7

Town Hall III, Day 2: Workforce Pipeline, Engaging in Federally Funded Research, Capacity Building, and Final Thoughts

The final day of the town hall series began with introductions of committee members and presenters who were attending the Chicago, Illinois, meeting in person, before moving on to three panels and a wrap-up discussion.

BARRIERS TO EXPANDING THE DEFENSE RESEARCH WORKFORCE PIPELINE

Workshop committee member Bryn Adams, Ph.D. (DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory), said her recognition of the need to expand awareness among U.S. citizens from diverse backgrounds to understand Department of Defense (DOD) opportunities was strengthened when she participated in a 1-year detail at the Pentagon on workforce development. The pipeline can provide highly successful careers, she said. Discussing ways to strengthen this pipeline were Shannon Arnold, M.Eng., M.S. (GBL Systems Corporation), Kerin Hilker-Balkissoon, Ph.D. (George Mason University [GMU]), Charlene Mello, Ph.D. (University of Massachusetts Dartmouth [UMass Dartmouth]), and Tim Williams (U.S. Air Force).

New Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence

Mr. Arnold is a subject-matter expert at the Pentagon working in the areas of trusted artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy. (He also presented at the April 24–25 Town Hall; see Chapter 3.) “We do not have a diverse workforce moving forward,” he stated, and addressing this gap is one area in which he is working. He commented that the U.S. Supreme Court decision against affirmative action will stymie some pathways, but there are ways to move forward to increase diversity.

The future operational environment at DOD will need AI and autonomy, he stressed. “We need students who understand the adversary and are well trained in key areas,” he said. It is important to identify promising students and support them. When he speaks with university students, faculty, and administrators, he calls attention to the need for collaboration

and partnerships. Some schools have less infrastructure than others, but all are needed to address national needs. The AI opportunities for trained students include calibration of trust, information protection, explainability and interpretability, performance in the field, and robustness to adversarial attacks. He called attention to the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) and other DOD scholarship and fellowship opportunities to support students in their studies.¹

Community College to 4-Year Transitions at George Mason University

Dr. Hilker-Balkissoon described several programs at George Mason University to address systemic and student inequities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) transfer for community college students, which she said are an overlooked population for STEM-sector readiness. She noted GMU is the largest public research university and the largest producer of STEM talent in Virginia. It is also ranked seventh nationally in terms of its diversity.

According to Dr. Hilker-Balkissoon, the value proposition to invest in the 2-to-4-year transfer pipeline stems from the fact that more than 40 percent of U.S. undergraduates matriculate in community colleges, a disproportionate number of whom are from underserved and minoritized communities. Most students are place based and are more likely to stay in the region to work. She noted the need for 2- and 4-year institutions to cross-align curricula to reduce credit loss when students transfer.

ADVANCE is GMU’s guided pathways program launched in 2018. It serves more than 3,600 students, 45 percent of whom are in STEM fields. Retention is very strong at about 83 percent (versus the national average of 61 percent). In addition to minimizing credit loss, ADVANCE provides ways for community college students to engage in research. The Mason Science Transfer Equity and Success Initiative was launched in 2018 to supplement and complement ADVANCE. It was based on a needs assessment that identified barriers to transfer students from accessing research opportunities at an equitable level compared with direct-entry students. A design thinking approach focuses on developing social, cultural, and career capital.

Barriers identified were that community college students are not getting information about research opportunities or the value of research to their careers. Many students had only inaccurate media representations of

___________________

¹ For more information on SMART, see https://dodstem.us/participate/smart/.

potential STEM careers. Only 11 percent of incoming transfer students said they planned to engage in research in their first semester. Access, equity, and inclusion barriers included how research opportunities were offered to students, as well as some faculty members’ inaccurate perceptions about the students’ academic preparation. In addition, many opportunities are designed for traditional students who are not working, and these opportunities are not accessible to many nontraditional students.

Both student-focused interventions and systemic interventions were developed. The student interventions included building a community and offering both outreach and inreach supports to ensure students are STEM career-ready.² Systemic interventions take longer but are needed, she continued. One of the most impactful was to include transfer students within the school’s JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) goals. That opened up institutional support and funding, such as training of community college advisors.

Focusing on several of the interventions, the Scientific Community of Transfer Researchers (SCTR) program offers a nonresidential learning community for cohorts of students in the fall and spring. The overall goal is to enhance career readiness by leveraging undergraduate research. After learning about the research process in an initial course, students are ready for mentored research in the coming semesters. The early outcomes have been very successful in accessing opportunities, she said. The next phase, the Research and Interdisciplinary STEM Experiences (RISE) Scholars Program, builds on lessons learned from SCTR, Dr. Hilker-Balkissoon explained. Students learn data visualization and other research skills, then participate in research and internship experiences. They receive stipends and scholarships to participate, and some hybrid and virtual experiences are offered to ensure all students have access.

Workforce Pipeline for DEVCOM

Dr. Mello discussed a model developed through the National Defense Education Program to enhance the workforce pipeline for DEVCOM and DOD overall, with a focus on undergraduate and graduate students. The funding is designed to develop an agile workforce in synthetic biology across a wide partnership with many Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), as well as with military and veteran partners. A team is composed of Army

___________________

² For more information, see https://science.gmu.edu/transfer.

scientists and engineers, students, and faculty to help create awareness of DOD opportunities. Dr. Mello said the teams are co-creating materials in synthetic biology and educating partners about DOD’s science and technology (S&T) challenges and how to get involved (see Figure 7-1).

Students, led by faculty, work with defense scientists to research a relevant area of synthetic biology. A Virtual Distributed Student Network has been developed to explore career opportunities in the field and, more generally, to learn to develop and appreciate the power of a professional network and other career-building skills. A variety of activities are taking place aligned with end-of-program goals. The first year of the program recently concluded.

University Affiliated Research Center at Howard University

Mr. Williams highlighted the Tactical Autonomy University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) led by Howard University and involving eight additional Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in a consortium, which was mentioned throughout the town halls. The consortium members have different Carnegie classifications (Carnegie Classification system) and other characteristics related to research. He noted several technical lines of effort, as well as the thrusts and objectives related to K–12 outreach, postsecondary students and faculty, and support for R2 institutions to transition to R1.

According to Mr. Williams, lessons learned to date are that, first, many universities and students are not aware of DOD opportunities, other than of people in uniform. Second, exposure is limited. Third, teaching loads for faculty are heavy. Fourth, the institutions’ Offices of Sponsored Research are small, especially to manage contract requirements. Solutions are being identified, he added. A positive aspect is the number of diverse U.S. citizens in STEM fields at HBCUs is higher than at Predominantly White Institutions, or PWIs, and these institutions can provide cleared personnel to DOD and other employers.

Discussion

Discussing how to dispel the myth that DOD research only involves weapon development, Dr. Mello suggested greater education and exposure to existing S&T portfolios in both fundamental and applied research. Dr. Hilker-Balkissoon suggested reaching out to career centers, advising teams,

and others who can provide information to students and faculty. This could expand the reach akin to a train-the-trainer model, she suggested.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCHERS AND PERSONNEL ENGAGING IN FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH

In introducing the next panel, Oscar Barton, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. (Morgan State University), noted the continuing references throughout the workshop to the role of faculty in building the research enterprise, as well as different challenges and opportunities for faculty at different career levels. Jill Keith, Ph.D. (Winston-Salem State University [WSSU]), Michael Groves, Ph.D. (California State University, Fullerton [CSUF]), Abraham Wolcott, Ph.D. (San José State University [SJSU]), and Saleh Zein-Sabatto, Ph.D. (Tennessee State University [TSU]), provided their perspectives.

Winston-Salem State University

Dr. Keith introduced Winston-Salem State University and pointed to the challenge of time in order for faculty to stay on top of research. Faculty at HBCUs have heavy teaching, committee, and service responsibilities. K–12 STEM outreach and student advising also take time. WSSU has a small but growing Office of Sponsored Programs, and the university’s strategic plan sets a goal to move to R2. As she commented, funding follows a strategic plan.

Student success is the top priority at WSSU. High-impact practices include providing opportunities for student research and reducing student debt. Thus, research programs pay students a competitive salary ($15–$20 hourly) so they do not have to take other types of jobs out of economic necessity. Through research opportunities, they gain an appreciation of the benefits of scientific research and interdisciplinary partnerships.

WSSU is located next to Wake Forest School of Medicine, which has resulted in a number of partnerships and three joint grants for research and faculty development. Other joint proposals have been submitted, and she underscored the benefits of working with other institutions. An associate provost has been hired to drive the institution to R2 status. WSSU obtained its first patent and is looking at other patents and spin-off projects. However, without sufficient staff, faculty have to do the administrative work themselves, Dr. Keith said.

California State University, Fullerton

Dr. Groves shared data about the campuses that compose California State University and reminded participants about the state’s higher education structure in which CSU campuses emphasize teaching and the University of California (UC) campuses prioritize research. Within this structure, Dr. Groves shared how the CSUF Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry exposes students to research through a capstone requirement that most students fulfill by doing research with a faculty principal investigator in a lab. Over the last 5 years, as a result of this requirement, 293 undergraduates presented at scientific meetings and 153 students were co-authors on peer-reviewed publications. The goal is to show students that they can be part of the scientific community and get involved in the research process, he said. Many go on to graduate STEM work.

Dr. Groves highlighted his own research on physical hole deficits, including using AI and machine learning, with areas of interest to DOD that include diamond surface properties for high-powered electronics. He explained that a DOD research scientist read about his work and reached out to him as a faculty member at an MSI, offering opportunities for both students and faculty.

To Dr. Groves, a challenge is that the administration does not prioritize research excellence or capacity among its strategic goals. While research is framed as a high-impact practice and research achievements are lauded, he said there is no investment in developing research agendas. Noting he was contacted by the DOD scientist somewhat by chance, he said it is difficult to learn about opportunities proactively. To him, the research administration is set up to manage, rather than enable, faculty.

As an opportunity, he said CSUF can help DOD develop the pipeline for underrepresented students to reach the “missing millions.” He noted that he continues to look for opportunities for students especially in the Southern California region.

San José State University

Workshop committee member Dr. Wolcott spoke about his research program at San José State University, another CSU campus. He noted he could give his talk a technical title about the scientific focus or title it “Experience and Wisdom Performing High-Quality Research with Undergraduates While Remaining Rational.” He highlighted his areas of research focus

and education and career pathway. He quoted Freeman Dyson, who said, “New directions in science are launched by new tools much more often than new concepts.” A tool-driven revolution is occurring now with AI, machine learning, and materials-related research. He also noted new methods and modalities will expand the DOD ecosystem.

His research laboratory usually has 15 to 20 students in several research thrusts. The goal is a robust architecture to maintain research programs without interruption. Dr. Wolcott said his experience as an undergraduate and graduate student at UC Santa Cruz showed how to take advantage of the rich research ecosystem in the Bay Area. Dr. Wolcott has mentored more than 60 students, and 10 have gone to Ph.D. studies, all from underrepresented groups. He has collaborated with SJSU’s Black Leadership and Opportunities Center to recruit Black student researchers into the lab, which he said could be a model throughout the Cal State system, and highlighted some of the lab’s accomplishments. He noted SJSU provides faculty release time, which he stressed is important to free up time for research, management, publishing, and other tasks. Donated instrumentation is an important resource. “You have to be open and talkative and take advantage of the opportunities,” he said.

Challenges to the research enterprise at SJSU include limited large capital instrumentation, poor infrastructure quality, and the need to maintain a large group of student researchers to meet the critical lab knowledge threshold for continuity. Faculty must be aware that students have many external pressures—such as violence, fear of deportation, and other issues. As a faculty member, he said it is difficult to find the time to publish because of teaching, research, and administration responsibilities, so there is a constant hustle. As a positive development, SJSU has a new science building, and his lab will have space in it.

Dr. Wolcott offered recommendations for DOD and SJSU. For DOD, he recommended requiring universities to acknowledge and write articles about awarded faculty; posting changes in HBCU/Minority Institution award criteria a year in advance so accommodations to the changes can be made; disclosing changes in allowable costs; assigning specific program managers to enhance communication; and creating DOD-based training programs similar to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Maximizing Access to Research Careers (MARC) and RISE programs.³

___________________

³ For more information on MARC, see https://nigms.nih.gov/training/MARC/Pages/USTARAwards.aspx. For more information on RISE, see https://nigms.nih.gov/training/RISE.

For SJSU, he recommended acknowledgment of successful research faculty, hiring technical staff to maintain and aid research, reducing nontechnical administrative hires, reducing the administrative burden on faculty by pooling resources, maintaining infrastructure, asking research faculty what they need to succeed, providing meritorious salary, and hiring more Black and Hispanic STEM faculty.

Tennessee State University

Dr. Zein-Sabatto teaches; conducts research funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and DOD; and serves as a department chair in the College of Engineering at Tennessee State University. TSU, located in Nashville, has about 9,000 students, 68 percent of whom are African American, and the College of Engineering has about 900 students. (See also presentations from TSU in Chapter 6.) A goal for the university is to transition to R1 in the next 5 to 10 years. “It’s all about students,” he stressed, as a focus for TSU and other HBCUs and MSIs. Many students have gone on to graduate education or to work in federal agencies.

Dr. Zein-Sabatto identified several challenges in common with other HBCUs and MSIs, including high teaching loads, little support staff for proposal development, and the need to attract high-quality graduate students. Much of the focus in graduate recruitment is within the institution by encouraging current undergraduate and master’s students to consider doctoral study at TSU. That helps students, faculty researchers, and the institution. Most engineering faculty at TSU are international. They are excellent faculty members, but they cannot pursue some research because of their citizenship status. Overall, the teaching load prevents faculty from networking, which limits their collaborative research and ability to pursue new areas. Junior faculty in particular struggle with how to apportion their time. He suggested targeting these faculty and funding them to attend workshops, since they are the faculty of the future.

Discussion

Dr. Barton asked presenters to envision what ideal research administration support would look like. Dr. Groves said a partner who would help faculty solve challenges. For example, there is no consistency about how to

pay students at his institution. A participant commented that there is no standardization across institutions about compensating students and providing health benefits, but there are tax implications about which students may be unaware, especially students with families. As another ideal practice, Dr. Zein-Sabatto suggested staff support to take care of budgeting and other documentation needed for proposals, and when grants are awarded, to submit invoices in a timely manner. Dr. Wolcott stressed the need for technically trained staff. He urged a recalibration of budgets to fund these types of positions as a human capital issue.

Related to high teaching loads, Dr. Zein-Sabatto said TSU has a policy that sets a minimum of teaching 12 credits per semester. The policy is being rethought, and one idea is to have research-oriented and teaching-oriented faculty categories. Tenure policies would have to be revised, however, as there are minimum teaching loads to get tenure. Dr. Keith said negotiations for course release with department chairs can be undertaken at WSSU, but it depends on the chair. The availability of adjunct faculty factors into the decision. Dr. Groves said the capstone requirement at CSUF allows for some teaching relief.

Mentorship and networking can play a big role, Dr. Barton observed. Dr. Wolcott concurred and said his own mentorship journey began when he was an undergraduate, including learning the mindset to always look for new opportunities. He has passed that on to his own students. Dr. Zein-Sabatto said one way he mentors junior faculty is to include them in proposals as co-principal investigators in their first or second year on campus. They are encouraged to take the lead in follow-up proposals.

FEDERAL CAPACITY PROGRAMS FOR FACULTY AND TRAINEE SUPPORT

As noted throughout the town halls, federal agencies provide a range of supports to graduate, postdoctoral, and early-career researchers, as well as offer professional development. In the last panel, committee member Keith McGee, Ph.D. (Alcorn State University), moderated a session with Narcrisha Norman, Ph.D. (NSF), Sailaja Koduri, Ph.D. (NIH), and LaRico Treadwell, Ph.D. (Sandia National Laboratories), for what he termed a 360-degree perspective of the research ecosystem, from support of graduate students to postdocs to early- and mid-career faculty.

National Science Foundation

Dr. Norman spoke about the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), which she said is one of NSF’s oldest and largest fellowship programs.⁴ Located within the Directorate of STEM Education, GRFP offers 3 years of financial support over a 5-year fellowship period, and it is open to individuals pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees in eligible fields. About 12,000 applications are received per round, about 2,000 offers made, and about 500 institutions are represented. She stressed the value to applicants to submit early. A decision tree and format compliance check are helpful resources on the GRFP website, she added. Dr. Norman explained other aspects of the application package, eligibility criteria, and timeline. A comprehensive review is conducted to evaluate an application’s intellectual merit (how important the proposed activity is to advancing knowledge within its own field or across different fields) and broader impact (how well the proposed activity benefits society or advances desired social outcomes), based on National Science Board Merit Review Criteria. Applicants are evaluated based on their demonstrated potential for significant achievements in STEM, using a comprehensive holistic approach and balanced consideration of all components of the application.

National Institutes of Health

Dr. Koduri discussed several graduate and early-faculty efforts within the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) and other institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health to promote diversity, along with relevant identifying numbers to access further information.

The Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) Program was designed to promote diversity by facilitating the timely transition of promising postdoctoral researchers from diverse backgrounds from their mentored positions to independent, tenure-track or equally research-intensive faculty positions. It consists of support to the candidates (K99/R00, PAR-21-271) and additional mentoring, networking, and career development through research education centers at scientific societies (UE5, PAR-21-277).

NIGMS Technology Development Programs support the earliest stages of technology development, establishing feasibility/proof of concept and prototype validations (R01, PAR-22-127; R21, PAR-22-126).

___________________

⁴ For more information, see https://nsfgrfp.org/ and www.nsf.gov/grfp.

Research Enhancement Awards support small-scale research projects at educational institutions that provide baccalaureate or advanced degrees for a significant number of the nation’s research scientists but that have not been major recipients of NIH support (institutions that have received less than $6 million per year from NIH in 4 of the last 7 years). NIGMS participates in the Academic Research Enhancement Award (PAR-21-155) within NIH’s R15 larger award program.

To promote research capacity building at institutions with lower NIH support and at least 25 percent of enrollment supported by Pell Grants, the SuRE (Support for Research Excellence) Program has two types of awards (R16, PAR-21-173 and PAR-21-169) for full-time faculty investigators.

The NIGMS Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) began in 2016 to allow early (PAR-23-145) and more established and new (PAR-22-180) investigators to spend more time on research and mentoring to enhance their ability to move into research. It is designed to provide flexible and stable funding to the investigators. She described the criteria and application process in greater detail. She noted that by FY 2022, a significant number of Early Stage Investigator, or ESI, grants were MIRA awards. One of NIGMS’s strategic goals is to have 60 percent of its R01-equivalent pool to be MIRAs by 2025. She called attention to NIGMS’s feedback loop blog posts for further information.⁵

Sandia National Laboratories

Dr. Treadwell is the technical research liaison to a program that began at Sandia National Laboratories 3 years ago called the Securing Top Academic Research and Talent at Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program (START HBCU). He noted the value to date and plans to expand it.

START HBCU began with a review of the demographics of the lab workforce, which is about 2.2 percent African American/Black. The analysis showed that most African American candidates come from partner schools, but only three of Sandia’s existing partners were HBCUs. Reaching beyond the existing partnership schools, START HBCU was designed to address the lab’s responsibility as a Federally Funded Research and Development

___________________

⁵ For more information, see https://loop.nigms.nih.gov.

Corporation, its contractual obligations, and its corporate goals and objectives to diversify the workforce.⁶

Dr. Treadwell explained further analysis of HBCUs was undertaken to look at such criteria as publication alignment with Sandia areas of research and NSF data. A rubric was developed to evaluate which HBCUs could form a START HBCU pilot. Immediate, near-term, and long-term goals were set up in recruiting, program partnerships, research, and partnership development. Academic programs include a faculty loan program, diversity partnership, university partnership network, and postdoctoral program office. He noted the list of institutions is constantly evolving and changing, and he welcomed new participants with the goal to grow a diverse research talent pipeline.

Dr. Treadwell summarized START HBCU’s programmatic and technical accomplishments and upcoming milestones. A START HBCU Intern Institute has involved 30 students. Opportunities to collaborate with Sandia include a Critical Skills Program for students, internships, fellowships, research collaborations, letters of support, mentorship, and a two-way faculty loan program.

Discussion

Dr. Norman noted a number of other NSF programs are designed to reach students at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), in addition to GRFP. (See Chapters 3 and 5 for several such programs.) Dr. Koduri explained the MOSAIC program at NIH is for postdoctoral students within their first 5 years. One aspect of the program is to help them negotiate when they do attain an independent position to ensure a successful transition. She noted NIGMS also has some programs for high school and undergraduate students.⁷

Faculty release time has been a frequent topic throughout the town halls, Dr. McGee pointed out. A challenge for rural or other marginalized campuses is to find replacement faculty if they do get release time. Dr. Treadwell said the faculty loan program envisioned through START HBCU may be a model. Many Sandia researchers want to teach and, through the loan program, they can travel or teach virtually in a win-win situation with

___________________

⁶ For more information, see www.sandia.gov/about/.

⁷ For more information, see https://nigms.nih.gov/research-training/programs/high-school-and-undergraduate.

institutions seeking faculty release arrangements. He and other Sandia staff try to build connections with faculty. He also noted that Sandia is discussing how to work with TCUs.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

The town hall ended with a discussion among committee members and participants about some of the points raised throughout the town hall series about capacity building, true partnerships, and federal programs to support research ecosystems at institutions.

Building Capacity

Dr. Barton noted that in the conversation to identify barriers to build DOD research at MSIs, it was clear that the barriers at different institutions are not the same. Some relate to infrastructure, while others stem from lack of recognition of what the institutions are already doing and have to offer. Large institutions have the resources to continue growing but face other challenges. To build capacity, he continued, faculty are the linchpin to success, and it is important to reimagine what faculty workloads encompass, including research, teaching, and service expectations. If an institution sees research as a priority, policies must align with this. It is incumbent on leadership to enhance what the expectations of a vibrant research culture look like and then take actions and provide resources based on this vision. Many institutions are building out their infrastructure and need initial investments from DOD, foundations, and others. Several valuable programs were discussed that can help jumpstart this process, he pointed out. He also pointed to programs that support students from the undergraduate level through their terminal degree that could be aligned with the missions of DOD labs and other initiatives.

Dr. McGee reflected on the perceptions on campuses about the needs of faculty researchers. He urged greater communication so that faculty and administrators understand each other’s needs and pressure points. When working with partners at DOD and others in the federal government, it is also important to build trust between institutions and agencies.

Andrea Christelle, Ph.D. (Diné College), noted that some institutions are already conducting research and it is a matter of expanding their programs. In contrast, TCUs were founded with the mission to allow tribal communities to have a higher education experience close to home and to

strengthen language preservation. Developing a research program is new, and many are starting from zero. Building up something that exists and starting something anew present two different considerations for capacity building, she observed.

Dr. Barton pointed out in discussing research capacity, most MSIs focus on grants, but contracts present an opportunity to elevate or enhance the research at an institution. Dr. McGee said building capacity should involve ensuring that more than one person understands a process because if that person leaves, they exit with institutional knowledge.

Helen Turner, Ph.D. (Chaminade University of Honolulu), commented that capacity building has institutional and personal aspects. Changing the faculty’s way of thinking about their roles is not easy. Many consider their teaching as important as research, she observed. Administrators need to reskill, upskill, and support existing faculty who want to do research, but also hire for the research mission going forward. Looking ahead 5 years, she envisioned a structure at Chaminade and other small institutions with research-empowered faculty while, in parallel, moving current faculty along the research continuum.

Dr. Wolcott reflected that geography and space are a factor across institutions and present unique challenges. For example, he said, building research capacity is different across Cal State campuses, TCUs, HSIs in urban environments, and other settings. For this reason, he said, DOD programs have to be flexible. He urged wording in funding announcements that allow teams to be creative at their institutions and allow for innovation. Institutions must identify their challenges, whether related to infrastructure, teaching loads, geographic location, or other considerations, he added.

Dr. Groves stressed the lens of student development and building a pipeline for DOD. The human capital of students could be a unifying focus, he suggested. Dr. Wolcott agreed but said it should be coupled with faculty development. Without faculty maintaining research and staying at institutions long term, the impact on students will be minimized. Dr. McGee agreed that student development and faculty development must occur in tandem. Dr. Christelle added the need for development and investment in research administration to sustain the effort.

Dr. Turner said that when Chaminade University became part of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s (HHMI’s) Inclusive Excellence Program, what resonated was HHMI’s emphasis not to “fix students,” but instead to fix systems. That narrative applies here, she posited. It is important to change the perception to show that research at small institutions

is meaningful to the nation’s STEM landscape and should be a national priority. Dr. Wolcott suggested one strategy is for institutions to spotlight faculty accomplishments.

True Partnerships

Chad Womack, Ph.D. (United Negro College Fund [UNCF]), reflected on conversations about true partnerships, to include agencies, larger institutions, UARCS, and peer-to-peer partnerships. A common denominator is to make sure these partnerships are win-win. Drilling down, he asked, what does that mean? He suggested making sure that HBCUs and MSIs are not on the losing end of resources and that they are left better off at the end and not worse. Part of that is retention of faculty, referring to examples where HBCU faculty were recruited to the larger institution in a partnership.

The recently launched Applied Research Institute for Applied Mathematics and other models are built on the notion that there are resources and assets in that HBCU community that can be leveraged, he said.⁸ It is important to be intentional about how to network research faculty to allow them to grow, such as through joint and adjunct appointments, and to incentivize institutions to participate. Other issues that come into play include intellectual property, tech transfer, and commercialization in order for institutions to capture the value of the research. He urged capacity building around commercialization to go after bigger opportunities.

Dr. Barton said partnerships require “truth in advertising” so that relationships are built that are valued and trusted. Dr. Christelle reflected on situations in which TCUs enter into partnerships with R1s, but they do not benefit from commercialization. A tech transfer office, even a small business development office, at a TCU can show what is possible to students. Dr. McGee commented that land created wealth in the past, but new technology creates wealth today. It is important that smaller institutions are part of the conversation.

Dr. Barton asked about the model of a mentorship between a small and a larger institution. Dr. Christelle said Diné College has a strong relationship with the University of Arizona, which has provided valuable technical

___________________

⁸ For more information, see https://uncf.org/news/uncf-and-google-are-paving-thepath-forward-to-increase-opportunities-for-hbcu-students-in-tech-fields-with-additional-2m-investment.

assistance. Yet, the two institutions are vastly different, and she stressed the value of a TCU consortium to support one another.

Dr. Turner commented on the importance of personal relationships in learning about federal funding opportunities, perhaps from a meeting at a conference or other encounter. Figuring out how to take the element of chance out of these connections is an important question, she said. Getting everyone on board with a collective impact framework can decrease tokenism of involving a smaller or less resourced institution. It would help if pathways to funding for smaller institutions were more formalized, she suggested.

Federal Opportunities

Reflecting on federal opportunities, Dr. McGee commented that each workshop has provided examples of stellar programs. It is important for these programs to be intentional and deliberate so that all institutions benefit, he said. He suggested that consortia of TCUs, HBCUs, HSIs, and other institutions work with each other, as well as groups like UNCF and the Thurgood Marshall Fund, to have a bigger role in federal capacity-building decisions. Dr. Womack agreed on the impact of “go-together strategies.” Across the landscape, centers and/or individual faculty are doing great work that could be leveraged. He suggested networks in such a way that institutions are not going after individual NSF grants but larger funding opportunities together. He also noted contract opportunities at DOD and in the private sector that cannot be achieved without working together.

Dr. McGee asked about building the management and legal infrastructure to take advantage of these opportunities. Dr. Barton noted that industry and agencies have different needs and timelines. Dr. Wolcott commented that federal opportunities, particularly contracts, are difficult to identify and pursue for individual faculty members. Dr. Barton said leadership must be aware and engaged to facilitate the pursuit of contracts. Dr. McGee said a grant tends to be the brainchild of a specific faculty member, but a contract, in general, is aligned with an agency’s mission. If the expertise is on campus, the institution can take advantage of these opportunities, but someone on campus must be looking out for them. Federal partnerships are critical to the survival and ability to train students for the next-generation workforce. Being able to work with federal partners is very important. Having transparent conversations can lead to a greater understanding of what is needed, he asserted.

Dr. Barton closed this town hall by thanking panelists, committee members, staff, and others for coming to the table. He thanked DOD for the opportunity to put institutions in a place where they can be engaged.

This page intentionally left blank.