This study examines factors that motivate and hinder faculty in their
pursuit of grants. The focus of this study is the differing perceptions of
tenured and nontenured college of education faculty at Association of
American Universities (AAU) institutions in the United States. The findings
suggest that nontenured faculty perceive motivational factors and barriers
differently from tenured faculty. The authors conclude that adequate
training in grant writing is essential, that incentives must be
individualized to faculty, and that support for nontenured faculty in every
aspect of grant writing is necessary for their pursuit of grant proposals.
INTRODUCTION
Being "scholarly" traditionally means engaging in research, writing articles for publication, and sharing research findings with students (E. L. Boyer, 1990). Recently, the pursuit of grants has come under the umbrella of research in academia (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). Research universities judge themselves - and are judged by others - based on research productivity and the dollar amount of acquired grants. In addition, writing proposals increases the number of publications submitted and published by faculty.
Researchers such as Daniel and Gallaher (1989), Monahan (1993), and Dooley (1994) have identified factors that motivate and hinder faculty in their pursuit of grants. These studies reveal that junior faculty and senior faculty differ in their perception of the grant-pursuit process. While both groups are concerned about expanding workloads and diminishing opportunities for external funding (Finkelstein, Seal, & Schuster, 1996), they identify different reasons for not pursuing grants. Nontenured, junior faculty found the grant-submission process to be intimidating, especially in the absence of a mentor (P. G. Boyer, 1997) or prior experience in proposal writing (Lischwe, O'Neal, & Willimann, 1987). Tenured faculty, on the other hand, did not pursue grants because they were not seeking promotion, tenure, or new jobs at other institutions. Moreover, some senior faculty will not seek grants under any condition, simply because they do not want to (Monahan, 1993).
The purpose of the present study is to examine in greater detail the factors that motivate or hinder faculty - both tenured and nontenured - in their pursuit of grant funding. Specifically, the authors (a) identify factors that influence successful grant writing for tenured and nontenured faculty, and (b) clarify those factors that are obstacles for tenured and nontenured faculty who are seeking external funding. (See Tables 1 and 2 on pages 63 and 64 for a list of the motivators and barriers used in this study). The study focuses on college of education faculty at "Research I" institutions that are constituents of the Association of American Universities (AAU).
METHODS AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SAMPLE
Survey Instrument
The survey was based on instruments used by Thomas Monahan and Larry Dooley as well as a review of the related literature. The pilot for the survey instrument was a sample of faculty in the College of Education at the University of Missouri-Columbia. The instrument was generated based on factors from the literature that influenced education faculty in their pursuit of grants.
The questionnaire was mailed to 370 faculty randomly selected from institutions that are members of AAU Research I institutions. The questionnaire examined motivators and barriers based on the rank of faculty. Chi-square tests of independence were used to analyze the data. A sample size of 248 (67%) usable responses were completed and returned. The sample - identified through a systematic random selection of names of AAU faculty - was designed to have a confidence level of 90%, with a margin of error of [+ or -]5%.
Of the AAU faculty responding to the questionnaire, 141 (57.3%) were males and 105 (42.7%) were females. Of professors responding to the questionnaire, 143 (58.1%) were full professors, 58 (23.6%) were associate professors, and 45 (18.3%) were assistant professors; 191 (77.6%) of the respondents were tenured professors, while 55 (22.4%) were untenured professors.
RESULTS
The factors that motivated faculty pursuit of grants are presented in Table 3 (see p. 65), while the barriers to grant pursuit are listed in Table 4 (see p. 66). Significant motivating factors include "Consideration in tenure or promotion decisions" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 30.371, df = 3; p[less than].001); "Building my professional reputation as a capable researcher" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 10.644, df = 3; p[less than].01); and "A strong commitment from the college president" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 9.467, df = 3; p[less than].05). Each of these factors were more important for nontenured faculty than for tenured faculty. Significant barriers included "Lack of training in grant seeking and grant writing" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 16.968, df = 3; p[less than].001); "Lack of knowledge of budget development" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 14.716, df = 3; p[less than].01); and "Lack of knowledge of funding sources" ([[Chi].sup.2] = 7.937, df = 3; p[less than].05). As with the significant motivating factors, each of these barriers were more important for nontenured faculty than for tenured faculty.
Table 3: Motivating Factors by Faculty Rank
RANK
Tenure Nontenured
Variable f (%) f (%) [[Chi].sup.2]
Indirect funds 4.108
Not 46 (24.60) 12 (23.08)
Marginally 62 (33.16) 13 (25.00)
Moderately 43 (22.99) 19 (36.54)
Very 36 (19.25) 8 (15.38)
Support 1.509
Not 24 (12.70) 9 (16.36)
Marginally 36 (19.05) 9 (16.36)
Moderately 48 (25.40) 17 (30.91)
Very 81 (42.86) 20 (36.36)
Support when funded 1.810
Not 8 (4.26) 1 (1.82)
Marginally 5 (2.66) 1 (1.82)
Moderately 37 (19.68) 8 (14.55)
Very 138 (73.40) 45 (81.82)
Tenure & promotion 30.371(***)
Not 38 (20.32) 1 (1.85)
Marginally 24 (12.83) 3 (5.56)
Moderately 57 (30.48) 8 (14.81)
Very 68 (36.36) 42 (77.78)
Publications 1.951
Not 66 (35.29) 18 (32.73)
Marginally 49 (26.20) 16 (29.09)
Moderately 49 (26.20) 11 (20.00)
Very 23 (12.30) 10 (18.18)
Time allocated 4.381
Not 15 (8.02) 5 (9.43)
Marginally 37 (19.79) 4 (7.55)
Moderately 54 (28.88) 18 (33.96)
Very 81 (43.32) 26 (49.06)
New information 2.045
Not 4 (2.12) 1 (1.82)
Marginally 4 (2.12) 3 (5.45)
Moderately 31 (16.40) 7 (12,73)
Very 150 (79.37) 44 (80.00)
Travel money 3.089
Not 9 (38.30) 6 (40.00)
Marginally 36 (37.77) 9 (32.73)
Moderately 71 (19.15) 18 (16.36)
Very 72 (4.79) 22 (10.91)
Equipment 0.016
Not 17 (9.04) 5 (9.09)
Marginally 40 (21.28) 12 (21.82)
Moderately 70 (37.23) 20 (36.36)
Very 61 (32.45) 18 (32.73)
Contact funding source 6.667
Not 26(13.83) 6(11.32)
Marginally 65 (34.57) 17 (32.08)
Moderately 64 (34.04) 24 (45.28)
Very 33 (17.55) 6 (11.32)
Grant preparation 0.657
Not 37 (19.68) 9 (16.36)
Marginally 46 (24.47) 12 (21.82)
Moderately 57 (30.32) 18 (32.73)
Very 48 (25.53) 16 (29.09)
Commitment from president 9.467(*)
Not 79 (42.25) 14 (25.93)
Marginally 43 (22.99) 16 (29.63)
Moderately 36 (19.25) 19 (35.19)
Very 29 (15.51) 5 (9.26)
Boilerplates 4.100
Not 63 (35.80) 12 (23.53)
Marginally 54 (30.68) 15 (29.41)
Moderately 41 (23.30) 18 (35.29)
Very 18 (10.23) 6 (11.76)
Professional reputation 10.644(**)
Not 12 (6.35) 2 (3.64)
Marginally 21 (11.11) 5 (9.09)
Moderately 75 (39.68) 11 (20.00)
Very 81 (42.86) 37 (67.27)
Recognition 3.758
Not 24 (12.70) 7 (12.96)
Marginally 51 (26.98) 12 (22.22)
Moderately 73 (38.62) 28 (51.85)
Very 41 (21.69) 7 (12.96)
* p[less than].05. ** p[less than].01 *** p[less than].001.
Note: df = 3. Critical values for [[[Chi].sup.2].sub..05] = 7.815,
[[[Chi].sup.2].sub..01] = 11.345,
[[[Chi].sup.2].sub..001], = 16.266.
Table 4: Barriers by Faculty Rank
RANK
Tenure Nontenured
Variable f (%) f (%) [[Chi].sup.2]
Inadequate support 1.736
Not 26 (13.90) 4 (7.27)
Marginally 36 (19.25) 11 (20.00)
Moderately 53 (28.34) 17 (30.91)
Very 72 (38.50) 23 (41.82)
Lack of training 16.968(***)
Not 71 (38.17) 13 (23.64)
Marginally 55 (29.57) 12 (21.82)
Moderately 44 (23.66) 14 (25.45)
Very 16 (8.60) 16 (29.09)
Heavy teaching load 5.509
Not 32 (17.11) 3(5.45)
Marginally 51 (27.27) 15 (27.27)
Moderately 49 (26.20) 15 (27.27)
Very 55 (29.41) 22 (40.00)
Committee assignments 4.031
Not 34 (18.38) 7 (12.73)
Marginally 45 (24.32) 19 (34.55)
Moderately 61 (32.97) 13 (23.64)
Very 45 (24.32) 16 (29.09)
Lack of knowledge 7.937(*)
Not 58 (31.02) 13 (23.64)
Marginally 56 (29.95) 11 (20.00)
Moderately 49 (26.20) 16 (29.09)
Very 24 (12.83) 15 (27.27)
Work & bother 0.824
Not 59 (32.07) 19 (34.55)
Marginally 56 (30.43) 19 (34.55)
Moderately 44 (23.91) 11 (20.00)
Very 25 (13.59) 6 (10.91)
Too time consuming 0.832
Not 44 (23.53) 14 (25.93)
Marginally 47 (25.13) 16 (29.63)
Moderately 55 (29.41) 14 (25.93)
Very 41 (21.93) 10 (18.52)
Work with colleagues 2.938
Not 77 (41.18) 16 (29.09)
Marginally 50 (26.74) 19 (34.55)
Moderately 39 (20.86) 14 (25.45)
Very 21 (11.23) 6(10.91)
Advising students 0.916
Not 68 (36.56) 17 (30.91)
Marginally 68 (36.56) 23 (41.82)
Moderately 30 (16.13) 10 (18.18)
Very 20 (10.75) 5 (9.09)
Expectations 0.748
Not 103 (55.08) 30 (55.56)
Marginally 44 (23.53) 14 (25.93)
Moderately 25 (13.37) 5 (9.26)
Very 15 (8.02) 5 (9.26)
Budget development 14.716(**)
Not 102 (54.84) 20(36.36)
Marginally 59 (31.72) 17 (30.91)
Moderately 18 (9.68) 9 (16.36)
Very 7 (3.76) 9 (16.36)
Policy &job description 2.400
Not 118 (65.19) 31 (57.41)
Marginally 41 (22.65) 12 (22.22)
Moderately 12 (6.63) 6 (11.11)
Very 10 (5.52) 5 (9.26)
Getting funded 1.696
Not 39 (20.63) 12 (21.82)
Marginally 53 (28.04) 19 (34.55)
Moderately 49 (25.93) 10 (18.18)
Very 48 (25.40) 14 (25.45)
Reduced signatures 1.083
Not 92 (50.00) 28 (51.85)
Marginally 50 (27.17) 16 (29.63)
Moderately 33 (17.93) 7 (12.96)
Very 9 (4.89) 3 (5.56)
Internet access 0.518
Not 134 (72.04) 39 (70.91)
Marginally 34 (18.28) 8 (14.55)
Moderately 16 (8.60) 6 (10.91)
Very 2 (1.08) 2 (3.64)
* p [less than] .05. ** p [less than] .01 *** p [less than] 001.
Note: df = 3. Critical values for [[[Chi].sup.2].sub..05] = 7.815,
[[[Chi].sup.2].sub..05] = 11.345, [[[Chi].sup.2].sub..001] = 16.266.
DISCUSSIONS
Most faculty seek opportunities to build their professional reputations as researchers; grant writing is one means of accomplishing this task. When grant proposals are funded, faculty disseminate this information by publishing the results. This study shows that nontenured faculty consider "building their professional reputation" to be very important, while tenured faculty think it's only moderately important.
To motivate faculty to use grants "to make a name for themselves," incentives must be individualized, allowing them to contribute to their area of research interest. Baldwin (1985) claims, "the key to faculty vitality is to discover the types of incentives that are most attractive to faculty members and that will most economically and effectively stimulate professor's best work" (p. 15).
Lack of training and knowledge in grant-proposal activities - particularly in areas such as developing budgets and locating funding sources - were barriers for the faculty in this study, more so for nontenured than for tenured faculty. Many junior faculty members perceive grant proposal writing as a barrier because they lack training and knowledge about the process. Additional research is needed to determine specifically where help is needed. Clearly, however, it is important that junior faculty have faculty-development programs and mentors to assist them through the process.
The results of this study can be used by college of education faculty and administrators to: (a) plan faculty development programs that assist junior faculty in developing greater knowledge of external-funding sources and proposal budget development; (b) help junior faculty in obtaining tenure or promotions; and (c) assist faculty in training and shaping the curriculum for future faculty members. This research holds important implications for universities in developing programs to support and mentor junior faculty in their pursuit of grants.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, R. G. (1985). "Incentives for Faculty Vitality." New directions for higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, P. G. (1997). Factors influencing college of education faculty in pursuing grants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Daniel, L. G., & Gallaher, I. (1990). "Impediments to faculty involvement in grant-related activities: A case study. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 16, 5-13.
Dooley, L. M. (1995). "Barriers and inducements to grant-related activity by a college of education faculty." Research Management Review, 7(2), 10-24.
Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R. K., &Schuster, J. H. (1995). The American faculty in transition: A first look at the new academic generation. The National Center for Education Statistics NSOPF93.
Lischwe, S., O'Neal Manning, L., & Willimann, J. (1987). "Encouraging research process: SUIE's experimental grants seminar for faculty." Journal of Society Research Administrators, 18(3), 49-53.
Monahan, T. C. (1993). Barriers and inducements to grant-related activity by New Jersey state college faculty. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 25(4), 9-25.
Patricia Boyer (co-author, "Factors Influencing Grant-Writing: Perceptions of Tenured and Non-tenured Faculty") is institutional research assistant at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Along with Irv Cockriel, Boyer created and teaches a graduate course titled "Proposal Writing for External Funding."
Irv Cockriel (co-author, "Factors Influencing Grant-Writing: Perceptions of Tenured and Non-tenured Faculty") is director of grants and contracts and associate dean for graduate studies and research at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
----------
Please note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.