Forum Post
In Part II of the ‘misinformation’ series, we specifically address WSU’s research enterprise. President Schulz lauded our recent 3% increase in R&D and movement up one position in the HERD rankings. We argue that these accomplishments fall far short of expectations and do little to reinvigorate our stagnant research enterprise. Once again, the purpose of this series is to highlight the disconnect between our administration’s Pollyanna messaging about WSU and reality.
First, WSU’s research goals continue to be ill defined. Goals should be S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound). Unfortunately, many of the system goals more generally, and goals for the research enterprise specifically, lack relevance. For example, one objective for the WSU System Strategic Plan 2022-2023 was to “Increase total R&D expenditures by 5% from $357.6M to $375.5M.” The critical question is why a 5% target was chosen – what is the explicit relevance of a 5% increase in total R&D expenditures? This is a particularly pertinent question when considering the effects of inflation on research costs. How does this objective align with our values and long-term objectives (i.e., relevance)? How does it position WSU for demonstrable research success, especially given that most of our peers increase their R&D expenditures notably more than 5% in a given year? Moreover, we did not even achieve this ill-defined goal, with a 3% increase falling short of the 5% target.
As another example, an annual system objective for 2023-2024 (as part of the WSU System Strategic Plan) related to research (Strategic Direction 2, Objective 3) is to “Increase research competitiveness and national standing”, with a target to “Advance three positions from 78th in FY21 to 75th in FY24 as measured by the NSF’s higher education research and development survey.” This objective is likewise poorly defined because it lacks relevance. In what explicit and tangible ways does advancing from 78th to 75th in HERD rankings over the next three fiscal years increase our research competitiveness and national standing? More importantly, what resources will be invested to allow WSU to achieve this goal? Given four years of across-the-board budget cuts and another upcoming targeted cut for FY25, how will adequate resources be identified to make investments in new tenure-track faculty hires, upgrades and improvements to facilities, and to address the very real and problematic state of centralized services (e.g., HRS, purchasing, post-award) that are understaffed, under-resourced, and are severely curtailing WSU’s ability to be nimble and responsive?
We contend that an important ingredient missing from our research objectives for the system is context. This contention is supported by the table linked here, which is a snapshot of HERD data with institutions ranked by FY2022 R&D expenditures (from FY2010-2022). Relative changes were calculated for FY2021-2022 (1-year) and FY2012-2022 (10-year) for institutions ranked 1-100; WSU is highlighted in yellow and our 13 strategic plan peers are highlighted in green. WSU is dead last for 10-year change in R&D among our strategic plan peer group at 9.7%, and is well below the average 10-year change of 41.5% among our peer group. Note that WSU is not included in this average, thus providing a head-to-head comparison of WSU vs. the 12 Strategic Plan Peers included in this measure. Data for University of Maryland at College Park (ranked 19th) was not reported prior to FY2019 and thus 10-year data and is not available, but they had a 7.6% 1-year increase from FY2021-2022 and exceeded WSU’s R&D by over $860M in FY2022. The 3% growth for WSU (FY2021-2022) was well below the average 8.5% growth for our 13 strategic plan peers in the same period. Importantly, if institutions currently ranked below WSU continue on the same growth trajectories and we do not make substantial investments to increase the scope of our own research enterprise, they will likely surpass us, as discussed next.
It is critically relevant to consider that all of the preceding information is dynamic, and represents moving rather than fixed targets. Every institution already ranked higher than WSU, with higher 1-year and 10-year changes in R&D, will strive to continue to support their research competitiveness and standing. Our current status is already precarious – a mere $289,000 separates WSU from the 78th ranked institution (University of Delaware), and only $839,000 separates us from the 79th ranked institution (University of Connecticut). On the other hand, the strategic plan peer closest to us in total FY2022 R&D, Iowa State University, which is currently ranked 76th, is over $24.5M ahead of WSU. Thus, context matters, and our research objectives must be created keeping in mind that all of our peers will have similar objectives – to increase their research enterprise. As stated previously, universities live and die by their reputations and national rankings. We cannot afford the continued decline in ours if we wish to remain a competitive R-1 institution.
What are our values and long-term objectives related to research (i.e., the relevance issue referred to above)? This key question, unfortunately, has yet to be considered by leadership. We suggest that WSU return squarely to our land-grant mission – research that improves the lives of the individuals, families, and communities within the state and the nation. We must make substantial investments in fundamental research that is basic and translationally relevant for improving societal well-being. Reviving our commitment to research will positively affect all aspects of our lives including fuel efficient vehicles, faster and less expensive information technology, effective teaching methods, food insecurity, and prevention of chronic and infectious diseases, to name only a few.
Dramatic action is needed to reverse years of decline, including substantial strategic investments to support a credible strategy for achieving research excellence. This will require difficult decisions by leadership, especially given the serious financial challenges facing WSU. And to be clear – a 3% or even 5% target is woefully inadequate to address stagnation of the research enterprise at WSU. To invoke our late President Elson S. Floyd, we must be “bold, audacious, and visionary.”
It is not too late to address the many challenges WSU faces. But it is time for a change at WSU.
~Anonymous Faculty
Response
The Faculty Senate Executive Officers have been notified of this forum post and will respond back once more information becomes available.
Comments