Volume LV, Number 2
Positioning Faculty for Funding at an Emerging Research Institution: A Case Study to Inform Faculty Academy Programs
Melani W. Duffrin, PhD
Northern Illinois University
Kellie M. Dyslin, MSW, CRA
Northern Illinois University
Luke Sebby
Northern Illinois University
Jasmina Mesic, MS
Northern Illinois University
Chris Duffrin, PhD
Benedictine University
Lynda Ransdell, PhD
Boise State University
Dara Little, MPA, CRA
Northern Illinois University
Gerald C. Blazey, PhD
Northern Illinois University
Abstract
Emerging Research Institutions (ERIs) are notably one of the most impactful organizations in a state system for addressing social mobility, workforce development, and economic growth of a region. Cultivating research at ERIs often requires the faculty to expand their skill sets beyond basic research to engage students and communities. Faculty development infrastructure through a Community of Practice (CoP) can help faculty expand skills sets, plan a career, and work in more robust interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research teams. The purpose of this case study is to evaluate the experience of a cohort in a CoP designed for an ERI to position faculty for funding. The participants of this study are faculty that agreed to attend eight sessions of the CoP over the course of one academic year 2021-2022. Along with attending the CoP, participants agreed to complete two researcher-developed survey instruments and be interviewed post CoP sessions. Publication history, attitudes, investigator readiness, facilitators, barriers, needs, and proposal progression with regards to funding were assessed. Overall, participants reported enjoying the experience and demonstrated high levels of activation towards proposal submissions.
Keywords: Community of Practice; Faculty Development; Emerging Research Institutions; Funding
Introduction
Emerging Research Institutions (ERIs), defined as institutions of higher education with undergraduate or graduate programs that have less than 50 million dollars in federal funding (Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act, 2022), constitute one-third of all U.S. institutions of higher education (National Academy Press, 2009). ERIs are notably one of the most impactful organizations in a state system for addressing social mobility, workforce development, and economic growth of a region (Birx et al., 2013). ERIs are often positioned to address issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion and faculty gain experience in working with first generation college students and diverse populations. Faculty at ERIs have immense opportunities to think creatively, develop scholarly projects, and establish partnerships that can generate high impact cultural, social, and economic advancements (Huenneke et al., 2017).
Cultivating research at ERIs often requires that faculty expand skill sets extending beyond basic research to include broader impacts, innovation, social theory, multimedia, technology, career planning, project planning, and project management. One of the major essentials for building these skills is stepping out of the lab and practicing networked ideation, relationship building, and resource acquisition. Projects evolved through diverse networked ideation and disciplinary perspectives offer an enriched lens to maximize research quality and impacts (Cunningham, 2020).
The skills mentioned are frequently a significant pivot in research and development thinking for academic faculty who are often intensely trained in lab infrastructures. These faculty may become siloed in like-minded, discipline-specific networks. Faculty development infrastructure nested in a Community of Practice (CoP) can help transition the disciplinary and multidisciplinary silos into more robust interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research teams, advancing artistry, research, and scholarship from a new lens, networking many minds with diverse perspectives (Leavy, 2016).
CoP, first proposed by Wenger and Lave in 1991 and later expanded upon in Wenger’s 1998 book Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, build a framework for learning (Smith et al., 2017). The framework can be further explained with advancements in neuroscience. Jensen’s 1998 Teaching with the brain in mind and more recently Brain-based learning, 3rd edition (Jensen & McConchie, 2020) are compelling books that stimulate creative thinking about how brain-based learning principles might guide a CoP (Colosimo et al., 2022; Johannesson, 2020; Levy et al., 2022).
Creative and innovative scholarship funding pursuits are necessary for ERIs (Godreau et al., 2015). Yet these research-intensive pursuits present faculty with challenges (Shuman, 2019) such as establishing infrastructure, developing reliable partnerships, finding additional resources, and meeting promotion and tenure requirement deadlines. Well-designed CoP for faculty development at ERIs can serve to alleviate some of the heavy lifting for faculty and facilitate more productive use of time, talents, and resources.
The purpose of this study was to use a case study approach (Yin, 2018) to collect data on a cohort of faculty at an ERI participating in a faculty academy aimed at positioning faculty for funding. The case study aims to inform an evolving faculty academy CoP by analyzing participants’ previous experiences with funding, attitudes about funding, resource needs, and behaviors that enhance positioning for funding.
Methods
This study evaluates one faculty cohort’s (N=10) experience with a CoP designed for an ERI to position faculty for funding. The CoP was named the Strategic Transdisciplinary Artistry, Research, and Scholarship (STARS) Faculty Academy.
Sample
Recruitment for the study began in Spring of 2021 with word of mouth and faculty announcement postings. The program was marketed as a faculty academy to position faculty for funding. Interested participants could contact study investigators for more information or attend one of two informal sessions. All campus faculty were eligible to participate in the academy experience if they agreed to attend eight academy sessions over the course of one academic year, 2021-2022. Participation was voluntary, and participants self-selected to participate in the academy. All academy participants were eligible for participation in the case study which generates a sample of convenience. Participation in the study was not criteria for participating in the faculty academy. The Northern Illinois University Institution Review Board (IRB) approved the study. Study participants were provided with written consent forms that were reviewed verbally. Participants agreed to complete all forms, interviews, and observations over the course of an eighteen-month period with the understanding that they could withdraw from the study at any time. No other criteria were placed on the study participants.
Theoretical Framework for Learning Environment Design
Brain-based learning (BBL) theory and CoP was utilized as a framework to design the STARS faculty academy. BBL applies what we know about how the brain works to teaching and learning practice (Jensen & McConchie, 2020) and CoP is distinguished by three required components: 1) shared domain of interest, 2) a community of participants, and 3) practitioners sharing common experiences (Smith et al., 2017). The STARS faculty academy CoP provides a social context for advancing the pursuit of external funding. Mobilizing the CoP can then meet the participant’s other brain physiology needs for learning.
BBL principles are applied with intention throughout the learning design of the STARS faculty academy. The education team aligns what they know about how the brain works to guide the faculty academy experiences. The goal is to provide participants with a sense of belonging, boost confidence, and facilitate an environment for satisfaction including learning and reward. Positive impacts on each of these factors can empower faculty to advance in readiness for funding.
Faculty Academy
The STARS faculty academy is designed to form a CoP. The CoP on campus provides faculty a space to pursue their interest with enthusiasm along with others who share the same enthusiasm for wanting to become funded artists, researchers, and scholars. One of the guiding values of the STARS academy is to have fun learning in the CoP. Participants are invited to join the CoP that brainstorms, shares talent, learns, and laughs together. The participants of the CoP are encouraged to maintain a positive learning space with the understanding that proposal writing requires practice. The academy allows faculty to discover techniques that can impact funding success, build funding support networks, develop skills that promote work-life balance and career satisfaction, and spend time with a cohort of enthusiastic peers and mentors.
The acronym for the program, STARS, aims to appeal to faculty. It is aligned with institutional goals for promoting more transdisciplinary external funding proposals. The campus Office of Innovation administers the STARS faculty academy and holds sessions in the 71 North Innovation Partnership Studio, a facility dedicated to innovation. The studio maintains a learning space design ideal for ideation and collaborative approaches to planning and problem solving.
STARS faculty academy academic year cohort, CoP participants, agree to attend eight sessions over the course of one academic year. The sessions are prescheduled on selected Fridays from 10 am to 1 pm six months to one year in advance to allow interested participants to integrate the sessions into their schedules (See topics, duration, experience, and outcomes illustrated in Table 1).
Table 1. STARS Faculty Academy Experience
The STARS faculty academy curriculum differs from other grant writing workshops because the outcomes have a broad focus on career-long funding rather than a single project proposal (Bienen et al., 2018; Brutkiewicz, 2010). Participants think critically about the impacts of funding pursuits and how a funding career evolves. Participants gain insight into the experiences of others in the CoP to strengthen funding skills and obtain project management knowledge to avoid potential pitfalls and mistakes pre- and post- award. The CoP itself is a unique configuration of experience and talents that assist participants in networking and gaining access to resources. The CoP networks can save countless hours in relationship building, resource acquisition, and overcoming obstacles to progression.
Advisory Committee
The STARS faculty academy assembled an advisory committee of stakeholders that met twice during the academic year. The committee consisted of a representative from each academic unit including a faculty member and an Associate Dean for Research from each college. The advisory meetings consisted of a presentation of current activities and solicited feedback from the advisory panel. Advisory panel members were also invited to all the social events and welcomed to attend any sessions and/or participate as mentors.
Coaching and Mentoring Support
In addition to the STARS faculty academy programming and advisory committee, the CoP also provides coaching and mentoring support. Participants can access project consulting and ideation time with the STARS principal investigator or with academy mentors. Academy mentors are not assigned to specific participants but volunteer to brainstorm with CoP members in their areas of experience as needed. Many of the mentors have had successful funding careers and/or have advanced skills to offer to the CoP. Mentors have open access to STARS sessions and are encouraged and welcome to attend. Many former STARS will remain in the CoP network to serve as near-peer mentors. This provides them an opportunity to continue to advance practice and serve others. Sponsored Programs Administration staff, cognizant of STARS faculty academy members, aims to provide individualized investigator supports.
Data Collection
This study evaluated one faculty cohort (N=10) to gauge: 1) experience and training in faculty units and needed development, education, and direction required, 2) funding readiness, 3) resource needs, 4) experience with an eight-session faculty academy over the course of one academic year, and 5) proposal progression over the course of an eighteen-month period. The study employed an exploratory case study design (Yin, 2018) in a phased approach (See Figure 1). Pre-academy assessment occurred using research designed surveys which queried 1) previous experience with grants and funding and 2) Faculty Assessment for Readiness (FAIR). Post-academy assessments included interviews regarding 3) resource needs, and 4) satisfaction with the academy experience. Participant observations were maintained over the course of an eighteen-month period to track progress in positioning for funding, grant submissions, and funding outcomes.
Figure 1. Data Collection Process
Surveys
Participants completed two researcher developed survey instruments: 1) Gauging Experience and Training in Faculty Units and Needed Development, Education, and Direction (GET FUNDED) and 2) Faculty Assessment of Investigator Readiness (FAIR). The GET FUNDED survey consisted of: 1) a section containing nine seven-point Likert scale items (1 Strongly Agree to 7=Strongly Disagree) and two open-ended questions ascertaining facilitators and barriers to attaining funding, 2) previous education, training, and experience with grants, and 3) twelve demographic items. The GET FUNDED survey is designed specifically for this study to gather background variables on the participants. The FAIR survey contains twelve five-point scale items (1=Not yet considered to 5=Established). The FAIR survey items include questions on research strategy, oral presentation, logic or project model, website and branding, signature area of research, budgeting, mentor identification, networks for team building, advisory team, data management, writing, and identifying request for proposal (RFP) applications. These variables were identified in a scoping review of literature on faculty mentorship programs (Ransdell et al., 2021). Face and content validity of the survey was established by three faculty external to the institution, two academic Deans, and three research administrators prior to implementation with the STARS faculty academy participants. Both survey tools were administered verbally to the STARS faculty academy participants who agreed to participate in the study. The FAIR survey was implemented pre and post academy, in September 2021 and May 2022, respectively, and the GET FUNDED survey was implemented post academy in May 2022.
Interviews
During the post academy interviews (May 2022), all study participants were interviewed. Participants were asked what would have enhanced the academy experience and what resources they required to assist in advancing funding pursuits. Notes were taken on each participants’ responses, and suggestions were utilized to implement continuous quality improvement on the curricular design of the program.
Observation
Post academy observations (May 2022 to November 2022) included regular outreach to participants to observe post academy behaviors towards positioning for funding. Proposal submissions and other activities towards positioning were noted. Participants’ positioning for funding behaviors will continue to be observed throughout their faculty career.
Data Analysis
Survey data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 26.0). All data handling maintains confidentiality and is presented in aggregate form only. Because this is a case study with a small sample size (N=10) the data are presented in a descriptive format only. Interviews and observational data are also presented descriptively from note taking format. The interviews and observational data are gathered from the lens of importance to the study investigator as the information is utilized to support institutional goals including faculty academy satisfaction, resource needs, process improvements, faculty satisfaction with funding success, and continuation of the academy.
Results
All members of the faculty cohort volunteered to participate in the study (N=10). Three of the participants are male and seven are female. Seven of the participants are Caucasian, one is African American, and two are Asian. The cohort consisted of tenured Associate Professors (N=5), tenure-track Assistant Professors (N=4), and a visiting Professor (N=1). Of the ten faculty, four held administrative appointments as program coordinators. The represented disciplines include five in health sciences, one in science, one in art, two in engineering, and one in education.
No participants reported any education or training with grants and funding in their undergraduate studies. Education and training with grants and funding post undergraduate studies include internship (N=1), master’s degree (N=3), post-doctoral (N=1), employer (N=5 prior to STARS). With regards to experience with prior funding, participants reported employer source (N=9), foundation (N=1), state (N=4), contractual services (N=1), and federal (N=0).
All participants have terminal degrees with nine having a PhD and one MFA. Six of the participants had less than five years of experience in higher education, two had six to ten years, and two had 11-25 years. Three participants had grant writing experience prior to working in higher education and seven had experience working on funded projects secured by other investigators. Three had applied for grants while on the tenure track and of the three, one had previous grant writing and work experience, one had work experience, and one had no prior experience.
Other data collected from participants include peer-review publishing and artistry, attitudes towards funding behaviors, and funding behavior progression. Tables 2, 3, and 4 report the data.
Table 2. STARS Cohort Record of Peer-reviewed Manuscript or Exhibit History
Table 3. GET FUNDED Survey
Table 4. Faculty Assessment of Investigator Readiness
Table 5. Barriers and Facilitators for the Pursuit of Funding
Table 6. Needed Resources and Faculty Academy Recommendations
Expanding upon needed resources, participants request additional access to data analysis software (N=4) that is typically available through the institution. They request time within the context of consistency of scheduling courses (N=3). Participants highlight no further needed resources. Recommendations from participants noted in Table 6 include a broad array of suggestions.
Table 7. Participant Principal Investigator Awards September 21-24
Table 7 provides participants principal investigator progress toward funding from September 2021-2024. In a three-year period, 90% of participants demonstrated the desired behavior of pursuing funding as a principal investigator and 50% have received funding totaling almost 2 million dollars. Three participants that have not received awards have grant submission currently under review.
Discussion
The STARS faculty academy is designed to form a CoP on campus to provide faculty a space to pursue their interest with enthusiasm along with others who share the same enthusiasm for wanting to become funded artists, researchers, and scholars. The most important findings of the study include: (a) faculty participants respond favorably to the CoP (i.e. reported value and are pursuing external funding), (b) they improve their scores on investigator readiness, and (c) barriers and facilitators for ERI faculty were identified.
The STARS faculty academy cohort was a voluntary first-year cohort. This suggests the cohort can be characterized as self-motivated early adopters. The cohort represents both male and female genders and is racially, ethnically, and discipline diverse. The cohort has equal numbers of Assistant and Associate Professors, with nine of the ten being tenure track or tenured. The one non-tenure track Professor is anticipating a tenure-track position the following year.
Remarkably, nine of the ten faculty report an employer source of funding and some level of grants experience prior to entering the academy. Perhaps this indicates that early adopters of positioning for funding academies will likely be the individuals who have gained confidence from internal funding sources and/or previous experience. All the participants have experience publishing manuscripts, which established their signature area of research and positioned them to apply for funding.
Interestingly, the attitudes about obtaining funding average between “neutral” and “somewhat agree.” The attitudes of self-motivation for gaining funding are at the highest level of agreement, while confidence, academic unit expectations, and necessity of grant funding ranked mostly neutral. This indicates that perceived benefits and rewards of obtaining funding are high, despite confidence and academic unit expectations ranking low. Therefore, internal motivation and/or attitudes and behaviors outside of one’s academic unit may play as much of a role in funding seeking behavior as compared to attitudes and behaviors within one’s academic unit.
Faculty Assessment of Investigator Readiness Survey
The FAIR survey administered pre- and post- faculty academy indicated that faculty are most advanced in their position for funding in the categories of signature area of research, identifying a request for application, research strategy, and networks for team building. Mean scores for participant behaviors in these categories shifted from considering and developing at pre- faculty academy to developing and acting on at post- faculty academy. This indicates that participants perceive these categories as important early in the positioning process and continue to place high priority on them in advancing positioning behavior.
Faculty research websites and research program logic models remain at the lowest priority for cohort participants pre- and post- faculty academy. There could be many reasons that websites and logic models remain low priority, including but not limited to: 1) faculty do not see these activities as important, 2) development of these products can be laborious, 3) faculty do not have the skills to create the products, 4) faculty do not have the time to invest in these activities, and/or 5) faculty do not have access to the support systems to develop these products or do not know how to access the existing resources.
Grant writing, budget, research pitch, and mentor identification remain mid-level areas of development pre- and post- faculty academy. The budget, research pitch, and mentor identification have greater movement on the behavioral continuum than grant writing from pre- to post- academy. This is perhaps because the academy placed more emphasis on grant planning than grant writing as an initial phase to positioning for funding. The outcome is not a surprise since the academy focuses on encouraging faculty to spend more time in ideation and planning phases prior to proposal writing. Post- faculty academy, the academy encourages faculty to continue with other professional development activities to practice and sharpen their proposal writing skills.
Barriers and Facilitators
Faculty were asked to openly share what they believe to be their barriers and facilitators to positioning for funding. Not surprising, the most frequent barrier and facilitator is time. Faculty positioning for funding will require time, but this must also be balanced with institutional, college, and unit priorities for faculty members. For units that do not have expectations for faculty to gain funding, faculty maybe less motivated to position for funding or participate on transdisciplinary proposals. They also may not feel supported in their positioning for funding endeavors.
Identifying funding sources and confidence rank the highest after the need for time. Academy programs such as STARS faculty academy can facilitate identifying funding sources and building confidence. STARS coaching places emphasis on helping faculty identify funding sources and gaining confidence in positioning their work in alignment with funding sources. Other barriers mentioned include writing quality, staff support, limited sources of funding, late career status, and understanding the process. As with any barrier, the first step is to ascertain if the barriers are real or perceived. Coaching can then help faculty navigate barriers within the context of their environment.
Participants are asked to share in an open-ended fashion the experiences that facilitated their positioning for funding. Professional development and mentoring are the most frequent responses. This illustrates that there is value in professional development and the importance of providing mentorship and coaching. Participants also mention administrative support and writing assistance often, and they mention publications and collaborators.
Interestingly, participants mention many nuanced barriers with respect to the facilitators. However, time and funding announcements are only mentioned and perceived as barriers whereas professional development and mentors are only mentioned and perceived as facilitators. The reported barriers and facilitators provide an interesting lens for how variables are emotionally positioned in a negative and/or positive framework for individuals and groups.
Needed Resources
Equipment, software, lab space, time, and graduate assistants are the most frequently reported by the participants as resource needs. Interesting to note, time is the only need that is also mentioned as a barrier. Equipment, software, lab space, and graduate assistants do not appear as barriers or facilitators. As with barriers and facilitators, needs can be addressed with context-specific coaching using discipline-specific and other mentors, including administrators. Determining if needs are real or perceived is essential as is determining how the needs can be most efficient and effective using institutional and other resources.
Faculty Academy Recommendations
Participants often suggest writing deliverables, writing time, grant review, and skill set practice, indicating that building in optional product deliverables and/or providing writing and idea pitch review services during the academy would be helpful to participants. Other suggestions include holding the academy more frequently, recruiting more arts and science participants, and having more social time. The final suggestion builds on the idea of skill set practice because this provides participants more opportunities to share ideas, gain new perspectives, and acquire feedback. Remaining suggestions include providing a budget decision making tree for personnel and purchasing actions, how to access existing resources, and providing course buy-out for writing proposals. Introduction to these skills is offered in the academy and can be followed up on with coaching and mentorship.
Participant Progress Towards Funding
Once members complete the STARS faculty academy, they are encouraged to stay within the CoP to remain connected, continue with mentorship and coaching, and provide mentorship and coaching to others. Those completing the academy enjoy a lifetime membership and invitations to every event. They are particularly encouraged to attend the social events such as the beginning-of-the-year picnic, mid-year bowling bash, and end-of-year recognition ceremony. STARS graduates continue to receive acknowledgements as they progress in their position for funding throughout their career. This CoP feature allows us to track our participants’ successes.
Six months out of the academy, our beginning cohort reported successes. Seven of the participants have submitted grants, one has been corporate funded, one has been state funded, three are pending, and two are in the resubmission phase. Two faculty members have identified funding announcements and preparing for submission. One faculty member is on sabbatical collecting pilot data. As expected with an early adopter cohort, this group of individuals express being highly activated in behaviors towards positioning for funding.
Conclusion
Main findings: Faculty enjoy the experience, improve their positioning for funding, and are highly activated towards proposal submission.
ERIs need to position faculty in a funding landscape that not only requires research skills but must extend those skills to engage communities and students to impact social mobility and regional development. Faculty at ERIs need structures in place for relationship building, resource acquisition, and mentorship and coaching to effectively and efficiently position for funding to benefit students and community. Well-designed CoP, like STARS faculty academy, can serve to meet the needs of ERIs developing robust funding portfolios.
The STARS faculty academy is overall well received. The faculty enjoy the subject matter, fellowship, mentorship, and coaching. The movement along the behavior continuum in positioning for funding is impressive with this cohort. The STARS academy facilitates this movement by increasing participants’ knowledge of how to navigate the funding landscape, breaking down perceived barriers, and removing myths about who is and is not fundable.
For many of the participants, the experience has moved them along faster and with more success in the behavioral continuum of working towards funding. The experience also provides exposure to what it means to have a funded career and not just one funded project. Spending time ideating broader impacts and research identity provides faculty a lens for operationalizing a funding career and not just one funded project to get tenure and/or promotion.
Opening the funding landscape exploration to a broader perspective of career impact appears to stimulate greater motivation and participants could demonstrate self-assessment on how to proceed. Overcoming myths, misunderstanding, and building confidence seemed to be the key. Much of this is achieved through the sessions but also through coaching and mentorship. To gain the highest impact from investments in a CoP, it is important to ensure that the persons selected to facilitate and teach in the academy have the time to invest in getting to know the individual participants.
Overall, this cohort can be overall characterized as faculty wanting a funded research career. Time repeatedly arose to the top as the greatest commodity need for these faculty. At ERIs, teaching and service time often competes as a priority over artistry, research, and scholarship and leaves those wanting a funded research career struggling until they can achieve funding for course buyout. Even then, the stress of funded projects ending and not having bridge funding for course buyout to get the next grant can be daunting. Many of the other barriers, facilitators, and resource needs are directly related to providing quality professional development that empowers faculty to self-advocate and protect time for artistry, research, and scholarly activities.
Moving participants along in a behavioral continuum at an accelerated pace requires the academy facilitators to know participants as individuals to tailor coaching and mentoring. For this type of academy, it is also important to know the institution so mentors can guide participants with self-advocacy processes appropriate for the contextual situation. There are also college and department nuances for faculty development, so it is important for academy facilitator(s) to have the time and the ability to develop good relationships with administrators.
Overall, the STARS faculty academy case study has informed the next stages for development of the CoP. Future cohorts will be assessed to inform continuous quality improvement and all cohorts will be followed longitudinally to continue to inform the CoP’s return on investment. Current data indicates a CoP such as STARS Faculty Academy, an academy focused on positioning faculty for artistry, research, and scholarly funding, is a promising model for aligning with the broader impact goals of ERIs.
Next Steps
The first year STARS faculty academy cohort has informed improvements to future cohort activities. More emphasis will be placed on encouraging writing and providing writing feedback. There will also be more emphasis on starting out with funding announcement portfolio development in the beginning of the institute so faculty can work towards a goal as they participate and can make the most of the coaching and mentoring available during the CoP. Continuous quality improvement on facilitating social time and networking will remain as a CoP priority.
The facilitator(s) also need to spend a considerable amount of time relationship building and recruiting mentors into the CoP. This can be accomplished through personal invitations to attend, conducting interviews to gain discipline specific ideas and perspectives, inviting speakers to participate as mentors, encouraging participants to self-advocate for mentorship, and inviting back STARS faculty academy participants as mentors. To date, most of the mentors and coaches participating in the CoP have an interest and talent for mentoring and coaching. This is likely because they are early adopters of the CoP. It will be key for STARS faculty academy to continue to attract these types of individuals and continue to foster a culture of mentorship and coaching professional development along with rewards for those who participate in this role.
Moving forward, the CoP will also need to continue outreach to faculty, maintain communications with existing partner resources for faculty, seek access to new resources for faculty, and continue building internal and external partnerships. To date, faculty and research administrators have been involved in the CoP. As resources in the CoP increase, it is recommended that the CoP build in Department Chair relationships to foster a greater sense of shared vision. Continued efforts towards best practices with integrating Chairs into the CoP is warranted.
Authors’ Note
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Resources for the project were made available through institutional support. We would like to acknowledge our many administrators, faculty, students, and staff colleagues who went above and beyond their primary responsibilities to make this work possible.
Melani W. Duffrin, PhD
Professor of Health Sciences
Northern Illinois University
Wirtz Hall 323H
Dekalb, IL, 60115, United States of America
815-753-1891
mduffrin@niu.edu
Kellie M. Dyslin, MSW, CRA
Director of Research Development for Research and Innovation Partnerships
Northern Illinois University
Luke Sebby
Executive Director, Strategic Advancement
Northern Illinois University
Jasmina Mesic, MS
Program Coordinator and Research Assistant
Northern Illinois University
Chris Duffrin, PhD
Professor of Public Health
Benedictine University
Lynda Ransdell, PhD
Professor and Chair of Kinesiology
Boise State University
Dara Little, MPA, CRA
Assistant Vice President for Research and Executive Director of Sponsored Programs
Northern Illinois University
Gerald C. Blazey, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Northern Illinois University
References
Bienen, L., Crespo, C. J., Keller, T. E., & Weinstein, A. R. (2018). Enhancing institutional research capacity: Results and lessons from a pilot project program. Journal of Research Administration, 49(2), 64–90. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1194937
Birx, D. L., Anderson-Fletcher, E., & Whitney, E. (2013). Growing and emerging research university. Journal of Research Administration, 44(1), 11-35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1013309.pdf
Brutkiewicz, R. R. (2010). Research faculty development: An historical perspective and ideas for a successful future. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17(2), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9261-4
Colosimo, A. B., Barone, J. L., & Flick, L. (2022). Better together: Using course outcome data and learning communities to foster institutional change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 199, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20532
Cunningham, K. (2020). Beyond boundaries: Developing grant writing skills across Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Research Administration, 51(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293015.pdf
Godreau, I., Gavillán-Suárez, J., Franco-Ortiz, M., Calderón-Squiabro, J. M., Marti, V., & Gaspar-Concepción, J. (2015). Growing faculty research for students’ success: Best practices of a research institute at a minority-serving undergraduate institution. Journal of Research Administration, 46(2), 55–78. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156091.pdf
Huenneke, L., Stearns, D., Martinez, J., & Laurila, K. (2017). Key strategies for building research capacity of university faculty members. Innovative Higher Education, 42(5), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9394-y
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E., & McConchie, L. (2020). Brain-based learning. Corwin.
Johannesson, P. (2020). Development of professional learning communities through action research: Understanding professional learning in practice. Educational Action Research, 30(3), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100
Leavy, P. (2016). Essentials of transdisciplinary research. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Levy, S., Bagno, E., Berger, H., & Eylon, B.-S. (2022). Professional growth of physics teacher-leaders in a professional learning communities program: The context of inquiry-based laboratories. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8), 1813–1839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10217-7
National Academy of Science. (2009). Partnerships for emerging research institutions [Report]. Committee on Partnerships for Emerging Research Institutions, Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12577/chapter/1#ii
Ransdell, L. B., Lane, T. S., Schwartz, A. L., Wayment, H. A., & Baldwin, J. A. (2021). Mentoring new and early-stage investigators and underrepresented minority faculty for research success in health-related fields: An integrative literature review (2010-2020). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph18020432
Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act. Pub. L. No. 117-167, 136 Stat. 1405 § 10002(5) (2022). https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf
Shuman, K. M. (2019). Grant proposal preparation readiness: A glimpse at the education level of higher education faculty. Journal of Research Administration, 50(1), 80-107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1213259
Smith, S. U., Hayes, S., & Shea, P. (2017). A critical review of the use of Wenger's Community of Practice (CoP) theoretical framework in online and blended learning research, 2000- 2014. Online Learning, 21(1), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.963
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods. Sage.