Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Lori A. Snyder, and Alicia J. Knoedler
University of Oklahoma
Caroline Whitacre
The Ohio State University
Howard Gobstein, Christine Keller, Teri Lyn Hinds, Kacy Redd, and Nathalie Argueta
APLU
APLU Annual Meeting
November 10-12, 2013
Washington, DC

The Vice President/Vice Chancellor for
Research (VPR/VCR)...
 Is a key (though perhaps not well understood)
position in public and private research universities
 Is structured and deployed in a wide variety of
ways with a wide variety of responsibilities
 Is facing many new challenges in the face of
problematic budgets, compliance requirements,
and dramatic changes in the higher education
landscape

No comprehensive survey has been conducted
of VPRs/VCRs to understand
 Administrative structures utilized and their strengths




and weaknesses
Characteristics and experiences of individuals holding
the position
Current roles and responsibilities of the position
New and emerging challenges, and skills needed to
meet them
Strategies for effectively preparing the next
generation, including possible roles for CRPGE and
other APLU organizations

Via scholarly analyses of data from a national,
web-based survey of APLU VCRs/VPRs, our
goal is to provide information that builds
greater understanding of these important
positions and assists senior university
administrators in assuring excellence in the
structure, function and leadership of the
university research enterprise now and in the
future




Organizational structure of office/position
and how it has changed or may need to
change
Characteristics and experiences of people
holding the position
Challenges for the future and strategies for
addressing them
Preparation of next generation leaders and
possible roles for APLU
Concept discussed at February, 2013 CRPGE meeting
and approved by Executive Committee
 Short draft survey given to CRPGE Executive
Committee in late spring, 2013

 Results discussed at Summer, 2013 meeting
 Special breakfast session to dig deeper and develop new
questions/areas of emphasis
Full survey finalized and (OU) IRB approval received
on 20 September 2013
 Survey conducted from 23 September – October 5
2013
 Response rate = 56 out of ~ 155 invitations (36%)








Your Institution (6)
You (5)
Your Professional Experience (8)
The Structure of your Current Position (19)
Training (5)
Current State of the VPR/VCR Position (18)
Succession Planning (3)






Initial results are presented herein and some are
excluded because of time (budgets, size of
organization)
Cluster and other analyses have be performed and
are being evaluated
Survey may be re-issued to improve response rate
At least one formal archive publication is planned
Products and key findings will be made available on
the APLU web site
Note: VPR/VCR is referred to hereafter as VPR

We continue to evaluate the statistical
significance of differences presented herein
and thus no such significance should be
assumed at this time

86% from Research Universities
 54% Very high research activity
 32% High research activity

96% from public universities

42% from land grant universities
Mean: 1381
Std. Dev: 912
N: 53
Faculty FTE at Institution
Mean: $196M
Std. Dev: $193M
N: 56
Yearly Research Expenditures
for Institution (in $millions)
Asian
Female
White
Male
Hispanic
Prefer not to Disclose
Prefer not to Disclose

A comparison of male and female VPRs detected
two small but interesting differences

Institution size
 Female VPRs reported 1,622 FTE
 Male VPRs reported 1,308 FTE

314 FTE difference
Annual institution research expenditures
 Female VPRs reported $252,614,116
 Male VPRs reported $176,414,605
$76,199,511 difference
40 yrs ago
30 yrs ago
Mean: 1983
Std. Dev.: 7
N: 56
20 yrs ago
Discipline of Degree
25% Biomedical and
Biomedical Sciences
23% Physical Sciences
23% Engineering
10 yrs ago
10% Social Sciences
7% Agriculture and
related sciences


What is contributing to the lack of diversity in
terms of ethnicity, gender, and discipline of
terminal degree (behavioral & economic
sciences, humanities), and how can it be
addressed?
Might people enter VPR positions earlier in
their career?
President/Chancellor
VP for Academic Affairs/Provost
President/Chancellor & VP for
Academic Affairs/Provost
Vice Chancellor for Research
Other
Mean: 184.6
Median: 60
Std. Dev.: 272.9
N: 55
Number in VPR organization
Mean: 10.0
Median: 8
Std. Dev.: 7.5
N: 55
Number reporting directly to VPR
Research development
Human research protections Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Sponsored programs, pre-award
services
Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC)
Research Center/Campus
External Funding
84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98%

32% have purview over Health
Campus/Organization

30% have purview over Veterinary Medicine
Campus/Organization

58% have responsibility for a 501(c)3 nonprofit research organization

Considerable time and attention are devoted
by VPRs to compliance issues. Are we
therefore wasting VPR talent that could be
devoted to building strategic research
activities, establishing collaborations among
faculty and institutions, focusing on regional
initiatives, etc?

62% have budget linked to indirect cost recovery
Percentage IDC Contributing to Budget

Notable differences existed in VPRs that did and
did not have budgets linked to institutional
indirect cost recovery (IDC)

Institution size
 VPRs with IDC link reported 1,405 FTE
 VPRs without IDC link reported 1,338 FTE

67 FTE difference
Annual institution research expenditures
 VPRs with IDC link reported $166,385,277
 VPRs without IDC link reported $252,312,769
$85,927,492
difference
In Millions of Dollars

59% have role in funding retention packages,
relative to other offices
Percentage funded by VPR

79% have a role in funding startup packages
Percentage of start-up funded by VPR


Is linking the VPR budget to research
expenditures and/or IDC recovery an effective
practice (this question is being debated
nationally with regard to IDC)?
Could the VPR position be more effective if
provided with greater funding and/or
discretion over spending?

75% of universities have institution-wide
strategic plan for research and/or graduate
education
 VPR led creation of plan in 72% of schools

21% of universities have institution-wide
strategic plan for undergraduate research
 VPR led creation of plan in 18% of schools

Differences reported by VPRs that did and did
not have institution-wide strategic plans for grad
education and/or research

Institution size
 VPRs with a plan reported 1,413 FTE
 VPRs without a plan reported 1,213 FTE

200 FTE difference
Annual institution research expenditures
 VPRs with a plan reported $200,651,168
 VPRs without a plan reported $178,107,142
$22,544,026
difference
Multidisciplinary Research
External Funding
Research Interactions with Private Sector
Applied Research Development
Undergraduate Participation in Research
Diversity of fields of research
Non-profit foundations
Diversity among faculty and/or students
Linking research with philanthropy
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

Different patterns were reported by VPRs that
did and did not have institution-wide strategic
plans for undergraduate research

Institution size
 VPRs with a plan reported 1,275 employees
 VPRs without a plan reported 1,412 employees

137 FTE
difference
Annual institution research expenditures
 VPRs with a plan reported $218,978,551
 VPRs without a plan reported $189,146,711
$29,831,840
difference




What role does/should the VPR office play in
undergraduate research?
What ROI is perceived to arise from
establishing an institution-wide strategic plan
for undergraduate research?
Do VPRs tend to be managers or leaders in
the institutional research agenda?
Would additional control over funding
provide greater value to the VPR position and
help attract people into it?

86% from Research Universities
 54% Very high research activity
 32% High research activity

96% from public universities

42% at land grant university
Asian
Female
White
Male
Hispanic
Prefer not to Disclose
Prefer not to Disclose
40 yrs ago
30 yrs ago
Mean: 1983
Std. Dev.: 7
N: 56
20 yrs ago
Discipline of Degree
25% Biomedical and
Biomedical Sciences
23% Physical Sciences
23% Engineering
10 yrs ago
10% Social Sciences
7% Agriculture and
related sciences
Chair/Director/Assistant Director
Service in governmental/federal
organization
Career success as faculty
member/researcher
Dean/Assoc Dean
Funding/Sponsored Research
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
University Culture
Developing and/or supporting
strategic research areas and/or
teams
Personnel management
National Research Priorities
How to develop and/or sustain
programs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Leadership
Ability to influence stakeholders (e.g.,
President, fellow Deans, Trustees,
etc.)
Ability to gain credibility in eyes of
faculty
Strategic planning
Critical thinking
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Declining Federal budgets
Insufficient internal funding
Burdensome Federal compliance
regulations
Faculty who are insufficiently bold
and unwilling to take risks
Too many activities for one person
Insufficient external funding
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Helping faculty achieve their goals
Seeing advances made in the
scholarly enterprise
Building infrastructure for future
research
Helping students achieve their goals
Helping create jobs
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Having Influence (General)
Enjoy the job/Great job
Challenge
Ability to Influence Progress and
Growth
Rewarding
0%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Too many responsibilities/Exhausting
Lack of Influence
Issues with Leadership
Affect on family
Funding (University or Federal)
0% 5% 10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
What aspects of the VPR role contribute to the
desirability or lack of desirability of the position?
 Would people from a non-traditional academic track
be successful as a VPR in terms of capabilities and
acceptance by peers?
 In light of historical VPR career paths and skills, does
it makes sense to have VPRs also oversee economic
development activities?
 How can the VPR position be made more attractive,
and how can the next generation of leaders be
proactively developed?

President
Provost
VP for Remainder of Career
Research Faculty
Same Position Elsewhere
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
None
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Economic development
Private Industry Relations
Export controls
Commercialization of University
research
Foundation relations
Federal Relations
Research development
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Less funding/Funding Uncertainty
Commercialization/Economic
Development
Compliance burden
Industry Funding/Industry Relations
Getting Faculty to Apply for
Funding/Faculty Overwhelmed with
Responsibilities
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
External Relations
Collaboration Skills/Teamwork/Ability
to Build Teams
Ability to build linkages with private
sector/industry;Working with private
sector/industry in research
Leadership/Management Skill
Strategic Planning/Strategic Planning
Implementation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
More Authority/Autonomy/Voice
More Funding
More Staffing
Report to President
More Institutional Focus on
Research
Authority for Personnel Decisions
(Hiring/Evaluation/Tenure Review)
Involvement in Strategy
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%




Should we be concerned that VPR skills viewed as most
important for the future are somewhat different than
skills obtained as a traditional faculty researcher?
Is the VPR position seen as a stepping stone or as a last
job prior to retirement? Does this impact those who
might wish to enter the position, especially earlier in
their career?
Do more current VPRs intend to pursue the role of
President and/or Provost than in the past? Is this
realistic given the statistics about positions obtained in
the past?
What steps can be taken to plan effectively for the
upcoming large turnover in VPR positions?

39% attended formal APLU orientation
 14% found it very unhelpful
 73% found it helpful
 14% found it very helpful
Networking/Learning from other
VPRs
Clarification/Training on
responsibilities
Compliance Issues
HR/Budget training
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Experience in Research
Administration
Leadership/Management/Communic
ation Training
Administration Experience (other
than Research Administration)
Trainings from APLU/CRPGE
Experience in office of VPR
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%





How can we best prepare for the upcoming
significant turnover in the VPR ranks?
How can institutions most effectively plan for
succession in the VPR position?
Will the ideal VPR candidate have the same
qualifications in 2-3 years as they do today?
If tenure in the VPR role becomes shorter,
how might successors best be prepared?
How might CRPGE training be improved?


Do roles exist in CRPGE for Associate VPRs
and others who might aspire to become
VPRs? Can this be part of the professional
development experience?
How can the survey results be most
effectively distributed, and considered for use
by senior academic leaders?





VPR gender and ethnic diversity are notably low
Surprisingly few institutions have plans for
undergraduate research given its increasing
importance in academic scholarship and
education
Institutions with strategic plans for research
tend to fare better
VPR duties, workload and future challenges
suggest difficulty attracting the next generation
of leaders
VPR succession planning appears to not be a
priority within institutions

Considerable turnover (~50%) may occur in
VPR positions during the next 1-3 years.
Coupled with the clear lack of succession
planning and mentoring of the next
generation -- not to mention all of the
changes underway in higher education -- we
could be facing a very serious situation with
regard to research administration leadership.
It is unclear who owns this challenge.


Current VPRs appear to view their successors
as having career paths similar to their own.
We may be missing an opportunity to draw in
other types of leaders, e.g., from the research
development professional ranks.
More senior academic leadership positions
desired by current VPRs (provost, president)
are mostly incongruent with what former
VPRs actually obtained


Decide whether to re-issue the survey
Continue the analysis
 Statistical significance
 Cluster and other methods


Engage Presidents and Provosts
Prepare draft manuscript




The survey should be conducted again in 5
years, possibly with additional
questions/issues
We should consider partnering with AAU in
the future
The survey may be a role model for assessing
other key positions (e.g., provosts, graduate
deans)
Other APLU councils and committees might
benefit from these types of surveys

We gratefully acknowledge
 APLU President Peter McPherson, for his support
and encouragement
 Those who completed the survey
 Joyce Williams, CRPGE
 Brett Litwiller and William Taylor, University of
Oklahoma Department of Psychology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is contributing to the lack of diversity and how can
it be addressed?
Could VPRs focus more on research development and
other key strategic activities if compliance and/or other
responsibilities are removed/restructured?
Is the VPR position sufficiently well understood and
attractive to draw in the leadership needed for the
future?
Can it be more effective as a step toward higher
positions?
How can we best develop the next generation? Are nontraditional pathways to the position viable, and how can
APLU help?