Conceptual Framework for University Research Faculty, students, staff Proposals Funding Research, instruction, public service Impacts (knowledge, application, workforce) 1 Office of the Vice President for Research
Sponsored Projects Activity has grown but with some constraints Proposals Submitted and Funded 700 600 500 Number Proposals submitted 400 300 Funded 200 100 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sponsored Project Dollars Fiscal Year 90 80 Dollars (in Millions) 70 Rate of increase in 60 Amount 50 proposals, award dollars 40 $ Requested has slowed 30 20 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Fiscal Year 2 Office of the Vice President for Research
Unique mix of types and sources of sponsored projects Sponsored Project Awards by Activity 18% 42% Research Public Service Instruct/Academic 40% Sponsored Project Funding by Source 50 Industry Dollars (in millions) 40 Intl Nonprofit 30 Coll Univ 20 Private Local gov 10 State gov 0 Federal 2005 2006 2007 3 Office of the Vice President for Research
Research and Sponsored Projects Infrastructure and Investments • VPR Office, staffing, infrastructure are recent and developing • Indirect cost recovery typically provides an important source of support for university operations and research infrastructure • “Research” is more effective source of ICR than “Instruction” or “Public Service” so… • University’s ICR limited by types of projects suited to our mission 4 Office of the Vice President for Research
Mix of types, sources of sponsored projects limits ICR and “research” expenditures Examples: - US Dept of Ed, Az K-12 Center, Sponsored Project Awards by Az State Parks, USFS – low ICR Activity rates 18% - Ecological Restoration Institute, 42% Research Institute for Tribal Environmental Public Service Instruct/Academic Professionals – high proportion of 40% Service projects Sponsored Project Funding by Source Sponsored Projects require 50 management and control Industry Dollars (in millions) 40 Intl regardless of type of activity Nonprofit 30 Coll Univ 20 Private Local gov 10 State gov 0 Federal 2005 2006 2007 5 Office of the Vice President for Research
Forecasts for 2020 Sponsored Projects Activity • Bronze scenario (3 % per annum): – $20.6M to $30.3M in research expenditures – $46.2M to $67.8M in sponsored projects activity • Silver scenario (10 % per annum for 5 years): – $20.6M to $42.0M in research expenditures – $46.2M to $94.3M in sponsored projects activity • “Gold” scenario (Silver -plus growth) – Would require a change in university mission – Premature to speculate about results 6 Office of the Vice President for Research
Bronze Scenario • Maintain balance of activities • Modest improvements in infrastructure and effectiveness • Refresh faculty with new hires • Assume 3 % per annum increase in sponsored projects activity 7 Office of the Vice President for Research
Silver Scenario • Maintain balance of activities • Make strategic investments in infrastructure and effectiveness – Improved infrastructure for research administration and technology transfer – Enhanced support for undergraduate research – Investment in targeted research areas (faculty, facilities, graduate programs) • Assume 5 years of 10 % growth, then return to bronze scenario 8 Office of the Vice President for Research
Assumptions and Implications • Bronze and Silver: – University continues role as undergraduate-focused institution with major service to rural communities and economic development – Substantive improvement in ICR – Improvement in industry funding • Silver: – University becomes leader for undergraduate research in western US – University focuses on economic development through public service, research, and workforce 9 Office of the Vice President for Research
Peer Comparisons and Benchmarking • We rank very high in quality measures (e.g., in top 15 of small research universities for scholarly work by faculty) • 55 of 75 “High Research Activity” institutions for Research Expenditures • 9 th of 17 ABOR peers, 7 th of 20 rural peers for research expenditures • Constrained by rural location • Appropriate “growth” peers: – Montana ($21M vs $38M) – North Dakota ($21M vs $38M) – [Southern Mississippi] ($41M) 10 Office of the Vice President for Research
How Can the State Help? • Support regulatory compliance and research administration infrastructure (not fully covered through Instruction and Public Service mission) • Invest in targeted, regionally-relevant graduate programs and research capabilities • Continue to support Northern Arizona University’s distinctive balanced mission and mix of sponsored projects Office of the Vice President for Research
Recommend
More recommend
