Appendix K

Executive Summary: Building Capacity for Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions

MEMO

Overview

In spring 2021, NASEM conducted a call for nominations for two- and four-year HBCUs and MIs that are interested in sharing their perspectives on research capacity, and their best practices and observed challenges in competing for and conducting research within the national security and defense arena. NASEM staff compiled the list of nominees and provided AIR with a list of primary and alternative institutions to contact for participation in the focus group initiative.

The interviewed institutions represented were selected from a diverse group of HBCU/MIs that represent a range of Carnegie classifications (from master’s colleges and universities, smaller program, to R1). Relevant selection criteria included current DoD research interest and expenditures, diversity in size, private and public institutions, and recent transition of Carnegie classification.

Fifteen institutions agreed to participate in the study, including: seven Historically Black Colleges/Universities, four Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), one Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution/Hispanic-serving institution, and three tribal colleges and universities (TCUs).

Of the 15 nominated, AIR conducted 90-minute focus groups with senior administrators and faculty at 13 institutions. Questions asked during the focus groups addressed such topics as research goals and interests; internal and external barriers to building defense-related research capacity; recruitment and retention of research faculty; key partnerships; intellectual property and technology transfer; targeted funding, including small business set-asides; and current DoD grants and relationships. This executive summary of the focus group discussions highlights key findings relative to the topics of interest

Summary of Findings (Across All Carnegie Classifications)

Research goals. Primary institutional research goals for all sites without Carnegie Classification R1 status included developing the research capabilities of students and faculty, achieving R1 status under the Carnegie classification system, serving and empowering their communities, and increasing their institutional engagement with DoD.

Barriers to capacity-building. Focus group participants described both internal and external barriers their institutions face in increasing their defense-related research capacity. Internal barriers included needs for additional or updated physical infrastructure (including building space, equipment, and libraries); greater researcher capacity (including available faculty and available time) for larger projects; and better systemic infrastructure for identifying, competing for, managing, and commercializing research funding opportunities. External barriers included funder and reviewer bias about the research capacity of MIs and their

staff, grant requirements (e.g., partnerships, matching funding, citizenship, security clearance), and a lack of cultural competence or equitable treatment on the part of funders and partners.

Recruiting and retaining faculty. Institutions that could afford to do so provided some financial incentives to faculty, but a handful of institutions found it difficult to complete in this area. Four institutions—one public M1 HSI and three public R2 HBCUs—described challenges around providing competitive financial incentives to recruit and retain lead research faculty. Half of the institutions cited faculty commitment to students, teaching, social justice, and/or the mission of their institutions as a draw for faculty. Location also played a role, both positively and negatively, in faculty recruitment and retention. And five institutions mentioned the relative lack of research infrastructure as a disincentive for faculty.

Key partnerships. Focus group participants from all institutions mentioned having numerous partnerships, including federal, university, and corporate partnerships. Participants generally agreed that quality partnerships are meaningful and mutually beneficial—that is, they include collaboration opportunities at the faculty level and capacity-building opportunities at the institutional level. Unsuccessful partnerships are inequitable in terms of reciprocal engagement, respect, and distribution of funding.

Experience with intellectual property. Five institutions—four public R2 HBCUs and one public M1 HSI had researchers or staff dedicated to technology transfer and other intellectual property issues, two contracted with intellectual property lawyers on an as-needed basis, and four did not have significant experiences in tech transfer.

Leveraging small business set-asides. Only a handful or institutions indicated that they use small business set-asides to increase their institutional research capacities. Two public R2 HBCUs leverage the National Institutes of Health Path to Excellence and Innovation Initiative (PEI), while a few others, one public R2 HBCU and one private M2 HBCU, leverage the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.

DoD relationships. Institutions with existing DoD grants were generally satisfied with their interactions with program officers, but many institutions—both with and without current DoD grants—indicated that access to DoD seemed to be focused on individual and not institutional relationships. Some small HBCUs and TCUs also noted that they cannot be competitive for opportunities targeted to MIs more generally.

Recommendations

Recommendations were fairly consistent across institutions and included further efforts to target funding to increase equity and diversify opportunity; meaningful outreach and engagement from DoD to HBCUs, TCUs, and other MIs; and consultation with other funding agencies that have highly successful programs for engaging MIs in research. Institutions shared specific practices that they felt would be positive steps toward implementing these recommendations and provided examples of successful models.