<%BANNER%>

Identification of Factors Related to the Engagement of Community College Faculty in Grant Writing Activities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043954/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Factors Related to the Engagement of Community College Faculty in Grant Writing Activities A National Perspective
Physical Description: 1 online resource (146 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Douma, Deborah L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college -- community -- development -- education -- faculty -- financing -- grantwriting -- higher -- relationships -- resource
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this quantitative, internet-based, self-reported study of grant personnel at 85 public community colleges, was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. Variables included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics such as unionization, salary, and tenure; institutional characteristics, such as size, location, years of existence of grants office, and enrollment; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate in grant writing and associated activities. The results of this study demonstrated that while institutional commitment, and the inherent characteristics demonstrated as such, are important to the successful pursuit of external funding, it is the college administration's support of the grant office and staff which is significant, not the ability to offer incentives to faculty. This support from administration allows for the cultivation of relationships vital to the engagement of faculty members in grantsmanship and associated activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. Further research is recommended to examine motivation from the faculty's point of view. Since significant relationships were uncovered related to community college grant functions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, further study is recommended related to the institutional commitment of community colleges toward the development and ongoing support of grant offices and resource development staff dedicated to the pursuit of grants. The recommendations for further research will continue to identify and clarify key elements related to successful application by community colleges to competitive grant funded programs, regardless of the funding agency, in order to secure external funding essential to carrying out institutional missions and meeting strategic goals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Deborah L Douma.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043954:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043954/00001

Material Information

Title: Identification of Factors Related to the Engagement of Community College Faculty in Grant Writing Activities A National Perspective
Physical Description: 1 online resource (146 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Douma, Deborah L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college -- community -- development -- education -- faculty -- financing -- grantwriting -- higher -- relationships -- resource
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this quantitative, internet-based, self-reported study of grant personnel at 85 public community colleges, was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. Variables included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics such as unionization, salary, and tenure; institutional characteristics, such as size, location, years of existence of grants office, and enrollment; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate in grant writing and associated activities. The results of this study demonstrated that while institutional commitment, and the inherent characteristics demonstrated as such, are important to the successful pursuit of external funding, it is the college administration's support of the grant office and staff which is significant, not the ability to offer incentives to faculty. This support from administration allows for the cultivation of relationships vital to the engagement of faculty members in grantsmanship and associated activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. Further research is recommended to examine motivation from the faculty's point of view. Since significant relationships were uncovered related to community college grant functions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, further study is recommended related to the institutional commitment of community colleges toward the development and ongoing support of grant offices and resource development staff dedicated to the pursuit of grants. The recommendations for further research will continue to identify and clarify key elements related to successful application by community colleges to competitive grant funded programs, regardless of the funding agency, in order to secure external funding essential to carrying out institutional missions and meeting strategic goals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Deborah L Douma.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043954:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS RELATED TO THE ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY IN GRANT WRITING ACTIVITIES: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE By DEBORAH LYNN DOUMA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE GREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Deborah Lynn Douma

PAGE 3

3 To my daughters, Jennifer and Marissa, who ar e also my biggest cheerleaders

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to many people for their support and encouragement, without which this educational journey would not have been completed. My love and appreciation go to my daughters, Jennifer and Marissa, and their families, for their patience and understanding. There were many times when I should have been available to them and I was not To my many friends and extended family members, I would like to take this opportunity to reintroduce myself to you than k you for your support and for waiting for me to finish this little task I am grateful to my committee chairperson Dr. Dale Campbell, for providing his guidance and wisdom in the development and completion of this dissertation. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my remaining committee members especially to Dr. David Honeyman for his statistics assistance ( and thanks for sticking with me to the end), Dr. Lynne Leverty, and Dr. Bernard Oliver for their guidance flexibility, an d availability. I also wish to acknowledge the support of the professional staff and volunteer executive board of the Council for Resource Development. Their encouragement and facilitation made this research possible. Thank you also to Dr. Christopher M. Mullin for answering my often frantic emails with calm. I would also like to express my gratitud e to Ms. Sandra Harris, UWF CORA L lab thank you for being there! My appreciation goes to UF alumni and president emeritus of Pensacola State College, Dr. G. Thomas Delaino for encouraging my enrollment in this program in the

PAGE 5

5 first place, and to current Pensacola State College president, Dr. C. Edward Meadows, for his continued support of my educational activities including time away from the office whenever necessary. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Pensacola State College Institutional Effectiveness and Grants staff especially Jamie and Rob I could do what I have done because I knew you all were holding down the fort and taking care of business.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 LI ST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Nee d for the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ................................ .............................. 19 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 Overview of the Methodology ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................. 30 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ... 31 Resource Development in Higher Education ................................ .......................... 31 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 31 Discussion of the Research Var iables ................................ ................................ .... 33 Institutional Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Geography ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Institut ion size ................................ ................................ ............................ 35 Faculty Characteristics ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Creating a Culture of Grantsmanship ................................ ................................ ..... 37 Institutional Behaviors ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 Faculty ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 38 Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 46 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 46 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 47

PAGE 7

7 Design of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 49 Instrumentation and Data Collection ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 58 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 60 4 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ............ 61 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 61 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 63 Faculty Characteristics ................................ ................................ ..................... 65 Institutional Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 67 Grant Functions ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 Incentives ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 76 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 77 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 78 Administrative ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 Grant functions ................................ ................................ ........................... 80 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................ 81 Regression Models ................................ ................................ ........................... 81 Faculty Engagement in Grant Writing ................................ ............................... 82 Faculty Members Serving as Principal I nvestigator, Project Director or Grant Manager ................................ ................................ .............................. 84 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 86 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 110 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 110 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................. 111 Discussion of Findings ................................ ................................ .......................... 111 Faculty Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................... 111 Institutional Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 112 Incentives ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 14 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 115 Recommendations for Further Research ................................ .............................. 117 APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE COU NCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LISTSERV POSTING ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 121 B MEADERS PERMISSION LETTER ................................ ................................ ...... 122 C CARRIER PERMISSION LETTER ................................ ................................ ....... 125 D COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT LETTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ................................ ................................ ...................... 127

PAGE 8

8 E COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT LETTER EXECUTIVE BOAR D ................................ ................................ ............................ 128 F SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ....................... 129 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 139 BIOGRAPHICA L SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 146

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Unionization of faculty ................................ ................................ ........................ 93 4 2 Total numb er of part and full time faculty acting as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager ................................ ................................ ...... 93 4 3 Total faculty, any grant participation ................................ ................................ ... 94 4 4 Student to faculty ratio ................................ ................................ ........................ 95 4 5 Fall 2009 Faculty salary information (9 month equated) ................................ ..... 95 4 6 Accred iting organizations represented in study ................................ .................. 96 4 7 Council for Resource Development regions represented in study ...................... 96 4 8 College str ucture ................................ ................................ ................................ 96 4 9 Types of degrees granted by institutions ................................ ............................ 97 4 10 Reporting line for Chief Resource Development Officer ................................ ..... 97 4 11 Existence of a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement ................................ ...... 97 4 12 Existence of an institutional review board ................................ ........................... 97 4 13 Existence of an institutional strategic goal related to external funding ................ 98 4 14 Carnegie Classification of institutions ................................ ................................ 98 4 15 Number of years grants office has been established ................................ .......... 99 4 16 Total staff dedicated to grant office functions ................................ ..................... 99 4 17 Types of incentives offered to faculty ................................ ............................... 100 4 18 Pearson Correlation Faculty Characteristics ................................ .................. 101 4 19 Pearson Correlations Institutional Characteristics ................................ ......... 102 4 20 Incentives offer ed Correlation ................................ ................................ ........ 105 4 21 Regression tab le for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty participating in any grantsmanship activities) excluded variables .................. 106

PAGE 10

10 4 22 Regression table for faculty engagement in grant wri ting activities (faculty participating in any grantsmanship activities) statistically significant explanatory variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 107 4 23 Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing acti vities (faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager) excluded variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 108 4 24 Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager) statistically significant explanatory variables ................................ .................... 109

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Map of accreditation agency regions ................................ ................................ .. 91 4 2 Council for Resource Development region map ................................ ................. 92

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AACC American Association of Communit y Colleges AASCU American Association of State Colleges and Universities ATE Advanced Technology Education program CRD Council for Resource Development IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System IRB Institutional Review Board JCAR Joint Commiss ion on Accountability Reporting NSF National Science Foundation NSOPF National Study of Postsecondary Faculty SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software package TAACCCT Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program TUES Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science program URL Uniform Resource Locator

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Do ctor of Education IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS RELATED TO THE ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY IN GRANT WRITING ACTIVITIES: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE By Deborah Lynn Douma May 2012 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Admini stration The purpose of this quantitative, internet based, self report ed study of grant personnel at 85 public community colleges, was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. Variables included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics such as unionization, salary, and tenure; institutional characteristics, s uch as size, location years of existence of grants office, and enrollment; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participat e in grant writing and associated activities. The results of this study demonstrated that while institutional commitment, and the inherent characteristics demonstrated as such, are important to the successful pursuit of external funding, it is the colleg which is significant, not the ability to offer incentives to faculty. This support from administration allows for the cultivation of relationships vital to the engagement of

PAGE 14

14 faculty members in grant smanship and associated activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. view. Since significant relationships were uncovered rela ted to community college grant functions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, further study is recommended related to the institutional commitment of community colleges toward the development and ongoing support of grant offices and r esource development staff dedicated to the pursuit of grants The recommendations for further research will continue to identify and clarify key elements related to successful application by community colleges to competitive grant funded programs, reg ard less of the funding agency, in order to secure external funding essential to carrying out institutional missions and meeting strategic goals.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Need for the Study In current economic conditions, community colleges like their K 12 and university system counterparts are faced with increasingly reduced financial support from state governments and local municipalities, which have historically borne the burden of funding the majority of th e cost of student instruction, at the same time that enrollments have increased as unemployed and under employed look for routes to better futures ( Arnone, 2002; Boggs, 2004; Herbkersman & Hibbert Jones, 2003b; Ryan, 2003; Zeiss, 2003 ). The primary mission of the almost 1,200 public, independent, and t ribal community colleges in the United States is to provide individuals with affordable, open access to postsecondary education opportunities ( AACC, 2011 ; Boggs, 2004; Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Florida Senate, 201 1 ; Levin, 2000; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006; M ellow, 2000; Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck & Suppiger, 1994 ). Increasing tuition generates much needed revenue, but it can also limit access and place undue hardship on those least able to bear the financial burden the community college student (Kenton, Schuh, Huba, & Shelley, 2004). The 11.7 million i ndividuals attending community colleges (AACC) include traditional students matriculating directly from high school, and nontraditional students, often older career changers, minor ities, disabled individuals, military veterans, displaced homemakers, and incumbent workers desiring additional education and training for job keeping and promotion purposes. Alternative streams of revenue had to be identified and pursued. Compared to univ ersity systems with well connected alumni, large endowments, and well staffed foundation and sponsored research offices, community colleges are relative

PAGE 16

16 newcomers to fundraising activities (Ryan). In the last two decades, community college involvement in the pursuit of external funding has steadily increased ( Meaders Carrier, & Keener, 2003). Community colleges across the country have become more entrepreneurial, meeting economic challenges by investing human and fiscal capital in grant office and founda tion operations in order to take advantage of funding opportunities to increase external funding successes (Zeiss, 2003; Meaders, 2002). At least 57% of job openings in the United States between 2006 and 2016 will require some postsecondary education ( Lim ing & Wolf, 2008). As tuition costs and admissions standards have risen, students desiring baccalaureate degrees have increasingly begun their studies at community colleges before transferring to 4 year higher education institutions. Nearly half of all i ndividuals earning baccalaureate degrees in the United States began their education by first attending community colleges (AACC, 2011 ; Boggs, 2004 ). In addition, in 20 states students also have opportunities to engage in and complete their baccalaureate d egree program studies at community colleges (AASCU, 2010). The basic mission of community colleges has remained the same; however, their flexibility and ability to quickly meet local and regional workforce needs has contributed to a changing role and a br oadened mission (Craft & Guy, 2003). Close to 80% of firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency medicine technicians are trained at and receive their credentials from community colleges, and 59% of new nurses and the majority of other new health care workers are educated at community colleges (AACC). As displaced and incumbent workers alike seek to upgrade skills and pursue advanced training, the types of programs, degrees and certifications offered at community colleges must continually

PAGE 17

17 evolve to keep up with demand (Renninger, Meilof, Pitts, & Smalley, 2007). This evolution cannot occur without revenue sources to support supplemental items such as professional development for faculty and staff, innovative technolog y, and laboratory equipment s uch as high fidelity human patient simulators. C ommunity colleges first found themselves spotlighted in 2006, with the advent of the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Community Based Job Training grants, during the administr ation of President George W. Bush. This initiative, which, in partnership with local/regional Workforce Boards, economic development agencies, business/industry, and K 20 educational system representation, was intended to build capacity and increase train ing opportunities at community colleges in order to give individuals the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in high growth high demand industries and fulfill targeted regional workforce needs. The need to pursue grant opportunities at the community college level is further demonstrated by the urgency indicated when there is growth in enrollment in addition to decreases in state funding. Depending on the tax structure of a given state, the remaining funding comes from society in the form of taxes sal es, personal income, and property. State spending on higher education is closely tied to economic cycles and fluctuates widely as tax revenues vary dependent on changing economic conditions ( Kenton, Huba, Schuh & Shelley II, 2005; Schiradi & Ziedenberg, 2 002). Higher education budgets have often been sacrificed to support correctional system budgets, especially throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Schiradi & Ziedenberg). According to a Pew Research Center report, in the state of Florida, for every dollar spen t on higher education, t he correctional system requires $.66, and one in every 15 state

PAGE 18

18 discretionary dollars is spent on corrections (Warren, 2009). In FY 2007, 9.3% of the Florida General Fund was dedicated to the correctional system (Warren, 2008). Be tween 1987 and 2008, spending on corrections increased 137% while higher education spending increased a modest 24% (Pew Research Center, 2010). Unlike Medicaid and the K 12 public school systems, corrections and higher education funding are not currently mandated by federal requirements although there are certainly unfunded state and federal mandates, which must often be addressed. For example, in 2004, the Florida State Legislature passed the Carey Baker Freedom Flag Act which publi c K 20 educational institution that is provided or authorized by the Constitution and laws of Florida shall display daily, in each classroom, the flag of the United States t to secur e donations or external funding in order to purchase and install flags. Early research has begun to identify factors necessary for successful community college grant resource development environments (Ryan, 2003; Meaders, 2002; Herbkersman & Hibbert Jone s, 2003a) However, there is limited research about resource development, especially as related to external funding in the form of grants (Jackson & Keener, 2002). Community college faculty have been identified as being integral to the success of new gra nt funded projects and programs, both during the project proposal development and implementation stages (Herbkersman & Hibbert Jones, 2003a; Renninger Meilor, Pitts, & Smalley, 2007; Bauer, 2001). However, unlike university professors, by definition commun ity college faculty are not researchers or writers of journal articles, but rather are teachers

PAGE 19

19 (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 n.p. ), making decisions on course content, preparing and evaluating examinations, and providing i nstruction to students. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants Variables included, but wer e not limited to, faculty characte ristics such as rank, ethnicity, gender, tenure status, and employment status (e.g., full or part time); institutional characteristics, such as size of enrollment location and years of existence of grants office ; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate i n grant writing and associated activities. The following three research questions were developed: 1. What is the relationship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 2. What is the relationship between institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 3. What is the relationship between incentives which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate and actual faculty engagement in grant wr iting and associated activities? Delimitations and Limitations of the Study Delimitations The following items are the propo sed delimitations of this study. The study will be limited to resource development officers with grant responsibilities e mployed at public community colleges in the United States who are members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD ) Community colleges that offer baccalaureate programs

PAGE 20

20 will be included in the study; however, data related to baccalaureate faculty pa rticipating in grant writing and associated activities will not be reported. Only community colleges that self identify as actively participating in the resource development processes necessary to engage in grant writing and associated activities necessar y to receive external funding in the form of grants will be included in the study. The appropriate descriptive statistics will be utilized to analyze data collected from survey respondents. Limitations The following items are the proposed limitati ons of this study. The results of this study will only be generalized to like institutions public community colleges that are members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD) and actively participating in the resource development processes necessary to enga ge in grant writing and associated activities necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. The accuracy of the data analysis will be dependent upon the information provided on the survey instrument by the respondents. Data will be based o n a specified one year period of time: 2009 2010 academic year. Significance of Study According to Kenton, Huba, Schuh and Shelley (2005), much like other public expendi tures from a variety of sources, including state and local governments, student Caruthers (1999) define funding for gener Honeyman and Bruhn (1996; in Honeyman, Wattenbarger, & Westbrook [Eds.]),

PAGE 21

21 revenue sources which are dive rse and differ in each state (p. 1). These sources include (a) tuition and fees (b) federal funds (c) state funds (d) local funds (e) private gifts and grants (6) sales and services revenue generating a ctivities (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ; Honeyman, D. S & Bruhn, M., 1996). When confronted with severe budget shortfalls state legislatures often look to and reduce appropriations, and although public colleges and univers ities tend to fare well when times are good, they may be seen as easy targets for cuts in times of declining revenue (Hansen, 2003) It has become apparent to community college administrators faced with increasingly reduced financial support from state go vernments and local municipalities at the same time their institutions were experiencing unprecede nted growth in student numbers that community colleges must engage in the active pursuit of grant funding opportunities, of ten to support what could be consid ered normal operating expenses (Ryan, 2003; Herbkersman & Hibbert Jones, 2003b; Zeiss, 2003; Arnone, 2002). In early 2007, it was reported that public community colleges received 5% of their revenue through federal funds (Renninge r, et al., 2007); by Janu ary 2010 that figure h ad increased to 15% (AACC, 2011 ). Although state appropriations may be decreasing, a s state legislative bodies and federal agencies have come to recognize that community colleges are capable of rising to the occasion of fulfilling c ritical workforce needs not only locally but b eyond traditional service areas increased funding opportunities have been made available to institutions

PAGE 22

22 that are prepared to not only submit competitive applications, but then also to meet promised goals and objectives when those projects are successfully funded. For many successful external funding initiatives, community college faculty must be fully engaged in the planning, development, and writing processes inherent to submission of grant applications to funding agencies. Some community college resource development offices are more successful than others in engaging faculty; however, as evidenced by this representative posting to the Council for Resource Development (CRD) listserv e has made some good progress on not just collaborating with faculty, but with informing faculty about grants in general, the majority of its member colleges have found this to be a somewhat insurmountable challenge ( Shumate, 2009; Appendix A) Upon her retirement, after many years of watching enthusiastic community college faculty daunted by the extra time and work necessary to participate in grant writing own better ways for nurturing faculty and This study was designed to identify the factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. The federal government has long been one of the prima ry sources of revenue for postsecondary education, including community college systems (Ho neyman, Wattenbarger, & Westbrook, 1996). Community colleges have long been eligible for competitive funding opportunities from a number of federal agencies. Community colleges are eligible for the Transforming Undergraduate Education in

PAGE 23

23 Science (TUES) a nd Advanced Technological Education (ATE) programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Community colleges are eligible for most of including Title III Streng thening Institutions, and the TRIO programs (e.g., Student Support Services, Veterans Upward Bound, Educational Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Center, and the classic Upward Bound). The YouthBuild, High Growth Training Initiative Technology Based Learning, Community Based Job Training Grant announced by then President George W. Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address (Boggs, 2004) and Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grants programs are among the funding opport unities offered by the U.S. Department of Labor for which community colleges are not only eligible but may also be the required partners or consortium leaders Other federal funding agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowm ent for the Humanities, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, and National Institute of Health all have programs providing opportunities for community colleges to apply for funding (Renninger, et al., 2007). Not only was this study appropriate because of the growing need for community colleges to pursue external funding streams in light of the current economy, but it was also timely because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed by President Barak Obama on Februa ry 17, 2009, contained language specific to a community college and career training grant program (H.R. 1, 2009). On January 20, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration announced the fiscal year 2011 grant competition for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program

PAGE 24

24 (TAACCCT) p rogram There is $2 billion appro priated to fund the program over four years. Ap proximately $500 million in grants were awarded to community college led consor tiums in September 2011 through the TAACCCT grant program By statute, the program is designed to ensure that every state, through its eligible institutions of higher education (i.e., community colleges) will receive at least $2.5 million in grant awards. These funds, like the Community Based Job Training grants previously mentioned were granted through competitive funding opportunities to community colleges for the purpose of developing, offering, or improving educational or career training programs for eligible workers. Identification of the factors that indicated the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty in the United States can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external fu nding in the form of grants allows administrators and resource development professionals to increase successful funding award rates. Implications from this research may assist college decision makers in the allocation of human and fiscal capital resources to support grantsmanship activities. Definition of Terms The following term definitions are accepted for use in this study. American Association of Community Colleges. The primary national advocacy organization for community colleges. Its efforts are fo cused on five strategic action areas : (a) Recognition and advocacy for community colleges (b) Student access, learning and success (c) Community college leadership development (d) E conomic and workforce development and (e) Global intercultural educatio n (AACC, 2011)

PAGE 25

25 Community college. Any institution regionally accredited to award the associate in arts, associated in applied science, or the associate in science as the highest degree ndergraduate degrees (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2003). Public community college. Refers to any publicly supported (with public funds) institution, which meets the same definition of a community college (Cohen & Brawer, 20 08; Mellow, 2000; Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Witt, Wattenbarger, Gol lattscheck & Suppiger, 1994). Counci l for Resource Development (CRD ). An affiliate council of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), which provides networking opportunities a nd education to its membership, which includes resource development officers, grant writers, foundation directors, alumni officers, college presidents, administrators, faculty and staff (CRD, 2011). External funding. Resources received from sources outs ide of the prescribed revenue streams, such as tuition and state appropriations, to support the mission of the public community college. Faculty. Individuals responsible for making decisions on course content, preparing and evaluation examinations, and p roviding instruction to students ( Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006 ). Faculty workload. Refers to the number of hours spent in the classroom each week, any required office hours, and any other assigned duties such as committee service. workload, which does not normally include any expectation of research or publication

PAGE 26

26 ( Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006; Mellow & Heelan 2008; Witt, Wattenbarger, Gol lattscheck & Suppiger, 1994 ). Grantsmanship. Refers to the possession of the set of skills necessary to procure external funding through successful submission of grant applications. This skill set includes the ability to identify need, gather and presen t information and data (qualitative and quantitative), develop a solution approach to a problem statement, design a comprehensive evaluation design, review funding agency criteria, prepare a budget, and complete/submit a proposal. Grants officer. The admi nistrative staff member at the community college responsible for coordinating all activities related to the pursuit of grant funded resources. Institutional advancement. At most higher education institutions, this refers to the functions of fundraising ( e.g., grants, foundation, alumni affairs), and public relations (e.g., marketing, publications, special events), and the offices and staff responsible for these functions. Proposal. The actual written document transmitted either via hard copy or electro nically to the granting agency in order to request funding ( Henson, 2004; Bauer, 2001; Bauer, 2003). Rank. Rank refers to the categories of faculty positions (e.g., instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor). Research. Used in this context, refers to a systematic, diligent inquiry or examination in some field of knowledge (McKechnie, 1983).

PAGE 27

27 Release time. The paid time faculty members receive outside of the classroom to pursue activities other than providing instruction to students or other prescribed duties. Resource development. This is the function that encompasses the pursuit of external funding opportunities through grantsmanship and private fundraising techniques in order to the support the mission and identified nee ds of an institution ( Brumbach & Villadsen, 2002; Glass & Jackson, 2002; Meaders 2002). Tenure. (e.g., single year or continuing). Unduplicated credit head count. The number of stude nts enrolled in credit courses, during any specified period with each individual student only counted once. Overview of the Methodology A review of relevant literature, which pertains to the pursuit of grant funded opportunities by public educational ins titutions in the United States, has been conducted. While all such literature was reviewed for relevancy, regardless of the type of higher education institution, the literature specific to grant writing and activities by public community college faculty, both full time and part time, was the focus of this study. Data has been collected through a survey which was made available in electronic form to community colleges that are members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD) and have grant writing pr ofessionals on staff. Although respondents were assured that their survey responses would remain confidential, they were not anonymous. Each respondent provided the name of his or her institution and also his or her own name and contact information in ca se there was any question related to information provided in the survey. CRD has a membership of over 1600

PAGE 28

28 members, made up of both grant office and college foundation staff, at more than 700 institutions (CRD, 2011). The community colleges identified by survey respondents will be categorized by a var iety of classifications, including enrollment, through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software will be utili zed in order to run a variety of tests to determine relationships between the variables. Population The link ( URL) to an online survey was emailed by paid staff at the national office of the Council for R esource Development (CRD) to the appropriate colleg e staff responsible for grant functions at public two year community colleges in the United States and territories, who are also active members (defined as being in a paid membership status) of CRD Data Collection The Buros Institute of Mental Measurem ents website was examined for a survey instrument ( http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/category.html ) which would be suitable for this study. The Category Search tool, which is available on the websi te at no cost to the user, classified all tests included in the Mental Measurements Yearbook series (since the 9 th edition, 1985) into 18 major categories. A thorough search, particularly in the categories of Achi evement, Education, V ocations, and Miscell aneous, did not yield any currently validated surveys or instruments which would be appropriate for the proposed study. Similar to an earlier study, which was, related to community college grant development operations ( Meader s, 2002), a survey instrument was developed by this researcher, in order to gather data for this stud y. The survey instrument developed by Meader s and Carrier was used as a starting point/m odel with permission (Appendix B

PAGE 29

29 and Appendix C ). Dr. Christopher M. Mullin, Program Director fo r Policy Analysis for the American Association of Community Colleges, also reviewed the survey and made suggestions for improvement (personal communication; September 14, 2010). The paid executive director and volunteer executive board of the Council for Resource Development (CRD) also reviewed the survey instrument and provided comments (personal communications; September 13 15, 2010) A link to an electronic version of the survey was distributed by the national office of the Council for Resource Developm ent to each of its members involved in grant writing activities at public community colleges in the United States. As the completed surveys w ere logged into the Survey Monkey professional system and received by the researcher responses from usable surv eys were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software application database for analysis. A commitment in writing was received stating that the executive director and volunteer executive board of the Council for Resource Dev elopment supported this study (Appendix D and Appendix E ) and the resulti ng survey instrum ent (Appendix F ). Data Analysis Three overarching research questions were developed. Variables were chosen based on a review of the relevant literature, personal experience, and upon the suggestions of volunteer leadership current president and immediate past president and the Executive Director of the Council for Resource Development (CRD), in addition ge. In order to ensure consistency, data germane to each institution (e.g., enrollment, Carnegie classification, etc.) was collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Variables included, but were not limited to faculty and institutional characteristics, and

PAGE 30

30 incentives, such as stipends and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate in grant writing and associated activities. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPS S) software application was utilized to perform descriptive and inferential statistical studies in an effort to determine the relationship between the variables and levels of faculty participation in grant writing and associated activities. An appropriate significance level was selected. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 of this study includes the introduction, purpose, overview, delimitations and limitations, term definitions, and a brief overview of the proposed methodology Chapter 2 contains a revi ew of the literature relevant to the study. Chapter 3 elaborates on the research questions, determination of the population to be surveyed, and the methodology for conducting the data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 contains the results of the data an alysis, and Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the research findings, conclusions, any implications, and recommendations for further study.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LI TERATURE The review of the literature which follows here is presented in two section s. The first section is an overview of resource development, particularly the pursuit of grant funds, in postsecondary institutions, particularly in comm unity colleges. The second section is a discussion of the research variables. Resource Development in Higher Education Community colleges are increasingly dependent on new funding streams. I t is unlikely that states will increase allocations to community colleges by more than a couple of percentage points a year, if at all, administrators must look beyo nd traditional budget lines to fund the costs of new programs, new construction, wage increases, and technology updates (Co hen & Brawer, 2008; Jackson & Keener, 2002 ; Mellow & Heelan 2008 ) In the absence of any new external funding streams, institutions must diversification of revenue sources is essential for institutional stability and the capacity to serve future needs, Newman, Couturier, and Scurry (2004) cautioned against c This type of thinking leads college administrators to chase the money rather than looking for funding opportunities, which would be specific to meeting, established institutional goals and priorities. History Community college financing trends follow changes in institutional purpose and organizational systems, and external factors such as local and state economies ( Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Kenton, Huba, Schuh & Shelley II, 2005; Mel low & Heelan 2008 ).

PAGE 32

32 Public postsecondary institutions have always had to operate within a sphere of political influence; however, when colleges were small, few people external to the institution operations cared where operating funds came from or how the y were spent (Cohen & Brawer; Gleazer, Jr., 1998 ; Mellow & Heelan ). More attention was focused as en rollments increased and budgets got larger, and other public agencies found themselves competing against colleges for state dollars. Campbell, Leverty and Sayles (1996) detailed what have been historically the five major sources of financial support for higher education operating expenses : (a) f ederal government (b) s tate government (c) l ocal government (d) s tudent tuition and fees and (e) other. Early funding models found community colleges mostly dependent on local tax funds for financial support. During the infancy of community colleges, student tuition and fees represented the largest percentage of total revenues; state aid was reported to be an av erage of less than 5% of all public college revenues during the 1920s (Cohen & Brawer ; Mellow & Heelan ). In most states, state governments are currently the largest sources of funds for public community colleges (Campbell, et al. ; Kenton, Huba, Schuh & Sh elley II, 2005 ). By 1992, the percentages attributed to the different postsecondary education funding sources had changed to 46% state, 18% local, 20% student tuition and fees, 5% federal, 1% private gifts and grants, 7% sales and services, an d 3% other ( Campbell, et al.). In 2010, the percentages attributed to the different postsecondary funding sources had changed to 38% state, 21% local, 17% student tuition and fees, 15% federal, and 9% other (AACC, 2011). Particularly in states in which local tax sup port is mandated for K 12 school systems, but not allowed for postsecondary institutions, the percentage of state funding for community colleges has risen. However,

PAGE 33

33 this revenue stream is neither stable, nor guaranteed (Gleazer). As demonstrated by deep budget cuts and other posturing by state legislatures struggling to balance budgets during economic downturns, Campbell, et al. described higher education as matching fed (1999) asserted that in most states, public community colleges are in the process of transitioning from being state supported to state assisted with less than 50% of their fundin g coming from state coffers. In order to maintain the open access part of their mission, attempts continue in most states to have the primary funding for community college operating expenses come from sources other than tuition and fees (Kenton, Schuh, Hu ba & Shelley II 2004 ; Kenton, Schuh, Huba & Shelley II, 2005 ; Levin, Kater & Wag oner, 2006 ). Even though most of the grant dollars received through funding agencies are restricted in nature intended for specific purposes or activities these funds repre sent a growing percentage of college budgets (Campbell, et al.). For example, in 2008, 12% of all full time career service staff (e.g., administrative support personnel) and administrative/professional personnel at Pensacola State College were funded by r estricted grant dollars (T. Henderson, Director of Human Resources, in a personal communication, March 20, 2009). The activities supported in this manner allow for more efficient and effective use of limited college operating budgets. Discussion of the Research Variables Traditionally, previous study emphasis has focused on the competence or specific skills required for individual faculty members to demonstrate expertise in grantsmanship grant writing and associated activities, particularly in baccalaure ate

PAGE 34

34 and advanced degree granting institutions where the majority of faculty research takes place. This review takes a broader perspective, examining instead a larger framework of characteristics, particularly organizational attributes as they contribute t o a culture of external resource development. Institutional Characteristics and geographic location. Outside of a shared commitment to open access, comprehensiveness, and responsiveness to local and regional workforce needs, public community colleges a re more diverse than they are alike (Katsinas, 2003). These differences include governance, geography, size, and institutional control (Katsinas). Katsinas (2003) stated, C lassifications It is posited that the classifications of geography (rural, suburban, or urban) and size (small or large) are most pertinent to this study; however, information related to governance (e.g., mult icampus, single campus, etc.) may also provide significant information related to grant writing and associated activities by faculty. Geography Public community colleges are created by state legislatures and are funded, at least in part, by legislative ap propriations. As recognized political subdivisions of states, geographical service areas for these postsecondary institutions are typically defined by state statute or regulation (Katsinas, 2003). Katsinas also justified using geography as a classificati on category because of the historic precedent set as states established community college systems to best maximize access for their citizens. Most individuals living in the United States have a community college within a short drive (Witt, Wattenbarger, G ollattscheck & Suppiger, 1994). For example, in the state of Florida,

PAGE 35

35 the original plan to develop a statewide system of community colleges (now called the Florida College System) mandated that w hen more than one county is considered as part of the colleg no area should, in general, have a longer than 30 mile travel radius for students commuting to and from an institution (Wattenbarger, 1957). The urban classification includes all territory, population and housing units located with a UA or a UC, with core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per squa re mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 201 0). Katsin as (2003) categorized as an urban or suburban community college those metropolitan areas, as defined by the U.S. Census. The rural classification includes all territory, populatio n, and housing units located outside of urbanized areas (UA) and urban clusters (UC), with core census block groups or blocks have a population density of less than 1,000 people per square mile, and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of less than 500 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 20 1 0). Katsinas (2003) categorized as a rural community college any college having a physical address (zip code) which did not fall under the urban definition. Institution size The Carnegie Classi fication (Carnegie Foundation, 2009) provided a detailed breakdown describing community colleges by size: (a) v ery small two year (VS2) f all enrollment data show Full Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment, which is calculated as full time plus one third part time of fewer than 500 students at these associa te degree granting institutions; (b) s mall two

PAGE 36

36 year (S2) fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 500 1,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions; (c) Medium two year (M2) fall enrollme nt data show FTE enrollment of 2,000 4,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions ; (d) l arge two year (L2) fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 5,000 9,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions; and (e) v ery larg e two year (VL2) fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 students at these associate degree granting institutions. (n.p.) Katsinas (2003) classified small community colleges as those with unduplicated credit enrollments (headcount) belo w 2,500 students. An enrollment of more than 2,500 students places a community college in the large category. Because full time equivalency in each state is calculated with different formulas, and IPEDS provides consistent headcount enrollment data, Kats inas utilized for the purposes of this study, rather than the Carnegie classification. Faculty Characteristics Variables for this study included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics, such as rank, ethnicity, gender, and status (e.g., full or part time) In general characteristics of community college faculty differ from faculty in both universities and secondary schools ( Adams, 2002; Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Gibson Harman, Henson, 2004; Rodriguez & Haworth, 2002; Levin, 2 006; Levin, 2006; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006; Mellow & Heelan 2008; Outcalt, 2000) The proportion of male faculty members at the community college is generally higher than that found in secondary schools, but is generally lower than the proportion of males found at universities (Cohen & Brawer). University faculty members are more likely to hold advanced graduate degrees than

PAGE 37

37 community college instructors are degree or the equivalent experience as se t out in regional accrediting body guidelines in the occupational fields in which they teach ( Levin; Cohen & Brawer ; Outcalt ). Creating a Culture of Grantsmanship Institutional Behaviors Community college educational system s need more finances each year t o does not increase along with their salaries (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Coombs, 1968 ; Honeyman, D. S. & Bruhn, M. (1996). Encouraging more grant proposal submissions is a continual challenge for administrators and success requires significant institutional commitment (Porter, 2004). Community college administrators are increasingly finding it necessary to integrate resource development activities directly with strategic in stitutional planning (Bass, 2003; Brumbach & Villadsen, 2002; Glass & Jackson, 1998). Some institutions support cultures more conducive to supporting gran t smanship activities by faculty than others (Haire & Dodson Pennington, 2002) Pensacola State Colleg The College will expand external funding through fundraising and the writing of grants and contracts demonstrates the type of commitment necessary for successful pursuit of ext ernal funding. Institutional culture is an abstract conce pt; however, certain institutional behaviors, existing alone, or in any combination, demonstrate an institutional culture that is conducive to particular activities, such as being respectful of all types of diversity, being learning centered, and supportin g grantsmanship. The three specific institutional behaviors faculty hiring practices, administrative financial commitment, and enforced reward systems

PAGE 38

38 advanced by Miner, Miner and Griffith (2003) to operationally define the research culture of an institut ion can also define the culture of faculty grantsmanship at a community college. Faculty Community college faculty members who identify with the community college mission of accessibility demonstrate a commitment to learning and success of all students ( Le vin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006; Twombly, 2004) and, unlike their university counterparts; most of their time is spent in teaching, or instructional, activities, as opposed to research or service If individuals are pursuing postsecondary education in order to acquire the requisite knowledge to pursue employment in any given career field, then the greatest portion of time that faculty are engaged in instructional activity should be directed at helping these students learning what they need to know ( Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006; Levin, 2006; Middaugh, 2001 ; Outcalt, 2000 ). Cohen and Brawer (2008 There is not a widely accepted definition of faculty productivity ( Adams, 2002; Levin, 2006 ; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 200 6; Middaugh, 2001; Townsend & Rosser, 2007) or that of teacher as researcher (Henson, 2004) Middaugh adopted the Joint Commission on Accountability Reporting (JCAR) definition of teaching to encompass the actual delivery of i nstruction, as well as all activities, which supported the teaching process, such as ectures and seminars d irected study l aboratory sessions c linical supervision c lass preparation e valuation of student work c urriculum development a cademic and car eer advising and p rofessional development for increasing faculty effectiveness (p. 37)

PAGE 39

39 Middaugh (2001) defined f aculty research activities to include onducting experimental or scholarly research d eveloping creative works p reparing or reviewing artic les or books p reparing and reviewing proposals for external funding a ttending professional meetings or conferences essential to remaining cur p. 38) The final category, service, includes such activities as serving on committees, giving s peeches, consulting, etc. (Middaugh 2001 ). Townsend and Rosser (2007) year colleges, liberal arts colleges, doctoral granting universities) was the most important facto r in determining faculty ro les. They measured teaching activities by the number of course s taught, total classroom credit hours and total number of students taught in credit classes; and, measured research activities by articles in refereed and non refereed journals, presentations a nd books, because these activities were indicators of research (Townsend & Rosser). As reported in the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) in Fall 2003, male faculty members at two year postsecondary education institutions taught 99% unde rgraduate students, taught an average of 4.7 credit courses and only 14.5% had teaching assistant s ; female faculty members at two year postsecond ary education institutions taught 99.2% undergraduate students, taught an average of 4.1 credi t courses, and o nly 12.2% had teaching assistant s (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This contrasts sharply with the teaching activities demonstrated by faculty at doctoral institutions. Male faculty members at doctoral institutions taught 71.0% undergraduate student s, taught an average of 2.2 credit courses, and 42.3% had teaching assistants; female faculty members at doctoral institutions taught 70.0% undergraduate students,

PAGE 40

40 an average of 2.5 credit courses, and 30.9% had teaching assistants (U.S. Department of Educ ation). A sig n if ic ant number of senior faculty members will be soon be retiring ( Adams, 2002; Austin, 2002; Cohen & Brawer, 200 8 ; Gibson Harman, Rodriguez & Haworth, 2002 ). Porter (2004) asserted that the knowledge and skills brought to institutions by n ew faculty members would become even more important as the pressure to pursue external funding oppo rtunities increases. However faculty hiring and training practices have been examined, and little change is evident (Adams, 2007; Cohen & Brawer; Gibson Ha rman, Rodriguez & Haworth, 2002). Although there have been affirmative action programs in place for decades, diversification of faculty ranks through the employment of members of minority groups has not made much progress (Cohen & Brawer). Twombly (2004) argued that by examining how faculty hiring searches are l ty hiring search process includes creating a job description, determi ning recruiting practices, identifying and applying criteria for screening candidates through both application ad interview functions, and making the final selection and offer to hire (Twombly). Twombly posited that throughout the hiring itution reveals both how it acts on its values and the values of the A nother hiring practice issue is the increasing use of par t time faculty, adjuncts, as a way for community colleges, and most four year institutions, to save money e ven though the use of many adjuncts is generally not considered to be a good educational practice (Bailey, Calcagno, Jenkins, Kienzel & Leinbach, 2005; Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck & Suppiger, 1994) Miner, Miner and Griffith (2003)

PAGE 41

41 asserted that reg Porter (2004) posited that the more proposals are written by a faculty member, the more l ikely they will meet with success; and, the more faculty members who are developing In the past, colleges and universities have often functioned as if they had no need to be account able for the manner in which fiscal and personnel resources were utilized (Middaugh, 2001). Middaugh asserted, Expectations for community college faculty to conduct research and write for publication have customarily been low, and their primary responsibility has been to teach (Cohen & Brawer). Community college faculty have been traditionally hired to facilitate learning by a diverse population of students, made even more diverse by the realization of open access, the overarching mission of community colleges ( Levin, 2006; Levin, Kater & Wagoner, 2006). Levin, et al. explored the occupational and professional identities and occupational team players who contribute to reduced costs, increased profits, or Community college faculty members are be ing increasingly asked to go beyond their traditional teaching roles. Levin, et al. noted that faculty would be challenged to produce knowledge through research and scholarly writing, in addition to disseminating knowledge as facilitators of student learn ing. Cohen and Brawer posited that having faculty more broadly involved by participating in activities such as reading and writing in their

PAGE 42

42 particular discipline, conducting research on student learning outcomes, and becoming facilitators of integrating t echnology into curriculum, would produce a more desirable model for faculty professionals. The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), the most recent of four cycles, provides some insight into the activities and productivity of postseconda ry faculty members at all institution types. At doctoral institutions, male faculty spend 48.8% of their time teaching, 27.8% doing research, 10.8% in administration related activities, and 12.6% in other activities (defined to include clinical service, s abbatical, technical activities, other institutional activities such as library services, community public service, subsidized performance, and artist in resident appointments); female faculty at doctoral institutions spend 55.2% of their time teaching, 19 .7% doing research, 12.0% in administration related activities, and 13.2% engaged in other activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) In comparison, male faculty members at 2 year postsecondary institutions spend 88.1% of their time teaching, less t han 1% doing research, 6.3% in administration related activities, and 5.6% engaged in other activities; female faculty members at 2 year institutions spend 80.8% of their time teaching, less than 1% doing research, 9.8% in administration related activities and 9.4% engaged in other activities (U.S. Department of Educat ion ). Two year postsecondary institution faculty members also spend less time engaged in activities, which may lead to publications or presentations. The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty defines recent publications and presentations as those over the past 2 years (prior to Fall 2003), as reported by the respondent; recent publications include articles published in refereed and non refereed journals or creative works in juried and non juried media, published reviews of

PAGE 43

43 books, articles, or creative works, or chapters in edited volumes, and textbooks, books, and reports. (n.p.) Male faculty at doctoral institutions reported an average of 9.0 publications and 8.2 presentations, and f emale faculty reported an average of 6.0 publications and 6.8 presentations (U.S. Department of Education). In comparison, male faculty at two year postsecondary institutions only reported an average of 4.3 publications and 5.8 presentations, and female f aculty reported an average of 3.6 publications and 5.4 presentations (U.S. Department of Education). Constraints Ineffective communication, between not only faculty and administrators, but also among the ranks of faculty and administrators, constrains all facets of grantsmanship ( Brumbach & Villadsen, 2002; Glass & Jackson, 1998; Outcalt, 2000; Porter, 2004). One of the often voiced complaints by community college faculty related to their lack of engagement in grantsmanship is simply a shortage during the normal working day of blocks of time available to engage in grant writing and associated activities (Cumbie, Weinert, Luparell, Conley & Smith, 2005). In its 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, the U.S. Department of Education defined total hour s worked per week to (2004). In doctoral institutions, 4.6% of the male faculty members worked less than 40 hours; 22.5% worked 40 49 hours, 33.5% work ed 50 59 hour s, and 39.5% worked 60 or more hours; 6.2% of the female faculty members worked less than 40 hours per week; 26.6% worked 40 49 hours, 34.4% worked 50 59 hours, and 32.8% reported working 60 or more hours each week (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In comparison, 16.1% of the male faculty members at two year postsecondary institutions reported working

PAGE 44

44 less than 40 hours; 36.4% worked 40 49 hours, 25.0 worked 50 59 hours, and 22.5% worked 60 or more hours each week; 15.9% of the female faculty members a t two year postsecondary institutions reported working less than 40 hours; 38.3% worked 40 49 hours, 26.1 worked 50 59 hours, and 19.7% worked 60 or more hours each week (U.S. Department of Education). Hegyvary (2005) described writing for publication or for The notion that anyone with a graduate degree would have the skills necessary to produce a successful grant application implies that effective writing is an innate skill possessed by most community college faculty members ( Adams, 2002; Hegyvary 2005 ). New faculty members, in particular, find the grant funded project proposal and submission processes to be intimidating, especially if they had no prior experience (Boyer & Cockriel, 1998). The 2004 Nationa l Study of Postsecondary Faculty reports full time instructional faculty activities, by institution type and gender, into the categories of any scholarly activity and any funded scholarly activity. Male faculty members at doctoral institutions spend 84.2% of their time engaged in any scholarly activity and 49.0% of their time in any funded scholarly activity; female faculty members at doctoral institutions spend 77.3% of their time engaged in any scholarly activity and 40.0% of their time in any funded sch olarly activity (U.S. Department of Education). In contrast, male faculty members at two year postsecondary institutions spend 31.8% of their time engaged in any scholarly activity, and 7.9% of their time in any funded scholarly activity; f emale faculty m embers at two year postsecondary institutions spend 31.7% of their time engaged in any scholarly activity, and 9.2% of their time in any funded scholarly activity (U.S. Department of Education).

PAGE 45

45 Cumbie, et al. (2005) identified a number of constraints whic h create a program, department or institutional level culture where the development of project proposals likely to result in successful grant awards is not recognized as a worthy way in which to spend time and resources. These constraints included other f aculty commitments (e.g., meetings and committee service), constant interruptions during the writing process (e.g., office hours to meet with students and other faculty/staff stopping by to chat), and a lack of collegial relationships (Crumbie, et al.).

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapter 3 contains a description of the research methods and procedures used in this study The subsections are the purpose of the study research questions, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and summary. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify factors that indicate the optimum institutional circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessa ry to receive external funding in the form of grants. Variables included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics such as rank, ethnicity, gender, tenure status, and employment status (e.g., full or part time); institutional characteristics, suc h as size/student enrollment location and years of existence of grants office ; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to partic ipate in grant writing and associated activities. A review of relevant literature has been conducted. While all such literature has been reviewed for relevancy, regardless of the type of higher education institution, the intent was that literature specif ic to grant writing and associated activities by public community college faculty, both full time and part time, would be the focus of this study. Data was collected through a survey made available in electronic form to staff having responsibility for sec uring grant funding for community colleges that are also institutional members of the Council for Resource Developm ent (CRD). CRD currently has a membership of over 1600 members at more than 700 institutions (CRD, 2011 ). The

PAGE 47

47 community colleges were class ified by size and geographic location. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was utilized in order to run a variety of tests to determine relationships between the variables. Research Questions T his study examined the following broad based question: What factors indicate the optimum institutional circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants ? To address this broader question, t he following three research questions were developed: 1. What is the relationship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 2. What is the relationship between institu tional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 3. What is the relationship between incentives which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate and actual faculty engagement in grant w riting and associated activities? The null hypotheses are as follows: H 0 1 : There is no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics. H 0 2 : There is no relationship between facult y engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics. H 0 3 : There is no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered by the coll ege administration to entice faculty to participate. The research hypotheses are as follows: H 1 : There is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics. H 2 : There is a relation ship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics.

PAGE 48

48 H 3 : There is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered b y the college administration to entice faculty to participate. Design of the Study Suskie (1996) asserted that researchers should not bother doing a survey unless they expect honest and valid answers from the respondents. Since the subject of engaging co mmunity college faculty in grantsmanship activities had been a topic of discussion among community college grants professionals for some time, it was believed that there would be an adequate number of respondents and that those individuals would respond in a truthful manner. Survey questions were based on previous research conducted by Meader s (Appendi x B) and Carrier (Appendix C), this Development paid staff and volunteer execu tive board members. To conduct the study, the URL to an internet based survey developed with Survey Monkey professional collection system ( http://surveymonkey.com ), was emailed to 255 members of the national Coun cil for Resource Development. Although there are some factors which are of concern to researchers, such as the fact that significant numbers of people still do not have access or do not use the Internet, receipt of email addresses for each prospective res pondent to this survey ensures that they will have the requisite access (Solomon, 2001; Best & Krueger, 2002). Creswell (2009) asserted that electronic (i.e., online, email, and web based) survey instruments were appropriate to be used for survey research Sheehan (2006) posited that while email survey response rates have declined in recent years, they are still a viable method to utilize for data collection.

PAGE 49

49 Population and Sample There are 1,167 public and independent community colleges in the United S tates; when branch campuses are included that number approaches 1600 (AACC, 2011). Although most of these two year instituti ons probably engage in some level of grant seeking it was determined that paid membership in the national Council for Resource Dev elopment constituted an additional institutional commitment to the successful pursuit of external funding. The population for this survey was determined from this paid membership. c haracteristics of a sample per se; the reason for collecting data about a sample is to The sample frame, sample size, and the specific design of the selection procedures determine how well a sample wi ll repr esent a population (Fowler ; Suskie, 1996 ). In a study of 15 years of email surveys and data collection, Sheehan (2001 ) reported a mean response rate of 36.83%, with a high of 72.0% in 1992, and a low of 21.6% in 1997. This researcher believed that the highly literate population in question would be interested in the research question and respond in adequate numbers for an appropriate sample (Fowler; Sheehan, 2006; Suskie) A specific respondent for each institution was designated by emailing the di rections and electronic link to the survey only to members of the study population. The study population was comprised of the appropriate grants office staff at 255 two year associate degree granting and associate degree dominant community colleges (e.g. public, private, tribal, etc.) in the Uni ted States and its territories. It was requested that only one response be returned for each institution. The URL/ web address to an online survey developed within the Survey Monkey p rofessional collection sys tem ( http://surveymonkey.com ) was emailed to every member of this population. The

PAGE 50

50 sample was stratified in that it was required that these staff also be active (paid) members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD). The Council for Resource Development (201 1 ) is an affiliate council of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), which provides networking opportunities and education to its membership, which includes (a) r esource development officers (b) g rant writers (c) f oundation directors (d) a lumni officers (e) c ollege presidents (f) a dministrators and (g) f aculty and staff with an i nterest in resource development. I nstrumentation and Data Collection The Buros Institute of Mental Measuremen ts website was examined for a survey instrument ( http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/category.html ) which would be suitable for this study. The Category Search tool, which is available on the website at no cost to the user, classifies all tests included in the Mental Measurements Yearbook series (since the 9 th edition, 1985) into 18 major categories. A thorough search, particularly in the categories of Achievement, Education, Vocations, and Miscellan eous, did not yield any currently validated surveys or instruments which would be appropriate for this study. A fundamental part of the survey process is using questions as measures (Fowler, 1984). Modeled after an earlier study which was related to commu nity college grant development operations ( Meader s, 2002), with permission from Dr. Sharon M. Carrier and Dr. Sherry Meader s (personal communications, February 23, 2010), a survey instrument wa s developed by this researcher. The paid professional Executiv e Director reviewed the survey and provided comments and suggestions for improvement. Dr. Christopher M. Mullin, Program Director for Policy Analysis for the American

PAGE 51

51 Associa tion of Community Colleges, also reviewed the survey and made suggestions for improvement. reviewed the survey instrument, and additional suggestions were made for improvement. Suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the final survey instrument. As the completed surveys were received in the Survey Monkey p rofessional collection system, they were assigned a numbered code, and responses from usable surveys were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software application database for analysis. A commitment in writing was received stating that this study, and distribution of the link to the resulting survey instrument, would be fully supported by the professional Executive Director for the national office (Appendix D) and the elected president and past president of the Executive Board for the Council for Resou rce Development (Appendix E ). Like the majority of surveys, a single data collection method was utilized for the purpose of this study (Fowler, 1984). The URL to the fin al survey instrument (Appendix F ), containing respondent instructions and the informed consent, was emailed in October 3, 2010, by paid staff in the national office of the Counci l for Resource Development to members appropriate to include in the population Solomon (2001) asserted that an especially effective and efficient approach to Internet surveying was the combination of an email cover letter with the use of an HTML form for the actual data collection. The was sent within an email cover letter to resource development personnel having grant writing responsibilities at 25 5 public community colleges in the United States and its territories. P ers onnel receiving the email containing the link were requested to respond to the survey by October 30, 2010.

PAGE 52

52 Survey Monkey p rofessional collection system was chosen because it was cost effective, easy to use, and allowed for a variety of download formats for collected data. The Survey Monkey professional collection system collected and stored all of the responses automatically, which allowed for real time error checking and correction, therefore increasing the accuracy of the data collection process (So lomon, 2001). The first response was recorded by the Survey Monkey p rofession al collection system on October 6, 2010. A total of 85 usable surveys were received from the population fo r a survey response rate of 33.33 %. Although respondents were assure d that their survey responses would remain confidential they were not anonymous in order to allow this researcher to also collect reliable data related to institutional and human resource characteristics from the U.S. Department of Education National Cent er for Educational Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System This method of collection for specific institutional and human resource characteristics would ensure uniformity of data points across all of the community college respondents. Each respondent provided the name of his or her institution and also his or her own name and contact information in case there was any question related to information provided in the survey. T he survey instrument CRD/UF Research: Community College Facul ty Grant Writing Activities (Appendix F ) was comprised of three distinct sections and was designed to obtain information related to the following: c ollege characteristics grant office functions, faculty i nvolvement and incentives related to that involv ement Q uestions 1 through 12 from Section 1 College were used to collect data related to institutional characteristics for the statistical analysis of the 85 respondents and

PAGE 53

53 included the following: Question 1 Informed Consent; Question 2 Institution ; Question 3 Designated contact person for survey ; Question 4 Identify college structure represented ; Question 5 D egrees granted by institution ; Question 6 F aculty union or non union ; Question 7 Number of faculty Fall 2009 ; Question 8 Presence of a Chief Resource Development Officer ; Question 9 person report ; Question 10 Existence of a negotiated indirect cost rate ; Question 11 Existence of an Institutional Review Board ; and, Question 12 Existen ce of a strategic goal related to external funding Question 1 included information about the study, informed consent, and directions information and wished to particip ate in the survey in order to be allowed to progress to Questions 2 and 3 were intended to provide information identifying each institution, and a staff member to contact i f a situation occurred in which this researcher had any question about responses. Again, respondents were required to answer this question before being allow ed to progress to the rest of the survey questions. Anyone declining to provide this information could simply close his or her Internet browser and discontinue the survey process. It was expected that a number of potential respondents might choose to opt out of participating in the survey at this point. The purpose of q uestion 4 was to identify the college structure represented, whether the respondent was at an institution that was part of a multi college district, a multi campus district, or a single community college campus. Question 5 was intended to identify all of the degrees granted by an inst itution associate in arts, associate in applied science,

PAGE 54

54 associate in science, and baccalaureate degrees, technical certificate s and diploma s. The purpose of q uestion 6 unionized or part of a colle ctive bargaining unit. The purpose of question 7 was to ascertain how many faculty members (full and part time) were employed by the institution in the fall 2009 semester the data collected from responses to this question were later discarded; instead, data col lected from the IPEDS system were used in lieu of the survey responses to ensure consistency. The purpose of questions 8 and 9 was to determine whether a responding institution had a Chief Resource De velopment Officer or some staff person with s imilar responsibilities, and to determine to whom this Meader s (2002) asserted that when community colleges make resource development (e.g., external fundraising and grantsmanship) an institu tional priority, time and resources will be focused on areas related to college mission achievement. Questions 10 12 were designed to measure whether resource development was an institutional priority at each of the respondent colleges. The intent of que stion 10 was to determine whether the institution had or was in the process of establishing, an indirect cost rate negotiated with its cognizant agency, which under these circumstances for most postsecondary institutions that agency is the U.S. Departmen t of Health and Human Services. The purpose of question 11 was to identify whether each responding institution had an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or its equivalent on site, had a formal local partner arrangement (e.g., with a university or research in stitution) or was in the process of establishing their own. Last in this section, the purpose of question 12 was to determine whether each responding community college had an institutional strategic goal related to external funding.

PAGE 55

55 Meader s (2002) examine d the identification of readiness factors in community comparing institutional characteristics and results does not fully explain why some colleges generate more grant revenue 13 through 19 in Section II, Grants Function were used to collect data related to the grants functions located at each institution for the statistical analysis of the 85 respondents and included the follo wing: Question 13 Year the grants office established ; Question 14 Location of grants function ; Question 15 Number of individuals assigned to grant project development ; Question 16 Association of grant officer with administration ; Question 17 Numb er of individuals assigned to grant project development operations ; Question 18 Number and status of applications submitted to any funding source ; Questio n 19 Number of new awards received, by agency; and, Question 20 Total amount of funding to be re alized as result of awards The purpose of question 13 was to determine whether there was actually an office responsible for grantsmanship activities, and if so, how long it had been in existence. Question 14 was intended to determine how the location of any grants functions fit into the overall structure of each institution in a dedicated grants office, co located with other college functions (e.g., institutional research, marketing, etc.), or with the college foundation. The purpose of question 15 was to gather information about the individual primarily responsible for grants operations at each college title, years in current position, total number of years with the institution, total years in resource development at any institution, and the title of their supervisor. Data collected from responses to administration association : (a) s tate

PAGE 56

56 college system administration office (b) c entral or district administration office of a multi campus district (c) d ecentralized college administration office in a multi college district (d) d ecentralized campus administration office (branch campus) of a multi campus college (e) s ingle community college campus administration office and (f) o ther (in which the respon dents were asked to specify) The purpose of question 17 was to determine the number of part time and full time employees, by job classification (e.g., professional, paraprofessional, clerical, other), specifically assigned to grant project development o perations. The purpose of question 18 was to quantify the total number of grant applications submitted to any funding source during the previous fiscal year. The intent of question 19 was to quantify the number of new awards received by each community co llege between July 1, 2009, and July 1, 2010, identified by funding agency. The questions in Section III, Faculty Involvement were used to collect data related to faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities and any incentives received by faculty for that engagement, for the statistical analysis of the 85 respondents and included the following: Question 21 Number of faculty as project director, grant ma nager or principal investigator; Question 22 Number of faculty participating in a ny grant activities ; Question 23 Existence of incentives for faculty ; and, Question 24 Types of incentives The purpose of question 21 was to quantify the number of part time and full time faculty members at each community college who were currently ac ting in an official capacity as grant project director, grant manager, or principal investigator in addition to teaching duties. The intent of question 22 was to quantify the number of part time and

PAGE 57

57 full time faculty members at each community college who had participated in any type of grant project development/writing activities, and the capacity in which they had served, including: (a) pl anning committee (b) d ata collection (c) b udget development (d) p roposal writing and (e) o ther (in which the resp ondents were asked to specify) Question 23 was intended to determine whether each community college offered any type of incentive to faculty members participating in grant project development/writing activities pre submission of grant application, regard less of whether or not the grant application is eventually funded. Respondents who answered in the affirmative to question 23, were requested in question 24 to indicate all incentives that were available, including: (a) r elease time (b) s tipends (c) o p portunities to participate in travel (d) o pportunities to participate in professional development activities (e) p oints awarded toward promotion (f) i nvitation to college wide recognition celebrations (g) r ecognition in college publication (print or el ectronic formats) (h) w ritten recognition from administration (president or vice president) and (i) o ther (in which the respondents were asked to specify) In question 25 respondents were give an open text box in which to provide any other pertinent com ments related to faculty engaging in grant project development/writing activities at their institution which they would like to share. In order to assure consistency, a dditional data were obtained by using information nformation Officer for official reporting purposes to the National Center for Education Statistics through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The IPEDS Data Center Compare Individual Institutions function ( http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionByName.aspx ) was

PAGE 58

58 utilized to compare selected variables for 2009 and 2010 and included the following: (a) e nrollment (b) n umber of p art time faculty (c) n umber of f ull time faculty (d) part time to f ull time faculty ratio (e) t enure status of faculty (f) r ank of faculty (g) g ender (h) e thnicity (i) s tudent to faculty ratio and (j) n umber of n ew faculty hires Data Analysis Variables were chosen base d on a review of relevant literature, personal experience, and upon the suggestions of a policy analyst for the American Association for Community Colleges, the volunteer leadership current president and immediate past president and the Executive Director of the Council for Resource Development Three research questions were developed for the selected independent variables, and descriptive and inferential statistics were con ducted on the data from the 85 eligible respondents. A linear regression model was utilized to test select variables to predict optimum circumstances under which community colleges may increase the level of engagement of faculty in grant writing and assoc iated activities. Utilizing SPSS, descriptive statistics of frequencies, means, and percentages were calcula ted from data collected for each institution from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and selected survey questions in Secti ons 1 College 2 Grants Function and 3 Faculty Involvement for the sample population, and included institution characteristics, faculty characteristics, and incentives offered Institution characteristics which were examined included: (a) Carnegie Class ification of institutions (b) i nstitution size (c) s tudent enrollments (d) f irst time degree seeking students (e) s tates represented (f) C ouncil for Resource Development

PAGE 59

59 region s and regional a ccreditation agencies represented, (h) t otal new hires (fac ulty) (i) s tudent to faculty and part time to full time faculty ratio s, (j) c ollege structure (k) t ypes of degrees offered (l) p resence of a chief resource development officer (m) e xistence of a negotiated indirect cost rate an institutional review bo ard and an institutional strategic goal related to external funding (n) location of grants functions, (o) n umber of years grants office has been in existence individual responsible for grants has been with institution, individual responsible for grants has been in their current position, and individual responsible for grants has been in resource development, (p) total number of grants staff and gr ants personnel reporting directly to the president (q) g association with organizational stru cture and (r) t otal number of applications submitted to any source submitted to any source which have been funded, submitted to the National Science Foundation, and number funded by the National Science Foundation. Faculty characteristics examined includ e d: (a) t enure status of faculty (b) g ender of faculty (c) e thnicity of faculty (d) f aculty salaries (e) t otal faculty any grant participation (f) t otal faculty as principal investigator, project director or grant manager (g) u nionization of faculty (h) t otal faculty serving on grant planning committees (i) t otal faculty participating in data collection for grant applications (j) t otal faculty participating in grant budget development (k) t otal faculty participating in grant proposal writing and (l) t otal faculty with any other type of participation in grant activities pre submission I ncentives for participation in grant writing and associated activities include d w hether the institution offered any type of incentive and the t ypes of incentives o ffered, if any

PAGE 60

60 Summary Three overarching research questions were developed. Variables were chosen based on a review of relevant literature, personal experience, and upon the suggestions of volunteer leadership current president and immediate past presid ent and the professional Executive Director of the Council for Resource Development (CRD), in addition to a policy analyst for the American Association of Community Colleges, and The population for this study was limited to 255 institutions for which the staff members responsible for grant writing and associated activities were paid members of CRD in good standing. The link to an electronic survey was emailed by the national CRD office staff to the appropriate grant function staff at each of these 255 institutions. Usable r esponses were received from 85 (33.33%) colleges. Variables included, but were not limited to, institutional and faculty characteristics and incentives, such as stipends and release time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate in grant writing and associated activities. In order to test the research questions, three research hypotheses were developed. The Statistical Package for the Soc ial Sciences (SPSS) software application was utilized to perform descriptive and inferential statistical studies in an effort to determine relationships between the variables and levels of faculty participation in grant writing and associated activities. A significance level of 5% ( p < .05) was selected. Linear regression analysis tests were conducted on select variables, using SPSS 13.0 to predict the variability of faculty participating in grant writing and associated activities.

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS Overview The purpose of my study was to identify the factors that indicate d the circumstances for the highest level of engagement of faculty in grant writing and associated activities at community colleges. This study explored whether there were any differences among the variables associated with institution and faculty characteristics grants office functions, and incentives offered by college administrations for faculty and the number of community college faculty engaging in grant writing of associated activities or serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager f or funded grant projects. A review of the relevant literature allowed for the appropriate variables to be chosen for analysis. The analysis process begins b y gaining an understanding of the data set in order to identify strengths and weaknesses, allowing for the identification of significant relationships (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). This chapter reports the results of the data analysis including descrip tive statistics, frequency and correlation data, and outcomes of select multiple regression analyses. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings and conclusions based on the results of the data analysis in this study related in this chapter The da ta for analysis were collected by means of the URL (Uniform Resource Locator)/web address to an online survey developed within the Survey Monkey p rofessional collection system T he electronic link to the online survey was emailed to the appropriate gra nts office staff at 255 two year associate degree granting and associate degree dominant community colleges (e.g., public, private, tribal, etc.) in the United States and its territories. I t was required that these grants office staff members

PAGE 62

62 also be acti ve paid members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD). The Council for Resource Development (2010), an affiliate council of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), provides networking opportunities and education to its membership, which includes r esource development officers g rant writers f oundation directors a lumni officers c ollege presidents a dministrators and f aculty and staff with an i nterest in resource development. Only staff members with grant responsibilities were inc luded in this study. This process resulted in 85 (33.33%) usable surveys for this study. The overarching purpose of this study was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. Three research questions were developed: 1. What is the relationship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and asso ciated activities? 2. What is the relationship between institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 3. What is the relationship between incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entice facu lty to participate and actual faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? The three research hypotheses, and associated null hypotheses, are as follows: H 0 1 : There is no relationship between in faculty engagement in grant writing and as sociated activities depending on faculty characteristics. H 1 : There is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics. H 0 2 : There is no relationship between faculty engagement i n grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics. H 2 : There is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics.

PAGE 63

63 H 0 3 : There is no relationship b etween faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate. H 3 : There is a relationship between in faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate. Descriptive Statistics Utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software package (SPSS), descriptive statisti cs of frequencies, means, and percentages were calculated from data collected for each institution These data were collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and from selected survey questions in Sections 1 College, 2 Gran ts Function and 3 Faculty Involvement from the sample population, and included institution characteristics, faculty characteristics, and incentives offered. A data analysis of the 85 respondents and data collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Educ ation Data System (IPEDS) for each institution yielded the following summary findings of note Institutions responding to the survey represented each of the six regional accreditation agencies Institutions responding to the survey represented each of th e 10 Council for Resource Development regions Respondents represented institutions in 34 (68%) states (90.6%); the nu (8.2%). Total student enrollment (2009) ra nged from 1,153 to 59,120, with a mean of 11,948. The number of first time degree seeking students ranged from 229 to 11,613, with a mean of 2,232. The total of new faculty hires made by an institution (2009) ranged from 1 to 175, with a mean of 19.48. The number of institutions reporting that their faculty were unionized was 45 (54.2%). Average salaries of full time faculty ranged from $41,411 to $92,789, with a

PAGE 64

64 mean of $61,361. The number of full time faculty (200 9 ) ranged from 29 to 658, with a mean of 180.44. Numbers of faculty involved in any type of grant writing or associated activities ranged from 3 to 112, with a mean of 18.31. The total number of faculty acting as principal investigator, project director or grant manager ranged from 1 to 89, with a mean of 5.17. The number of institutions reporting that there was a Chief Resource Development Officer responsible for grant writing functions was 74 (87%). Institutions having a Chief Resource Development Officer indicated that 37 (43%) reported to a campus president, chancellor, or district president. The number of institutions reporting that they either already had a negotiated indirect cost rate with their cognizant federal agency (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), or were in the process of establishing one was 69 ( 81%). The number of institutions reporting that they already had an I nstitutional Review B oard, were in the process of establishing one, or had a formal local partner arrangement was 60 (70%). The number of respondent s indicating that their institution had a strategic goal related to external funding was 37 (43.5%). The number of years the grants offices had been in existence ranged from 1 to 41, with a mean of 10.13. The total number of grant applications submitted to any source ranged from 4 to 155, with a mean of 34.91. The total number of funded grant applications ranged from 2 to 125, with a mean of 22.22. The total number of grant applications submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) ranged from 2 to 17, with a mean of 2.85. The total number of funded NSF applications ranged from 1 to 10, with a mean of 1.83. The number of institutions offering any type of incentive to faculty engaging in grant writing and associated activities, pre submission/award was 11

PAGE 65

65 (12.9%). The student to faculty ratios ranged from 1:8 to 1:36, with a mean ratio of 1:22. Although respondents were assured that their survey responses would remain confidential, they were not anonymous. Each respondent provided the name of the ir institution and their own name and conta ct information in case there were any questions related to the responses that they provided in the survey. Having this information, as recommended by Dr. Christopher M. Mullin Program Director for Policy Analysi s for the American Associ ation of Community Colleges, allow ed this research er to access detailed consistent data related to institutional and human resource characteristics for each college through the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educ ational Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data Center. Faculty Characteristics Whether reply to survey question 6 (Table 4 1). Survey question 21 was design ed to measure the total number of part and full time faculty currently (at the time of the survey, fall 2010) acting in an official capacity as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager (Ta ble 4 2 ). The n umbers of full time faculty acting in an official capacity as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager ranged from 1 (16.3%) to 89 (1.2%), with a mean of 8.49. Thirty six institutions indicated that they had no full time faculty acting in this capacity. The n umber of pa rt time faculty in the same official capacity ranged from 1 (80.0%) to 5 (20.0%), with a mean of 1.80. Seventy five institutions indicated that they had no part time faculty acting in this capacity.

PAGE 66

66 The results of survey question 22 provided details rela ted to the total number of faculty who have participated in grant writing and any associated grantsmanship activity, such as serving on a grant planning committee, or assisting with data collection and budget development (Table 4 3 ). The number of faculty participating in grant project planning reported by survey respondents ranged from 0 (33.0%) to 20 (2.4%). The number of faculty participating in data collection for the purposes of grant project development ranged from 0 (53.6%) to 12 (1.2%). The numbe r of faculty participating in budget development for the purposes of grant project development ranged from 0 (46.4%) to 15 (1.2%). The number of faculty participating in actual grant proposal writing ranges from 0 (36.9%) to 20 (1.2%). The total number o f faculty who have participated in grant writing and any of the named associated grantsmanship activities ranges from 0 (27.4%) to 112 (1.2%). Faculty c haracteristics IPEDS Accessing IPEDS data provided additional information related to faculty characte ristics. There were new faculty hires in 2009 at 80 (94.1%) of the 85 respondent institutions, ranging from one to 101. The student to faculty ratio (X to 1), a possible indicator of faculty workload, ranged from a low of 8:1 to a high of 36:1 (Table 4 4 ). The number of full time faculty (2009) ranged from 29 to 658, with a mean of 180.44. Salary information mined from IPEDS Average salaries of full time faculty ranged from $41,411 to $92,789, w ith a mean of $61,361. Table 4 5 provides the wide range of salaries at the respondent institutions for each rank (9 month equated).

PAGE 67

67 Institutional Characteristics Questions in survey Section I, College (questions 1 12), and Section II, Grants Functions (questions 13 20) were intended to gather information rela ting to the culture of grant seeking or lack thereof, at each respondent institution. The identit y of the colleges w as captured by survey question 2 as each respondent self which allowed for identification of location, and Council for Resource Development and accreditation agency regional membership Respondents represented institutions in 34 (68%) of the 50 United States. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) recognizes six regional accrediting organiz ations as shown in Figure 4 1 : Recognition by CHEA affirms that the standards and processes of the accrediting organization are consistent with the academic quality, improvement and accountability expectations that CHEA has established, including the elig ibility standard that the majority of institutions or programs each accredits are degree granting (n.p.) Institutions responding to the survey (Table 4 6 ) represented each of these accrediting organizations. The stated mission of the Council for Resource Development (CRD; 2011) is that it connects, educates, supports, strengthens, and celebrates community college development The current structure of CRD is such that it is divided into 10 geographical regions, as s hown in Figure 4 2 Resp ondents to the survey (Table 4 7 ) represented each of the ten regions. Although CRD also includes member institutions located in Canada, it should be noted here that only community colleges located in the United States were included in this researc h study and received the study survey. Region I includes Connecticut, Labrador, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundl and,

PAGE 68

68 Prince Edward, and Quebec, Canada Region II includes New Jersey, New Yo rk, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands Region III includes Delaware, District of Columbia Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia Region IV includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tenn essee Region V includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada Region VI includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Region VII includes Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska Region VIII include s Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Alberta, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, and Saskatchewan Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, and Trust Territories comprise Region IX, and Region X includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Yukon Territories Survey question 4 asked respondents to identify the college structure represented (Table 4 8 ). The majority of the respondents, 42.4%, indicated that their institution was p art of a multi campus distri ct (n = 36). Survey q uestion 5 asked what types of degrees were granted by each respondent institution. The largest group of respondents identified their institution as Associate in Arts degree granting, representing 98.8% of the 85 respondents (Table 4 9) In survey question 7, respondents were requested to indicate the total number of part time and full time faculty members at their institution during the fall 2009 semeste r. Due to inconsistencies, these data were discarded. Instead, data collected from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Educa tion Data System Data Center were used.

PAGE 69

69 In survey question 8, respondents were asked if there was a Chief Resource Development Officer or person with similar responsibilities (Table 4 10 ) There were 74 (87.1%) responses indicating that there was a Chief Resource Development Officer in place at the institution; 11 (12.9%) responded that was not. In survey question 9, respondents were asked, hom does this person (the Chief Resource Development Information gathered in response to s urvey question 10 provide d information related to the existence of a negotiated indirect cost rate at each institution (Table 4 11 ) In its guide for the best practices for indirect costing, the U. S. Agency for International Development (2011) provides a succinct explanation of the benefit of having a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement: Indirect costs are costs, which cannot be directly identi fied with a single contract or grant. The indirect costs are applied equitably across all of the business activities of the organization, according to the benefits each gains from them. Some examples of indirect costs are office space rental, utilities a nd clerical and managerial staff salaries. To the extent that indirect costs are reasonable, allowable and allocable, they are a legitimate cost of doing business payable under a U.S. Government contract or grant. Responsibility for negotiating indirect c ost rates with organizations doing business with the U.S. Government is specifically assigned. Each organization negotiates its indirect cost rates with one government agency, which has been assigned cognizance. The resulting Negotiated Indirect Cost Rat e Agreement is binding on the entire government. (n.p.) Even as recently as five years ago, community colleges were not required to have a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement in order to claim the maximum indirect costs allowed on federal grant awards, usually 5 8%, from agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education. Although indirect cost rate agreements negotiated with community colleges do not typically result in percentages as high as universities, they are now necessary to have in place to cla im even the minimal percentages allowed by

PAGE 70

70 U. S. Government funding agencies. As an additional benefit, many funding agencies allow the unrealized amount to be utilized as leverage, providing a stronger showing of institutional commitment to the success o f a project. For example, th institution has been approved for a 40.0% indirect cost rate agreement negotiated with its cognizant agency, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. The responses to s urvey question 11 provided infor mation related to whether or not each of the respondent institution s has an Institutional Review Board (Table 4 12 ) Ten years ago, it would have been virtually impossible to find a community college with an Institutional Review Board (IRB) in place; how ever, even though community college faculty have instruction as their primary duty, many have become involved in presenting and publishing, especially as model practices have been identified. institution has an opportunity for full time faculty members to participate in educational research and earn a stipend, as negotiated in their collective bargaining agreement. Participation in the institutional review board is necessary to assess the risks and benefits of any proposed research. In a ddition, institutions applying for most federal funding opportunities are now required to provide the Protection of Human Subjects Assurance Identification/Institutional Review Board Certification/Declaration of Exemption Form (OMB No. 0990 0263) which ask s specifically for the status of IRB review of the project. According to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protections: Risks to research subjects posed by participation in research should be justified by the anti cipated benefits to the subjects or society. This requirement is clearly stated in all codes of research ethics, and is central to the federal regulations. One of the major responsibilities of the IRB, therefore, is to assess the risks and benefits of prop osed research. (n.p.)

PAGE 71

71 Cohen and Brawer (1972) asserted, One indicator as to the importance, or value, of grant writing and e of an institutional strategic goal related to exte rnal funding. Response to s urvey question 12 provided information as to whether or not each of the respondent institutions has such a strategic goal in place (Table 4 13 ). As reported earlier, the numbe r of respondents indicating that their institution had a strategic goal related to external funding was only 37 (43.5%). A representative sample of the strategic goals related to the pursuit of external funding provided by respondents in the open ended r equest made at the end of survey question 12 for such are as follows specific college name was provided in the strategic goal statement) A small college in CRD Region IV has a strategic goal related to Responsible Resource Management which states: Promote the responsible management of resources by maintaining sound fiscal operations, seeking additional resources, improving college facilities, and providing an environment conducive to progressive impl ementation of technology. A large college in CRD Region I has a strategic goal in place, which outlines a very specific annual target for the grants office to achieve: viabil ity by setting annual targets for profitability. The college will generate a minimum increase of grant revenues 3% annually. Many institutions had concise strategic goal statements related to the pursuit of external funding : ( a) Provide funding for college priorities for which other resources are unavailable; (b ) The college will increase annual revenues from grants and contracts ; (c ) Optimize the range of funding sources ; (d ) Increase external

PAGE 72

72 funding through grants ; (e ) The c ollege will secure $1,000,000 in additional funding through grant resources by 2015 ; (f ) The college will expand external funding through fundraising and the writing of grants ; (g ) Grow college financial resources; (h ) Increase resources for financial grow th and stability and ( i ) Increase college revenues by aggressively seeking funds from public and private sources, including grants. A smaller number of institutions have a strategic goal in place related to external funding, yet also directly correlated to the overall college mission: (a) Acquire the financial resources available for the college to fulfill its mission; (b) Seek grants and charitable contributions that will further the accomplishment of the strategic plan; (c) The college develops resourc es and infrastructure to support its mission and vision; and (d) The college will provide and develop financial resources to maintain and improve programs and services consistent with institutional commitments (mission, goals, and objectives). Support of c ollege programs was the focus of a large college in CRD Region IV: The college will secure funding that supports exemplary programs and services. Four of the respondent colleges consider external funding as part of an overarching theme of fiscal stabilit y and sustainability: (a) Resource development and operational efficiencies term efforts to provide an innovative and exemplary learning environment; (b) Resource development and cost efficiencies incre ase and/or improve innovative entrepreneurial actions across the college by creating new revenue sources; (c) ential to ensure sustainability; and (d) Increase the fiscal well being of the college.

PAGE 73

73 One large college located in CRD Region IV, and accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, has what is perhaps arguably the most comprehensive interpretation of including external funding within an institutional strategic goal: Enhance institutional effectiven ess by continuously improving human, fiscal, physical, and technological resources. Institutional characteristics IPEDS Accessing IPEDS data provided additional information related to institutional characteristics. The Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2009) provided a detailed breakdown describing community colleges by size (Table 4 14 ) VS2: Very small two year fall enrollment data show Full Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment, which is calculated as full time plus one third part time, of fe wer than 500 students at these associate degree granting institutions. S2: Small two year fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 500 1,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions. M2: Medium two year fall enrollment data show FTE en rollment of 2,000 4,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions L2: Large two year fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 5,000 9,999 students at these associate degree granting institutions; and VL2: Very large two year fall enroll ment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 students at these associate degree granting institutions. (n.p.) Katsinas (2003) classified small community colleges as those with unduplicated credit enrollments (headcount) below 2,500 students. An enroll ment of more than 2,500 students places a community college in the large category. Using this definition, 77 (90.6%) of the respondent institutions are categorized as Large and 8 (9.4%) are categorized as Small

PAGE 74

74 Although statistics for both institution al size classification methods were examined, it is believed by this researcher that because full time equivalency in each state is calculated with different formulas, and IPEDS provides consistent headcount enrollment data, the definition of size provided b y Katsinas is more meaningful for the purposes of this study, rather than the Carnegie classification. Grant Functions In answering survey question 13, the respondents provided information as to what year the grants office had been established at their i nstitution. The newest grant office, of all respondents, was established in 2010; the oldest was established in 1970. Table 4 1 5 provides the actual number of years each grants office has been in existence. Responses to s urvey question 15 allowed for the c apture of information related directly to the individual primarily responsible for the grant functions at each institution. Because of the diversity of office and department names, more than 50 titles were reported, although most individuals were director s or coordinators. The newest staf f member reported being in his or her current position for less than a year. The most senior staf f member reported being in his or her current position for 24 years. Individuals reported a wide range of total years work ing in resource development. The least experienced staff member reported less than one year and the most experienced staff member reported working in resource development for 32 years. The location of the grants offices and staff are found at many differ ent levels within institutional organizational structures. Most staff responsible for grant functions report ed to executive directors/directors or some other title (n=52, 61.2%); 25 (29.4%) respondents indicated that they reported to vice presidents and 8 (9.4%) indicated that they reported to the president of their respective institution.

PAGE 75

75 As detailed in Table 4 1 6 responses to survey question 17 provided the number total staff dedicated to grant office functions which ranged from 1 (37%) to 8 (2.4%), wi th a mean of 2.10. Responses to s urvey question 18 provided insight into the production level of each office. The production level of each grants office was measured in terms of the total number of applications submitted to any funding source during the 2 009 2010 academic year ending June 30, 2010. The smallest number of applications submitted was 4 (3.5%). The largest number of applications submitted to any funding source was 155 (1.2%). The mean was 34.91. The total number of applications to any fund ing source which were actually funded during the 2009 2010 academic year ending June 30, 2010, ranged from 2 (3.2%) to 125 (1.2%), with a mean of 22.22. The total number of applications to any funding source which were unfunded during the 2009 2010 academ ic year ending June 30, 2010, ranged from 1 (8.2%) to 33 (3.3%), with a mean of 9.63. Most institutions still had applications, which were pending, awaiting word from funding agencies as to their status. The number of applications to any source still pen ding ranged from 1 (32.6%) to 55 (1.2%), with a mean of 9.64. Submission of applications to the National Science Foundation (NSF ) are particularly indicative of faculty engagement in grant project development and application processes. According to NSF gu idance, Scientists, engineers and educations usually initiate proposals that are officially submitted by their employing organization. Except where a program solicitation establishes more restrictive eligibility criteria, individuals and organizations may submit proposals: Universities and colleges U.S. universities and two and four year colleges (including community colleges) acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations are also referred to as academic institutions. (n.p.)

PAGE 76

76 Survey que stion 19 requested information related to applications submitted to the National Science Foundation. The number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation by any single community college ranged from 1 (25.9%) to 17 (1.2%), with 45 (52.9% ) of the community colleges indicating that they had not submitted an application to the National Science Foundation during the 2009 2010 academic year ending June 30, 2010. Of those 40 community colleges actually submitting applications to the National S cience Foundation 29 reported that they had received awards, with the number of awards ranging from 22 colleges reporting that they had received one (75.9%) award, to one college reporting that they had received 10 (3.4%) awards Incentives Survey questio n 23 asks respondents if their institution offers any type of incentive to faculty members participating in grant project development and writing activities pre submission of application, whether or not the grant application was eventually funded. Sixty three of the respondents answered this question; 11 (17.5%) responded that their institutions offered incentives, while 52 (61.2%) responded that their institutions did not offer any type of incentives. In s urvey question 24 respondents indicating that t heir institutions did offer incentives were asked to indicate what types of incentives were available for faculty members participating in grant project development and writing activities pre submission of application, whether or not the grant application w as eventually funded (Table 4 17 ). Hypothesis Testing A variety of tests were utilized to analyze the survey data to determine if they answerer the

PAGE 77

77 null hypotheses. Descriptive stati stics provided a detailed picture of the institutional and faculty characteristics and grant functions for the community colleges of each of the survey respondents. The Bivariate Correlations procedure was utilized to compute the Pearson's correlation coe fficient. This correlation test measures how variables or rank orders are related. Pearson product correlations allowed for examination of the relationships between the various independent variables and the levels of faculty engagement i n grantsmanship act ivities. M ultiple regression analys es were conducted to determine the d egree of association between a selection of dependent and independent variables. A confidence level of 95% is utilized for all data analyses. Research Question One I s the re a relation ship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? The hypothesis associated with Research Question One asserts t hat there should be a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associ ated activities depending on various faculty characteristics. The null hypothesis posits that there will be no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics. The dependent variable s are t he total number of faculty members involved in grant writing and any of the associated activities (e.g., planning, budget development, data collection) and the total number of faculty members that were currently (as of the time of the survey) servin g as principal investigator, pr oject director or grant manager of active funded grant projects. As detailed in Table 4 18, there is no relationship between total faculty as principal investigator, project director or grant manager or total faculty engagin g in any type of grantsmanship activities and whether faculty are unionized, the ratio of part time to full time faculty, average faculty salary, the number of new faculty

PAGE 78

78 hires, or the ratio of students to faculty. The only variables displaying a signifi cant relationship for faculty as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager are the total number of tenured (p = 0.000) and total number of non tenured (p = 0.0001) facu lty members. The only variables displaying a significant relationship for faculty engaging in any type of grantsmanship activities are the total number of tenured (p 0.000) and total number of non tenured (p = 0.000) faculty members. The null hypothesis was rejected for these variables. T he numbers are small and it is als o possible that this result is more a factor of having more faculty available to participate than any other reason for there to be a relationship. The rank, gender and ethnicity variables also resulted in there bei ng no significant relationship and are no t discussed here. Research Question Two What is the relationship between institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? The hypothesis associated with Research Question Two asserts that there is relationsh ip between in the number of faculty serving as principal investigators, project directors and grants managers and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics including grant office functions T he null hypothesis posits that there is no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics. Grant functions included within institutional characteristics are discussed separatel y. As discussed earlier, a number of factors indicate that an institution is committed to supporting any and all efforts in the pursuit of external funding through the submission of grant applications, such as the presence of

PAGE 79

79 an institutional goal related to external funding, chief resource development officer, a negotiated indirect cost rate, and an established institutional review board. Additional Pearson Correlation tests were conducted to determine if there were any relationships between grant funct ions at the institutions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, including service as principal investigator, project director and grant manager, and participation in grant writing and associated activities. Table 4 19 provides data rel ated to the Pearson Correlations conducted to test this hypothesis for both administrative and grant function institutional characteristics. Administrative There was no significant relationship indicated between total faculty as principal investigator, pr oject director or grant manager or total faculty engaged in any grant activity, and whether an institution had a negotiated indirect cost rate, and establishe d institutional review board, an institutional strategic goal related to external funding, accredi tation agency or CRD region membership, or the size classification of the degrees w as examined there was a significant relationship (p = 0.025 ) with total faculty as princ ipal investigator, project director or grant manager ; this relationship did not exist for total faculty engaging in any grant activity. The relationship between faculty as principal investigator, project director and grant manager and variables of the num ber of first time degree seeking students (p = 0 .000) and total student enrollment Fall 2009 (p = 0 .000) provide indications of a significant relationship ; as does the relationship between first time degree seeking students (p = 0 .01 2 ) and total student enrollment Fall 2009 (p = 0.010 ) variables and the engagement of faculty in any grant activities. O n the basis of these variab les, the null hypothesis is rejected.

PAGE 80

80 Grant functions There was no relationship between the total faculty as principal investigat or, project director or grant manager and the following variables: 1) the number of years the grant office had been established; 2) whether there was a chief resource development officer; 3) the location of the grants function; 4) the number of years in c urrent position for the individual responsible for the grants function; 5) the number of years with the institution for the individual responsible for the grants function; or 6) the number of years in resource development for the individual responsible for the grants function. For those variables, the null hypothesis was not rejected. However, there were significant relationships for the variables of the number of total staff dedicated to grants activities (p = 0.000), the total number of applications sub mitted to any funding source (p = 0.000), and the total number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation (p = 0.000). On the basis of the results of the tests conducted on those variables, the null hypothesis was rejected. The picture looks similar for the variable relationships with the total number of faculty engaged in any grant participation, although in addition to the variables of the number of total staff dedicated to grants activities (p = 0.000), the total number of application s submitted to any funding source (p = 0.000), and the total number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation (p = 0.000), there was also a significant relationship for the number of years a grant office had been established (p = 0.004) a significant relationship with the number of years the individual responsible for the grants function had been in their current position (p = 0.024), and there was also a significant relationship with the location of the grants function (p = 0.04 4 ). Fo r those variable s the null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 81

81 Research Question Three What is the relationship between incentives which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate and actual faculty engagement in grant writing and as sociated activities? The hypothesis associated with Research Question Three asserts that there shou ld be a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered by the college adminis tration to entice faculty to participate. The null hypothesis posits that t here will be no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entic e faculty to participate. Table 4 20 provides data related to the Pearson Correlation con ducted to test this hypothesis. The question of whether there was any relationship if there were any incentives at all offered was examined, and then Pearson Correla tion tests were conducted for each of specific incentives offered. As shown, there are no significant relationship s between whether any incentives at all were offered, or any of the specific incentives being offered by the college administration and facul ty members as principal investigator, project director or grant manager, or engaging in any grant writing and associated activities The null hypothesis was not rejected. Regression M odels In order to further investigate the relationships between facult y and institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated grantsmanship activities, linear r egressions were conducted with selected variables in order to estimate the coefficients of the linear equation, involving one or mo re independent variables, which best predict the value of the dependent variable.

PAGE 82

82 Facul ty E ngagement in G rant W riting The proposed regression model was as follows: Faculty Engagement in Grant Writing Activities (total faculty any grant participation) = a constant + b (number of years grant office established) + b ( years in current position for individual responsible for grants) + b (years with institution for individual responsible for grants) + b (years in resource development for individual responsibl e for grants) + b (total grant staff) + b (total number of applications submitted to any source) + b (grand total full time faculty) + b (total enrollment 20 09) + b (total number of first time degree seeking students) + b (estimated full time enrollment) + b (estimated part time enrollment) + b (total new fa culty hires 2009) + b (grand total male full time faculty) + b ( grand total female full time faculty). The R 2 of .668 for the model for faculty engagement in grant writing activities was statistically si gnificant (F ( 4,54 ) = 25.105 p = 0.000) suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associ ated with approximately 66 % of the variance seen in the measures of faculty engagement in grant writing activities. The adjusted R 2 was 0.641 This value for the R 2 indicated a strong association. Table 4 21 reports the Beta ln, the observed t test values and their significance levels for the excluded variables. Table 4 22 reports the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), the standard regression co efficients ( ), the observed t test values and their significance levels for the four explanatory (independent) variables, which were found to be statistically significant: (a) Total number of applications submitted to any source ( b = .277, t(55) = 3.320, p = 0 .002) ; (b) Total Enrollment 2009 ( b = .001, t(55) = 3.465, p = 0 .001) ; (c) Total grant staff ( b = 3.322, t(55) = 2.138, p = 0 .037 ; and (c) Years in current position for individual responsible for grants ( b = .829, t(55) = 2.046, p = 0 .046)

PAGE 83

83 The propos ed regression model was as follows: Faculty Engagement in Grant Writing Activities (total faculty any grant participat ion) = 6.217 + .088 (number of yea rs grant office established) + .829 (years in current position for indivi dual responsible for grants) + .086 (years with institution for individual responsible for grant s) + .049 (years in resource development for individual responsible for grants) + 3.322 (total grant staff) + .277 (total number of applications submitted to any source) + .116 (grand to tal full time faculty) + .001 (total enrollment 2009) + .190 (total number of first time degree seeking students) + .021 (estimated full t ime enrollment) + .035 (estimated part time enrollment) + .082 (total new faculty hires 2009) + .037 (grand total mal e full time faculty) + .204 (grand total female full time faculty). As explained in the following detail, it is suggested that for any increases in the independent variables total number of applications submitted to any source, total student enrollment, to tal number of grant office staff, and the number of years in his or her current position for the individual responsible for grants functions there will be an increase in faculty engagement in grant writing and associated grantsmanship activities. For the s tatistically significant explanatory (independent) variable total number of applications submitted to any source, the regression coefficient (b) value of .277 suggested that for each additional grant application submitted to any source there is a 0.277 poi nt increase in faculty engagement in grant writing activities. For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable total student enrollment 2009, the regression coefficient (b) value of .001 suggested that for each additional student there is a 0.001 point increase in faculty engagement in grant writing activities.

PAGE 84

84 For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable total grant office staff, the regression coefficient (b) value of 3.322 suggested that for each additional gr ant staff member there is a 3.322 point increase in faculty engagement in grant writing activities. For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable number of year in current position for individual responsible for grants functions, the regression coefficient (b) value of .829 suggested that for each additional year the individual responsible for grant functions spent in their current position there is a .829 point increase in faculty engagement in grant writing activities. Faculty M emb ers S erving as P rincipal I nvestigator, P roject D irector or Gr ant M anager The proposed regression model was as follows: Faculty Engagement in Grant Writing Activities (faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager) = a consta nt + b (number of years grant office established) + b (years in current position for individual responsible for grants) + b (years with institution for individual responsible for grants) + b (years in resource development for individual responsible for gr ants) + b (total grant staff) + b (total number of applications submitted to any source) + b (grand total full time faculty) + b (total enrollment 2009) + b (total number of first time degree seeking students) + b (estimated full time enrollment) + b (esti mated part time enrollment) + b (total new faculty hires 2009) + b (grand total male full time faculty) + b (grand total female full time faculty). The R 2 of 738 for the model for faculty engagement in grant writing activities was statistically significan t (F ( 4,54 ) = 35.127 p = 0.000) suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with approximately 74 % of the variance seen in the

PAGE 85

85 measures of faculty engagement in grant writing activities. The adjusted R 2 was .717 This value for the R 2 indicated a stron g association. Table 4 23 reports the Beta ln, the observed t test values and their significance levels for the excluded variables. The proposed regression model was as follows: Faculty Engagement in Grant Writing Activities (faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager) = 8.596 + .277 (number of years grant office established) + .154 (years in current position for individual responsible for grants) + .090 (years with institution for individual respon sible for grants) + .024 (years in resource development for individual responsible for grants) + 2.529 (total grant staff) + .173 (total number of applications submitted to any source) + .089 (grand total full time faculty) + .001 (total enrollment 2009) + .438 (total number of first time degree seeking students) + .073 (estimated full time enrollment) + .119 (estimated part time enrollment) + .116 (total new faculty hires 2009) + .077 (grand total male full time faculty) + .066 (grand total female full time faculty). Table 4 24 reports the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), the standard regression coefficients ( ), the observed t test values and their significance levels for the four explanatory (independent) variables, which were found to be st atistically significant: (a) Total enrollment 2009 ( b = .001, t(55) = 5.013, p = 0 .000) ; (b) Total number of grant applications submitted to any source (b = .173, t(55) = 3.976, p = 0 .000) ; (c) Total number of grant staff (b = 2.529, t(55) = 3.099, p = 0 000) ; and, (d) Number of years grant office had been established (b = .277, t(55) = 2.164, p = 0 .000) As explained in detail following, it is suggested that for any increases in the independent variables total student enrollment, total number of grant appl ications

PAGE 86

86 submitted to any source, total number of grant office staff, and number of years the grant office had been established there will be an increase in faculty participating as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager. For the statis tically significant explanatory (independent) variable total enrollment 2009, the regression coefficient (b) value of .001 suggested that for each additional student enrollment there is a 0.001 point increase in faculty participating as principal investiga tor, project director or grant manager. For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable total number of grant applications submitted to any source, the regression coefficient (b) value of .173 suggested that for each additional grant a pplication submitted to any source there is a .173 point increase in faculty participating as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable total number of grant staff, the r egression coefficient (b) value of 2.529 suggested that for each additional grant office staff member, there is a 2.529 point increase in faculty participating as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. For the statistically significant explanatory (independent) variable number of years grant office had been established, the regression coefficient (b) value of .277 suggested that for each additional year that the grant office had been established, there is a .277 point increase in faculty participating as principal investigator, project director or grant manager. Summary The data for analysis was collected by means of the URL (Uniform Resource Locator)/web address to an online survey developed within the Survey Monkey

PAGE 87

87 professional colle ction system, the electronic link to which was emailed to the appropriate grants office staf f, who were also active members of the Council for Resource Development, at 255 two year associate degree granting and associate degree dominant community colleges (e.g., public, private, tribal, etc.) in the United States and its territories. This process resulted in 85 (33.33%) usable surveys for this study. The overarching purpose of this study was to identify factors that indicate the optimum circumstances und er which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. A variety of tests were utilized to analyze the survey data to determine if they answe corresponding hypotheses and null hypotheses. Descriptive statistics provided a detailed picture of the institutional and faculty characteristics and grant functions for the community colleges of each of th e survey respondents. The Bivariate Correlations procedure was utilized to compute the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the degree of association between the independent variables and the levels of faculty engagement in grantsmanship activities. A significance level of 95% was selected. The hypothesis associated with Research Question One asserted that there is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities d epending on various faculty characteristics. The null hypothesis posits that there is no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on faculty characteristics. There is no relationship between total facul ty as

PAGE 88

88 principal investigator, project director or grant manager or total faculty engaging in any type of grantsmanship and whether faculty are unionized, the ratio of part time to full time faculty, average faculty salary, the number of new faculty hires, or the ratio of students to faculty. The only variables displaying a significant relationship are the total number of tenured (p = 0.000) and total number of non tenured faculty members (p = 0.0001; p = 0.000). The null hypothesis was rejected. It is po ssible that this result is more a factor of having more faculty available to participate than any other reason for there to be a relationship. The hypothesis associated with Research Question T wo asserted that there is a relationship between the number of faculty serving as principal investigators, project directors and grants managers and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics, including grant office functions. The null hypothesis posits t hat there is no relationship between faculty engageme nt in grant writing and associated activities depending on institutional characteristics. There was no relationship for a number of variables; however, there were significant relationships for the varia bles of the number of total staff dedicated to grants activities (p = 0 000), the total number of applications submitted to any funding source (p = 0.000), and the total number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation (p = 0.000), there were also significant relationships for the number of years a grant office had been established ( p = 0.004), the number of years the individual responsible for the grants function had been in t heir current position (p = 0.024 ), and the location of the gr ants functions (p = 0.044 ).

PAGE 89

89 The hypothesis associated with Research Question Th ree asserted that there is a relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities, including participation as a principal investigator, project di rector or grant manager, depending on incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate. The null hypo thesis posits that there is no relationship between faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activit ies depending on incentives, which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate. There were no significant relationships between whether any incentives at all were offered, or any of the specific incentives being offered by t he college administration and faculty members as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager, or engaging in any grant writing and associated grantsmanship activities. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Linear Regressions were conducted with selected variables in order to estimate the coefficients of the linear equation, involving one or more independent variables, which best predict the value of the dependent variable. The analysis of the linear regression models suggested that for any increases in the independent variables total student enrollment, total number of grant applications submitted to any source, total number of grant office staff, and number of years the grant office had been established there will be an increase in faculty participating as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager. In addition, it is suggested that for any increases in the independent variables total number of applications submitted to any source, total student enrollment, total number of grant office staff, and the number of years in his or

PAGE 90

90 her current position for the individual responsible for grants functions there will be an increase in faculty engagement in grant writing and associated grantsmanship activities.

PAGE 91

91 (Source: http://www.parkcityindependent.com/accreditation/accreditation agencies Last accessed October 2011.) Figure 4 1. Map of accreditation agency regions

PAGE 92

92 (Source: http://www.crdnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=63&Itemid=76 Last accessed October 2011). Figure 4 2. Council for Resource Development region map

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 1. Unionization of faculty Status Frequency Percent Union 45 54.2 Non union 38 45.8 Total 83 100.0 Table 4 2. Total number of part and full time faculty acting as principal investigator, project director, or grant manager Number of facu lty acting as principal investigator, project director or grant manager Frequency Percent 0.0 34 40.5 1.0 8 9.5 2.0 9 10.7 3.0 7 8.3 4.0 5 6.0 5.0 1 1.2 6.0 1 1.2 7.0 3 3.6 8.0 1 1.2 10.0 3 3.6 11.0 2 2.4 12.0 2 2.4 14.0 2 2.4 18.0 1 1.2 1 9.0 1 1.2 28.0 1 1.2 34.0 1 1.2 35.0 1 1.2 89.0 1 1.2 Total 84 100.0

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 3. Total faculty, any grant participation Total number of faculty who have participated in grant writing and any other associated activity Frequency Percent .00 24 28.3 3.00 2 2.4 4.00 3 3.5 6.00 2 2.4 7.00 4 4.7 8.00 2 2.4 9.00 2 2.4 10.00 4 4.7 11.00 2 2.4 13.00 3 3.5 14.00 2 2.4 15.00 3 3.5 16.00 2 2.4 17.00 3 3.5 18.00 1 1.2 20.00 2 2.4 21.00 1 1.2 22.00 1 1.2 24.00 1 1.2 28.00 1 1.2 30.00 1 1.2 3 1.00 1 1.2 34.00 2 2.4 35.00 1 1.2 38.00 2 2.4 41.00 1 1.2 43.00 1 1.2 44.00 1 1.2 46.00 1 1.2 54.00 1 1.2 57.00 1 1.2 58.00 2 2.4 62.00 1 1.2 69.00 1 1.2 75.00 1 1.2 77.00 1 1.2 112.00 1 1.2 Total 85 100.0

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 4. Student to faculty ratio Number of students (X) to each faculty member (1) Frequency Percent 8.00 1 1.2 12.00 8 9.5 14.00 1 1.2 15.00 2 2.4 16.00 3 3.5 17.00 4 4.7 18.00 9 10.6 19.00 5 5.9 20.00 13 15.3 21.00 3 3.5 22.00 5 5.9 23.00 4 4.7 24.00 3 3.5 25.00 6 7 .1 26.00 4 4.7 27.00 2 2.4 28.00 2 2.4 29.00 2 2.4 30.00 6 7.1 31.00 1 1.2 32.00 1 1.2 33.00 4 4.7 36.00 1 1.2 Total 85 100.0 Source: IPEDS, accessed September 2011 Table 4 5. Fall 2009 Faculty salary information (9 month equated) Faculty Ran k High Low Professor $108,488.00 $47,310.00 Associate Professor $85,995.00 $40,672.00 Assistant Professor $70,017.00 $39,049.00 Instructor $92,789.00 $35,126.00 Source: IPEDS, accessed September 2011

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 6 Accrediting organizations represente d in study Accrediting organization Frequency Percent Middle States Commission on Higher Education 5 5.9 New England Association of Schools & Colleges 3 3.5 North Central Association of Schools & Colleges 28 32.9 Northwest Commission on Colleges & Univ ersities 5 5.9 Southern Association of Colleges & Schools 33 38.9 Western Association of Schools and Colleges 11 12.9 85 100.0 Source: IPEDS, accessed September 2011 Table 4 7 Council for Resource Development regions represented in study Council for Resource Development Region Frequency Percent Region I 3 3.5 Region II 2 2.4 Region III 4 4.7 Region IV 30 35.3 Region V 14 16.5 Region VI 7 8.2 Region VII 5 5.9 Region VIII 3 3.5 Region IX 13 15.3 Region X 4 4.7 Total 85 100.0 Source: Cou ncil for Resource Development, http://www.crdnet.org accessed September 2011 Table 4 8 College structure Structure type Frequency Percent Multi college district 14 16.7 Multi campus district 36 42.9 Single com munity college campus 26 31.0 Other 8 9.5 Total 84 100.0

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 9 Types of degrees granted by institutions Type of degree Frequency Percent Associate in Arts 83 98.8 Associate in Applied Science 64 76.2 Associate in Science 77 91.7 Technical Ce rtificate 80 95.2 Diploma 27 32.1 16 19.0 Table 4 10 Reporting line for Chief Resource Development Officer Reporting line Frequency Percent Not applicable 8 9.9 Campus president 25 30.9 Chancellor 5 6.2 Dean 2 2.5 District president 7 8.6 Provost 2 2.5 Vice president 18 22.2 Other 14 17.3 Total 81 100.0 Table 4 11 Existence of a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement Indirect cost rate agreement in place Frequency Percent No 14 16.9 Yes 63 75.9 No, bu t in the process of establishing 6 7.2 Total 83 100.0 Table 4 12 Existence of an institutional review board Institutional review board in place Frequency Percent No 21 25.9 Yes, on site 45 55.6 No, but in the process of establishing 9 11.1 No, b ut have formal local partner arrangement 6 7.4 Total 81 100.0

PAGE 98

98 Table 4 13. Existence of an institutional strategic goal related to external funding Strategic goal related to external funding Frequency Percent Yes 37 47.4 No 41 52.6 Total 78 100.0 Table 4 14. Carnegie Classification of institutions Carnegie Classification Frequency Percent Public Rural serving Small 4 4.7 Public Rural serving Medium 23 27.1 Public Rural serving Large 15 17.6 Pub lic Suburban serving Single Campus 10 11.8 Public Suburban serving Multi Campus 7 8.2 Public Urban serving Single Campus 6 7.1 Public, Urban serving Multicampus 15 17.6 Public 2 year Colleges under 4 year University 2 2.4 Pubic 4 3 3.5 Total 85 100.0 Source: IPEDS, accessed September 2011

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 15. Number of years grants office has been established Number of years grants office established Frequency Percent 1 3 4.9 2 5 8.2 3 2 3.3 4 4 6.6 5 2 3.3 6 9 14.8 7 5 8.2 8 5 8.2 9 3 4.9 10 5 8.2 11 2 3.3 13 2 3.3 14 1 1.6 17 2 3.3 18 2 3.3 19 2 3.3 21 2 3.3 25 1 1.6 27 1 1.6 31 2 3.3 41 1 1.6 Total 61 100.0 Table 4 16. Total staff dedicated to grant office functions Total number of staff dedicated to grant office functions Frequency Percent 1 37 43.5 2 23 27.1 3 15 17.6 4 2 2.4 5 3 3.5 6 2 2.4 8 2 2.4 Total 85 100.0

PAGE 100

100 T able 4 17. Types of incentives offered to faculty Type of in centive offered to faculty members participating in grant project development and writing activities pre submission of application All respondent institutions Institutions indicating incentives are offered Frequency Percent Percent Release time 5 5.9 8.1 Stipend 2 3.2 2.4 Travel 2 2.4 3.2 Professional development 3 3.5 4.8 Points for promotion 5 5.9 8.1 Invitation to college wide celebration 1 1.2 1.6 Recognition in college publication 3 3.5 4.8 Written recognition from administration (presid ent or VP) 3 3.5 4.8 Any other incentive 4 4.7 6.5

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 18. Pearson Correlation Faculty Characteristics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2 tailed) Total faculty as principal investigator, project dire ctor or grant manager 5.2235 11.56388 85 Faculty unionized .5422 .50125 83 .001 .996 Ratio of PT to FT faculty 2.5723 1.16072 85 .118 .281 Average faculty salary 61373.259 16117.83962 58 .087 .516 Number of new faculty hires 20.4815 26.339 66 81 .076 .501 Total tenured faculty Fall 2009 120.1765 106.22480 51 .650** .000 Total non tenured faculty Fall 2009 40.1569 31.740.43 51 .438** .001 Student to faculty ratio (X to 1) 22.2235 5.66606 85 .022 .839 Total faculty any grant partici pation 5.2235 11.56388 85 Faculty unionized .5422 .50125 83 .014 .900 Ratio of PT to FT faculty 2.5723 1.16072 85 .020 .853 Average faculty salary 61373.259 16117.83962 58 .070 .600 Number of new faculty hires 20.4815 26.33966 81 .070 .600 Tota l tenured faculty Fall 2009 120.1765 106.22480 51 .475** .000 Total non tenured faculty Fall 2009 40.1569 31.740.43 51 .543** .000 Student to faculty ratio (X to 1) 22.2235 5.66606 85 .037 .739 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 19. Pearson Correlations Institutional Characteristics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2 tailed) ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTERISTICS Total faculty as principal investigator, project director or grant mana ger 5.2235 11.56388 85 Indirect cost rate 1.2353 .42670 85 .127 .248 Institutional review board 1.0000 .81650 82 .067 .550 Strategic goal related to external funding 1.5190 .50283 79 .050 .661 offered .2000 .40237 85 .244** .025 Accreditation agency 4.0706 1.38691 85 .123 .262 Total student enrollment Fall 2009 12340.729 11373.94423 85 .480** .000 Number of first time degree seeking students 2291.1882 2061.06385 85 .493** .000 CRD region 5.4941 2.32289 85 .004 .973 Size clas sification 1.9176 .27653 85 .110 .316 Total faculty any grant participation 18.4588 22.11741 85 Indirect cost rate 1.2353 .42670 85 .142 .196 Institutional review board 1.0000 .81650 82 .115 .305 Strategic goal related to external funding 1. 5190 .50283 79 .067 .560 offered .2000 .40237 85 .166 .129 Accreditation agency 4.0706 1.38691 85 .047 .666 Total student enrollment Fall 2009 12340.729 11373.94423 85 .280** .010 Number of first time degree seeking students 2291.188 2 2061.06385 85 .272** .012 CRD region 5.4941 2.32289 85 .039 .726 Size classification 1.9176 .27653 85 .183 .093

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 19. Continued Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2 tailed) GRANT FUNCTION CHARACTERIS TICS Total faculty as principal investigator, project director or grant manager 5.2235 11.56388 85 Number of years grant office established 10.0806 8.19696 62 .179 .164 Presence of a Chief Resource Development Officer .9059 .33179 85 .140 .200 Location of grants function 1.8235 .94539 68 .219 .073 Years in current position for individual responsible for grants 5.4816 4.6579 68 .169 .169 Years with institution for individual responsible for grants 8.2941 7.29827 68 .085 .492 Years in resourc e development for individual responsible for grants 13.0294 8.55083 68 .063 .612 Total staff dedicated to grants activities 2.1294 1.51805 85 .603** .000 Total number of applications submitted to any source 34.9242 30.83969 66 .577** .000 Number of appl ications submitted to NSF 2.8049 3.28800 41 .614** .000

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 19. Continued Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2 tailed) Total faculty any grant participation Number of years grant office established 10 .0806 8.19696 62 .359** .004 Presence of a Chief Resource Development Officer .9059 .33179 85 .129 .240 Total number of applications submitted to any source 34.9242 30.83969 66 .624** .000 Location of grants function 5.4816 4.6579 68 .245** .044 Year s in current position for individual responsible for grants 8.2941 7.29827 68 .274** .024 Years with institution for individual responsible for grants 13.0294 8.55083 68 .215 .079 Years in resource development for individual responsible for grants 2.1294 1.51805 85 .117 .343 Total staff dedicated to grants activities 34.9242 30.83969 66 .656** .000 Number of applications submitted to NSF 2.8049 3.28800 41 .711** .000 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 20 Incentives of fere d Correlation Faculty as principal investigator, project director or grant manager (N=62) Faculty engaged in grant writing and associated activities (N=62) Incentives offered Pearson Correlation .155 .121 Sig. (2 tailed) .225 .346 Rel ease Time Pearson Correlation .108 .034 Sig. (2 tailed) .403 .795 Stipend Pearson Correlation .038 .050 Sig. (2 tailed) .767 .701 Travel Pearson Correlation .074 .119 Sig. (2 tailed) .569 .359 Professional development Pearson Correla tion .088 .158 Sig. (2 tailed) .496 .219 Points for promotion Pearson Correlation .090 .090 Sig. (2 tailed) .488 .488 Invitation to college wide celebration Pearson Correlation .037 .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .777 .998 Recognition in college pub lication Pearson Correlation .053 .143 Sig. (2 tailed) .682 .269 Written recognition from administration Pearson Correlation .047 .116 Sig. (2 tailed) .715 .371 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)

PAGE 106

106 Tabl e 4 21. Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty participating in any grantsmanship activities) excluded variables Beta ln T Sig. Number of years grant office established .088 .886 .380 Years with institution for individual responsibl e for grants .086 .633 .530 Years in resource development for individual responsible for grants .049 .473 .638 Grant total full time faculty .116 .740 .463 Number of first time degree seeking students .190 .639 .526 Estimated full time enrollment 021 .079 .937 Estimated part time enrollment .035 .079 .937 Total new faculty hires 2009 .082 .885 .380 Grand total male faculty .037 .247 .806 Grand total female faculty .204 1.560 .125 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 22. Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty participating in any grantsmanship activities) statistically significant explanatory variables Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. ( b ) Std. E rror Beta (Constant) 6.217 3.654 1.701 .095 Total number of applications submitted to any source .277 .083 .344 3.320 .002 Total enrollment 2009 .001 .000 .359 3.465 .001 Total grant staff 3.322 1.553 .228 2.138 .037 Years in current position for in dividual responsible for grants .829 .405 .180 2.046 .046 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 23. Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or gran t manager) excluded variables Beta ln T Sig. Years in current position for individual responsible for grants .154 1.812 .076 Years with institution for individual responsible for grants .090 1.017 .314 Years in resource development for individual res ponsible for grants .024 .297 .768 Grant total full time faculty .089 .644 .523 Number of first time degree seeking students .438 1.701 .095 Estimated full time enrollment .073 .307 .760 Estimated part time enrollment .119 .307 .760 Total new facult y hires 2009 .116 1.396 .169 Grand total male faculty .077 .582 .563 Grand total female faculty .066 .547 .587 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 24. Regression table for faculty engagement in grant writing activities (faculty s erving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager) statistically significant explanatory variables Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. ( b ) Std. Error Beta Constant 8.596 1.862 4.618 .000 To tal enrollment 2009 .001 .000 .450 5.013 .000 Total number of applications submitted to any source .173 .044 .363 3.976 .000 Total number of grant staff 2.529 .816 .292 3.099 .003 Number of years grant office has been establi shed .277 .128 .172 2.164 .035 **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 110

110 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Overview Four year universities and colleges have long understood the value of resource development, both in the form of private donations and the pursuit of external grant funding (Glass & Jackson, 1998). The current financial situation can provide both challenges and opportunities for prepared community colleges (Bass, 2003). There has been limited research about resource development and its role as an emerging strategic function at public community colleges in the United States (Jackson & Keener, 2002). The purpose of this study was to identify factors that indicate the optimum institutional circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants. Variables included, but were not limited to, faculty characteristics such as rank, ethnicity, gender, tenure status, and employment status (e.g., full or part time); institutional characteristics, such as size/student enrollment, location and years of existence of grants office; and, incentives, such as promotions, stipends, professional development opportunities, and rele ase time, which are offered by college administration to entice faculty to participate in grant writing and associated activities. A review of relevant literature, which pertains to the pursuit of grant funded opportunities by public educational institut ions in the United States, has been conducted. While all such literature has been reviewed for relevancy, regardless of the type of higher education institution, the intent was that literature specific to grant writing and associated activities by public c ommunity college faculty, both full time and part time, would be the focus of this study. Data was collected through a survey made

PAGE 111

111 available in electronic form to staff having responsibility for securing grant funding for community colleges that are also institutional members of the Council for Resource Development (CRD). CRD currently boasts a membership of over 1600 members at more than 700 institutions (CRD, 2010). The community colleges were classified by size and geographic location. The Statistica l Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was utilized in order to run a variety of tests to determine relationships between the variables. Research Questions T his study examined the following broad based question: What factors indicate the opti mum institutional circumstances under which public community college faculty can be engaged in participating in resource development processes necessary to receive external funding in the form of grants ? To address this broader question, the following thr ee research questions were developed: 1. What is the relationship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 2. What is the relationship between institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? 3. What is the relationship between incentives which are offered by the college administration to entice faculty to participate and actual faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities? Discussion of Findin gs Faculty Characteristics Was there any relationship between faculty characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager? As discussed in Chapte r 4, there was no relationship between engaging in any type of grantsmanship and whether faculty are

PAGE 112

112 unionized, the ratio of part time to full time faculty, average faculty salary, the number of new faculty hires, or the ratio of students to faculty. It w as expected by this researcher that any one of these variables would have some relationship. New faculty hires often arrive at the institution with new ideas, and also a desire to earn promotions and/or tenure. Miner, Miner and Griffith (2003) asserted t hat regardless of the type of hires had no relationship in this study. Pink (2009) asserts that if pay is fair and adequate, it takes the issue of money off the table so that employees focus on the work itself, not on compensation for that work. Apparently, that was true for this study, because despite a large range, average faculty sa lary also had no relationship with faculty members participating in grantsmanship activities. The ratio of students to faculty is an indicator of work load, so there was some expectation that a higher ratio of students to faculty may have an adverse effec t on faculty engagement in grantsmanship; however, there was no relationship. The only variables displaying a significant relations hip are the total number of tenured and total number of non tenured faculty members (p = 0 .000 ; p = 0.001 ). The null hypoth esis was rejected. Th e numbers are small and it is also possible that this result is more a factor of having more faculty available to participate than for any other reason that there might be for this relationship to exist more of an economy of scale. I nstitutional Characteristics Was there any relationship between institutional characteristics and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager? Meaders (2002) and Glass and

PAGE 113

113 Jackson (1998) made a good case for the identification of readiness factors in community college grant development operations and integration of resource development with strategic planning so it was expected that a number of the factors ex amined in this study would present a significant relationship. The establishment of a negotiated indirect cost rate, an institutional review board, and an institutional strategic goal related to external funding all require a significant amount of institu tional commitment so it was expected that these variables would present a significant relationship in this study. They did not present a significant relationship. Anecdotally, the southern part of the United States, particularly Texas, Florida, North Car olina and Virginia, are considered extremely competitive when it comes to the pursuit of external funding opportunities, so it was purely for interest sake, that the variables of accreditation agency membership or Council for Resource Development region we re studied to see if there was any relationship. There was no significant relationship. examined there was a significant relationship (p = 0 .024 ) with total faculty as pri ncipal investigator, project director or grant manager; this relationship did not exist for total faculty engaging in any grant activity. The relationship between faculty as principal investigator, project director and grant manager and variables of the n umber of first time degree seeking students (p = 0 .000) and total student enrollment Fall 2009 (p = 0 .000) provide indications of significant relationship s ; as does the relationship between first time degree seeking students (p = 0 .0 04 ) and total student e nrollment Fall 2009 (p = 0 .01 0 ). The null was rejected for these variables. However, t he numbers are small and much like the earlier situation in which the number of faculty represented a significant

PAGE 114

114 relationship, it is also possible that this result is more a factor of having more faculty available to participate because there are more students, than for any other reason that there might be for this relationship to exist more of an economy of scale. More significant to this researcher were the relationsh ips examined between grant functions at the institutions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager, and participation in grant writing and associated activ ities There were significant relationships between the number of faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager and the variables of the number of total staff dedicated to grants activ ities (p = 0 .000), the total number of applic ations submitted to any funding source ( p = 0 .000) and the total number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation (p = 0 .000) The picture looks similar for the variable relationships with the total number of faculty engaged in any gra nt participation, although in addition to the relationships just stated, there was also a significant relationship for the number of years a grant office had been established (p = 0 .004), a significant relationship with the number of years the individual r esponsible for the grants function had been in t heir current position (p = 0 .02 4 ), and there was also a significant relationship with the location of the grants function (p = .04 4 ). For each of these variables the null hypothesis was rejected. The establ ishment and support of a fully staffed, dedicated grants office is also a significant commitme nt on the part of college administrators Incentives Was there any relationship between incentives and faculty engagement in grant writing and associated activit ies, including service as principal investigator, project director or grant manager? Pink (2009) asserted,

PAGE 115

115 incentives that cornerstone of how businesses attempt to motivate employees may Th e results of this study and examination of incentive As detailed in Chapter 4, there were no significant relationships between whether any incentives at all were offered, or any of the specific incentives being offered by the college administration and faculty members as principal investigator, project director or grant manager, or engaging in any grant writing and associated activit ies. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Implications for Practice Previous research conducted provided valuable data related to the factors influencing grant generated revenue from an institutional viewpoint ( Meaders 2002). As also indicated in this study, community colleges with significant enrollment more students and more f aculty, which lead inevitably to greater operating costs are better equipped to submit more applications resulting in greater resources as a result of external funding ( Meaders ). Encouraging more grant proposal submissions is a continual challenge for adm inistrators and success requires significant institutional commitment ( Jackson & Keener, 2002; Porter, 2004). Some institutions support cultures more conducive to supporting grantsmanship activities by faculty than others. As the pressure to pursue exter nal funding opportunities increases, the knowledge and skills brought to institutions by new faculty members will become even more important ( Adams, 2002; Outcalt, 2000; Porter, 2004). Fullan (2001) stated, relationships merely cause more in Institutional culture is an abstract concept; however, certain institutional behaviors, existing alone, or in any combination, demonstrate an institutional culture that is conducive to particular activities, such as being respectfu l of all types of diversity, being learning centered, and

PAGE 116

116 supporting grantsmanship. The results of this study seem to indicate that, rather than institutional concepts (e.g., negotiated indirect cost rate, establishment of an institutional review board, e tc.), relationships between people in this case between the grants office staff and faculty members are more important. The strong significant relationships between the number of faculty serving as principal investigator, project director or grant manager the number of total staff dedicated to grants activities, the total number of applications submitted to any funding source, and the total number of applications submitted to the National Science Foundation The picture looks similar for the variable rela tionships with the total number of faculty engaged in any grant participation, although in addition to the relationships just stated, there was also significant relationship s for the number of years a grant office had been established a the number of yea rs the individual responsible for the grants function had been in their cur rent position and the location of the grants function. Is institutional commitment such that the grant office is operating with a part time staff out of an office the size of a br oom closet, or does the chief resource development officer report to the president from an office front and center with other important administrative units? Fullan posited that relationships must be carefully coordinated, and that relationships and organ izational success are closely interrelated. Although examination of the majority of the variables chosen for this study did not present significant relationships with the engagement of faculty members in grantsmanship activities, including the service of faculty as principal investigator, projector director or grant manager, Jervis (1999) asserted that strong effects could actually be disguised by the apparent lack of a relationship. This researcher has been

PAGE 117

117 guilty of using the excuse that her institutio and functioning under a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, as the reason for their minimal participation in grant writing and associated activities. If the results of this study are to be believed, whether or no t the faculty is unionized has no relationship whatsoever on their participation in grant writ ing and associated activities. As economic conditions continue to change and the pressure to pursue external funding opportunities increases, the knowledge and skills brought to institutions by new faculty members will become even more important ( Adams, 2002; Brumbach & Villaden, 2002; Haire & Dodson Pennington, 2002; Porter, 2004). As indicated by the results of this study, grants office staff will also be inc reasingly important in providing avenues for relationships with these faculty members to flourish and be fruitful. Recommendations for Further Research It has been suggested that conducting a factor analysis, a statistical method used to describe variabi lity among observed, correlate variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved, uncorrelated variables called factors, could perhaps provide additional information related to the resultant statistically significant correlations uncovered dur ing the data analysis for this research study. As a result of the data analysis, which was performed for this study t he following topics are r ecommended for further research (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007) Since incentivizing faculty members did not hav e any relationship with faculty members becoming involved in grantsmanship activities or being willing to serve as principal investigator, project director or grant manager, further study is recommended using motivation theory to examine their reasons for participation (or lack thereof).

PAGE 118

118 Since there were no significant relationships discovered related to the faculty demographics studied (e.g., gender and ethnicity), it is recommended that additional demographics be studied, such as, age of faculty and acade mic discipline or field of study. Since significant relationships were uncovered related to community college grant functions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, further study is recommended related to the institutional commitment of community colleges toward the development and ongoing support of grant offices. Since significant relationships were related to the staffing requisite for grant functions, further study is recommended for skills and professional development needed for gra getting and job keeping activities at the community college. Along this same vein of thought, further study is recommended to determine what is the optimum staffing and organizational/reporting structure for a successful grant office Since significant relationships were uncovered related to community college grant functions and the engagement of faculty in grantsmanship activities, further study is recommended related to the personal and professional relationships, and the manner in which they are developed, which grant staff have, especially with full time/tenured faculty members. In addition, in depth profiles of grant officers from among those who have been successful in achieving high levels of faculty participation, and of commu nity college faculty members who do participate in grant writing activities would perhaps provide additional insight.

PAGE 119

119 college such as the establishment of a negotiated indi rect cost rate, institutional review board, and institutional strategic goals related to external funding are the direct result of grant making requirements. It is accepted here that each of these tasks takes a commitment of time and talent from college s taff already often stretched thin. Further study would provide valuable information to decision makers at community colleges that have yet to dedicate any measure of institutional commitment to the accomplishment of these tasks. This study purposely did n ot examine the many factors related to community colleges offering baccalaureate degrees and how they might be related to the pursuit of external funding in the form of grants. However, as increasing numbers of associate degree granting institutions acros s the country add baccalaureate degree programs to their educational offerings, further study is recommended related to the professional preparation of baccalaureate faculty members and their engagement in grantsmanship activities. The recommendations for further research will continue to identify and clarify key elements related to successful application by community colleges to competitive grant funded programs regardless of the funding agency Community college budgets have been significantly constrain ed during recent years and there are no signs that better times are ahead in the near future. It is imp ortant for the decision makers college administrators responsible for f inance, planning and governance to have all of the information necessary to maxim ize the benefits of institutional commitments in the most

PAGE 120

120 effective and efficient ways possible for the realization of positive results related to external funding efforts.

PAGE 121

121 APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LISTSERV POSTING

PAGE 122

122 APPENDIX B MEADERS PERMISSION LETTER

PAGE 123

123

PAGE 124

124

PAGE 125

125 APPENDIX C CARRIER PERMISSION LETTER

PAGE 126

126

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX D COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT LETTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX E COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT LETTER EXECUTIVE BOARD

PAGE 129

129 APPENDIX F SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 130

130

PAGE 131

131

PAGE 132

132

PAGE 133

133

PAGE 134

134

PAGE 135

135

PAGE 136

136

PAGE 137

137

PAGE 138

138

PAGE 139

139 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, K. A. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty (Preparing Future Faculty Occasional Paper No. 7). Retrieved from American Association of College s and Universities website: http://www.aacu.org/pff/pdfs/pff_Adams.pdf American Association o f Community Colleges (AACC, 2011 ). CC Stats Retr ieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/default.aspx American Association of Community Colleges (AACC; 2011). About community colleges Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/default.aspx American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU, 2010). Update on the community college baccalaureate: Evolving trends and issues Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/Pol icyPublications/AASCU_Update_Community_College_Baccalaurea te(1).pdf Arnone, M. (2002, December 13). State spending on colleges increases at lowest rate in a decade. The Chronicle of Higher Education n.p. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/article/State Spending on Colleges/10789 Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. The Journal of Higher Education 73 (1), 94 122. Retrieved from http://www.jst or.org/stable/1558449 Bailey, T., Calcagno, J.C., Jenkins, D., Kienzel, G., & Leinbach, T. (2005). Community college success: What institutional characteristics make a difference. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/IDApays/publications/ CC_Student_Success.pdf Bass, D. (2003). From the foundations up: Contexts for change in com munity college advancement. New Directions for Community Colleges 124, 15 26. doi:10.1002/cc.129 Bauer, D. (2001). How to evaluate and improve your grants effort Westport, CT: Or yx Press. Bauer, D. (2003). (5th ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Best, S.J. & Krueger, B. (2002). New approaches to assessing opinion: The prospects for electronic mail surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Re search, 14(1), 73 92. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.1.73 Boggs, G. R. (2004). Community colleges in a perfect storm Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 36( 6 ), 6 11. doi:10.1080/00091380409604237

PAGE 140

140 Boyer, P. & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors influencing grant writing: Pe rceptions of tenured and nontenured faculty. SRA Journal 29 (3/4), 61 68. Retrieved from http://www.srainternational.org/NewWeb/publications/Journal/pdf/sraj2 98.p df Brumbach, M. A. & Villadsen, A. W. (2002). At the edge of chaos: The essentials of Community College Journal of Research and Practic e, 26( 1 ), 77 86. doi: 10.1080/106689202753365025 Campbell, D. F., Leverty, L. H., Sayles, K. (1996). Funding for community colleges: Changing patterns of support. In A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next centu ry Honeyman, D. S., Wattenbarger, J. L. & Westbrook, K. C. (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Carey Baker Freedom Flag Act, Fla. Stat. § 1000.06 (2004). Retrieved from http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search _String=&URL=Ch1000/Sec06.htm&StatuteYear=2003 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2009). Undergradu ate instructional program descriptions Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/sub.asp?key=786 Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (1972). Confronting id entity: The community college instructor Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Co hen. A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (2008 ). The American community college (5 th ed.) [Kindle App for iPad version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/The American Community College ebook/dp/B001FA0WVQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital text&ie=UTF8&qid=1333316503&sr=1 1 Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2011). Regional accrediting organizations 2011 12. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp Council fo r Resource Development (CRD, 2011 ). About CRD. Retrieved from h ttp://www.crdnet.org/pubs/About_CRD.cfm community college fundraising. New Century Se ries, Resource Paper #6 Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3 rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Cumbie, S., Weinert, C., Luparell, S., Conley, V., & Smith, J. (2005). Developing a scholarship community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37 (3), 289 293. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1484523 /

PAGE 141

141 Florida Senate (2011 ). 1004.65 Community colleges; definition, mission, and responsibilities. The 2011 Florida Statutes Retrieved from http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/1004.65 Fowler, F. J. (1984). Survey research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Gibson Harman, K., Rodriguez, S., Haworth, J. G. (2002). Community college faculty an d professional staff: The human resource challenge. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(117), 77 90. doi:10.1002/cc.55 Glass, J. C. & Jackson, K. L. (1998). Integrating r esource development and institutional planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 22( 8 ), 715 739. doi:10.1080/1066892980220802 Gleazer, Jr., E. J. (1 998). The community college: Values, vision & vitality Washington, DC: Community College Press. Haire, C. M. & Dodson Pennington (2002). Taking the road less traveled: A journey in collaborative resource development. Community College Journal of Resear ch and Practice 26( 1 ), 61 75. doi:10.1080/106689202753365016 Hansen, M. (2003). Fundi ng community colleges: The relationship among appropriations, tuition, and enrollment An issue paper for the Michigan Legislature. Retrieved from http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Issues/CommCollegeFunding/Co mmCollegeFunding.pdf Hegyvary, S. T. (2005). Writing that matters. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37 (3), 193 194. doi: 10.1111/j.1547 5069.2005.00033.x Henson, K. T. (2004). Grant writing in higher education Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Herbkersman, N. & Hibbert team sport. Dispatch Summer, 24. Herbkersman, N. & Hibbert Jones, K. (2003b). Grant development in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges 124 63 73. doi: 10.1002/cc. 135 Honeyman, D. S. & Bruhn, M. (1996). The financing of higher education. In A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century Honeyman, D. S., Wattenbarger, J. L. & Westbrook, K. C. (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

PAGE 142

142 H.R. 1 (200 9). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_ bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf Jackson, K. L. & Keener, B. J. (2002). Introduction to community college resource development: Creating preferred futures. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 26( 1 ), 1 6. doi: 10.1080/106689202753364963 Jervis, R. (1999). System effects: Complexity in political and social life Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Katsinas, S. G. (2003). Two year college classific ations based on institutional control, geography, governance, and size. New Directions for Community Colleges 122 17 28. doi: 10.1002/cc.107 Kenton, C. P., Schuh, J. H., Huba, M. E ., & Shelley, M. C. (2004). Funding models of community colleges in 10 midwest states. Community College Review 32 ( 3 ), 1 17. doi: 10.1177/009155210403200301 Kenton, C. P., Huba, M. E., Schuh, J. H., Shelley, II, M. C. (2005). Financing community colleges: A longitudinal study of 11 states. Community College Journal of Research and Practi ce 29( 2 ), 109 122. doi:10.1080/10668920590524256 Levin, J. S. (2000). The revised institution: The community college mission at the end of the Twentieth Century Community Co llege Review 28(1), 1 25. doi:10.1177/009155210002800201 Levin, J. S. (2006). Faculty work: Tensions between educational and economic values. The Journal of Higher Education 77(1), 62 88. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0004 Levin, J. S., Kater, S., & Wagoner, R. L. (2006). Community college faculty: At work in the new economy New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Liming, D. & Wolf, M. (2008). Job outlook by education: 2006 2016. Occupational Outlook Quarterly Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2008/fall/art01.pdf Marks, J. L. & Caruthers, J. K. (1999). A primer on funding of public higher education Southern Regional Education Boa rd. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/1999/99E23_PrimeronFundingHigherEd.pdf McKehnie, J. L. (Ed.). (1983). (2nd ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster. Meaders S. J. W. (2002). Identification of readiness factors in community college grant development operations: A national perspective Thesis (Ed. D.) University of Florida, 20 02. Retrieved from http://en.scientificcommons.org/44386983

PAGE 143

143 Meaders S. J ., Carrier, S. M., & Keener, B. J. (2003). A study of resource development at community colleges. New Century Series, Resource Paper #7 Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development. Mellow, G. O. (2000). The history and development of community colle ges in the United States Paper presented at the combined seminar of the Inter American Development Bank and the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Cambridge, MA, September 4 8, 2000). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED455883.pdf Mellow, G. O. & Heelan, C. (2008). Minding the dream: The process and practice of the American community college Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Middaugh, M. F. (2001). Understanding faculty productivity: Standards and benchmarks for colleges and universities San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc. Miner, L. E., Miner, J. T., and Griffith, J. (2003). Best and worst practices in research administration. Research Management R eview, 13 (1), 11 20. Retrieved from http://www.ncura.edu/content/news/rmr/docs/v13n1.pdf Munz, A. G. (2005) Things I wish I had known before I became a grant development officer. Dis patch Fall, 9 18. National Science Foundation (2011). Chapter I: Introduction. Grant proposal guide. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/1.jsp Newman, F., Couturier, L. and S curry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Outcalt, C. L. (2000). Community college teaching: Toward collegiality and community. Community College Review 28(57), 57 70. doi:10.1177/009155210002800204 Pew Research Center (2010). Rightsizing prisons: Busin ess leaders make the case for corrections reform. Issue Brief. Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uplo adedFiles/Business%20Leaders_QA_Br ief_web.pdf Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us New York: Penguin Group. Porter, R. (2004). Off the launching pad: Stimulating proposal development by junior faculty. Journal of Re search Administration 35 (1), 6 12. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Off+the+launching+pad%3A+stimulating+proposal+ development+by+junior... a0135000791

PAGE 144

144 Renninger, P., Meilof, A., Pitts, T., Smalley, J. K. (2007). Why should community college faculty write grant proposals? Community College Journal of Research and Practice 31 725 729. doi: 10.1080 10668920701564032 Ryan, E. F. (2003). Sources and information: Development and fundraising within community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges 124, 95 104. doi: 10.1002/cc.138 Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer Mediated C ommunication 6(2), n.p. doi: 10.1111/j.1083 6101.2001.tb0017.x Schiradi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (2002). Cellblocks or classrooms: The funding of higher education and corrections and its impact on African American men Justice Polic y Institute. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED474708) Shumate, E. (2009, February 12). Re: Faculty Incentive Ideas. Retrieved from http://crdnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=112 S olomon, D. J. (2001). Conducting web based surveys. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 7(19), 1 5. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19 Stufflebeam, D. L. & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Suskie, L. A. (1996). Questionnaire survey research: What works. Tallahassee, Flor ida: Association for Institutional Research. Tollefson, T. A., Garrett, R. L. & Ingram, W. G. (1999). Fifty state systems of community colleges: Mission, governance, funding and accountability Johnson City, TN: The Overmountain Press. Townsend, B. K. & R osser, V. J. (2007). Workload issues and measures of faculty productivity. Thought & Action 7 2 0. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_07_02. pdf Twombly, S. B. (2004). Looking for signs of community college arts and sciences faculty professionalization in searches: An alternative approach to a vexing question. Community College Review 32 (1), 21 39. doi: 10.1177/009155210403200102 U. S. Agency for International Development. (2011). Best practices guide for indirect costing. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/business/regulations/BestPractices.pdf U. S. Census Bureau (201 0). Census 201 0 Urban and Rural Classification Criteria Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html

PAGE 145

145 U. S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2004). 2004 National study of postsecondary faculty (NSO PF:04). Retrieved f rom http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005172.pdf U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Chapter III: Basic IRB Review. Institutional Review Board Guidebook Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter3.htm Warren, J. (2008). One in 100 report: Behind bars in America 2008 Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100(3).pdf Warren, J. (2009). One in 31 report: The long research of American corrections Retrieved from Pew Research C enter website: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_ WEB_3 26 09.pdf Wattenbarger, J. L. (1957). The commun The report to the state board of education by the Community College Council. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State Department of Education. Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattscheck, J. F. & Suppiger, J. E. (1994). Am community colleges: The first century. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. White House (2009). Remarks by the president on the American Graduation Initiative in Warren, MI. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks by the President on the American Graduation Initiative in Warren MI Zeiss, T. (2003). Generating new sources of revenue. New Directions for Community Colleges 124 53 61.

PAGE 146

146 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Deborah Lynn Douma r elocated to Pensacola from Southern California and b egan working at Pensacola State College (formerly Pensacol a Junior College) in 1999, and is currently serving as the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and Grants. She has an Associate of Arts degree in general s tudies from Irvine Valley College in California, and a Bachelor of Arts in Com municatio n Arts, specia lizing in public r elations, and a Master of Science in a dministration from T he University of West Florida in Pensacola, Florida She has been awarded the degree of Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from the University of Florida. Debo rah serves on the boards of the Escambia Coalition on the Homeless and the Florida Council for Resource Development.