Page 1 of 5
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Graduate Sub Meet: Graduate Research Conference Survey (2011-12 AY)
Final Report
April 23, 2012 (Version 5)
Background
The Graduate Sub Meet & Confer conducted a survey of graduate faculty at Minnesota State
University, Mankato (MSU Mankato) in early spring 2012 to obtain feedback on the Graduate Research
Conference (GRC) (http://grad.mnsu.edu/research/grc/). The GRC was initiated in 2009 with 104
graduate students presenting one or more sessions. In 2010 approximately 95 graduate students
presented and in 2011 119 graduate students presented their research at the GRC. At the beginning of
the 2011-2012 academic year, the College of Graduate Studies & Research (GSR) placed the GRC on hiatus because
of rather mixed reviews from both students and faculty concerning the conference, as well as the lack of
infrastructure to support a robust conference.
Prior to administering the Graduate Research Conference Survey, we had only anecdotal
information about the GRC. One area of concern about the GRC was that graduate students often
presented to rooms empty of attendees. Another perspective that some faculty shared anecdotally was
that graduate students should be presenting at regional and national forums in their academic
disciplines, rather than at a GRC. Others have commented that the GRC is an important venue for
graduate students to practice delivering scholarly presentations before going to larger forums. Finally,
some faculty expressed a need for the GRC because sufficient resources to support sending students to
present at state, regional, and national conferences are not available, making the GRC an affordable
option. In order to make a decision about the future of a graduate-level research conference at MSU,
Mankato, the Graduate Sub Meet determined that it needed to collect data from the faculty that could
be used to inform future decision making. The purpose of the survey was to obtain feedback from
graduate faculty about the dissemination of graduate student research, including strengths and
Graduate Sub Meet, Graduate Research Conference Executive Summary, 2011-12 AY, Spring 2012
Page 2 of 5
concerns about the current GRC format, barriers to students’ participation, and other options for
supporting and disseminating graduate student research.
Survey Instrument and Demographics
Members of the Graduate Sub Meet, notably Bobby Bothmann and Chris Mickle, developed the
graduate research conference survey in fall 2011. Survey Monkey was used to disseminate the survey
(Appendix A) and data were collected from graduate faculty from 10 January through 10 February 2012.
An invitation to participate with a survey link was sent by Academic Affairs on January 10, 2012, with a
reminder email sent at the end of January. The survey consisted of 15 questions, including yes/no
questions and other questions addressing perceptions of various aspects of the GRC. There were three
rating questions, three open-ended questions, and three demographic questions, most of which offered
options for further commentary. There were 89 faculty members who started the survey, of which 74
completed the survey and whose answers were used in this report. The majority of faculty responding to
the survey came from the colleges of Social and Behavioral Sciences (n=20 or 27%) and Science,
Engineering & Technology (n=16 or 22%). Faculty respondents from the College of Education had 14%
(n=10) of the representation. The colleges Arts & Humanities and Allied Health & Nursing each had 12%
of the respondents (n=9 each), followed by the College of Business at 7% (n=5). Of the remainder, 5%
(n=4) did not self-identify and 1% (n=1) came from faculty in the Library. The current roster of faculty
with graduate faculty status (http://grad.mnsu.edu/faculty/graduatefaculty2010.html) shows 511
faculty members. This survey therefore has a response rate of 14.5% of the graduate faculty.
Findings
Overall the faculty is split on the question as to whether or not we should have a graduate
research conference. There were 51% of respondents in favor of continuing the GRC, 35% were against
Graduate Sub Meet, Graduate Research Conference Executive Summary, 2011-12 AY, Spring 2012
Page 3 of 5
continuing, and the remaining 14% offered no opinion (Q1). When it came to opportunities for graduate
students to present their research (Q5), 65% of the faculty indicated that their disciplines offer national
or regional conferences. Most respondents did not include their program or discipline in their
comments, as had been requested; however, the disciplines represented in these answers as having
national opportunities included: biology, communication studies, computer science, counseling,
education, English, geography, history, manufacturing engineering technology, mathematics, nursing,
psychology, public administration, social work, sociology, sport management, teaching English as a
second language, and technical communication. Additionally many respondents indicated the lack of
travel support as a major barrier for their graduate students to take part in any of these opportunities.
Twenty-two percent of the respondents indicated that their program does not have national or regional
opportunities for graduate students and 12% answered not-applicable. Information about academic
discipline was not obtained from respondents who indicated that their programs did not have national
or regional opportunities for graduate students to present their research.
The faculty respondents were fairly equally split over the question of barriers to participation in
a spring GRC (Q7). Forty-four percent indicated there are barriers, 36% said there are no barriers, and
20% chose not-applicable. The reasons for perceived barriers were varied but included: lack of
knowledge of the event, business of the spring semester, a lack of time to prepare a research project,
and programs that are professional rather than research oriented.
When asked about three different presentation opportunities (Q8)—(1) the traditional GRC for
MSU Mankato students only, (2) a GRC open to all MnSCU graduate students, or (3) holding the GRC in
conjunction with the Undergraduate Research Symposium (URS)--there was more support for a GRC
held separately from the URS (n=43 or 60% vs. n=33 or 45%) and most favorable was a GRC open to
other MnSCU institutions (n=47 or 64%).
Graduate Sub Meet, Graduate Research Conference Executive Summary, 2011-12 AY, Spring 2012
Page 4 of 5
Regardless of the presentation opportunity at MSU, Mankato (refer to Q8), almost half of
respondents (n=30 or 45%) indicated that it is important to have a conference outlet for students at a
MSU, Mankato-sponsored event (Q10). A large number of respondents (n=19 or 28%) were neutral
about the importance and the rest indicated that it is not important (n=18 or 27%). When asked if GRC
funding should be redirected to support travel to conferences for graduate students (Q11), the
overwhelming response was yes (n=48 or 79%). Of those who supported reallocation of funds, 19 or
28% also thought it was important to also have a MSU, Mankato-sponsored GRC.
Overall, the results of the survey indicate that the majority of graduate faculty who participated
in the survey believe two things: (1) that the dissemination of research and opportunities for graduate
students to present their research are important and (2) that travel support for graduate students is
grossly inadequate and increasing funding to support graduate student travel to present their research
should be a priority of this institution. However, the how and where of presenting research, whether it
is at a MSU, Mankato GRC or at regional or national conferences appeared highly variable by discipline.
Summary Points

The faculty is split on the question as to whether or not we should have a graduate research
conference.

Almost half of respondents indicated that it is important to have a conference outlet for
students at a MSU, Mankato-sponsored event.

The dissemination of research and opportunities for graduate students to present their research
are important .

Travel support for graduate students is grossly inadequate.
Graduate Sub Meet, Graduate Research Conference Executive Summary, 2011-12 AY, Spring 2012
Page 5 of 5
Recommendations
The following are recommendations generated by the Graduate Sub Meet:

Survey former graduate students who participated in a Graduate Research Conference to obtain
information about their experience at the GRC and their recommendations for support and
opportunities to present/disseminate their research.

Survey current graduate students to obtain their preferences for support and opportunities to
present/disseminate their research.

Develop a forum where faculty and graduate students can present their research.

Conduct multiple smaller research symposiums during the academic year and summer to allow
increased opportunities for students to present their research. Consider having “topical”
research showcase events.

Forums should target inviting natural constituencies, key stakeholders, and community
members to the forums. Forums should have an enhanced focus on disseminating researchbased knowledge to communities beyond faculty, staff and students at MSU, Mankato.
2011-12 Graduate Sub Meet Membership
Faculty
Nancy Fitzsimons, Faculty Chair, Social and
Behavioral Sciences
Bobby Bothmann, Library Services & Unaffiliated
Cindra Kamphoff, Allied Health and Nursing
Jennifer Pepperell, Education
Claudia Pragman, Business
Melissa Purdue, Arts & Humanities
Robert Sorensen, Science, Engineering, and
Technology
Administration
Barry Ries, Dean of Graduate Studies & Research
Vijendra Agarwal, Dean of Science Engineering &
Technology
Becky Copper-Glenz, Dean Extended Learning
Jean Haar, Dean of Education
Chris Mickle, Director of Graduate Studies
The Executive Summary was authored by Bobby Bothmann and Nancy Fitzsimons, with input from the
Graduate Sub Meet.
Graduate Sub Meet, Graduate Research Conference Executive Summary, 2011-12 AY, Spring 2012