Search results

Xavier University of Louisiana has a national reputation for producing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates who go on to obtain MD and PhD degrees. According to a 2013 National Science Foundation report, Xavier is ranked first in producing African American graduates who go on to receive life sciences PhD degrees, fifth in the nation in producing African American graduates who go on to receive science and engineering PhD degrees, and seventh in producing African American graduates who go on to receive physical sciences PhD degrees. Xavier is currently third among the nation’s colleges and universities in the number of African American graduates enrolled in medical school, according to data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges, and ranked first in the number of African American alumni who successfully complete their medical degrees. The success of Xavier’s graduates is due to a combination of university-based student support initiatives and externally funded programs, in particular, the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD), Maximizing Access to Biomedical Research Careers (MARC) U*STAR, and Research Initiative in Scientific Enhancement (RISE) programs. These three programs, funded by the Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (TWD) Division at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), offer select trainees undergraduate research opportunities, support mechanisms, and a variety of activities designed to improve their potential for success in graduate school. The BUILD, MARC U*STAR, and RISE programs work closely together and with the University to leverage the resources provided by each in order to provide the best experience possible for their students with a minimum of redundancy of effort. This chapter focuses on the program components and how the programs work together.

In this chapter, we present our ongoing efforts in developing and sustaining interdisciplinary STEM undergraduate programs at North Carolina A&T State University (NCA&T) – a state-supported HBCU and National Science Foundation (NSF) Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) Institutional Implementation Project grantee. Through three rounds of NSF HBCU-UP implementation grants, a concerted effort has been made in developing interdisciplinary STEM undergraduate research programs in geophysical and environmental science (in round 1), geospatial, computational, and information science (in round 2), and mathematical and computational biology (in round 3) on NCA&T campus. We first present a brief history and background information about the interdisciplinary STEM undergraduate research programs developed and sustained at NCA&T, giving rationales on how these programs had been conceived, and summarizing what have been achieved. Next we give a detailed description on the development of undergraduate research infrastructure including building research facilities through multiple and leveraged funding sources, and engaging a core of committed faculty mentors and research collaborators. We then present, as case studies, some sample interdisciplinary research projects in which STEM undergraduate students were engaged and project outcomes. Successes associated to our endeavor in developing undergraduate research programs as well as challenges and opportunities on implementing and sustaining these efforts are discussed. Finally, we discuss the impact of well-structured undergraduate research training on student success in terms of academic performance, graduation rate and continuing graduate study, and summarize many of the learnings we have gained from implementation and delivery of undergraduate research experiences at HBCUs.

Typical undergraduate research programs involving HBCU students have several weaknesses including the short time of the students’ involvement in the research and the variable level of commitment of faculty mentors. Another issue at HBCUs is the lack of both start-up support for new faculty and external research support, which limits the quality of research projects and the pool of faculty mentors. We designed our NSF-funded undergraduate research program to be a professional development program to help faculty expand their research program and improve their mentoring skills, while at the same time involving undergraduates in research.

Faculty in STEM departments competed for Student Support Grants that provided support for research-related equipment, supplies, travel, and up to two students for one year. Faculty submitted proposals describing their research project, the role of students in the project, and their student mentoring plan. Faculty mentors could recruit their own students for the project, and both faculty mentors and students were required to commit to the research project for one year.

Outcomes of the program were very positive for both the faculty and the students. All of the involved students presented their research at conferences and several were co-authors on research publications. All but a few of the students continued working in research even after their time in the program was over. In addition, many of the supported faculty members were able to use the financial support as a springboard for successful applications for other grant programs.

Louisiana State University (LSU)’s Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI) is an award-winning office devoted to developing effective, educational approaches that incorporate guidance and exploration, increase students’ academic standing, and support measures to improve the institution’s diversity, predominantly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments. Through the incorporation of three main factors, Mentoring, Education, and Research, OSI has developed a holistic development model that offers students strategies to overcome those factors that affect their persistence in STEM. OSI houses several programs with a diverse population of students ranging from the high school to doctoral levels. Although varied in student population, these programs unite under the holistic development model to provide support and opportunities to students at each critical educational juncture. OSI’s holistic approach has successfully supported over 135 high school, 560 undergraduate, and 100 graduate students. Of the 560 undergraduate students served, 51% were underrepresented minorities and 55% were women. The undergraduate initiatives have garnered 445 bachelor’s degrees, with 395 degrees from STEM disciplines, and an impressive overall graduation rate ranging from 64% to 84%. Through all of the remarkable work performed in OSI, the greatest accomplishment has been the capacity to offer students from mixed backgrounds tools and strategies to thrive at any point in their academic career.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

This paper aims to advance the paradox management perspective by applying it to open innovation networks in Finland and argues that paradox management is an important explicit logic to consider in the management of open innovation.

Interviews sought the views of diverse network participants, including companies, universities, and government agencies.

The open innovation networks exhibited many of the same tensions discussed in innovation initiatives within organizations, but additional complexities arose from both internal and external factors.

The study examined open innovation networks when the collaboration in the networks was still in early phases. Thus, the study does not capture the paradoxes, underlying tensions, and management approaches as they change in later phases.

The open innovation networks require the ability to excel in managing a set of paradoxical tensions using a complex repertoire of approaches. Open innovation can be seen as an important way to create dynamicity and change, and if managers are able to manage tensions using a complex set of behavioral approaches, they can more likely achieve increased innovation.

The open innovation literature recognizes paradoxes but does not address their management directly. This paper deepens the understanding of paradoxical tensions and their management across open innovation networks that take the form of public‐private partnerships.

Using a mixed-methods approach, this study evaluated a Master of Science program in Clinical and Translational Research (MSCTR) geared toward training physicians in research methodology. The purpose of this study is to allow trainees to articulate their expectations, needs and experiences in the MSCTR and to develop novel training methods and/or curriculum modifications to improve physician-scholar training.

The mixed-method study design with qualitative emphasis included interviews, participant journal entries and a survey. Interview and journal entry data were analyzed using a modified seven-stage hermeneutic analysis and survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Findings suggest three major areas for improvement, namely, curriculum, mentorship/relationships and instructional methods. Concluding recommendations to address these three areas include: make ongoing curriculum updates to provide a sequential pathway but also allow for flexibility, improve statistical training, invest in online courses and create a more structured mentorship program.

Extant research, though minimal, has evaluated clinical research training programs in terms of alumni productivity. However, this is the first study of its kind to examine a clinical research training program primarily qualitatively and from the perspective of its students and alumni.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of doctoral programs in terms of their faculty auditing research output as well as their effectiveness in training future auditing faculty.

This paper presents a retrospective analysis of auditing research that appeared in five premier accounting journals (AOS, TAR, CAR, JAE, and JAR) during the time period 1975-2009.

The authors offer several new insights. First, the authors provide rankings of accounting programs based on their faculty's research output as well as their graduates' research output. The rankings of auditing research are significantly different from those that are based on aggregated accounting research output. Second, the rankings are found to be skewed; due to the display of high concentrations of auditing research among the top auditing research programs. Third, the rankings have exhibited considerable changes over time, which suggest extreme competitions in maintaining the relative positions of the doctoral programs. Fourth, the authors detect a noticeable change in auditing research methodologies.

The findings are useful to: new and job-seeking auditing doctorates in selecting academic appointments; potential doctoral students in identifying auditing graduate programs that best fit their career goals; university administrators in assessing their auditing faculty; and auditing scholars in positioning their journal outlets.

The study extends the findings of the previous studies by focusing on auditing research publications in top journals over a long sample period. The authors also provide evidence of changes in research methodologies in auditing research as well as changes in rankings among different institutions in recent years.

Starting in the late 1950s with the creation of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA), followed by the formation of other professional organisations both in the USA and Europe, there was a growing sense that research management was indeed a profession. One goal was the creation of professional standards that would lead to a standard training curriculum and, ultimately, a professional credential, and there have been many attempts at developing research administration certification. Now, in the US, accreditation through the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) exam has become ubiquitous, whereas in other parts of the world, certification by portfolio is more common. This chapter will compare and contrast the salient features of certification, certificates, and degree programs in research administration and review their development and growth over the past 30 years. The chapter will discuss their relative merits and how they work to advance the profession of research administration.