Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 06 October 2014, At: 13:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Community College Journal ofResearch and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20
Who's Securing Grants?:Demographics of Full-TimeFaculty at Two-Year InstitutionsPatricia G. Boyer aa University of Missouri—St. Louis , St. Louis,Missouri, USAPublished online: 04 May 2007.
To cite this article: Patricia G. Boyer (2007) Who's Securing Grants?: Demographicsof Full-Time Faculty at Two-Year Institutions, Community College Journal of Researchand Practice, 31:5, 409-420, DOI: 10.1080/10668920701282817
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920701282817
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
WHO’S SECURING GRANTS?: DEMOGRAPHICS OFFULL-TIME FACULTY AT TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS
Patricia G. Boyer
University of Missouri—St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri, USA
This research project used a large database to examine factors associatedwith full-time faculty at 2-year institutions who have secured or notsecured external funds. Specifically, the research examined demographiccharacteristics and other variables of faculty at 2-year institutions.
Due to the financial problems institutions of higher learning areexperiencing, more and more they are compelled to seek externalfunding to assist in alleviating limited funds and financing specialresearch projects. Hebel (2003) reported in The Chronicle of HigherEducation that two-year institutions have been subject to greaterbudget cuts than four-year institutions and that they rely more onstate funds for budgets than other higher education institutions.Therefore, they have to do more with less funds. One remedy forthis financial lack is to encourage and reward faculty who pursueexternal funds.
Much of what is known about faculty securing grants comes fromresearch on four-year institutions, but very little is known aboutsecuring grants by faculty at two-year institutions. However, themission of two-year institutions is different from that of four-yearinstitutions. Nonetheless, given the dearth of funding available fortwo-year faculty and their desire to obtain funding, it is importantto provide information on faculty at two-year institutions who havebeen successful in securing grants compared to those who have notsuccessfully secured grants.
Traditionally, grants have not been available for faculty at two-year institutions in comparison to their availability for faculty at
Address correspondence to Patricia G. Boyer, University of Missouri—St. Louis, 269 Marillac
Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121-4499. E-mail: [email protected]
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31: 409–420, 2007
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1066-8926 print/1521-0413 online
DOI: 10.1080/10668920701282817
409
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
four-year institutions (Bauman, 1982), and faculty at two-year insti-tutions have not overwhelmingly attempted to secure those grantsthat have been accessible. Even with more and more public andprivate funding sources embracing the idea of accepting proposalssubmitted by two-year institutions (see ERIC Clearinghouse, 1984),community college faculty do not seem to be pursuing these funds.The reasons for so few community college faculty members pursuingexternal funding have a great deal to do with excessively heavy teach-ing loads, a lack of interest in pursuing external funds, and a lack ofencouragement by college administrators. Additionally, researchfrom four-year institutions reveals that faculty do not pursue grantsbecause they lack knowledge about how to obtain them. This differ-ence exists across the board by faculty rank, gender, and institutionaltype (Boyer & Cockriel, 2001; Boyer & Cockriel, 1998; Daniel &Gallaher, 1990; Monahan, 1993; Dooley, 1995). Research also indi-cates that some junior faculty members consider the grant writingprocess intimidating without a mentor (Boyer, 1997) or withoutprevious knowledge about how to seek grants (Lischwe, O’Neal, &Willimann, 1987). Others have reported that some tenured facultydo not seek external funds because they are not interested in promo-tions, they are not seeking different jobs, nor are they interested inseeking grants under any conditions (Monahan, 1993). More thanlikely, faculty at two-year institutions have similar barriers to theirattempts to seek funding via grants.
It is believed by some that faculty at community colleges contrib-ute little to scholarship (Townsend, 2000; Harrington, n.d.; Williams,1991), and they do not engage in nor value research (Change, 1998;2000). These studies attribute, in part, the lack of research by com-munity college faculty to the traditional mission of their institutions.To the contrary, other researchers have found that there is a desireand interest among some faculty members to pursue grants (Change,1998). Although few faculty members at two-year colleges have hadgrants funded to support research, many more are conductingresearch than typically suggested; they share the same research valuesas faculty at four-year institutions (see Rifkin, n.d.; Change, 1998).
METHOD
The literature lacks research on community colleges because thesecolleges are not conducting their own investigations, there are nogovernment agencies charged with studying these colleges, and fewresearchers are investigating what is transpiring in two-year institu-tions (Cohen and Brawer, 1996). There is an argument for the need
410 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
of more research specifically on faculty at community colleges(Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Townsend, 2000) and that large databasescan provide valuable insights and practical summaries on these insti-tutions (ERIC Clearinghouse, 1984) and their faculty. Thus, the pur-pose of this research project was to use a large database to examinefactors associated with full-time faculty at two-year institutionswho have secured or not secured external funds. Specifically, theresearch sought to examine demographic characteristics and othervariables comparing two- and four-year institutions. Additionally,factors consisting of faculty pursuing grants based on tenure statusand public vs. private institutions were analyzed. Some comparisonswere made between two- and four-year institutions.
The data source used for this study was the 1999 National Study ofPostsecondary Faculty (NSOPF: 99), which is sponsored by the U.S.Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics(NCES). This database is a self-reported survey considered to be ‘‘themost comprehensive study of faculty in postsecondary educationalinstitutions ever taken’’ (NCES Web site, p.1). Approximately18,000 faculty and instructional staff from 865 postsecondary institu-tions completed the survey (NCES). The Web site explains how thesample was selected by stratified and clustered probability design(p.2).
Selection of Variables
Several variables from the NSOPF: 99 database were utilized for thisresearch project. Included were demographic variables (age and gen-der), institutional variables (tenure status and employed full-time),workload variables (time actually spent teaching and total officehours per week), and grant-related variables (any funded researchand total number of grants=contracts). Workload variables wereselected because of the effect day-to-day workload activities haveon how and if faculty conduct research and pursue grants. Thegrant-related variables for the study were those variables in the data-base that disclose faculty grant activity and opinions about pursuinggrants. Data were analyzed by using both SAS and Stata StatisticalPackages. The margin of error for the study was at p < .05 level.
RESULTS
Demographic characteristics and other variables comparing two- andfour-year institutions of full-time faculty who secured and who didnot secure grants were as follows: 61% of the faculty were male with
Who’s Securing Grants? 411
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
one or more dependents (66%), 76% were married, 40% werebetween the ages of 45–54, and 24% were non-White. The majorityof the respondents (83%) had obtained one or more grants and weretenured faculty (60%). The four-year doctoral granting college oruniversity represents 71% of the respondents with 74% working atpublic institutions and Doctoral-Extensive Carnegie Classification(49%). There was one question that specifically asked faculty fortheir opinions about obtaining grants. Of the respondents, 70%agreed and strongly agreed with the statement that it is difficult toobtain external funding (see Table 1).
Table 2 shows the full-time faculty at two-year institutions whosecured or did not secure grants. There were nine demographic, insti-tutional, and grant-related variables that were analyzed using the
Table 1. Variables of full-time faculty who secured and did not secure grants
at 2- and 4-year institutions (N ¼ 2435)
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 1488 61.11
Female 947 38.89
Marital status
Single 231 9.49
Married 1861 76.43
Living with someone 93 3.82
Separated, divorced, or widowed 250 10.27
Number of dependents
0 816 33.51
1–10 1619 66.49
Age
Under 35 82 3.37
35–44 614 25.22
45–54 962 39.51
55–64 648 26.61
65–69 101 4.15
70þ 28 1.15
Ethnicity
Am. Indian or Alaskan Native 18 0.74
Asian &=or Pacific Islander 241 9.90
Black=African Am. non-Hispanic 185 7.60
Hispanic 140 5.75
White, non-Hispanic 1851 76.02
Number of grants=contracts
0 411 16.88
1–10 2024 83.12
(Continued)
412 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Chi-square test of independence. Of the nine variables, only two weresignificant. These were type of institution (v2 ¼ 6.99, p < .01) andpublic vs. private institution (v2 ¼ 5.66, p < .05).
Full-time faculty who secured and did not secure grants at two-year public and private institutions were investigated further usingChi-Square tests of independence. The variables considered for thisinvestigation were 14 workload and grant-related variables. Of the14 variables, 6 were significant:time actually spent teaching under-graduates, time actually spent teaching graduates, time actually spentat research, time actually spent on administration, total classestaught, and total office hours per week (see Table 3).
Table 1. Continued
Variable Frequency Percentage
Tenure status
Tenured 1452 59.63
On tenure track 496 20.37
Not on tenure track 377 15.48
No tenure system 110 4.52
Type of institution
4-yr. doctoral granting college or univ. 1732 71.13
4-yr. Non-doctoral granting college or univ. 491 20.16
2-year degree granting college 167 6.86
Other postsecondary institution 45 1.85
Opinion of ability to obtain funding
Strongly disagree 58 2.38
Disagree 671 27.56
Agree 1190 48.87
Strongly agree 516 21.19
Public vs. private institutions
Public 1802 74.00
Private 633 26.00
2000 Carnegie Classification
Doctoral-Extensive 1187 48.75
Doctoral-Intensive 275 11.29
Master’s I 437 17.95
Master’s II 52 2.14
Liberal Arts 60 2.46
Baccalaureate-General 83 3.41
Baccalaureate=Associate’s 3 0.12
Associate’s 186 7.64
Other 152 6.24
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty.
Who’s Securing Grants? 413
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Table 2. Chi-square test of faculty who secured and did not secure grants at
2-year institutions (N ¼ 212)
Variable
# Secured-0
Frequency (%)
# Secured-1þFrequency (%) v2
Gender 1.75
Male 24 (39) 73 (49)
Female 38 (61) 77 (51)
Marital status 4.91
Single 2 (3) 8 (5)
Married 50 (81) 113 (75)
Living with someone 4 (6) 3 (2)
Separated, divorced, or widowed 6 (10) 26 (17)
Number of dependents 0.11
0 23 (37) 52 (35)
1–10 39 (63) 98 (65)
Ethnicity 4.09
Am. Indian or Alaskan Native 0 1 (1)
Asian &=or Pacific Islander 4 (6) 12 (8)
Black=African Am. non-Hispanic 2 (3) 13 (9)
Hispanic 1 (2) 7 (5)
White, non-Hispanic 55 (89) 117 (78)
Age 7.44
Under 35 3 (5) 5 (3)
35–44 8 (13) 32 (21)
45–54 21 (34) 61 (41)
55–64 27 (44) 45 (30)
65–69 2 (3) 7 (5)
70þ 1 (2) 0
Tenure status 3.93
Tenured 31 (50) 74 (49)
On tenure track 11 (18) 33 (22)
Not on tenure track 5 (8) 21 (14)
No tenure system 15 (24) 22 (15)
Type of institution 6.99��
2-year degree granting college 56 (90) 111 (74)
Other postsecondary institution 6 (10) 39 (26)
Public vs. private institutions 5.66�
Public 56 (90) 114 (76)
Private 6 (10) 36 (24)
Opinion of ability to obtain funding 2.55
Strongly disagree 1 (2) 4 (3)
Disagree 19 (31) 46 (31)
Agree 36 (58) 74 (49)
Strongly agree 6 (10) 26 (17)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty.
414 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Full-time faculty who secured and did not secure grants at two-year institutions by tenured status were investigated further usingChi-Square tests of independence. The variables considered for thisinvestigation were 14 workload and grant-related variables. Of the14 variables, 5 were significant:time actually spent teaching under-graduates, time actually spent on service activities, total classestaught, total office hours per week, and any funded research (seeTable 4).
DISCUSSION
One purpose of this study was to examine full-time faculty at two-yearinstitutions who are securing grants and those who are not securinggrants and make some comparisons to faculty at four-year institutions.The research revealed that fewer community college faculty were sub-mitting grant applications; therefore, fewer are getting grants funded.The number of faculty at four-year institutions pursuing grants wasabout 10 times greater than that of faculty at two-year institutions
Table 3. Chi-square test of faculty who secured and did not secure grants at
2-year public and private institutions (N ¼ 1072)
Variable df v2
Time actually spent teaching undergrads 94 180.20���
Time actually spent at teaching grads 54 127.89���
Time actually spent at research 52 91.77���
Time actually spent on professional growth 33 33.17
Time actually spent at administration 72 96.99�
Time actually spent on service activity 45 39.27
Time actually spent on consulting 37 40.93
Total classes taught 19 50.20���
Internet access 3 1.37
Total office hours per week 32 57.81��
Any funded research 1 2.66
Total number of grants=contracts 8 14.48
Satisfaction with work load 3 4.75
Opinion of ability to obtain funding 3 1.65
Note: �p < .05; ��p < .01; ���p < .001.
All variables are continuous data except for the following four variables: Internet Access,
which has four responses (both at home and at work; at work only; at home only; no access);
Any Funded Research, which has a ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ response; and Satisfaction with Workload
and Opinion of Ability to obtain funding, which are based on a four-point Likert scale (very
dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, & very satisfied).
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty.
Who’s Securing Grants? 415
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
(see Table 1). Because of the mission of community colleges, their fac-ulty will never secure grants to the same extent as faculty at four-yearinstitutions. Additionally, although faculty at two-year institutions areinterested in research=grants and increasing funds available for grants,the disparity between the two types of institutions is phenomenal.
A couple of variables for the full-time faculty at two-year institu-tions were statistically significant in this research project. These vari-ables were public versus private institutions and type of two-yearinstitution. Usually, faculty members at public institutions are morelikely to pursue external funding for research and pet projects. In thisstudy, faculty at private two-year institutions were more likely tosecure grants than faculty at public institutions. Additionally, ahigher rate of faculty at two-year degree granting colleges did notsecure grants compared to faculty at other two-year postsecondaryinstitutions. Faculty at other postsecondary institutions securedgrants at a rate more than twice as much as faculty at two-year degreegranting colleges (see Table 2).
Table 4. Chi-square test of faculty who secured and did not secure grants at
2-year institution by tenure status (N ¼ 1072)
Variable df v2
Time actually spent teaching undergrads 282 343.15��
Time actually spent at teaching grads 162 155.39
Time actually spent at research 156 185.27
Time actually spent on professional growth 99 87.56
Time actually spent at administration 216 242.76
Time actually spent on service activity 135 172.93��
Time actually spent on consulting 111 109.17
Total classes taught 57 82.48��
Internet access 9 4.98
Total office hours per week 96 161.71���
Any funded research 3 9.30�
Total number of grants=contracts 24 25.21
Satisfaction with work load 9 13.14
Opinion of ability to obtain funding 9 9.65
Note: �p < .05; ��p < .01; ���p < .001.
Tenured Status represents faculty who are ‘‘tenured,’’ ‘‘on tenure track,’’ ‘‘not on tenure
track,’’ and ‘‘no tenure system.’’
All variables are continuous data except for four variables. Internet Access, which has four
responses (both at home and at work; at work only; at home only; no access); Any Funded
Research, which has a ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ response; and Satisfaction with Workload and Opinion
of Ability to Obtain Funding, which are based on a four-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, & very satisfied).
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty.
416 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Three variables were the same for faculty who secured or did notsecure grants at two-year institutions by tenure status or private vs.public institutions: time actually spent teaching undergraduates, totalclasses taught, and total office hours per week (see Tables 3 & 4).These results are not surprising considering the mission of com-munity college faculty and their workloads. What is surprising is thatthere were differences when faculty secure grants by private vs. publicinstitutions and by tenure status.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE
The findings of this research have implications for not only faculty incommunity colleges but also for community college administrators.Given that the need is great in community colleges for external fund-ing, it is important for administrators to encourage and reward fac-ulty who pursue grants. Additionally, research reveals factors thatmotivate (i.e., a strong commitment from the president and opport-unity to research new information) and hinder (i.e., lack of knowl-edge of funding sources and lack of training in grant seeking andgrant writing) faculty in their attempts to pursue external funds (seeBoyer & Cockriel, 1998; Boyer & Cockriel, 2001). Although theresearch was conducted using faculty at four-year institutions, thisinformation can be valuable for two-year institutions. Administratorsshould be able to utilize this research to assist in evaluating whatmight work for faculty at their particular institution. A remedy forlack of funding is to encourage and reward community college facultyto pursue external funding. The challenge is to encourage faculty topursue grants and yet maintain the traditional mission of communitycolleges.
In spite of the heavy teaching loads of faculty at two-year institu-tions, one recommendation is that they consider collaborating onresearch=grant projects. Collaborating with other faculty memberscan offer opportunities to share the workload involved in pursuinggrants. Also, novices in the grant-seeking process may want to seekout others who are familiar with the process who can mentor themthrough the process.
Previous research on four-year institutions reveals that faculty donot pursue grants because of heavy teaching loads, no colleagues withwhom to work, and lack of training in grant seeking=writing (seeBoyer & Cockriel, 2001). One will probably find similar results withfaculty at two-year institutions, but it requires further investigation.Administrators may not be able to address the issue of heavy teachingloads, but mentoring and training of their faculty are manageable
Who’s Securing Grants? 417
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
issues. To assist their faculty, it is imperative that administrators attwo-year institutions implement programs to ensure that their facultyare adequately trained and mentored to be productive in theirattempt to pursue grants. With encouragement by administratorsand mentors and collaboration with grant-experienced peers, com-munity college faculty can be successful in applying for and securinggrants.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Several variables, although not statistically significant, are worth dis-cussing and require further investigation. One such variable is gender.Women were almost twice as likely not to secure grants compared totheir male counterparts. The percentages were about the same forsecuring one or more grants for both male and female faculty.Another variable, although not statistically significant, is worth not-ing: age. Faculty at two-year institutions between the ages of 45–54had secured grants at a higher percentage than other age groups.
The variable of opinion of ability to obtain funding was not stat-istically significant for any of the groups studied; but faculty mem-bers agreed that it has become more difficult for faculty to obtainexternal funding. This variable is important because perceptionsand opinions are important and must be changed in order toencourage faculty to pursue external funding opportunities. Manyfaculty members stated that if they had the opportunity, they wouldprobably secure grants and conduct more research (Change, 1998).Therefore, the attitude about pursuing grants at community collegesmust change. Such change might be accomplished by more mentor-ing, training, and class reduction for faculty interested in writingand obtaining grants.
Further investigation is needed to better understand other vari-ables that influence faculty at two-year institutions when pursuinggrants. One such variable is geographical location, urban vs. rural.Due to the increased costs of attending college, more students arechoosing to attend community colleges instead of four-year institu-tions. With the heavy teaching loads that already exist, research onthe impact of geographical location is needed to understand howthe influx of additional students will affect faculty when pursuinggrants.
Another variable to consider for further investigation israce=ethnicity, especially since community colleges tend to attractminority faculty. Also, additional research is needed to show grantactivity in community colleges by academic discipline. At four-year
418 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
institutions, grant funds are more readily available in the sciencescompared to other academic disciplines. It would be interesting todetermine by discipline the similarities and differences in fundsavailable and how faculty pursue these funds in two- and four-yearinstitutions.
REFERENCES
Bauman, M. G. (1982, Summer). We regret to inform you. . . Research grants and
the community college teacher. Community College Review, 10(1), 27–32.
Boyer, P. G. (1997). Factors influencing college of education faculty in pursuing grants.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Boyer, P. G. & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors influencing grant writing: Perceptions of
tenured and non-tenured faculty. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators,
23(4), 61–68.
Boyer, P. G. & Cockriel, I. (2001). Grant performance of junior faculty across dis-
ciplines: Motivators and barriers. Journal of the Society of Research Administra-
tors, 2(1), 19–23.
Change. (1998, Nov–Dec). Casting new light on old notions: A changing understanding
of community college faculty. Retrieved August 7, 2003, from http://www.find
articles.com/cf_0/m1254/6_30/53287051/print.jhtml
Change. (2000, March–Apr). Why is research the rule? The impact of incentive systems
on faculty behavior 32(2), 53.
Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (1996). Community college scholarship. ERIC Digest.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395617)
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.
ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges Los Angeles CA. (1984). Methods of
securing alternative funding for community colleges: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED286552)
Harrington, D. (n.d.). Scholarship in community colleges: An interview with George B.
Vaughan. Retrieved August 7, 2003, from http://www.ncte.org/
Hebel, S. (2003, May 30). Unequal impact: Community colleges face disproportion-
ate cuts in state budgets. (Electronic version). The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lischwe, S., O’Neal, M., & Willimann, J. (1987). Encouraging research process:
SUIE’s experimental grants seminar for faculty. Journal of the Society of 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.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved August 7, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov
Who’s Securing Grants? 419
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Rifkin, T. (n.d.). AACC: Public community college faculty. Retrieved August 7, 2003,
from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourceCenter/
Projects_Partner ships
Townsend, B. K. & La Paglia, N. (2000, Summer). Are we marginalized within aca-
deme? Perceptions of two-year college faculty. Community College Review, 20(1),
41.
Williams, D. N. (1991, July). The role of scholarship in the community college.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_
Digests/ed338294.html
420 P. G. Boyer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
DU
T L
ibra
ry]
at 1
3:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
