Reporter Volume 26, No.2 September 8, 1994 Imperatives of Change: The Mid-'90s National Environment for Research Universities and UB's Place Within It ...[T]he university todayfaces its new role [in society] with...little but platitudes to mask the nakedness of the change. Instead of platitudes and nostalgic glances backwards to what it once was, the university needs a rigorous look at the reality of the world it occupies today. -Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University, 1963 In Clark Kerr's time, universities' "new role" included responding toJthe growing Cold War emphasis on American R&D supremacy and the arrival on campus of the first waves of Baby Boomers. Today both trends are winding down. In the mid990s, universities-especially large public doctoral institutions like UB-must respond to a variety of competing demands from students, sponsors, neighbors, and political and social leaders. Thanks largely to massive national and state investments during a thirtyyear period of growth, higher education today is a key player in shaping American society and a primary developer of national resources - human, informational, and technological. American higher education accounts for a significant share of the national economy, with about a 3% share of gross domestic product (Figure 1). And now, like so many major American institutions and industries, we are pressed to meet a wide range of needs more effectively. These nowfamiliar facts constitute a message not so very different from Kerr's message three decades ago: develop productive responses to current national imperatives, or lose society's interest and support. UB is already in the process of creating such responses, and with good results. In our pioneering approach to our service mission, in our innovative multidisciplinary research, and especially in our renewed attention to undergraduate teaching in the arts and sciences, we are making great strides. We need to keep up this level of energy. Still, we can and must do more in addressing our institutional priorities. Together, we as faculty must undertake these tasks in a way that is, at every turn, sensitive to the variegated "big picture" of our national and global environment. And we must be ready to prove that we earn every iota of our support. Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity During the last three decades, state and federal resources for research have enabled researchintensive universities to build extraordinary strength. Just within the past fifteen years or so, for example, funding for university research through such federal agencies as NSF, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Depart- ment of Energy has roughly tripled. For UB, state investments in research infrastructure, especially through SUNY's Graduate Research Initiative, have also been crucial - both for faculty and departments that have directly received this support, and for others that have grown as the institution has grown over the past two decades. State and federal infusions of resources, targeted largely to research, have represented over 50% of public higher education's revenues. This much said, government sponsorship for research (and for higher education in general) has reached a plateau and will likely remain there. There may be less support for what some call "curiositydriven" research. While Science in the National Interest professes the Clinton Administration's commitment to basic research, the document also quotes U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski: "Those doing this research must recognize there's a national purpose for their work." Senator Mikulski would have scant reason for this admonition if there were not a national climate of skepticism about the value of fundamental research. We in research-intensive universities know and believe that fundamental research is the foundation for technological and economic development, and we have many excellent examples here at UB. Our research on neurochemical processes related to Parkinson's disease; our study of our nation's many cultures; our work on applications of superconducting materials - all of these clearly serve a national interest. But, accurately or not, many observers outside the academy perceive the universitybased research and scholarly enterprise to be self-indulgent and overreaching. The saga of the now-defunct superconducting supercollider is one recent example of the effects of such perceptions. So how, in this context, can UB gain a competitive edge in research and scholarship? First and foremost, we must bring greater visibility to our faculty's ongoing work in primary areas of national concern such as health care, technology transfer, economic development, environmental management, and social betterment. This task requires administrative effort, which I (on behalf of our senior officers) pledge to continue and re-emphasize; it will also demand that faculty serve as spokespeople for our research and scholarly enterprise, not only in the academy and disciplines but also in public forums and in the media. We can also do more to facilitate the multidisciplinary work that it takes to address complex concerns and break new ground. Part of that endeavor, again, will require all of us to rethink basic administrative procedures; ongoing initiatives to decentralize many such functions can help us do that. In addition, all of us must actively seek out new ways to learn from each other and get beyond the departmental and decanal boundaries that are less and less meaningful in defining fields of knowledge. Graduate and Professional Education Since research and postbaccalaureate education are intrinsically linked, the past halfcentury of investments in university research has also created a doctoral engine that has produced large numbers of highly trained and specialized scholars, physicians, and attorneys. Now, however, Ph.D.s face an academic market in which even a record of refereed publications and good teaching experience does not guarantee a junior faculty position. In some fields, one posting may attract hundreds of qualified applicants. The faculty turnover that has been predicted in connection with the socalled "graying of the professoriate" has not yet materialized in full; when it does, there may well be a surplus of candidates waiting in the wings. Similarly, the marketplace for J.D.s seems saturated, and the world in which M.D.s and other health professionals practice is undergoing extraordinary change. According to 1991 data from the National Academy of Sciences, at the time of degree conferral, more than one-third of all doctoral recipients in all fields had neither definite postdoctoral appointments nor definite employment. However, among those who planned to seek employment rather than pursue postdoctoral work, three in five intended careers in educational institutions. These data suggest that a substantial number of young scholars who hope for academic careers have not yet found their first jobs by the time they receive their credentials. Such constraints on opportunity can discourage some of our finest young scholars from pursuing promising academic careers. In some cases, they seek careers in industry, an arena for which their training may not have fully prepared them. Given this situation, are we doing the best we can by the advanced students we mentor, whose work is so often integral to our work? What is happening to the ones who don't get jobs or postdocs, and how can we do better by them? If we are to continue to turn out new Ph.D.s at the current rate, how can we train them for a broader range of possible employment? Can we use UB's unique strengths to set our Ph.D.s apart from those trained elsewhere, so that we both serve enrolled students better and attract more prospective students? Again, multidisciplinary approaches may be an important part of the answer. Multidisciplinary doctoral training not only helps prepare students to participate in cuttingedge research, but also makes them more viable candidates for employment in academic departments which, with limited capacities to hire, might be especially interested in flexible young scholars and teachers whose appointments can be shared with other areas. And it makes them more viable candidates for jobs in industry, where the ability to work across fields and sectors is increasingly valued. Some of UB's professional schools are taking leadership roles regarding broad-based training marked by curricular innovation and responsiveness to national context. For example, both the law school and the medical school have developed multidisciplinary, increasingly pragmatic curricula to help prepare their graduates to meet a growing demand for skilled generalists. Some schools are also setting high standards for programs that combine research and training opportunities with outreach. Examples include Management's new Executive M.B.A. program; the Graduate School of Education's public school partnerships; and the Strategic Partnership for Industrial Resurgence in SEAS. What's more, a new joint initiative, the Forum for Integrated Professional Education, Research, and Service, provides unprecedented opportunities for our professional schools to develop such projects together. And the Center for Advanced Molecular Biology and Immunology connects faculty and students across a wide range of biomedical disciplines, enabling UB to provide truly interdisciplinary, integrated doctoral training and research in molecular biology and immunology. In order to attract advanced students of the highest quality, UB must continue working to make graduates of our Ph.D. and professional programs national leaders with unique credentials. As we consider new strategies for research and teaching, meeting the needs of this next generation should and must be an item that is high on our agenda. Undergraduate Education, Teaching, and Student Development During the past year, a faculty advisory group carefully considered the appropriate structure of our three arts and sciences faculties and their relationship to the Undergraduate College. With the coordinating responsibility for undergraduate arts and sciences education now in the deans' hands, the three faculties are working closely together to ensure that their programs are complementary and cohesive. Their efforts so far are promising. But program structure is only half the battle. Superb teaching is the sine qua non of service to our undergraduate students in all disciplines. By and large, UB faculty do, in fact, teach superbly. At the same time, disciplinary and professional standards still require a university faculty to be deeply engaged in fundamental research. We must do even more to reemphasize great and innovative teaching without de-emphasizing great and innovative scholarship. New approaches to undergraduate education in both the disciplines and the professions are required. We all know that an undergraduate major cannot adequately prepare a student for a career in the disciplines. Majoring in psychology or art history or economics may provide pre-professional training in these fields, but most undergraduates in such fields will go on to careers and lives that are only tangentially related to the activities of true professionals in these fields - and especially professionals with post-baccalaureate training. We must therefore either reconceive the function of curricula for undergraduate majors in the disciplines as true generalist training for life after the baccalaureate, or scrap the disciplinebased major and find another vehicle to deliver the ideal of a truly liberal education. Similarly, in the professions, we are coming closer and closer to the norm of at least some postbaccalaurePate education as a necessary condition for effective participation in professional practice. Simply put, in all fields we must reconceive and reconstruct our undergraduate degree programs. Whether we are teaching Shakespeare to scientists or introducing writers to calculus, the researchintensive university is an unmatched environment for combining varied perspectives into a comprehensive undergraduate education. This is one of the key capabilities that distinguishes places like UB from the many other venues - business colleges, paid workshops, educational television - where a student can also learn some basic skills (and often at less cost and in less time). We must continue to integrate our teaching efforts in ways that satisfy both the highest academic standards and the needs of contemporary undergraduates. The nature of our institution also gives us the opportunity to use advanced tools in undergraduate education, providing students with interactive on-line lessons or video projection or broadcast study groups. We have moved in this direction in the classroom, as well as in certain administrative processes like course registration. The technologies that make such teaching and service possible have already transformed the way students perceive the world and carry out daily tasks; using them to best advantage - rather than relying on persistent but medieval lecture and seminar formats - is one compelling way to encourage students to come to UB and stay at UB. SUNY is now developing new initiatives to improve the system's educational technology infrastructure; when funding for these initiatives becomes available, we must apply it wisely and well to develop innovations in teaching technologies that befit a research institution. Our national peers are making great strides in this area. In order to compete, we must do so as well. We in contemporary higher education - and especially in public higher education - are increasingly reliant on students' contributions to our support. For all institutions, public and private, tuition is a major source of economic support for the enterprise. Students and their families and other sponsors are truly our clients. They are major stakeholders in our enterprise and must be recognized as such. Money magazine has recently endorsed UB as one of 1994's "best buys" in undergraduate education; if we continue to offer academic integrity, innovative teaching, convenient services, and a high quality of campus life, we will garner an even more crucial endorsement - that of our students. The Service Mission We are not yet fully comfortable with the notion that public service is an endeavor integral to UB's mission, not just a function supplementary to research and teaching. Just as research and teaching are interdependent, both interrelate closely with service. Insofar as UB has been examining and reconceiving its service mission for several years now, we have in fact anticipated trends in the national environment. The Clinton Administration's argument for science "in the national interest" is, not surprisingly, a serviceoriented approach to research. A vision of teaching as service is reflected in the academy's current emphasis on reaching both traditional and nontraditional students through multimedia and computer-driven teaching technologies. The concept of students as "primary clients" also originates in the notion of service through teaching. All of this comes in response to the imperative - partly ethical and partly marketdriven - of seeking to satisfy society as much as we seek to satisfy ourselves and our academic peers. UB has taken an especially innovative approach to our public service mission through the establishment of a Vice Presidency for Public Service and Urban Affairs. That office is not yet two years old, but its incumbent and her staff, aided and supported by the senior officers, deans, and a great many faculty and staff, have made great strides in reinvigorating the "land-grant" tradition at UB - not historically one of the land-grant institutions, but increasingly a leader in re-imagining their definitive mission. Under the Public Service and Urban Affairs umbrella fall such initiatives as the Governance Project, which is creating resources to help Erie County's local governments analyze their overlaps and eliminate duplication of their functions. This project is directed by faculty in architecture, urban planning, law, and the social sciences. It is a great example of interdisciplinary and professional cooperation that both draws on and reinforces the teaching and research expertise of the participating faculty. A number of other programs deeply engaged in regional service have their homes in the decanal units - for instance, the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis and the Canada-U.S. Trade Center, which focus an array of research and training programs on demographic, geographic, and economic issues throughout our cross-border region. These and other current UB service initiatives directly meet the social and economic needs of our region as a whole. Urban needs, in particular, have been and continue to be a UB priority. Nursing, Social Work, and others are involved in improving training for urban service providers. The law school operates a lowincome housing clinic for neighbors who might not otherwise be able to get legal assistance. And a great many individual UB faculty members volunteer time and resources for local organizations that serve people in Buffalo's urban core. We are going to continue to talk about and stress service initiatives, whether they represent service to our students' to our neighbors' or to future beneficiaries of our research and expertise. From economic development to health care, such issues demand attention that researchintensive universities can provide. What is more, they demand attention that we owe the citizens of our state and nation, who have high expectations - and quite reasonably so - of institutions like UB that they have helped to build. While I am confident that the UB community has done better than many of our peers in upholding our university's obligations to our publics, we as an institution, led by faculty, need to become much more serious and much more structured about the ways in which we produce for people outside our relatively small community. This will be a significant change for both faculty and administrators, and we must all work together to respond. The Development of UB's People Learning to meet the nation's changing expectations will require us to try new approaches - and we academics, among the members of all professions, should be more apt to experiment and learn than others. But we will need incentives and support. We must support individual faculty members' new approaches to their disciplines, professions, and life's work; we must make experimentation worth our collective while. UB's faculty and senior officers are already talking about the ways in which these issues affect tenure and promotion criteria and processes; it is time to bring more focus to these discussions. We are about to appoint a Vice Provost for Faculty Development whose task it will be to provide support for the evolution of faculty careers. We will learn from this effort and extend what we learn into like efforts for our professional staff. One important part of a faculty and staff support system must be an emphasis on developing and celebrating diversity. This past year University Services developed several successful programs for classified and professional staff on understanding and managing diversity. And over the past five years, University Services has been exceptionally good at affording opportunities for members of underrepresented minorities to join our professional and classified service staffs. On the academic side, we have had exceptional leadership from the provost, deans, chairs and senior faculty. Over the past two years we have appointed more than twenty outstanding faculty from underrepresented groups. The quality of our faculty - both in absolute terms and in terms of better representation of gender, race, and ethnicity - has been greatly advanced by these appointments. We are especially grateful that our efforts have been supported by State University's central administration through SUNY's underrepresented faculty initiative. In particular, over the last decade we have made great strides in affording opportunities for women to play a full role in the development of an academic enterprise. That is especially true with regard to the numbers of women receiving advanced degrees in the disciplines and professions. We also have brought numerous women into tenuretrack positions in the faculty. These gains are not yet fully visible in terms of women in the senior ranks and in senior academic and administrative positions, but that change will happen quickly over the next decade. The newly constituted Task Force on Women at UB will help us focus our efforts here, and will work to improve the campus climate for women in general. Despite our gains in all matters regarding diversity, we cannot become blas about our successes or insensitive to areas of omission. The quality of our students' university preparation depends on our forging ahead, for the demographic profile of our student population has changed and is changing drastically. If we fail to teach our students and support them in a fashion that helps them become leaders and scholars and professionals; if we fail to reflect the diversity they see all around them and the importance of that diversity in their own lives; if we can offer them few role models from their own cultures and communities to help them develop individual and collective presence within the academy - if we do not work very hard on resolving the continuing disparities of race and ethnicity and religion and gender that plague the academy, we will have failed in our responsibility to our society. Especially at a time when our nation needs every person, every talent it can muster and train, offering that training to all people is the most essential service that universities can and must do. Some Closing Thoughts for an Opening Discussion In this message, I have raised many questions - as indeed our society asks many questions of us in higher education today - and, some will say, offered few answers. I am often urged to state the "short list" of priorities that we as an institution are to address, but my contention is that "the reality of the world we occupy today" (to paraphrase Clark Kerr) is too complex for any brief set of simple prescriptions to suffice. Nor, for that matter, is it my job as a leader to prescribe; rather, I am here to diagnose, and to make it easier for you to formulate remedies. For you are the ones who do the work, and do it best, each in your own individual terms; and, in your own individual terms, you know better than I what it is you need in order to do your work better. You collectively - we collectively - must balance our efforts to accomplish the tasks on a sizable agenda that is shaped by many demands. Over the past three years UB has, as a community, made great progress in our drive to be and be recognized as a great public researchintensive university. In so doing we have asserted the uniqueness of our graduate training and research mission; the primacy of our obligation to provide a firstrate teaching and learning environment for all students, and especially for our undergraduate students; and the tremendous and growing significance of our public service mission and its symbiotic relationship to our research, teaching, and training missions. But there is much work still to be done. First and foremost, it is time for us, all of us who hold faculty rank, to rethink our understanding of relationships between the faculty and the institution, an understanding that has itself been shaped by our social context over the past fifty years. Since the end of World War II and the onset of major federal investment in university research, research-intensive universities have evolved a facultybased culture that reflects an overriding commitment to advance faculty careers by rewarding individual disciplinary, highly specialized research and service to disciplines. Rewards came to those faculty who achieved the greatest recognition from their peers, and especially peers in their respective disciplines. And in this context, institutional rewards accrued to those institutions that accumulated and advanced the largest numbers of such faculty. Put another way, most researchintensive universities derived recognition and reputation through the development of a highly individualistic faculty culture and enterprise. In such a culture, support for individualistic faculty efforts became an institutional imperative and a faculty entitlement. As I read the signs of these times, in the closing decade of this century, those imperatives and entitlements are challenged by changes in the nature and context of knowledge and inquiry, such as the blurring of disciplinary boundaries and the lessened relevance of support structures defined according to disciplines, such as departments and schools. We also face challenges that result from our defining our enterprise very heavily by the interests of faculty, and less by the interests of other constituents and stakeholders. These challenges will not go away any time soon; nor are they irrelevant or misguided, nor should they be dismissed as such. We are and should be pressed to find a proper balance between support for individual faculty accomplishment and support for faculty commitment to institutional goals and imperatives. Simply put, the time is now for faculty to accept and assert their responsibility for the welfare of the academic institution and for the needs and aspirations of its clients, stakeholders, and constituents. Such faculty leadership is also a great part of the heritage of academic institutions. Historically, it has always been a major responsibility of faculty. I believe that UB's faculty accepts that responsibility, perhaps more so than the faculty of any other major public university. I expect that this call for dialogue will fall on receptive ears, and that our faculty will continue on the course that I believe they have been on - not just during the past few years, but throughout UB's nearly 150-year history of academic distinction and service.