Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-119). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-119). Also available on the Internet.

This study examined the interactions--(1) research grants and contracts, (2) faculty consultation, (3) employee training, (4) student internships and co-ops, (5) universities sharing firm facilities, and (6) firms sharing university facilities--between higher education and high-tech industries in East Tennessee and Southwest Virginia using multiple regression modeling. The purpose of the study was the development of a vision of what the future could be and the strategies to successfully overcome the threats and enrich the opportunities that exist between higher education and high-tech industries. Data were collected from the engineering and engineering technology faculty at Tennessee Technological University, East Tennessee State University, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and selected high-tech firms in East Tennessee and Southwest Virginia. The analytical process included four phases: (1) data collection and preparation, (2) reduction of independent variables, (3) model refinement, and (4) model validation. The analysis suggested that large universities with well-defined organizational channels seemed to have an advantage in obtaining research grants and contracts from large firms that were strongly involved in research and development. Likewise, faculty members seemed to use the facilities of large high-tech firms that were near to the university. More importantly, the study emphasized the mutual benefits that universities and industries could share through university-industry interactions if each could overcome formidable barriers that have been established through tradition, culture, and bureaucratic processes.

This study examines the criteria which help academics receive National Institute of Health funds (NIH). The study covers 3,092 NIH recipients and non-recipients in the same department or institute at twenty-four universities. The universities are drawn from those below the top twenty in terms of receipt of NIH funds. With regards to performance, non- recipients have lower performance than recipients. A key determinant of the receipt of NIH funds is individual performance, as measured by the number of articles published and average citations per article in the two years immediately prior to the grant application. Professors receive more NIH money than do associates and assistant professors. Other positive contributors are the field of study, whether the academic has both a PhD. and Medical degree, and has licensed an innovation, been involved in the start of a new business and patented an invention through the university. To the extent that individual performance criteria represent the quality of the research proposal, allocation of NIH funds is based on merit. A Tobit model indicates that being highly cited does not guarantee increasing returns. Likewise, career citations have only a small statistically significant impact. In addition, a negative coefficient associated with the second derivatives of both articles published in 2006-07 and their associated citations indicate diminishing marginal returns.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.

Abstract Research indicates that understanding the influence of leadership and partnership development can inform the need to improve public education (Penuel & Gallagher, 2017). Although leadership theory and change theory support the need for partnerships in education, less attention has been given to how such partnerships develop and the role that leadership plays in that process. Therefore, the present study explored the role of leadership within researcher-practitioner partnerships and the process of developing sustainable partnerships in education as documented in a set of federal grant proposals, their final reports, and other descriptions of their efforts. Grant documents examined were awarded from the 2013 funding announcement of the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships (RPP) in Education Research program. In-depth qualitative document analysis provided a means to unobtrusively examine and interpret comprehensive, historical data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Patton, 2002). Directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Kaid & Johnston-Wadsworth, 1989) of the documents directed the process of data collection. This process used key concepts from the literature on transformational leadership, shared leadership, and leadership for change as the initial framework for data collection. Data analysis employed Eisner’s (1998) process of educational criticism using description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematics. Hatch’s (2002) process of typological analysis led to four typologies to organize the data for description and interpretation: capacity building; strategies for partnership development; approaches to communication; and the role of reflection in partnership development. The evaluation dimension of educational criticism indicated that partnerships employed shared leadership with evidence of internal and external support and a cultivation of shared commitment. Themes indicated that partnerships focused on both rigorous research and reflective practice, leaders engaged partners in establishing the infrastructure and strategic plans of the partnership, and partnerships galvanized support to address complex social issues beyond their formal organizational structure. Recommendations for future research include the need: (a) to explore the dynamics of communication in partnership work; (b) to clarify and facilitate the process of change in grant and project development; and (c) to develop of a process for sustainability beyond a specific grant or project. Recommendations for practice include the need: (a) to explore the cultivation of relationships in support of partnership development; (b) to identify clearly the primary issue to be addressed in the work of the partnership, and (c) to clarify mutual outcomes. Conclusions from the present study indicate the importance of a focus on the deliberate development of the researcher-practitioner partnerships themselves, the importance of concrete strategies for sharing leadership, and the importance of the development of professional relationships that support sustainability in partnership development.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.