 Federal government 11.447 NA 11.447 NA NA 6.1 U&C 1.474 122 543 633 176 0.8 U&C-administered FFRDCs 1.778 NA 1.778 NA NA 0.9 Other nonprofit institutions 1.812 229 534 NA 1.048 1.0 Nonprofit-administered FFRDCs 1.288 NA 1.288 NA NA 0.7 Percent distribution by source 100.0 81.9 17.1 0.3 0.7 NA NA = not available. Notes: State & local government support to industry included in industry support for industry performance. State and local government support to U&C ($2.890 million in total R&D) included in U&C support for U&C performance. Source: National Science Foundation. Di v. of Science Resources Statistics National Patterns of R&D Resources (annual series).
43 Table 2-3. Federally Financed R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Source of Funds, and Science & Engineering Field: FY 2005 (millions of current dollars) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________ Field Fed Exp. DOD DOE HHS NASA NSF USDA OTHER* All science and engineering 29,167 2,1651,05515,8691,1303,533814 3,327 Computer Science 1,023 3022936284272 129 Environmental Sciences 1,725 141966021859054 522 Life Sciences 17,691 42815314,197114568673 1,421 Agricultural 845 11195215100453 188 Biological 6,194 139684,91346407180 385 Medical 9,898 258578,622494427 773 Life 753 20960941713 76 Math Sciences 346 41106241744 25 Physical Sciences 2,674 3193794523537797 244 Psychology 611 25145112510 61 Social Sciences 691 2519256129835 229 Engineering 4,116 1,27835429138077235 599 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________ Includes all other agencies reported. Nec = no t elsewhere classified. DOD = Department of Defense; DOE = Department of Education; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administ ration; NSF = National Science Foundation; USDA = Department of Agriculture. Notes: Not all fields are reported in this table. Also, agency detail may not add to total because some institutions did not break out their expenditures by agency. Source: National Science Foundation, Div. of Sc ience Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science & Engineering Support to Universities Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. FY 2005.
47Table 2-7. Federal Academic S&E Support to t he 20 Leading Universities in Order of Total Order of Total S&E Obligations, by Agency: FY 2006 (m illions of dollars) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________-__ Institutions All Oblig. DOD DOE HSS NASA NSF USDA Other*__ All Institutions 28,657.82,904.1 901.8 17,184.5 975.34,098.71,262.7 1,294.6 John Hopkins* 1,341.7530.8 3.4617.0135.328.90.2 26.1 U.WA 676.643.7 13.4466.18.994.72.7 47.1 U. MI 558.044.4 12.1402.713.769.21.4 14.4 U.PA 532.828.4 9.8460.02.127.41.0 4.0 UCLA 505.920.5 21.7396.314.053.20.0 0.3 Columbia 503.39.1 9.9374.011.072.10.4 27.0 Duke U. 496.524.6 9.7422.81.031.91.1 5.4 Stanford 491.647.8 15.8317.054.253.80.0 3.0 U.WIMadison 473.622.3 26.6259.56.4119.534.7 4.7 U.CA-San Francisco 466.49.3 0.5418.104.22.168.0 0.0 Harvard 450.913.8 9.5378.210.029.20.1 10.1 U.CA San Diego 445.516.8 14.2306.95.8101.00.1 0.8 U. Pitts. 444.022.4 2.7322.214.171.124.0 2.8 WA U. 434.07.7 2.6380.78.831.80.1 0.8 MIT 423.999.9 56.6183.116.755.82.6 9.2 Yale U. 390.27.3 10.2341.41.327.81.1 1.1 UNC Chapel Hill 374.514.2 3.8317.50.624.00.1 14.3 Colorado 371.917.5 6.4232.840.644.41.4 28.8 Minnesota 370.313.1 7.2241.74.053.432.3 18.6 Vanderbilt 334.321.7 2.2278.51.618.20.0 12.0 Top 20 schools 10,085.81,015.4 238.47,227. 6338.0955.579.1 231.8 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ DOD= Department of Defense; DOE=Department of Education; HHS=Department of Health and Human Services; NASA=National Aeronautics & Space Administration; NSF=National Science Foundation; USDA=Department of Agriculture. Includes data for the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor and Transportation; Agency for International Deve lopment; Environmental Protection Agency; Appalachian Regional Commission; Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, Office of Justice Programs (part of Justice Department); and Social Security Administration. ** Includes funding for Applied Physics Laboratory. Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engi neering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. FY 2006.
49 Table 2-9. Federal Academic S&E Support to the 20 Leading HBCUs, Ranked by total amount received by agency: FY 2006 (thousands of dollars) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ Institution All Oblig. DOD DOE HHS NASA NSF USDA Other All HBCUs 444,193 40,069 22,303 148,27925,82071,123117,617 18,982 Howard U. 34,406 1,748 14724,1704727,1380 0 Morehouse (Medicine) 29,884 0 96228,922000 0 Meharry Medical C. 27,387 437 026,950000 0 Hampton U. 23,205 1,486 1,0701,82412,2896,1060 430JacksonState 20,437 6,629 1,9255,96504,989285 644 Tuskegee 18,344 595 1997,9622043,3846,000 0 FL A&M U. 18,602 2,636 3534,226395,6954,641 472 NC A&T State 17,751 2,378 1781,4925225,0298,152 0 AL A&M U. 16,812 4,497 1061301,61328310,183 0 TN State U. 13,894 2,135 01,9576075028,693 0Morgan State 13,120 1,774 8623,8294,0161,5170 1,122 Prairie View A&M U. 10,661 952 592133255438,416 0 Alcorn State 10,122 2,352 049905286,509 234 Southern U. 9,390 479 08311,9141,1184,424 624Clark Atlanta 8,770 957 1683,2934313,1630 758 SC State U. 8,689 0 1,0005242521,5214,220 1,172 Lincoln U. (MO) 8,442 2,071 00006,351 0 DE State U. 7,780 1,414 99035601,2953,700 25 KY State 7,618 0 0001507,468 0 U.Maryland East. Shore 311,901 32,842 8,552114,33 622,38443,75883,718 6,312 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ DOD = Department of Defense; DOE = Department of Energy; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; NASA = National Aero nautics and Space Ad ministration; NSF = National Science Foundation; USDA = Department of Agri culture. Includes data for the Departments of Commerce, Education, Interior, Labor, and Tran sportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Justice Programs (part of Department of Justice). Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 2006
52 CHAPTER 3 HISTORICAL LY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES While there are many defin itions of what makes a black college or university historic, in 1965 the U.S. Congress formally designated as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) those institut ions that were founded before 1964 whose principal mission was the education of Black Americans. Most of these schools were founded immediately before the Civil War or in the decades afterwards by Christian churches, many of them funded th rough the Freedmans Bureau and private philanthropy. Today, according to the Department of Education, there are 104 federally designated HBCUs, which are eligible to rece ive federal money through Title III of the Higher Education Act. This group includes 40 pub lic 4-year institutions, 10 public 2year institutions, 49 private 4-y ear institutions, and five privat e 2-year institutions located in eight south Atlantic states, eight centra l southern states, two mid-western states, one northeastern state, and the District of Columb ia and the Virgin Islands. Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively, provide a list of the HBCU s in this study with their locations and the sample population, denoted by cont rol of institution. Appendix B is a compilation of the variable data that reveals more about HBCU s, in relation to the geographic, economic and institutional factors ex plored in this study. Historically Black Colleges and Univer sities and the Relevance Question Despite commitments to HBCUs from levels as high as the U. S. presidency, the question is still asked in this country: Are HBCUs still needed? HBCUs came into being during a time when blacks were denied access to institutions of higher learning in the United States, and their collective purpose has been to provide black students with
53 opportunities for scholarship and profession al training. However, the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. Fordice) r equired states to educationally justify or eliminate all vestiges of segregation in higher educatio n. Public HBCUs have been categorized as one of these vestiges. T herefore, some have called for a more compelling educational justificat ion for HBCUs existence. A number of justifications have been presen ted in defense of these institutions. Three of the most salient are the following: 1) HBCUs provi de a more socially cohesive environment for minority student s; 2) they are remarkab ly successful at preparing students for leadership roles in their communi ty and the greater soci ety; and 3) they successfully prepare students for t he job market, particularly in the fields of the hard sciences and engineering (Wenglinsky 1997). There have been relatively few empirical studies to test these justifications, or to determine if HBCUs offer educational benefits that do not exist at mainstr eam institutions. Studies that have been done provide us with some empirical evidence for t he continued justification of HBCUs. Thomas (1987, 1991) and Trent (1991) found that black students attending HBCUs were most likely to ma jor in business, engineering, or the sciences. This is an important finding because of the support provided to the nat ional labor force in these critical fields. From the vantage point of the graduates and the black economic community, the income potential and ultimate in come contribution from these fields is higher than that of the liberal arts and fine arts fields. Nettles (1991) studied the characteri stics of post-secondary students and their institutions that were associated with st udent achievement (as measured by GPA), and student progression (as measured by the number of credits taken per semester).
54 There was found to be no relationship betwe en GPA and the racial composition of the institution, but he did find t hat black students had lower progression rates at institutions where they were the minority compared to those rates of black students where they were the majority. More recently, a study by Astin, Tsui and Avalos (1996) suggested that black students attending HBCUs are more likely than black students attending mainstream educational institutions to complete their degrees. When a number of factors are taken into account, including prior student achiev ement (as measured by high school grades and SAT scores), institutional size, and instit utional selectivity, black students at HBCUs were found to be 17% more likely than their c ounterparts at mainstream schools to earn their degrees. There are divergent opinions on the c entral collective mission of HBCUs dating back as far the debates between the black leaders W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington (Jencks and Riesman 1968; Roebu ck and Murty 1993). W.E.B. DuBois highlighted the ability of black educational in stitutions to produce community leaders. Booker T. Washington, on the other hand, emphasized the ability of the schools to groom blacks to be more economically competitive in the job market. Todays advocates of Washingtons position would point to the ability of HBCUs to produce scientists, technicians, and engineers disproportionate to their numbers and resources. The views of DuBois and Washington have probably been overdichotomized over the decades because HBCUs have been very successful as wellsprings of aspiration for the comm unity and talent for the labor force.
55 The Evolution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities In the late 19th century, colleges for black student s were started in boxcars and church basements as over 90% of the Souths adult black population was illiterate in 1960 (Foner 1988,196). Mary Mc Leod Bethune, one of the nations foremost black educators opened a college in the year 1904 with only $1.50 and five students. The history of HBCUs has been one of trials tribulations, perseverance and victory. From hardship to success, to still finding purpos e in todays society, the life of HBCUs may be best understood within a br oad historical context. Th is history can be divided into five periods of growth: the Antebe llum Period, the Post-bellum Period, the Separate but Equal Period, the Desegregati on Period, and lastly, the Modern Period (Roebuck and Murty 1993). The Antebellum Period began with the end to the Revolutionary War. Free blacks began to establish churches, schools, and organizations in northern and southern cities where they could worshi p, educate their ch ildren, and protect themselves freely. Blacks yearned for an ed ucation with hopes of making their mark in society. With little support from the wh ite community, free blacks held fundraisers, bazaars, plays, etc. to obtain money to build schools where many self-taught freeman taught other freeman to r ead and write (Quarles 1985; Berlin 1974, 70-78). These schools provided a sense of identity, as well as means of advancement for black youth and adults. Occasionally, a few wh ite institutions allo wed black people to attend. However, many of the higher degr ees were obtained through apprenticeship training, non-degree courses in colleges and universities, te acher training, university training abroad, and self-education.
56 The first two HBCUs to open before the Civ il War were Lincoln University (PA) and Wilberforce University. Both schools ar e still in existence and remain in their original locations today. These schools were the first to award baccalaureate degrees, and the first to develop into degree-granting in stitutions. Only 28 black people received baccalaureate degrees prior to the American Civil War (Bowles and et al. 1971, 20-21). Most whites during this time opposed the educat ion of black people be lieving them to be intellectually inferior and also fearing that educated blacks might get out of their place and inevitably compete with whites in ec onomic, political, and sexual spheres (Goodenow 1989). Nevertheless, the black pursuit of higher formal education continued. After the end of the Civil War and into t he Reconstruction era, five million freed blacks lived in the southern states of t he Union (Foner 1988) with a tangible demand for education. This demand signaled the start of the Post-bellum Period. During this period, the Freedmans Bureau, along with the American Missionary Association (AMA) and other northern missionary so cieties, helped to draft formal educational schools for blacks to train and learn (Raboteau 1989; G odenow 1989). The AMA was responsible for founding seven black colleges betw een 1861 and 1870 including Dillard, Fisk, Atlanta, and Morehouse (Law and Clift 1981). By the year 1869, nearly 3,000 schools serving over 150,000 students were in operation, jointly run by missionary societies and blacks themselves. By 1870, it is estima ted that black people had expended over one million dollars on their privat e education (Foner 1988, 144). The enactment of the civil rights acts in 1866 and 1875 led to the expansion of educational, economic, social, and political opportunities for emancipated blacks during
57 the Reconstruction Era. Between 1865 and 1890, over 200 black private institutions were founded with the help of missionaries a nd the northern churches (Foner 1988). Unfortunately, founded with haste, and limited financ ial backing, many closed by 1900. Now only 40 private HBCUs remain in ex istence of those established during the Reconstruction area. However during this per iod, private HBCUs turned out a total of 1,100 college graduates by 1895, many of wh ich became prominent and assumed black leadership roles during the ear ly decades of the twentieth century (Bowles and et al. 1971, 33-34). All but two public HBCUs were originally listed as normal or industrial schools, and none of them initially conferred baccala ureate degrees. Seventeen public HBCUs, all of which are still in existence, were established under the second Morrill Act of August 30, 1890. The first Morrill Act of 1862 was originally authorized to establish land grant institutions in each state to educate citizens. Ho wever, it excluded southern blacks due to the Souths separate but equal rules. The second Morrill Act was to rectify this exclusion by incl uding historically black instit utions. Many of the black normal schools, founded before the second act, were incorporated into this system along with new schools being formed. These colleges and universities became known as the 1890 institutions. To this day t hese land-grant HBCUs have had a collective group impact on black educat ion and its advancement that is probably unequaled by any other group of HBCUs. A list of the land -grant HBCUs are found at the end of this chapter (Table 3-3). The third period that describes the growth of HBCUs is considered the Separate but Equal Period lasting from 1896 to 1953. Over two-thirds of the U.S. black
58 population still resided in the South during this time livi ng under the separate but equal 1896 federal court decision in Plessy vs. Fe rguson. Black people were still granted their educational rights but were not allowed to learn with whites (Franklin 1975). In educational environments, revised state constitutions and enacted state laws legally prevented black and white student s from attending the same institutions (Roebuck and Murty 1993, 29). This separation was tantamount to segregation and the under-funding of both private and public HBCUs. Many public sc hools were under the financial control of whites who believed blacks were inferior (Goodenow 1989). The laws of segregation demanded each to stay with its own, regardless of the imbalance in resources (Jencks and Reisman 1968; Roebuck and Murty 1993). Legalized segregation led to an increased pattern of under-f unding for black education. Unlike the private HBCUs, public HBCUs were dependent on state governm ents for support. This coincided with the vast upgrading of white public school fa cilities and programs in the South spawned by white populist politicians. Black pub lic HBCUs received inadequate and unequal funding from state treasuries, from federal land-grant pr ovisions, and other federal sources. Be that as it may, HBCUs emerged as t he principal employment source for black teachers. HBCUs produced mini sters as well as teachers because prior to the Civil Rights Era, the most widely accepted profes sional occupations for black people were teaching and preaching. Black high schools in southern urban areas proliferated during this period. The availability of teaching pos itions supported by state education budgets drew more black students into HBCUs to qualify college graduates for teaching
59 positions. The interdependence between public high schools and HBCUs ensured a functioning educational system that survived despi te the inequities in funding and resources. In the segregated South, the ra te of expenditure per black pupil amounted to approximately one-fourth of the rate of expen diture per white pupil (Bowles and et al. 1971, 37). With the dissolution of the Freedmen s Bureau in 1870, northern missionary organizations took on the responsibility to continue to raise funds for HBCUs. After 1900, the secular philanthropic agencie s began to contribute as well. Some of these agencies included the G eneral Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Southern Education Board, the Julius Rosenwall Fund, the Phelps-Stokes Fund, and the Carnegie Foundation. Their funds went to private schools to help expand vocational and industrial training (Moss 1989). By 1930, the majority of HBCUs had dev eloped into full-fledged colleges. They had dropped non-academic courses, and many required incoming students to have high school diplomas in hand. In addition, by 1931, thirty-one colleges had received approval from the Am erican Medical Association to offer premedical courses, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) agreed to establish procedures for the accreditation of HB CUs (Quarles 1989). Yet with the Great Depression in the 1930s and American involvement in World War II, fi nancial support to HBCUs diminished and in the early 1940s pr ivate HBCUs faced a financial crisis (Roebuck and Murty 1993, 33). Dr. Frederick Patterson, the third president of Tuskegee Institute, urged black colleges to pool their resources and make a united appeal for assistance to the nation.
60 This resulted in the establishment of The United Negro College Fund (UNCF). In 1944, the UNCF started its first annual ca mpaign and with twenty-seven colleges in participation, raising $765,000. Students and al umni of the UNCF institutions were among the top leaders of the civil rights movement enhanc ing the efforts of the Fund greatly. Since its foundation, the UNCF has played a major support role in the financial stabilization of most private HBCUs. The money UNCF raises has always come from a variety of sources: private groups and indi viduals, corporations, small and mediumsized businesses, churches and HBCU alumni. Unfortunately, public HBCUs continued to struggle with more than their share of poorly trained teachers and administrators and operated with the most inadequate of resources. However, the peri od Desegregation, the fourth per iod of this history, would provide some much needed relief to bl ack institutions of higher learning. In 1954, the judicial ruling on the landmark case of Brown vs. the B oard of Education of Topeka, Kansas declared the principle of separate but equal unconstitutional. Significant desegregation in American society did not occur until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act empowered the U. S. Attorney General to bring lawsuits on behalf of black plaintiffs and prohibited, unde r Title VI, the spendi ng of federal funds (appropriated under the El ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965) in s egregated schools and colleges. In Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education (1969) the federal court ordered that all school segregat ion be ended immediately. Th is brought to a close the legal battles over the desegregation of s outhern schools that had lasted for half a century, from the years 1930-1980 (Synnott 1989).
61 The Higher Education Act of 1965 m ade basic education opportunity grants (BEOGs) and a variety of other financial aid programs availabl e to disadvantaged students, which greatly incr eased the number of minorit y enrollment in American colleges and universities. This legislatio n included Title III Strengthening Developing Institutions which was interpreted as a di rect intercession favoring HBCUs and as a federal commitment to the survival and enh ancement of them. The term developing institutions was incorporated into the l egislation in an apparent effort to avoid designating HBCUs as the primary recipients of the federal assist ance available in the funding. The areas eligible for government subs idies under this act were faculty and student exchanges, faculty improvement pr ograms, curriculum improvement, student services, a visiting scholars program, and adm inistrative improvements. The Higher Education Act of 1965 also identified t he fundable improvement techniques that institutions could utilize for exampl e, cooperative arrangements with established universities and membership in consorti um agreements (Thomas and McPartland 1984; Roebuck and Murty 1993, 44). Several factors in combination brought about widespr ead educational desegregation in the South: Federal courts civil rights rulings, black demonstrations, protests, and marches, federal troop presence threats to withdraw federal grants for education to white southern institutions and the tying of federal funding to nondiscriminatory practices bot h grant and loan programs. As it was with the second Morrill Act of 1890, federal law in combinat ion with federal dollars produced results. Because the proportion of black students enrolled at non-HBCUs was, and still
62 is, higher than the proportion of white students enr olled at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, desegregation for the most part has had a great impact on the racial makeup of student bodies at non-HBCUs. It should be noted that during much of the desegregation era HBCUs, as a group, coped wit h declines in enrollment (Roebuck and Murty 1993, 41). And in the eyes of some this appeared to diminish the original purpose of HBCUs. Nevertheless, HBCUs have continued to hold their collective importance to black Americans and still st ruggle for social, economic and political advancement. From the landmark Brown vs. the Board of Education ru ling, historically black colleges and universities did gain some bene fits, like funding for infrastructure improvements and increased financial aid for students. Also duri ng this period, the federal government and privat e philanthropic organizations commissioned fact-finding studies to gain more knowledge about black colleges with regards to physical plants and infrastructure, curricula, student and faculty compositions, and their financial frameworks. These studies were under taken to develop recommendations for strengthening these colleges. The findings of these studies dramatized HBCUs institutional challenges and outlined and validated the government support needed. These findings served as a basis for government al funding in the late sixties and early seventies (Thompson 1973). The goals in the period were to remove t he racially identifiable symbols in order to encourage integration and to stimulate the assimilation of black students into predominately white schools. The logical co nclusion of this policy is the possible extinction of HBCUs through lack of need. This was a possibility not considered by
63 many, yet it did draw the attention of so me (Myers 1987). Efforts to enroll larger numbers of white students in HBCUs during the desegregation period were unsuccessful. Though white students were adm itted into HBCUs many did not feel welcomed there (Hacker 1992, 157-58). HB CUs have always accepted white students, yet they do not actively re cruit them. Nevertheless ther e are a handful of HBCUs with substantial, if not majority populations co mposed of white students (Bowles and et al. 1971; Hacker 1992). A number of events took place in t he late 1970s and 1980s that represented a shift in American educational policy from the strict integrat ion of colleges and universities to the encouragement of racially identifiable black institutions as a dimension of pluralistic system of hi gher education (Roebuck and Murty 1993). HBCUs were preserved and strengthened by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia when it directed the Office for Civil Rights to develop guidelines for states that prevented the burden of desegr egation from disproportionately falling on black institutions. The persistent under representation of bla ck Americans in most policymaking, managerial, and profe ssional realms (which requi red a college degree) coupled with the fact that HBCUs are (and had been) graduating professionals at disproportional rate to their numbers made a strong case for the need to enhance all HBCUs. Also on mainstream campuses across t he country during the 19 70s and 1980s black students were facing increasing difficultie s, many of which were cultural (Hacker 1992). The result was an increase in enrol lments at HBCUs. The federal government, through all three branches, reinforced HBCU acceptability and viability. The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the use of race-s pecific solutions to address the historical
64 effects of segregation. This fundamentally clarified as constitutional special assistance to historically black colleges and universities (Roebuck and Murty 1993). The Modern Period begins from 1975 to the present. At the end of segregation, HBCUs faced serious dilemmas. Declining enrollm ents, potential mergers, and financial losses have hurt the usage of HBCUs. However, enrollments at HBCUs increased by 25% between 1986 and 1994, but black colleges still face numerous challenges They receive far less funding from both the private and public sector t han their white counterparts. For example, in 1960, the combined endowment of HBCUs was less than the endowment of Northwestern University alone. Also, Howard Univer sity, one of the four black organizations (educational or otherwise) that receive t he most charitable donations, only has an endowment of $152 million, a piddling amount co mpared to Harvard Universitys $7.02 billion. In addition, in Texas, the stat e government gives predom inantly white public institutions $14,000 per student, while HBCUs get only $11,000. According to NAFEO, white enrollment at black HBCUs has climbed significantly. From 1990 to 1998, the overall number of whites at historically black colleges increased by 16%, and at 12 black colleges, white students now comprise between 19% and 49% of the student body. African Am ericans are now minorities at three historically black colleges Bluefield State College, West Virgin ia State College, and Li ncoln University in Missouri. Todays African-American students c an attend college anywhere that their grades, talents, and interests will take them. Increasingly, they are looking at HBCUs because they want the unique experience that only such institutions offer. In fact, the
65 last few years have seen resurgence in HBCU enrollment. Many incoming students consider HBCUs not so much because of raci al issues, but because they want to share in their cultural heritage with students like themselves. Some students come from families where several generations are HBCU graduates, which is often a big incentive for young people who want to experience and HBCU for themselves. Another primary motivation for students is the environmental a ccess to people of their own culture who were successful in their fiel ds. On a more personal level, students like the family closeness that HBCUs give. In addition, t he connection that students make with their professors is part of the ext ensive mentoring facilitated by HB CUs. This is a factor in the high percentage of HBCU gr aduates who go on for their doctorates. Students see role models all around them and know that faculty members will assist them to get internships and prepare them for career s (Jencks and Riesman 1968; Jones 1993; Hoffman and et al. 1992; Roebuck and Murty 1993). Federal Policies In the 1973, the feder al government established the Re search Infrastructure Grant for American Colleges and Universities. However, HBCUs were not included among the classes of institutions given funding access. To compensate for the omission, President Nixon mandated the fi rst executive order granting a preferential status in the federal sector to some cl asses of those omitted. There have been a number of important federal policies that have affe cted HBCUs since Nixons mandate. In Executive Order 12320, Presi dent Reagan focused on specifically focused HBCUs. This presidential action basically reauthor ized the Higher Education Act of 1986. U.S. Congress passed the Historically Black Coll ege Act as Part B of Title III. This act
66 authorizes $100 million exclusively for HBCUs Congress approved $50.7 million in the 1987 fiscal year, with at least $350,000 allocat ed to each eligible institution. April 28 1989, President George H. Bush, in Executive Order 12677 called for the establishment within the D epartment of Education an advisory commission (the Presidents Board of Advisors on HBCUs) to oversee the annual development of a national program designed to increase the participation of HBCUs in federally sponsored initiatives and provide advice on how to increase private sector participation in strengthening black colleges and universities. Special emphasis was to be made on providing technical, strategic, and development advice to bla ck institutions, with the goal of ensuring the long-term viability (Federal Register 1989; Roebuck and Murty 1993). Critics have pointed out that under both Reagan and Bush administrations federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department Of Health and Human Services could have offered more substantial assistance (Blumenstyle 1989). Seemingly in response to such criticism, the Bush administration altered its approach by categor izing HBCUs according to their missions and programs (Foxworth 1995). The goal here was to help federal agencies better identify schools with interests and resources compatible to t heir own, thus strengthening and building relationships. Private foundations were also expected to benefit from such a classification system. However, HBCU officials at some institutions were quite unhappy with the system, believing it would further distance ri cher HBCUs from thei r poorer counterparts (Jaschik 1991).
67 Significantly, President Clinton gave his executive order some teeth by requesting its oversight by the Office of Management and Budget. A utilization plan has been developed by each federal agency that features a percentage of its budget allocated to HBCU funding related to science and technology issues. Each plan operates under a goal-based system in which comp liance is rewarded. This preferential status in the federal sector has increased HBCUs attractiveness in the private sector (Foxworth 1995). The More Recent Initiatives On February 12, 2002 President George W. Bush signed Executive order 13256 establishing his White House Initiative on HBCUs and with it an appointed board of advisors, housed in the Department of Educ ations Office of the Secretary. This initiative provides staff and support fo r the advisory board and a ssists the secretary as the liaison between the executive branch and the HBCUs. His initiative also works with some 20 federal agencies to increase the ability of black colleges and universities to compete successfully for federal grants, c ontracts and federally sp onsored programs. President Bushs FY 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Education included more than $224 million for HBCUs. This is an in crease in funding for $10.7 million a five per cent increase over 2003 funding leve ls. This would result in an estimated average award of more than $2 million each for almost 100 eligible HBCUs. This will help the schools strengthen infrastructure and improve financial stability, supporting activities such as construction, student services and community relations (NSF 2007, 07-326).
68 Competition and Perceptions Re lated to Research and HBCUs The National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education has recognized 109 educational institutions to be hist orically black colleges and universities. Eighty-nine of them are four-year institutions. This is 4% of the 2,241 four-year colleges and universities in the country. Among t he four-year HBCUs, 61 of them have been identified as research-performi ng institutions (NSF 1998c). Most of these schools are relatively small institutions, with considerab ly fewer faculty members and less research space than at most mainstream institutions. Like their counterparts, however, black institutions are most likely to have S&E research space committed to activities concentrating in the fields of life and physical sciences (NSF 1994a). Grants for and projects involving highprofile or highly s ensitive scientific research are rarely awarded to black inst itutions because of the belief that black institutions lack the expertise to perform the critical resear ch. Historically black colleges and universities are often in a situation where the desired outcome is unattainable because a predetermined body of beliefs prev ents the outcome (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 1997). Seemingly caught in a catch 22, what does qualify as a research institution? Among the 2,241 four-year colleges and unive rsities in the United States only 126 of these are classified as Research I or Research II institutions by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Carnegie has developed a classification or typology system, not a ranking. In the mi nds of many, it may be that the Carnegie system serves as a ranking of the quality, potent ial, or worth of academ ic institutions.
69 If this becomes, or already is, the prevailin g belief, HBCUs are possibly fighting a no-win situation, considering there is only one bl ack university classified as a research institution Howard University. Found in Tables B-10 and B-11 in the Appendix are the current classification the HBCUs this study, as well as and their classifications in 2000. Given the technological imperativ e that is part of the global economy requiring nations for economic survival and growth to harness the full range of their own resources and utilize human capital wherever it can be f ound, the question of what qualifies as a research institution is a valid one. T he presence of cultural distance between individuals and groups can be a significant factor in the inability of different parties to achieve successful collaboration or technology tr ansfer (Gertler 1995). It is also evident that an appreciation of technical culture is present when and where collaborative efforts are successful. We have recent empi rical evidence of successful collaborative efforts in foreign-affiliated R&D labs here in the U.S. (Florida 1997). A technical culture is believed to ex ist in places where technology-oriented educational systems have produced a shared va lue system between interacting parties (Sweeney 1991). With such a culture, a common language exists between the users and producers of technology, which aids in t he transmission of information, capabilities and operations (Lundvall 1988). Not all research-performing HBCUs can reflect sufficient aspects of technical culture to rea listically enter into collaborations and funding competition with established main stream universities. Howe ver, there are some, never considered, who can. The undergraduate origins of recent S&E doct orate recipients reveal that there is a nurturing environment within HBCUs valuable to the S&T enterprise. In the late
70 1970s over 40% of black S&E doctorate reci pients received their baccalaureate degrees from HBCUs. This percentage fell to 25% in the first part of t he 1990s before increasing to about 33% in 2006. During the same period (1977-2006), the share of blacks receiving bachelors degrees from HBCUs fell from 36% to 21% (NSF 2008, 08-319). Of the 1,855 African-Americans who earned Ph.D.s in the sciences and engineering (S&E) between the years 1991 and 1995, 27% were graduates of HBCUs. Science and engineering bachel ors degrees are awarded by 81 HBCUs, most of which are classified as masters or baccalaureate institutions. Th is figure of 27% is roughly equivalent to all black college graduates who earn their degrees at HBCUs, which enroll only 17% of all black college students nation wide, but awarded 44% of all bachelors degrees in the sciences that went to black students in 1990 (NSF 2001). Non-HBCU (of all types) and HBCUs are been the baccalaureate-origin institutions of black S&E doctorate degree reci pients. The yield rati os of all of these types of institutions generally increas ed between 1986 and the late 1990s, reaching their peak in 1999 or 2000, and have generally declined since then (NSF 2008, 08-319). Chapter Summary In 1965 the U.S. Congress formally desig nated as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) those institut ions that were founded before 1964 whose principal mission was the education of Black Americans. Most of these schools were founded immediately before the Civil War or in the decades afterwards by Christian churches, many of them funded th rough the Freedmans Bureau and private philanthropy.
71 Today, according to the Department of Education, there are 104 federally designated HBCUs, which are eligible to re ceive federal money through Title III of the Higher Education Act. A number of just ifications have been echoed in defense of HBCUs. Three of the most sa lient are the following: 1) HB CUs provide a more socially cohesive environment for mi nority students; 2) they ar e remarkably successful at preparing students for leadership roles in their community and the greater society; and 3) they successfully prepare st udents for the job market, particu larly in the fields of the hard sciences and engineering. The history of HBCUs has been one of trials, tribulations, perseverance and victory. From hardship to success, to still finding its purpose in todays society, the life of HBCUs may be best understood within a broad historical cont ext. It can be divided into five periods of growth: the Antebe llum Period, the Post-bellum Period, the Separate but Equal Period, the Desegregation Period, and lastly, the Modern Period. The third period that describes the growth of HBCUs is considered the Separate but Equal Period lasting from 1896 to 1953. Over two-thirds of the U.S. black population still resided in the South during this time livi ng under the separate but equal 1896 federal court decision in Plessy vs. Fergus on. This separation was tantamount to segregation and the under-funding of both priv ate and public HBCUs. Many public schools were under the financial control of wh ites who believed blacks were inferior (Goodenow 1989). The laws of segregation demanded each to stay with its own, regardless of the imbalance in res ources (Jencks and Reisman 1968; Roebuck and Murty 1993). Legalized segregation led to an increased pattern of under-funding for
72 black education. Unlike the private HB CUs, public HBCUs were dependent on state governments for support. This coincided with the vast upgrading of white public school facilities and programs in the South spawned by white pop ulist politicians. Black public HBCUs received inadequate and unequal fundi ng from state treasuries, from federal land-grant provisions, and other federal sources. Ho wever, the period Desegregation, the fourth period of this history, woul d provide some much needed relie f to black institutions of higher learning. Several factors in combination brought about widespr ead educational desegregation in the South: Federal courts civil rights rulings, black protests, demonstrations, and marches, federal troop pr esence, threats to withdraw federal grants for education to white southern instit utions, and the tying of federal funding to nondiscriminatory practices bot h grant and loan programs. As it was with the second Morrill Act of 1890, federal law in combinatio n with federal dollars produced significant results (Thomas and McPartland 1984; Roebuck and Murty 1993). A number of events took place in the late 1970s and 1980s t hat represented a shift in American educational policy from the strict integrat ion of universities and colleges to the encouragement of racially identifiable black institutions as a dimension of pluralistic system of higher education. The Modern Period begins from 1975 to t he present. At the end of segregation, HBCUs faced serious dilemmas. Declining enr ollments, potential mergers, and financial losses have hurt the usage of HBCUs; nevert heless enrollment at HBCUs did increase by 25% between 1986 and 1994, but black colle ges still face numerous challenges.
73 The undergraduate origins of recent S&E doctor ate recipients reveal that there is a nurturing environment within HBCUs va luable to the S&T enterprise. In the late 1970s over 40% of black S&E doctorate recipients received their baccalaureate degrees from HBCUs. This percent age fell to 25% in t he first part of the 1990s before increasing to about 33% in 2006. During the same period (1977-2006), the share of blacks receiving bachelors degrees from HBCUs fell from 36% to 21%. A series of presidential ex ecutive orders starting with Pr esident Nixon in 1973 have been implemented by the feder al government to compens ate for the omission of HBCUs in the Research Infrastructure Grant for American colleges and universities. These executive orders grant pr eferential status and incentives in the federal sector to agencies that initiate science and technology partnerships and development programs with and through HBCUs.
78 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN The Restated Purpose & Goals of this Study The primary purpose of this study is to i dentify some of the mo st critical factors that influence science and technology (S&T) funding of HBCUs. A secondary purpose is to determine how these factors impact and shape relationships that affect S&T funding of HBCUs. It is hoped t hat the findings of this study can be presented as useful recommendations to support policies and initiatives for the enhancement of S&T capabilities at HBCUs and will support realistic expectations between funders and their recipients, which should lead to better relations between academic institutions and funding sources. Choice of Method and Variables This study is an investigation of rela tionships among factors. Multiple regression analysis has been chosen for this study because it provides a straightforward means of dealing with multiple relationships simu ltaneously while prov iding the expected statistical efficiency. It is statistically expressed as: Y1 = X1 + X2 + X3 + + Xn, where Y represents the dependent vari able and X represents the independent variables. Multivariate techniques have been employed and multivariate analysis is used for hypotheses testing. This method ha s the ability to assess the relationships explored in this study. Area of Study, Sample Size, and Time Frame of Study This study looks at 57 black colleges and universities all are located in the mainland of the United States. The sample population of 57 is dr awn from a group of 493
79 colleges and universities providing data to a National Science Foundation (NSF) parent survey regarding their research activities This group of 493 includes HBCUs and nonHBCUs of all types each performing R&D acti vities and receiving R&D funding from outside sources. Only those HBCUs offe ring bachelor degrees or higher, and providing enough relevant information in the NSF parent su rvey were selected. Ultimately, this offered a sample size of 60 academic instituti ons, from a possible total of sixty-five black schools that responded to the survey. To highlight t he role of baccalaureate and pos tbaccalaureate degree granting institutions, the sample popul ation excludes all Associate of Arts colleges engaged in research activities. Because a suffici ent amount of data was unavailable for the University of the Virgin Islands, Selma Co llege, and Rust College, these institutions were dropped from the st udy, reducing the original sample si ze of 60 institutions to 57. A point needs to be made here about Southern University. NSF data reporting counts Southern University and A&M College (at Baton Rouge) as all campuses. Therefore Southern University New Orlean s and Southern University Shreveport are not counted as separate HBCUs in this study. The time period of FY 2000 is import ant as the focus of this study because it represent the start of an im portant shift in research performance roles between academia and industry. By 2000, there wa s a decline in the percentage of basic research being performed by academia and a rise in industrys percentage of basic research performance. Also in FY 2000 two federal agencies, the Na tional Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administra tion (NASA), made character of work
80 reclassifications that affect ed funding flows in academia. The National Institutes of Health classified all of its development acti vities as research. NASA reclassified and transferred funding for space station resear ch and space research from R&D to R&D plant. HBCUs, non-HBCU doctorate granting institutions, and non-HBCU masters institutions all produced their highest yiel ds of black science and engineering doctorate recipients as baccalaureate origin in stitutions, in the years 1999 and 2000. Since those peak years these three types of institutions have seen a general decline (NSF 2008, 08-319). Whatever strengths and /or weaknesses HBCUs represent can be studied at a period when research and developm ent funding was relatively more stable than now as all American colle ges and universities find themse lves in an era of everescalating competition for research dollars within academia and with industry. Variables in this Study There is one dependent va riable: total R&D Expenditures from outside sources. For the sake of brevity, this variable is refe rred to, at times, as RDEXP. Research and development expenditures are all funds spent for activities specially organized to produce research outcomes and commissioned by an agency external to the institution. As stated above, expenditure totals are derived from combini ng separately budgeted expenditures from four cat egories. The category of inst itutional funds (internally generated) are intentionally omitt ed to emphasize this studys focus on external funding. There are 16 independent vari ables employed in this study, each was suspected of having some effect on research expenditu res from outside sources to historically black colleges and universities. They c an be grouped into three categories: geographic
81 variables, economic variables, and institutiona l variables. The raw data of each of these variables has been made available in tables in Appendix B. There are four geographic variables. Metr opolitan Statistical Area Size (MSA) is used to provide a demographic pi cture of the size of wher e HBCUs are located. MSA size provides a means to compare and contra st location, place, region, and factors of geographic movement. Populatio n sizes where HBCUs are located provide a context to help explain what is likely or possible due to the advantages of location, place, and the mobility of people and ideas. Capital City Home Location of an HBCU can be an advantage that provides greater access that reinforces political and economic ties critical to academic institutions. Physical proximity is believed to do more than decrease distance. It is believed to increase access to resources and decision makers. Exposure through physical proximity could also be a factor in the formation of new connections with influential institutions and individuals. The question of quantity of academ ic institution in a give n city or state being an influencing factor on funding has been addressed with the sele ction of these last two geographic indicators. Others were tested but with the help of the ec onomic indicators used in this study, the following two where determined to be the best. Total # of HBCUs in the State is employed to determine if the number of HBCUs in a region, in this case the state, affe ct funding amounts to a HBCU individually. Total # of Research Class Non-HBCUs in the same MSA as HBCUs is an indicator used to help determine the effects of physical proximity, greater exposure, resource concentration, size and the sharin g of ideas and people that connections and
82 easier mobility make possible. I believe that these four geographic variables in a broad sense work well together to help us examine funding relationships. There are four economic variables, all re flecting state level economic conditions. Legislative activity, governmental funding, policy decisions, and data collection often reflects fiscal decisions through the adminis trative boundaries of th e state, therefore economic variables on the state leve l seems most appropriate for use. Personal Income (per capita) is a standard means to compare and contrast relative economic health and wealth of regi ons. The effects of urbanization, local and regional development, and economic activity scientific, technological, and otherwise can be reflected partially through this indicator. State Higher Education Current Fund Expenditures total is a more specific indicator of the economic investment the state makes to colleges and universities, and hopefully to be a very telling one, considerin g it is expenditure, as is our dependent variable. HBCU current fund expenditure s were originally considered as an independent variable candidate. However it was eliminated as due to its effect on the other variables in this study. State R&D Concentration captures the in fluence of total state R&D performance and gross state product This indicator is one of two variabl es tied directly to the work of research and development activities. State Academic R&D Performanc e is the other indicator. This indicator reflects the influence of research & development perfo rmance in the specific sphere we have selected our sample population. Eight of the indicators in this study ar e categorized as institutional variables.
83 The decision to include more variables in this category than the other groups is based on the belief that institutional factors are perhaps some of the most important influencers in the acquisition of R&D funding. Control of Institution. Whether an HBCU is administrat ively controlled publicly or privately could be an important factor. Considering our samp le population is comprised of schools that are a mix of small, very small, medium-sized, and relatively large institutions. It includes comparatively we ll run and not-so-well run institutions, landgrant universities, small li beral-arts colleges, two medical colleges and one research extensive university, the Control of Institution could be an insightful indicator. Total Enrollment. The size of the HBCU tell us something about what is expected, required, and demanded in the way of resources, and of course, what may be expected in the way of output. Therefore, Total Enrollment was a logical choice as an institutional variable. It is the supply side of an equation that has demand and expectations on the other side the expectat ion of education that leads to successful matriculation. Total # of Degrees Conferred and Total # of Doctorate Degree s Conferred. As discussed in chapter 3, HBCUs have done re markable job through out the history of American education in provid ing baccalaureate opportuniti es to students of color and been sources of baccalaureate-origin for blacks earning doctorate degrees in science and engineering fields. Because the ultimate pr oduction measure of in stitution of higher learning is the awarding of degrees, the variables of Total # of Degrees Conferred and Total # of Doctorate Degrees Conferred are had to be a part of the institutional picture of each HBCU, and the schools as a group.
84 Graduation Ratio follows as a reasonabl e measure linking input to output, enrollment to successful matriculation. Library Holdings and Faculty / Student Rati o are two indicators that reflect any academic institutions need to rely on key support resources human and material to fulfill its mission and meet its goals. Land-Grant Status for university or co llege embodies and symbolizes a set of political and economic ties and a set of res ponsibilities that possibly have an effect on R&D funding to that institution. Because of this, and the fact that several of the more prominent HBCUs in this study hold this designation, Land-Grant St atus has included among the group of instituti onal indicators. Data Collect ion Method & Sources The National Science Foundations Surv ey of Scientific and Engineering Expenditures at Universities and Colleges (R&D Expenditures) is the primary data source for the dependent variabl e. Developed and administ ered as an instrument to assess trends in R&D expenditures, this survey is completed by institutional representatives at each college and university. To increase measurement accuracy, the survey requests institutions to include in dustry R&D funding received in the form of grants and contracts from pr ofit-making entities. Surv ey data did not provide information on funding for research fr om corporate foundations, endowments or fellowships, and through unrestrict ed accounts (NSF 1995, 29-31). The data source of the dependent variable was the National Science Foundations report on Academic R&D expenditures FY 2000. Data collection for the dependent variable involved recording the totals of separately budgeted R&D expenditures from
85 four categories each repres enting outside funding source, and adding the totals from the relevant categories. The categorie s are: federal gover nment, state and local government, industry, and all other sources which are largely awards for non-profit foundations and voluntary health agencies. The omitted expenditure category of course was institutional funds. A Nati onal Science Foundation description of each category is found in Appendix C. Data sources for the independent variables dat a are gathered largely from secondary sources federal and state agency documents and reports available to the public. Most of the data for the variables was collected from bound print publications and the rest from the inter net. When figures were not available federal and state agency published documents and r eports, were sought primar y sources. The schools were contacted directly usually by phone. In a few instances no data, not even estimates, were available. Of the independent variabl es, the economic ones, were gathered as follows: Science and Engineering State Profiles: 2002, an NSF publication, is the source of statewide number of science and engineer ing (S&E) doctorate degrees awarded, state total R&D performance, statewide academic R&D per formance, statewide industry R&D performance, state higher educat ion current fund expenditure s, gross state product and personal income per capita on the state le vel. State R&D concentration data was collected from the NSF/SRS publication, Na tional Patterns of R&D Resources 2002. An added source for income data (per c apita) was the State and Metropolitan Data Book 2002-03: A Statistical Abstract Supplement.
86 The data sources for t he institutional vari ables are as follows. Student figures required to calculate graduation ratios and to determine enrollment size, and the number of degrees confe rred both doctorate and total were taken from the U.S. Department of Educations Digest of Educ ation Statistics, 2001. HBCU current fund expenditures data also comes from the sa me Digest of Education Statistics, 2001. Another source for the figures citing degree production are special reports published in Black Issues in Higher Education (July 10th 2002 and 2002a). Library holdings for each HBCU are sourced from the U.S. Department of Educat ion IPEDS Academic Library Survey, 2001. Library category totals were aggregated for each educat ional institution. Graduation ratios were self-calculated fr om total student enro llment figures and graduate totals. The formula is (total number of students graduat ing over the total number of students enrolled.) To create faculty/st udent ratios, faculty totals per institution were collected from several sources: the College and Universi ty Personnel Association, the American Association of University Profe ssors, and the College Handbook 2002 39th edition, published by the College Entrance Board Examination. Facult y/student ratios were selfcalculated from student enrollment figures and faculty totals. The College Handbook is also the data s ource for the instituti onal control status, as is the Classification Index of Colleges and Un iversities, developed and published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie classification for institutional type also is drawn from the index. Land-grant status was determined through reviewing the historic background pages on websites of the public HBCUs.
87 The sources for the geographic a nd demographic variables are as follows: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) was det ermined for population estimates by the Population Estimates Program, Population Di vision of the U.S. Bureau of Census, internet release date: December 2002. A va riety of maps provided the location, place, and regional information needed to determine the measurement of the other four geographic variables. Operationalizing the Variables Here, a restatement of the dependent and independent variables and how they are defined is provided. The dependent variable is measured in U.S. dollars. It is defined again as follows: TOTAL R&D EXPENDITURES. Dollars received (from external sources) for the purpose of research and development. Thirteen of the si xteen independent variables are measured quantitatively. There are three qualitative variables in the st udy: Capital City Home Location, Control of Institution, and Land-Grant Status. These three qualitat ive measures are coded using quantitative numbers to be put into the r egression analysis as dummy variables. Measurement codes are provided with their variables. METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA SIZE. The official population estimate determined by the United States Census Bureau. CAPITAL CITY HOME LOCATION. An HBCU located in its state capital. (no = 0, yes =1) THE NUMBER OF OTHER HBCUS IN STATE RECEIVING FEDERAL R&D FUNDS. TOTAL # OF RESEARCH CLASS NON-HBCUS WITHIN THE SAME MSA AS HBCUS PERSONAL INCOME (PER CAPITA). State income total di vided by state population. This figure was calculated by the data source. STATE HIGHER EDUCATION CURRENT FUND EXPENDITURES. Money spent to meet current operating costs for state higher education, including salaries wages, utilities, student
88 services, public services, research libraries, scholarships & fellowships, auxiliary enterprises, hospitals, and i ndependent operations. Loans, capital expenditures, and investments are excluded. STATE R&D CONCENTRATION. The R&D performance as a proportion of the gross state product. R&D performance is calculated in dollar amounts. STATE ACADEMIC R&D PERFORMANCE. R&D carried out by colleges and universities in the state. Performance is calculated in dollar amounts. CONTROL OF INSTITUTION. The nature of an academic institutions administrative control. (1 = private, 2 = public) Private institutions are designated 1 because the only research extensive HBCU in this study and the medical schools in this study are under pr ivate control. TOTAL ENROLLMENT. Total number of students registered in school in the academic year the beginning of fall semester 2000 to the end of summer semester 2001. TOTAL # OF DEGREES CONFERRED. Number at the bachelors and masters level within the specified academic year. TOTAL # OF DOCTORATE DEGREES CONFERRED. GRADUATION RATIO. The total number of students enrolled divided by the total number of graduat ed students. LIBRARY HOLDINGS. An aggregate index of all of the volumes held in book and media collections. This includes the number of book volumes, periodical subscriptions, and volumes bound. STUDENT / FACULTY RATIO. Number of students per one faculty member. Faculty includes full-time, part-time, and adjunct fa culty, but not teachi ng assistants. LAND-GRANT STATUS. Status granted by U. S. Congressional legislation with the 2nd Morrill Act of 1890. (0 = no, 1 = yes) The Chosen Statistical Techniques and their Goals Multiple regression analysis was used to test the effects of various geographic, demographic, economic, and institutional fact ors (i.e.), independent variables on R&D expenditures (the dependent vari able). As mutli-collinear relations are suspected amongst the independent variables, a stepwis e procedure was employed to sidestep the problem of statistical inefficiency in the testing of regre ssion coefficients.
89 Stepwise regression allowed for the inclusion of statistically relevant variables that explained the greatest share of variati on in the dependent variable, and excluded variables that were insignificant or co llinear. The models fo rmed by the stepwise procedures allow for the identification of the best predictors of the dependent variable, with variables added (incrementally) as long as their coefficients are shown to possess statistical significance. Variables ma y be dropped from the model should their predictive power fall to a non-significant level as other variables are added. Regression Analysis Presentation of Model Formation The establishment of a fitted model by way of regression analysis will start with a full model containing all 16 predictors. Yi = B0 + B1 Xi 1 + B2Xi 2 + B3Xi 3 + B4Xi 4 + B5Xi 5 + B6Xi 6 + B7Xi 7 + B8Xi 8 + B9Xi 9 + B10Xi 10 + B11Xi 11 + B12Xi 12 + B13Xi 13 + B14Xi 14 + B15Xi 15 + B16Xi 16 + e where: Yi = R&D Expenditures for the ith HBCU B0 = intercept (value of Yi given that all predictors = 0) B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 B16 = represents the infl uence of the predictors Xi 1 = Metropolitan St atistical Area (MSA) population estimate Xi 2 = Capital City Home Presence Xi 3 = # of other HBCUs in Stat e Receiving Federal R&D Funds Xi 4 = # of Research Class No n-HBCUs within the same MSA Xi 5 = Personal Income (per capita) Xi 6 = State R&D Concentration Xi 7 = State Higher Ed. Current Fund Expenditures Xi 8 = State Academic R&D Performance Xi 9 = Control of Institution Xi 10 = Total Enrollment
90 Xi 11 = Total # of Degrees Conferred Xi 12 = # of Doctorate Degrees Conferred Xi 13 = Library Holdings Xi 14 = Student / Faculty Ratio Xi 15 = Land-Grant Status Xi 16 = Graduation Ratio e = errors with the assumption of normal distribution (w/mean = 0 and variance = 2 I) Regression Diagnostics of the Fitted Model The diagnostics of a r egression generated fitted m odel relies heavily on an interpretation of the coeffi cient of determination or R2. The R2 is the proportion of variability in the data set that is accounted for by the model. It is offered to measure the proportion of the variance of the dependent variable about it s mean explained by the predictor variables. The modified measure of the coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) takes into account the number of independent variables included in the regression equation and the sample size. With sixteen independent variables and a sample size of fifty-seven, this statistic is not very re levant here because we do not need to make a comparison between equations with differ ent numbers of indepen dent variables or different sample sizes. Chapter Summary The purpose of this study is to identif y some of the critical factors that influence science and technology (S&T) funding of HB CUs in fiscal year 2000. A second purpose is to determine how said factors im pact and shape relationships that affect S&T funding of HBCUs. Schools were drawn from a group of 493 institut ions providing data to the National Science Foundation regardi ng their research activities.
91 Fifty-seven HBCUs for this study were identified and data collected from a major secondary source. Data sources for t he dependent and independent variables was gathered largely from sec ondary sources federal and state agency documents and reports available to the general public. For this study to investigate the re lationships between and within types of variables, regression analysis has been chos en. Regression analysis provides a straightforward means of dealing with multiple relationships simultaneously while providing the expected statistical efficien cy. The dependent variable is Total R&D Expenditures (from outside source s) a reflection of all funds s pent for activities specially organized to produce research outcomes and commissioned by an agency external to the HBCU. Sixteen independent variables are employ ed. Thirteen of them are quantitative in nature and will be measured as such. The three qualitative independent variables are coded as dummy variables an d will also be measur ed qualitatively. All variables in this study have been operationalized and prepared for data analysis. Data will be run in its raw form Both linear and stepwise regression analysis will be performed in this study. These proce sses will include all variables in order to devise a model (or models) were the least and most relevant variables are accounted for.
92 CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH ANALYSIS Research Question and T est Hypotheses Restated The purpose of this research is to exam ine the relationships that exist between suggested factors that affect acquisition of research and devel opment funding from outside sources to historically black coll eges and universities. The research question explored in this study is: What are the ma in factors that influence external funding received by HBCUs? Sixteen test hypotheses were employed. Ho1: Metropolitan statistical area size (MSA) has no effect on funding. Ha1: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) size affects funding. Ho2: State (or federal) capital hom e location has no effect on HBCU funding. Ha2: State (or federal) capital hom e location affects funding. Ho3: The number of other HBCUs in state re ceiving federal R&D funds has no effect on funding. Ha3: The number of other HBCUs in state rece iving federal R&D funds affects funding. Ho4: The number of research non-HBCUs in the same (MSA) with HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha4: The number of research non-HB CUs in the same (MSA) with HBCU affects funding. Ho5: Personal income level (per capi ta) has no effect on funding. Ha5: Personal income level (per capita) affects funding. Ho6: State R&D concentration has no effect on funding. Ha6: State R&D concentration affects funding. Ho7: State higher education current fund expenditu res have no effect on funding. Ha7: State higher education current f und expenditures a ffect funding. Ho8: State academic R&D performance has no effect funding. Ha8: State academic R&D performance affects funding.
93 Ho9: Control of institution has no effect on funding. Ha9: Control of institution affects funding. Ho10: The size of student enrollment has no effect on funding. Ha10: The size of student enro llment affects funding. Ho11: The total number of degrees conferred has no effect on funding. Ha11: The total number of degrees conferred affects funding. Ho12: The number of doctorate degrees conferred by a HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha12: The number of doctorate degrees conferred by a HBCU affects funding. Ho13: HBCU graduation ratios have no effect on funding. Ha13: HBCU graduation ratios affect funding. Ho14: The size of HBCU library holdings has no effect on its funding. Ha14: The size of HBCU library holdings affects funding. Ho15: HBCU student / faculty rati o have no effect on funding. Ha15: HBCU student / faculty ratio affects funding. Ho16: Land-grant status held by a HBCU has no effect on funding. Ha16: Land-grant status held by a HBCU affects funding. A stepwise regression model was used to ex plain variation in R&D expenditures, and the model with the highest c oefficient of determination (R2) and F values was chosen. That model yielded an R2 of .66 and an F-statis tic of 34.5, with three explanatory variables: (a) total number of degrees confe rred; (b) number of doctorate degrees conferred; and (c) number of research non-HBCUs in the metropolitan statistical area. These three explanatory variables account fo r 66% of the variations in R&D expenditures, with each being significant at the 95% confidence level (based on the results of the t-tests on their associated coefficients). Discussi on of the Final Model As discussed above in the research design, stepwise estimation is a selection process for finding the most influential par ameters parameters are statistically
94 expressed above as: B0, B1, B2, B3, B 4, B5, B 6, B16. The important determination of which independent variables highly correlate with the dependent variable yet to a low degree with other independent variables is r ealized thru the stepwise process. The sought incremental explanatory power of the predictor variables was found in the results from stepwise estimation. The fitted model provides the hig hest coefficient of determination (R2) possible, while containing the greatest number of pr edictor variables possible. R square represents the measure of the proportion of the vari ance of the dependent variable about its mean that is explained by its predictor variables. With a properly applied and estimated model, it is assumed that the higher the numerical value of R2, the greater the explanatory power of the r egression equation. Thus, the better will be the prediction of the dependent variable. Here is the interpretation of the fitted model: Yi = B0 + B18 Xi 18 + B19 Xi 19 + B5 Xi 5 Yi = 1149.667 + 7.143 Xi18 + 84.430 Xi19 + 574.831 Xi5 where: Yi = R&D Expenditures for the ith HBCU Xi 18 = Total # of Degrees Conferred Xi 19 = # of Doctorate Degr ees Conferred Xi5 = # of Research non-HBCUs in the MSA. We can now consider the above variables together in a way that possibly reveals their collective influence on R&D expenditures from outside sources. The beta coefficient for Xi18 and Xi19 suggest that for every degree conferred an additional $7.1 goes to R&D expenditures and for every addit ional doctorate degree conferred $84.4 is contributed to R&D expenditures. This impl ies that a doctoral degree conformation is 12 times as influential in terms of producing research and development expenditures in comparison to degree conformation (at the ba ccalaureate and masters levels).
95 The results suggest that degree-producing areas or programs tend to have the greatest ability to secure resear ch and development funding. The beta coefficient for Xi5 suggests that for every MSA non-HBCU there is an additional 574.8 dollars contributed to R&D ex penditures, once we ta ke into account the number of degrees confe rred. This is believed to be t he result of urban agglomeration and /or synergistic effects tied to geographic location. Academic institutions tend to be numerous and cluster in vibrant and / or dense urban corridors. Unanticipated Findings and Directions for Future Research There were some unanticipated findings in this study. Most unexpectedly, there were only three variables selected by the st epwise regression process. My assumption was that there as a sufficient number (16) an d type of variables (3) to generate a model with more elements. I antic ipated a model somewhere in the range of five or six elements. In hindsight, the sm all number of statistically si gnificant variables from the linear regression runs was evidence that the stepwise regressi on model would probably not contain many variables. The less than robust results of the regr ession analysis should be noted. There is a clearly observed low level of explained va riance among the coefficients and a general lack of statistical significance to report from the findings. Perhaps given the number of independent variables in the study and the ex pectation that more variables would have stronger influence regression results should be considered quite satisfactory. In further research on this topic, I believe that a stud y of this nature would benefit from a research design that includes a com ponent that creates indicators that would measure social networking factors from t he funding sources side of the dynamic.
96 The focus would be primarily on decision-ma king rationale by leading federal agencies that fund research and development in the ac ademic sphere. It may also possible to create a collaboration indicator that capt ures the degree and length of interaction between HBCUs and research non-HBCUs perfo rming joint research and development activities. In future research on this topic, a great er effort will be made to directly test other forms of proximity other than physical prox imity. Science and te chnology collaboration is encouraged thru network proximity and hierar chical proximity. The use of frequency counts and accessibility indices could pos sibly create successful measurement instruments to determine the impact of net work and proximity based on hierarchy. It was anticipated at the outset of this st udy that institutional factors would have some recognizable role in influencing R&D expe nditures. After corr elation analysis, the ability of total number of degrees conferred and doctorate degrees to make through to the final model stage was not surprising, an d with total degrees conferred it was expected. There was the ex pectation that perhaps one addi tional institutional factor, such as library holdings (with a correlation of .600) would find their way its way into the model. Yet upon further consideration I can see how the effect of degrees conferred can possibly outweigh many, if no t most, of the institutional variables considering what it represents the culmination of the educational process itse lf, with all the inputs taken into consideration. Only after correlation analysis reflected the basically weak r epresentation of the economic variables, did I consider the likelih ood that state-wide economic indicators are probably too broad in nature to effective tease out any direct economic influences tied to
97 R&D funding for HBCUs. The absence of econom ic variables in the model results thus was somewhat expected. A study of this type with sixteen in dependent variables may be less damaging than omission of variables. Yet the inclusio n of irrelevant variables does produce a form of specification errors. The inclusion of irre levant variables does not lead to bias in the estimation of the regression coefficients for t he relevant variables in the equation, but it may adversely affect the significance test of the coefficients of relevant variables (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991). There were variables considered not sele cted for this study. I had no impulse to include variables as an added means of securi ty or to satisfy to my curiosity. However, in hindsight, the formulation and testing of some interactive variables would have provided a better picture of the nature of the intera ctions between variables. Interactive variables would allow of slope and intercept shifting. Polynomials or combinations thereof could have been used to the analysis. The scatter-plots of the variables (Appendix A) hint that there may be a curvilinear relationship between some of the variables. The model used in this study lacks a control group. A comparison with non-HBCUs would have offered a useful means to enrich this study. Future research on this topic of HBCUs and R&D funding will include these additions and suggestions to the research design. All variables in this study support my initial theory and ideas about the factors that effect higher levels of R&D funding to HBCUs. With random measurement errors carefully avoided, an overestimation or under estimation of regression coefficients should be free of measurem ent error bias.
98 The statistically significant correlation of capital city home location (.366) with the dependent variable was somewhat expected to play a role in the development of the model. If only to perhaps to reflect some of the advantage that proximity and closer access to economic and political decision-make rs provide academic institutions. It is possible that some of this advantage is inde ed best reflected in the geographic variable selected for the model. The power of place is seen in th e uniqueness of environments that attract, retain and development human res ources. These are t he places where we find the institutions and stru ctures that are ge nerally better at m eeting contemporary human needs and wants. The Results of the Tested Hypotheses Based on our sample population, the following can be said about our tested hypotheses. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho1: Metropolitan statistical area size (MSA) has no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho2: State (or federal) capi tal home location has no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho3: The number of HBCUs within a state has no effect on HBCU funding. I reject the null hypothesis. Ho4: The number of non-HBCUs in the sa me (MSA) with HBCU has no effect on funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho5: Personal income level (per capi ta) has no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho6: State R&D concentration has no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho7: State higher education curr ent fund expenditures have no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho8: State academic R&D performanc e has no effect HBCU funding.
99 I accept the null hypothesis. Ho9: Control of institution has no effect on HBCU funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho10: The size of student enrollment has no effect on HBCU funding. I reject the null hypothesis. Ho11: The total number of degrees confe rred has no effect on HBCU funding. I reject the null hypothesis. Ho12: The number of doctorate degrees confe rred by a HBCU has no effect on its funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho13: The size of HBCUs library hol dings has no effect on its funding. I reject the null hypothesis. Ho14: A HBCUs student / faculty ra tio has no effect on its funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho15: Land-grant status held by a HBCU has no effect on funding. I accept the null hypothesis. Ho16: A HBCUs graduation ratio has no effect on its funding. The two research questions were explor ed in this study. The first question is: What are some of the key fa ctors that influence R&D funding received by HBCUs from outside sources? This study finds that the combination of number of degrees conferred, number of doctorate degrees conferred, and number of research non-HBCUs in the same metro area are the best predictors of influence on R&D expenditures to historically black colle ges and universities. These factors combined have great credi bility. Largely because they seem embody relationships that are able to maximi ze the educational experience and take it to its farthest ends (i.e.), degrees conferred and degrees earned. Relationships that seem to have the greatest credibility are t hose relationships that are able to take advantage of environments comparat ively high levels of capacit y, usually but not in all
100 cases, large highly urbanized areas were there is strong resource concentration economic, political, and intellectual levels. In short, access and proximity to resourcerich places enhance institutional outcomes for HBCUs. Chapter Summary A stepwise regression model was used to explain variation in R&D expenditures, and the model with the highest c oefficient of determination (R2) and F values was chosen. That model yielded an R2 of .66 and an F-statis tic of 34.5, with three explanatory variables: (a) total number of degrees confe rred; (b) number of doctorate degrees conferred; and (c) number of research non-HBCUs in the metropolitan statistical area. These three explanatory variables account fo r 66% of the variations in research and development expenditures, with each being significant at the 95% confidence level (based on the results of t he t-tests on their associated coefficients). The beta coefficients for Xi18 and Xi19 suggest that for every degree conferred an additional $7.1 goes to R&D expenditures and for every additi onal doctorate degree conferred $84.4 is contributed to R&D expenditures. This implies that a doctoral degree conf ormation is 12 times as influential in terms of producing research and development expenditures in comparison to degree conformation (at the baccalaureate and master s levels). The results suggest that degree-producing areas or pr ograms tend to have the greatest ability to secure research and development funding. The beta coefficient for Xi5 suggests that for every MSA non-HBCU there is an additional 574.8 dollars contributed to R&D ex penditures, once we ta ke into account the number of degrees confe rred. This is believed to be the result of urban agglomeration
101 and/or synergistic effects tied to geographic loca tion. Academic institutions tend to be numerous and cluster in vibrant and/or dense urban corridors. Table 5-1. Descriptive Statis tics: Stepwise Regression Model Unstandard.Beta Coefficients Standard Error t Significance Level 1 (constant) RDEXP -717.842 8.814 945.275 1.268 -.759 6.952 .451 .000 2 (constant) # of Degrees Conferred # of Doctorate Degrees -663.018 7.386 90.743 793.699 1.104 18.675 -.835 6.689 4.859 .407 .000 .000 3 (constant) # of Degrees Conferred # of Doctorate Degrees # of MSA Non-HBCUs -1149.667 7.143 84.430 574.831 797.407 1.072 18.255 260.663 -1.442 6.665 4.625 2.205 .155 .000 .000 .032 Model 3: R2 = .666 Adj. R2 = .647 Sig. F Change .032 ANOVA Sig. .000 Collinearity Tolerances: Total #of Degrees Conferred .919 # of Doctorate Degrees Conferred .906 # of Research NonHBCUs in MSA.954 _______________________________________________________________________________________
102 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Further Discussion of Research Findings and Conclusions As discussed in earlier chapters, HB CUs have had notable and continued success in the granting of degrees of higher learning. Successful matriculation is part of their collective mission and collective function In academia and to the world at large, arguably the most important and tangible measure of a colle ge or universitys performance is the number of de grees conferred. Therefore it stands to reason that R&D funding sources, particularly the f ederal government and its agencies, are well aware of the collective and individual perform ance record of HBCUs over the years and have responded in some measure with funding to these institutions. This contention is supported by the va riables in our fitted model which account for 66% of the variations in R&D expenditures, with each being significant at the 95% confidence level. For every degree conferr ed an additional $7.1 goes to research and development expenditures and for every addit ional doctorate degree conferred $84.4 is contributed to research and development expenditures. The results suggest that degree-producing areas or pr ograms tend to have the greatest ability to secure research and development funding. For every research non-HBCU in the same metropolitan area as a HBCU there is an additional 574.8 dollars contributed to R&D expenditures, once we take into account the number of degrees confe rred. This is believed to be the result of urban agglomeration and/or synergistic effects tied to location. Ac ademic institutions tend to be numerous and cluster in vibrant and/or dense urban corridors.
103 This is supportive evidence that R&D funding sources recognize the role HBCUs play in the pipeline that feeds America s national science and technology workforce and contributes to the research and developmen t activities encouraged to achieve a range of goals. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the proportion of black doctorate degree earners who claim an HBCU as their bacca laureate-origin in stitution has been impressive. Like total number of degrees conferr ed at .690, the num ber of doctorate degrees conferred by HBCUs correlates with R&D expenditures at .573 the statistically significant value at the .01 le vel. All doctorate granting institutions, regardless of their designations, by function and mission play an integral role in the development and advancement of national sci entific and technol ogical prowess the United States relies on for economic gr owth and development when they produce advanced degree graduates. The economic and possible entrepr eneurial value of colleges and universities is enhanced by the production of new knowle dge creators from the most demanding academic programs. Academias abilit y to do so is directly attributable in part to R&D f unding from outside sources. HBCUs as a group, including the ones in this study, have a limited number doctorate degree granting institutions among their ranks. Doctorate degree programs exist at Master levels I & II institutions, but they are not as co mmonly found, or as varied, as in mainstream academic institut ions. Howard University, Clark Atlanta University, Meharry Medical College, and Morehouse School of Medicine would have been exceptions to the general rule. Less t han one fourth of the HB CUs in our sample population granted doctorate degrees in 200 0 and most HBCUs today maintain a
104 primary focus on undergraduate education, and a growing num ber of masters degree program options. Table B-10 is the Carnegie classification listings of HBCUs for 2000. With the third predictor in our model have a number of new and interesting things to consider. Counting the number of institut ions and locations related to the details of this variable, fundamentally we are explorin g an interaction that takes place between 22 HBCUs in our sample population and 23 research non-HBCUs located in 14 metropolitan areas (Table 6-1). There is a noticeable concentration of more than one HBCU and more than one research non-HBCUs as neighbors in several of the largest of the cities found in Table 6. 1. Many of the HBCUs that grant most the degrees (on the doctorate level and in total number) are found in locations where they have non-HBCUs as metro neighbors. Even when we consider institutions not in major urban areas, like Florida A&M University in Tallahassee, Florida with only one research non-HBCU in the MSA (Florida State) it is one of the HBCUs that granted the highest number of degrees in the year 2000. Florida A&M University granted 1,944 degrees in total 8 of them doctorates; this is second only to Howard University, lo cated in Washington D.C., granting a total of 2,172 degrees 121 of them doct orates. Note that Howard University has four nonHBCUs as metro neighbors. The six of top eight HBCU producers of graduates (Howard, FAMU, Tennessee State, Southern, North Carolina Central, and Prairie View) are universities in metro areas with research nonHBCUs. Nine of the fifteen black academic institut ions granting doctorate degrees in 2000 are located in metropolitan areas shared with research non-HBCUs. These schools generated the lions share (295) of the 349 doctorates granted in 2000. When we
105 consider the fact that Howa rd University (121 doctorates) in Washington, DC, Clark Atlanta University (28 doctorates) in At lanta, and Morehouse School of Medicine (48 doctorates) in Atlanta, are HBCUs t hat have as metro neighbors four research nonHBCUs, we can see the pervasive influence the combination our three predictors could have on explaining the presence of R&D funding. According to the research findings we can report that having a non-HBCU as an advantage is neighbor. Consider Meharry Medi cal School in Nashville, Tennessee. It has one research non-HBCU as a metro nei ghbor (Vanderbilt Univer sity), but Meharry Medical School granted 150 doctorates in 2000 and it also has fellow HBCU Tennessee State (conferring 1,468 degrees 33 of them doctorates) as a metro neighbor. This discussion has attempted to show academic institutions highlighted by our predictor variables in their relationships with each other and their general performance explain the validity of the predictor variables in our model. A reasonable start towards an explanation of research and development fundi ng received by HBCUs in this study has begun with this research. Implications and Recommendations The implications of the findings of this study could support the body of theoretical literature related to agglomerat ion, resource concentration, and the multiplier effects that spring from a critical mass of institutions, infrastructure, and human talent. The findings reported also have implications fo r further research studies. Studies with a small scale focus on the outcomes of institut ional strategy approaches taken by a single HBCU or a small group of HB CUs seeking greater levels of sponsored research could benefit from a broad study of this type. The implicatio ns for professional practice and
106 decision making are quite straight forwar d. The inputs and support mechanisms that enhance the matriculation process must be maintain the highest priority. The development of ma rketable undergraduate degree programs, leading to advanced degree programs at HB CUs and elsewhere, must be maintained as the highest of priorities. Existing HBCU doctorate programs and graduate programs deserve the fullest support and development. As mentioned in the introduction and again in this chapter, my contention is that factors of agglomeration, such as si ze, scope, access, proximity, resource concentration, urbanization, formal political and economic relationships, and regional development are relevant in answering t he research questions examined here. The findings of this study do support the economic attractiveness (some may say economic imperative) of very large ur ban areas, despite an acceptance of the null hypotheses for my first variable me tropolitan statistical area size. As it relates to historically black co lleges and universities, their options are naturally limited by the realit y of having to function, for t he most part, fr om their given fixed locations. Black academic institutions in the cities of Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, or Houston Texas have access, proximity advantages, and close collaboration opportuni ties that Mississippi State Univer sity in Itta Bena, Mississippi do not have, and can only dream of. Black academic institutions like Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University and Tennessee State Univ ersity located in capital cities coupled with their land-grant status have access, proximity advantages, and close collaboration options and opportunities West Virginia State University most likely will never see.
107 Recommendations can be made to HBCUs seeking to attract R&D funding in this times when academic institutions are expected to evolve in entrepreneurial universities. For those HBCUs that do not have the benef its of fixed location in larger more dynamic urban areas (and this is a good nu mber of the HBCUs in our sample population), the recommendations are to deve lop as many outreach initiatives as possible on the state, regional, national a nd international levels. Devote more resources to these initiatives while mainta ining priority commitments to high quality degree programs. In some ca ses, shared programs and fac ilities could be the solution to resource shortages. Isolating behavio rs and insular practices will doom HBCUs located in geographically distant and small urban and semi-rural areas. For those HBCUs that are the locations were connectivity or the potential for connectivity is high. The above recomm endations apply along with organizational and administrative commitment to implement st ate-of-the-art best practices, support and attract superior faculty and staff. Be willing to eliminate bureaucratic malaise and stagnation. Aggressively capitalize the uni que qualities and academic programs at your institution that are high degree producers. These things are very important in an urban competitive environment whet her people have access to other viable choices than your institution. Chapter Summary The findings of this study support the contention that prox imity (and subsequent access) to resource rich centers such as research non-HBCUs directly and indirectly positively affect HBCUs that are high in degree production. Some of these HBCUs have active doctorate degree programs fu rther enhancing the attraction of these
108 institutions. This combination of factors explains 66% of the influencing factors on research and development expenditures rece ived by the HBCUs in this study. Through the testing of these hypotheses we also have an opportunity to discover more about the role geographic themes in how they manifest a decentralized system of multiple institutions and agencies, multip le needs and expectations, interdependencies and economic pressures. The geographic themes of location, place, and region are particularly relevant to this study. The theme of location is signifi cant because it conceptualizes the power that fixed sites have to draw (o r not draw) specific human activities, and the opportunities and growth that may ultimately result. Pr oximity and access to multiple centers of knowledge creation and collaboration are of great benefit to HBCU communities. The theme of place clearly reflects in the ability of some locations to develop a critical mass of talent, ideas, specializations capital, institutions, infrastructure, and government support that reinforces much of the concentration of wealth and opportunity people seek. Unique human environments al one are not enough to attract research and development funding. Uniqueness coup led with dynamic activity can create synergy. Synergy can make geographic locations magnetic. Places where a technical culture is found, appreciated, expected, and supported will be a place where the right type of academic institution will be enhanced and collaboration is probably more likely. Considering the strati fied and concentrated patterns in R&D funding and R&D performance, the fact that fe w HBCUs are located in the top R&D performing states or high-tech regional belts offers us an opportuni ty to explore the role of region as a geographic theme. The challenges of regional economic development on a cross-state
109 and intra-state level have had there effect on HBCUs. The southern states, midwestern states and rural to semi-rural areas in the U.S. (where you find most HBCUs) have been in the economic shadows of t he more urbanized and tech-savvy northeastern and western regions of the country. Be cause of the realities of fixed location, HBCUs will have to be vital players in the best regional economic development strategies at work in their home areas. With this in mind, HBCUs would do we ll to commit to and keep at the forefront curriculum, programs, policie s, and practices that attr act students, faculty, and resources, making in-migration and pull factor s at the core of all they do. These aspects of the geographic theme of move ment historically black colleges and universities would be pleased to reflect.
110 Table 6-1. Research Non-HBCUs in Metro Areas with HBCUs, by Location _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ South Atlantic Region Metropolitan Statistical Area: Petersburg / Richmond, Virginia 1 Research Non HBCU Virgin ia Commonwealth University 1 HBCU Virginia State University Metropolitan Statistical Area: Wash ington, District of Columbia 4 Research Non-HBCUs Georgetown University John Hopkins Univ. George Washington UniversityUniv ersity of Maryland College Park 1 HBCU Howard University Metropolitan Statistical Area: Baltimore, Maryland 4 Research Non-HBCUs Georgetown Un iversity John Hopkins Univ. George Washington UniversityUniv ersity of Maryland College Park 2 HBCUs Coppin State Colle geMorgan State University Metropolitan Statistical Area: Columbia, South Carolina 1 Research Non-HBCU University of South Carolina 1 HBCU Benedict College Metropolitan Statistical Area: Ra leigh / Durham, North Carolina 3 Research Non-HBCUs Nort h Carolina State University Duke UniversityUniversity of North Carolina Chapel Hill 1 HBCU North Carolina Central University Metropolitan Statistical Ar ea: Atlanta, Georgia 4 Research Non-HCUs Georgia Inst itute of Technology Emory Univ. Georgia State UniversityInstitute of Paper of Science & Technology 5 HBCUs Clark Atlanta University Morehouse School of Medicine Morehouse College Morris Brown College Spelman College Metropolitan Statistical Area: Tallahassee, Florida 1 Research Non-HBCU Florida State University 1 HBCU Florida A&M University West South Central Region Metropolitan Statistical Area: Little Rock, Arkansas 1 Research Non-HBCU University of Arkansas Little Rock 1 HBCU Philander Smith College Metropolitan Statistical Ar ea: Houston, Texas 2 Research Non-HBCUs University of Houston Rice University 2 HBCUs Prairie View A&M University Texas Southern University Metropolitan Statistical Ar ea: New Orleans, Louisiana 1 Research Non-HBCU Tulane University 1 HBCU Dillard University
111 Table 6-1. Continued. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ West South Central Region Metropolitan Statistical Area: Baton Rogue, Louisiana 1 Research Non-HBCU Loui siana State University 2 HBCUs Southern University Xavier University Northeast Region Metropolitan Statistical Area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3 Research Non-HBCUs Temple Universi ty University of Delaware University of Pennsylvania 1 HBCU Lincoln University (PA) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
112 APPENDIX A Statistical Data Tables A-1 Descriptive Statistics: Linear Regression Mean, Standard Deviations, and Significance Levels 113 A-2 Descriptive Statistics: Linear Regression Model R2, Adjusted R2, Significant F Change, & ANOVA Significance 114 A-3 Correlation Results of Predi ctor Variables on the RDEXP 114 Histograms and Plots Stepwise Regression Histogram, Normal P-Plot, Scatterplot, and Partial Regression Plots 115 Linear Regression Histogram, No rmal P-Plot, Scatterplot, and Partial Regression Plots 118
113 Table A-1. Descriptive Stat istics: Linear Regression Variable N Mean Standard Deviation Significance Level RDEXP 56 4553.2321 5762.02390 .886 Metro. Stat. Area Size 56 165107.7 2140258.6340 .492 Capital City Location 56 .3571 .48349 .393 # of other HBCUs in State with Fed. R&D $ 56 5.9821 3.77788.560 # of Research NonHBCUs In the MSA 56 1.1964 1.81328.110 Personal Income (per capita) 56 27787.179 4239.76822 .355 State R&D Concentration 56 1.4291 .91336 .500 State Higher Ed. Current Fund Exp. 56 2930.0179 1972.19474 .391 State Academic R&D Expenditures 56 3792.1250 3292.84853 .377 Control of Institution 56 .6607 .47775 .094 Student Enrollment 56 3845.4643 2542.63185 .281 Total # of Degrees Conferred 56 598.0536 449.28547 .021* # of Doctorate Degrees Conferred 56 8.8036 26.56479 .024* Library Holdings 56 314531.71 358806.81088 .458 Student/Faculty Ratio 56 16.0714 5.29788 .109 Land-Grant Status 56 .3214 .47125 .053* Graduation Ratio 56 15.4613 3.85092 .839 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ p > .05 Note: Mean & standard deviation results in stepwise run (raw data) are the same as the above results.
128 APPENDIX B table Variable Data Tables page B-1 Number of Other HBCUs in St ate Receiving Federal R&D Funds: by State & Region: FY 2000 130 B-2 HBCUs, Location by State 131 B-3 Capital City Home Pres ence of HBCUs 132 B-4 Metropolitan Statistical Area Popu lation Size: 2000 133 B-5 Number of Doctorat e Degrees Conferred by HBCUs: FY 2000 135 B-6 HBCUs Total Student Enrollment, Total Number of Degrees Conferred, and Graduation Ratios: 1999 2000 136 B-7 HBCUs Student / Faculty Ratios: 1999 2000 138 B-8 HBCUs Library Holdings: 2000 2001 139 B-9 HBCUs by Carnegie Classification: 2000 141 B-10 HBCUs by Carnegie Classification: 2009 142 B-11 Personal Income, R&D Concentra tion, Higher Education Current Fund Expenditures, and Academic R&D Performance: by State: FY 2000 143 B-12 HBCU Research & Development Expenditures: FY 2000 144
144 APPENDIX C page A NSF Detailed Description of R&D Expenditures .145 Key Terms and Definitions ... ..146
145 A NSF Detailed Description of Separ ately Budgeted R&D Expenditures Separately budgeted research and develop ment (R&D) expenditures includes all funds expended for activities specifically organized to produce research outcomes and commissioned by an agency either external to the institution or separately budgeted by an organizational unit within the institut ion. Include research equipment purchased under research projects awards from current fund account s. Also include research funds for which an outside organization, educational or other, is sub -recipient. Exclude training grants, demonstration projects, c linical trials, and departmental research expenditures that ar e not separately budgeted. Also, ex clude any R&D expenditures in the fields of education, law, humanities, mu sic, the arts, physica l education, library science, as well as all other non-science fields. Allocate funding to the original sources whenever possible, as specified below. If this information is unknown, report the proximate funding source. a. Federal Government. Report awards for R&D (inc luding direct and reimbursed indirect costs) by all agencies of the Federal Government. b. State and local government. Include fund s for R&D (including direct and reimbursed indirect costs) for State, county, and municipal, or other local governments and their agencies. Include here State funds that sup port R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations. c. Industry. Include all awards for R&D (including direct and reimbursed indirect costs) from profit-making organization s, whether engaged in research production, distribution, or service. Do not include awards from nonprofit foundations financ ed by industry: these should be reported under All other sources. d. Institutional funds. Report funds, including related indirect costs, that your institution spent for R&D activities from the following un restricted sources: gener al purpose State or local government appropriations; general-purpose awards from industry, foundations, or other outside sources; tuition and fees; endowm ent income; gifts; and other institutional funds. e. All other sources. Include awards for R&D (including direct and reimbursed costs) from nonprofit foundations and voluntary health agencies as well as from all other sources not elsewhere classified. Funds fr om foundations that ar e affiliated with, or granted solely to your institution, should be included under institutional funds. Funds for R&D received from a health agency that is a unit of a State or local government should be reported under State and local gov ernments. Also include gifts from individuals that are restrict ed by the donor to research. Source: Academic Research & Development Expenditures FY 2000 (NSF 02-308). www.nsf.gov/statistics/rdexpenditures/
146 Key Terms and Definitions Agency A department or instrumentality of the U.S. government (see 31 USC 101). The federal agencies include the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS), the Department of Ener gy (DOE), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Ae ronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which collectively controlled 95 percent of all federal funds devoted to the conduct of R&D in FY 2002. Applied Research Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means of a recognized and specific need (see OM B Circular A-11, Section 84). See Conduct of Research and Development. Award A contract, grant, cooperative agreem ent, or other legal in strument a federal agency uses to engage the services of a nongovernmental entity to carry out a government responsibility or to achieve some purposes. Basic Research Systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind (see OMB Circular A-11, Section 84). Baseline All funds reported to the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) as being spent on activities that meet the OMB definition of what constitutes R&D, and which therefore fall within t he federal R&D portfolio. (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Academic Research and Devel opment Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2001, Arlington, VA [NSF 03-3161], April 2003). College A postsecondary school that offers gener al or liberal arts education usually leading to an associate, bachelors masters or doctors or firs t professional degree. Although this term usually encompasses junior colleges and community colleges, this study does not include junior colleges, comm unity colleges, technical schools, or schools granting associate degrees (see Nati onal Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education St atistics, 2002, June 2003). Conduct of Research and Development Sy stematic creative work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, cult ure, and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. This includes basic research, applied research, and developm ent and the administrative expenses associated with each. This excludes research and development facilities and equipment. Also excludes routine product testi ng, quality control, mapping, collection of general-purpose statistics, ex perimental production, routi ne monitoring and evaluation of an operational program, and the training of scientific and technical personnel (see OMB Circular A-11, section 84). See Ba sic Research, Applied Research, and Development).
147 Contract A legal instrum ent reflecting a relationship between the U.S. government and a state, local government, or other recipi ent (1) when the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the U.S. government or (2) when the agency decides in a specific instance that the use of procurement contract is appropriate (see USC 6303). Development The systematic applicati on of knowledge or understanding directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, creation, and improvem ent of prototypes and new pr ocesses to meet specific requirements. Enrollment The total number of students registered in a gi ven school unit at a given time, generally in the fall of a year (see U.S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). Expenditure A disbursement of funds (Merriam Webste rs Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1993). NSF defines expenditures as funds ac tually spent by an institution during its fiscal year (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Academic Research and Development Expe nditures: Fiscal Year 2001, Arlington, VA [NSF 03-316], April 2003). Faculty Members of the inst ruction and/or research staf f who are employed full o part time, as defined by the institution (see U.S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). Federally Funded Research and Developmen t Center (FFRDC) A FFRDC meets some special long-term R&D need that cannot be met as effectively by existing in-house or contractor resources. FFRDCs enable agenc ies to use private-sector resources to accomplish tasks that are in tegral to the mission and op eration of the sponsoring agency. Each of the 36 FFRDCs the feder al government currently sponsors is administered (i.e. operated) by an industrial fi rm, university, or nonpr ofit institution (see Federal Acquisition Regul ation [FAR] 35.017). First Professional Degree Student A student pursuing an award that upon completion of academic requirements of its program allows them to able to begin practice in that professional degrees may be aw arded in the following ten fi elds: chiropractic (DC or DCM), osteopathic medicine (DO) dentis try(DDS or DMD), pharmacy (PharmD), law (LLB or JD), podiatry (DPM, DP, or PodD), medicine (DVM), (see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems [IPeDSI], Fall 2000). No te that this category does not include graduate students. Fiscal Year The federal governments accounting period, from October 1 to September 30, (see OMB Cir cular A-11, Section 20).
148 Graduate Student A student who hol ds a bachelors of first professional degree, or the equivalent, and who is working towards a mast ers or doctors degr ee. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Di gest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). See First Professional Degree Student. Grant A legal instrument reflecting a rela tionship between the U. S. government and a state, local government, or other recipient (1) when the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the state or loca l government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of suppor t or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by pur chase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the government and (2) when substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the state, local government, or other recipient when carryi ng out the activity contemplated in the agreement (see USC 6304). Historically Black College and University An accredited institution of higher education established prior to 1964 with the principa l mission of educating black Americans. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defi nes an HBCU as any historically black college or university that was established pr ior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans Federal regulat ions (see 20 USC; 106[(2)] allow certain exceptions to the founding date (U.S. Depart ment, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). Land-Grant University (includes 1890 Schools) Schools established by the passage of the first Morrill Act of 1862 which facilitated the establishment of colleges through grants of land or of funds in lieu of land. T he Morrill Act was intended to provide a broad segment of the population with a practical education that had direct relevance to their daily lives. A discussion about 1890 Schools is in Chapter 3 (see U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, E ducation, and Extension Service Acronyms and Commonly Used Terms, 2003). Medical School (this term excludes osteopat hic, and podiatry schools) An institution offering a program of medical education leading to the MD degree. In this study, the term medical school, does not encompass hospitals or medical centers, it refers only to the 126 programs in universitie s and colleges that provide m edical education leading to the MD degree. Private University or College A university or college that is controlled by an individual or agency other than a state, a subdivision of a state, or the federal government and that is usually supported primarily by ot her than public funds, and the operations of whose program rests with other than publicly elected or appoi nted officials. (see U.S. Department of Education, Nati onal Center for Education Stat istics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003).
149 Project Grant The funding for fixed or know n periods of specific projects for the delivery of specific services or products without liability for damages, for failure to perform (see Catalog of Federal Domest ic Assistance, GSA, 2002). See Grant. Public University or College A university or college controlled and operated by publicly elected or appointed officials and deriving its primary support from public funds (see U. S. Department of Education, National Cent er for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statisti cs, 2002, June 2003). Research and Development Throughout this study, this term re fers only to the Conduct of Research and Development, as defined above. Research and Development Equipment T he acquisition or design and production or major equipment for research and developmen t. This includes expendable or movable equipment (spectrometers, res earch satellites, and detectors). This excludes routine purchases of ordinary office equipment or furniture and fixtures. (see OMB Circular A11, Section 84). R&D Plant includes all proj ects whose principal purpose is to provide support for construction, acquisition, renovation, modificati on, repair, or rental of facilities, land, works, or fixed equipment fo r use in scientific or engineer ing research and development. All costs direct, indirect, and related ex penditures are to be included. (see NSFFederal Support Survey 1995 Instructi ons for Academic Institutions). Science and Engineering This disciplines in the fields of Engineering, Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sci ence, Computer Sciences, Life Sciences, Psychology, and Social Sciences (see National Science Foun dation, Division of Sciences Resources Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and Engineering : Fall 2000[Methodology R eport], Arlington, VA, July 2002). Undergraduate Student A student registered at an institut ion of higher education who is working in a program leading to a bacca laureate degree (B. A. or B. S.) or other formal award below the B.A. or B. S., such as an associate degree (see U.S. Department of Education, Nati onal Center for Education Stat istics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). University An institution of higher educatio n consisting of a liberal arts college, a diverse graduate program, and usually two or more professional schools or faculties and empowered to confer degrees in various fields of study (see U.S. Department of Education, National Center fo r Education Statistics, Diges t of Education Statistics, 2002, June 2003). Source: Fossum and et al. (2004).
150 REFERENCES Allen, W. et al., eds. 1991. College in Black and White: Af rican-American Students in Predominantly White and Historically Black Public Universities. Albany: SUNY Press. Astin, A.W., Tsui, L., and Avalos, J. 1996. Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges and Universities: Effects of Race, Gender, and Institution Type. Los Angeles: Higher Educati on Research Institute. Avery, R.S., and et.al. 2008. Colleges We Cant Afford to Lose. The Washington Post. February 17, 2008. www.washingtonpost.com Bell, M. and Pavitt, L. 1993. Technologic al accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrail and Corporate Change 2:157-210. From Technology and Economic Development, 2nd Edition. E. Malecki. Essex: Longman, 276. Berlin, I. 1974. Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South. New York: Pantheon Books. Black Issues in Higher Education. 1997. Top 100 Degree Producers. July 10th,1997. 14:38-69. Black Issues in Higher Education. 1997a. Top 100 Graduate & Professional Degree Producers. July 24th,1997. 14:16-35. Black Issues in Higher Education. 1998. Charting a Black Research Agenda. March 5th,1998. 15:24-32. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., and Tight, M. 1996. How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Blumenstyle, G. 1989. Cavazos Names Businessman Turned College Official to Direct Bushs Efforts to He lp Black Institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 35 (45): A14A17. Bowles, F.D., Decosta, F.A., and Tollett, K.S. 1971. Between Two Worlds: A Profile of Negro Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill. Camangni, R. ed. 1991. Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives. London: Bellhaven Press. Chen, S.H. 1997. Decision-making in research and developm ent collaboration. Research Policy 26:121-135.
151 Chiang, J. 1991. From missionoriented to diffusion-oriented paradigm: the new trend of U.S. industrial technology policy. Technovation. 11:339-356. Connolly, L. 1997. Does external funding of ac ademic research crowd out institutional support? Journal of Public Economics 64 (3):389-406. Cooke, P., and Morgan K. 1993. The network paradigm: new departments in corporate and regional development. Environment and Planni ng D:Society and Space 11:543-564. Creswell, J. 1994. Research Design: Qualitativ e and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cullson, W.E. 1993. Public investment and economic growth. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly 79:19-33. From Technology and Economic Development, 2nd Edition E. Malecki. Essex: Longman, 312. Dosi, G. and et al. 1988. Technical Change and EconomyTheory. London: Pinter Publisher. Evenson, R. 1982. Agriculture. In Government and Technical Progress. ed. R. Nelson. New York: Pergamon. Federal Register. 1989. May 2nd. 54:83. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Feldman, M. P. 1994. The Geography of Innovation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers Feldman, M. P. 1994a. The university and economic development: the case of John Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly 8(1):67-76. Feldman, M. P. 2003. Research universit ies and local economic development: lessons from the history of John Hopkins University. Industry andInnovation 10:5-24. Feldman, M. P. 2003. Entrepreneurship an d American research universities: evolution in technology transfer. In The Emergence of En trepreneurshipPolicy ed. D. Hart, 92-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Florida, R. 1995. Toward the Learning Region. Futures 27:527-536. Foner, E. 1988. Reconstruction: Americas Un finished Revolution,1863-1877. New York: Harper & Row.
152 Fossum, D. and et al. 2004. Vital Assets: Federal Investment in Research and Development at the Nations Universities and Colleges. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Foxworth, M. 1995. personal communication with the President of Foxworth & Dinkins Washington, DC Science and Technology firm April 2nd,1995. Franklin, J. 1975. The Two Worlds of Race: A Historical View. In The Negro American. eds. T. Parsons and K. Clark. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Geiger, R., and Feller, I. 1995. The Dispersion of Academic Research in the 1980s. The Journal of Higher Education 66(3):336-360. Girabaldi, A. 1984. ed. Black Colleges and Universities: Challenges for the Future. New York: Praeger. Gemunden, H.G., Heydebreck, P., and Herden, R. 1992. Technological interweavement: a means of ac hieving innovation success. R&D Management 22:359-376. Gertler, M. 1995. Being there: proxim ity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufa cturing technologies. Economic Geography 71:1-25. Goddard, J. 1997. Managing the uni versity/regional interface. Higher Education Management 9:7-27. Goodenow, R.K. 1989. Black Education. In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. eds. C.R. Wilson and W. Ferris, 151-53. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Hacker, A. 1992. Two Nations: Black and White: Separate, Hostile, Unequal. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons. Hair, J. and at. el. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hale, F. 2006. How Black Colleges Empower Black Students. Sterling,VA: Stylus Hoffman, C.M., Snyder, T. D., and Sonneberg, B. 1992. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976-1990. Washington, D.C.: Nationa l Center for Education Statistics. Holmes, D. 1970. The Evolution of the Negro College. New York: AMS Press.
153 Jackson, W.M. 1984. Black Colleges and Univer sities: A National Resource for AfricanAmerican Science and Engi neering Manpower. In Black Collegesand Universities: Challenges for the Future. ed. A. Garabaldi, 78-92. New York: Praeger. Jaschik, S. 1991. White House Eyes Chang e in Approach to Black Colleges: Controversial Plan Would Divide Cam puses into Separate Categories. Chronicle of Higher Education 37(17): A1-A19. Jencks, C., and Reisman, D. 1968. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Jones, D.K. 1993. An Educat ion of Their Own: The Precarious Position of Publicly Supported Black Colleges after United States vs. Fordice. Journal of Law & Education 22 (4) 485-524. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 1994. Vital Signs: the current state of AfricanAmericans in higher education. 4:33-41. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 1997. Scientific Research: Black Colleges Caught in a Catch 22. 15:48-49. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 1997a. Vital signs: the current state of AfricanAmericans in higher education. 16:75-80. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 1997 b. Black Colleges Holding Their Own in Preparing Students for Do ctorates in the Sciences. 16:58-59. Justman M., and Teubal, M. 1995. Technol ogy infrastructure policy (TIP): creating capabilities and building markets. Research Policy 24:259-81. Law, W., and Clift, V. 1981. Educati on: Colleges and Universities In Encyclopedia of Black Americans. eds. W. Law and V. Clift, 338-51.New York: McGraw-Hill. Le Heron, R. 1973. Best practice tec hnology, technical leadership, and regional economic development. Environment and Planning 5:735-49. Link, A., and Tassey, G. 1989. eds. Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry-University-Government Relationship. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lundvall, B. 1988. Innov ation as an interactive process: From user-producer interacton to the national system of innovation. In Technological Change and Economic Theory. eds. G. Dosi and et al., 34969. London: Pinter Publisher.
154 Malecki, E. 1986. Research and developm ent and the geography of high-technology complexes. In Technology, Regions and Policy. ed. J. Rees, 51-74. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Malecki, E. 1991. Technology and Economic Development. Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical. Mansfield, E. 1991a. Academic res earch and industr ial innovation. Research Policy 20:1-12. Mansfield, E. 1998. Academic research and industrial innovat ion: an update of empirical findings. Research Policy 26:773-776. Mowery, D., and Rosenberg, N. 1993. The U.S. Innovation System. In National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. ed R. Nelson, 29-75. New York: Oxford Press. Mowery, D., and Teece, D. 1996. Strategi c Alliances and Industrial Research, In Engines of Innovation: U.S. Industr ial Research at the End of an Era. eds. R. Rosenbloom and W. Spencer, 111-129. Bost on: Harvard Business School Press. Moss, A. 1989. Northern Philanthropy. In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. eds. C.R. Wilson and W. Ferris, 651-53. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Murty, K., and Roebuck, J. 1992. The Ca se for Historically Black Colleges & Universities. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences 36 (4):171-92. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., and Olivastro, D. 1997. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology & public science. Research Policy 26:317-330. National Science Fo undation. 1994. Research and Development in Industry, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. National Science Fo undation. 1994a. Scientific and Engineering ResearchFacilities at Universities and Colleges. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 1994b. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1994. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 1995. Guide to NSF Science and Engineering Resources Data. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 1996. Undergraduate Origins of Recent (1991-95) Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients. Arlington: NationalScience Foundation.
155 National Science Fo undation. 1997. Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 1995. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 1998. Federal Funds for Res earch and Development: Fiscal Years 1996, 1997, and 1998. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 1998a. Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1996. Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. 1998b. NSF Academic instit utional profile homepage: www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/profiles/data National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2001. R&D Spending is Highly Concentrated in a Small Number of States. Data Brief. (NSF 01-320) Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 2002. Academic R&D Expenditures: FY 2000. (NSF 02-308) Arlington: National Science Foundation. www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2003. T op R&D Performing States Display Diverse Patterns in 2000. Infobrief. (NSF 03-303) Arlington: National Sc ience Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2003. National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2002. (NSF 03-313) Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 2003. Science & Engineering State Profiles: 2002. Arlington: National Sc ience Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2003 Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2001. (NSF 03-316) Arlington: National Sc ience Foundation. National Science Fo undation. 2004. US Academic R&D Continues to Grow as More Universities and Colleges Ex pand Their R&D Activities. (NSF 04-319) Arlington: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2007. Presidents FY 2008 Budget Requests 1% Increase in R&D Funding. (NSF 07327) Arlington: National Science Foundation.
156 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2007. FY 2005 Federal S&E Obligations Reach Over 2,400 Academic and Nonprofit Institution; Data Presented on Minority-Serving Institutions. (NSF 07-326) Arlington: National Sc ience Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2007. U.S. R&D Increased 6.0% in 2006 According to NSF Projections. Infobrief. (NSF 07-317) Arlington: Nati onal Science Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2007. Industrial Funding of Academic R&D Rebounds in FY 2005. Infobrief. (NSF 07311) Arlington: Nationa l Science Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2008. Federal S&E Obligations to Academic In stitutions Reach New Highs in FY2006 but Fail to Keep Up with Inflation. (NSF 08-316) Arlington: NationalScience Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2008. Baccalaureate-Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients. InfoBrief. (NSF 08-311) Arlington: National Sc ience Foundation. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2009. FY 2008 Data Show Downward Trend in Federal R&D Funding (NSF 09-309) Arlington: National Science Foundation. Nelson, R. 1988. Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States. In Technical Change an d Economic Theory. eds. G. Dosi and et al.London: Pinter Publisher. Nelson, R. 1990. On Technological Capa bilities and their Acquisition. In Science and Technology: Lessons for Development Policy eds. R. Evenson and G. Ranis, 71-80. Boulder: Westview Press. Nelson, R. and Rosenberg, N. 1993. Technical Innovat ion and National Systems. In National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. ed. R. Nelson, 3-28. New York: Oxford Press. Nettles, M.T. 1991. Racial Similarities and Differences in the Predictors of College Student Achievement. In College in Black and White: African-American Students in Predominantly White and Historica lly Black Public Universities eds. W.R. Allen and et al., 75-94. Alba ny: SUNY Press. OECD. 1992. Technology and the Economy: The Key Relationships. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
157 Patel, P., and Pavitt, K. 1994. National innov ation systems: why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of I nnovation and New Technology 3:77-95. from E. Malecki, Technology and Economic Development, 2nd edition, Essex: Longman, 236. Payne, A. 2003. The effects of congressi onal appropriations committee membership on the distribution of federal res earch funding to universities. Economic Inquiry 41 (2): 325-345. Pedhazur, E., and Schmelkin, L. 1991. Measurements, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenc e Erlbaum Publishers. Perna, L. 1997. The African-American Education Data Book, Vols. 1& 3. Fairfax: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institut e of the College Fund / United Negro College Fund. Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press. Quarles, B. 1985. History of Black Education. In United Negro College Fund Archives: A Guide to the Microfiche, (ed.) United Negro College Fund, New York: University Microfilms. Raboteau, A.G. 1989. Bl ack Religion. In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. eds. C.R. Wilson and W. Ferris, 191-92. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Roebuck, J., and Murty, K. 1993. Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Their Place in American Higher Education. Westport, CT: Praeger. Roger, E., and et al. 1999. Technology transfe r from university-based research centers: the University of New Mexico experience. Journal of Higher Education 65:540-54. Rosenberg, N., and et al. 1992. eds. Technology and the Wealth of Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. 1996. The Role s of Universities in the Advance of Industrial Technology. In Engines of Innovation eds. R. Rosenbloom and W. Spencer, 87-109. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Smilor, R., Dietrich, G., and Gibson, D. 1993. The entrepreneurial university: The role of higher education in the United States in technology commercialization & economic development. International Social Science Journal 135: 1-10. Stahler, J., and Tash, W. 1992. Success in Ex ternal Funding at the Fastest Growing Research Universities: Contri butory Factors and Impediments. Research Management Review 6:14-24.
158 Storper, M. and Walker, R. 1989. The Capitalist Imperative: territory, technology, and industrial growth. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Storper, M. 1995. The resurgence of r egional economies, ten years later. European Urban & Regional Studies 2 (3):191-221. Sweeny, G. 1991. Technical culture and the local dimension of entrepreneurial vitality. Entrepreneurship & R egional Development 3:363-78. Synnott, M.G. 1989. Desegregation. In Encyclopedia of S outhern Culture. eds. C.R. Wilson and W. Ferris, 248-49. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press. Tassey, G. 1991. The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy 20:345-361. Thomas, G. 1987. African-American College Students and Their Major Field of Choice. In In Pursuit of Equality in Higher Education ed. A. Pruitt, 105-115. Dix Hills, NY: Generla Hall Inc. Thomas, G. 1991. Assessing the College Major Selection Process for Black Students. In College in Black & White: African-Am erican Students in Predominantly White and Historically Black Public Universities. eds. W. Allen and et al., 61-74. Albany: SUNY Press. Thomas, E., and McPartland, J. 1984. Have Colleges Desegregation Policies Threatened Black Student Enrollment and Black Co lleges? An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Negro Education 53(4):389-99. Thompson, D.C. 1973. Private Black College s at the Crossroads. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Trent, W. 1991. Focus on Equity: Race and Gender Differences in Degree Attainment, 1975-76; 1980-81. In College in Black & White: African-American Students in Predominantly White and Historically Black Public Universities. eds. W. Allen and et al., 41-60. Albany: SUNY Press. Wenglinsky, H. 1997. Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Their Aspirations & Accomplishments. Princeton: Educatio nal Testing Service. Willie, C., Reddick, R ., and Brown, R. 2006. The Black College Mystique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
159 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH John Warford was born in Saint Louis, Miss ouri. The oldest of eight children, he lived his childhood and earliest adult years in his hometown, graduating from University City Sr. High School in 1974. John has been formally educated and trained in law, religion, theatre, graphic desig n and several forms of the mart ial arts. As an exchange student at the University of Sussex in the UK, he received instruction at the School of Cultural and Community Studi es. John earned a BA. in English and Black Studies from Washington University (Saint Louis) in 1980. Moving to Florida, he completed his mast ers degree coursework in International Studies at Florida International University in the early 90s, focusing on international relations, environmental issues, and socio-econom ic development. Florida International University is also where John began his car eer as a student affairs professional, holding numerous administrative positio ns at the public and private universities in Florida. At the University of Florida, John was inspired by then department chairman, Dr. Edward Malecki to consider a switch from the political science department to pursue his interests in geography. Dr. Malecki and the department faculty prepared him for next ten to fifteen years of his work as universit y professor, teacher and able professional. With his long-standing interests in the ar eas of resource m anagement, and cultural studies, he was discovered by Sybil C. Mobl ey, the imminent Dean of the School of Business and Industry (SBI) at Florida A&M University and asked to join the graduate faculty in 1999. There he taught graduate management courses in World Cultures and World Resources to the MBA students preparing for international internships. John has been the recipient of a number of teaching mentorship, and professional service
160 awards through the years. He received his Ph .D. from the University of Florida in the fall of 2009. Currently, John is a Visiting Professo r at Florida A&M University in the Department of History, Political Science, Geography, and African-Amer ican Studies. He has also been for the past five years an adjunct professor at Tallahassee Community College, and a special projects consult ant for the non-profit school and after-care programs of B.L.A.M. the Black Lotus Academy of the Ma rtial Arts located in Miami, Florida. John has written three books, produced th ree spoken word projects, and recently played the lead acting role in a full-length ind ependent film, due to be released in 2010. In the future, John plans to travel more, re search, publish in his academic field, and learn a foreign language.