Skip to main content

Enhancing Coordination and Collaboration Across the Land-Grant System (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix D: Responses from Stakeholders to Preliminary Observations
Pages 46-50

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 46...
... Complete responses are available from the project's public access file at www.nationalacademies.org. TABLE D-1 Type of Organization with Which Respondents Are Affiliated Type of Organization Number of Respondents 1862 land-grant institution 43 1890 land-grant institution 9 1994 land-grant institution 7 Regional Association of State Agency Experiment Station Directors 2 Regional Association of Extension Directors 2 Association of 1890s Research Directors 1 First-Americans Land-Grant Consortium 1 Extension Committee on Organization and Policy 1 Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy 1 State Science Teachers Association 1 Extension Foundation 1 Federal agency 4 State agency 3 Agricultural producer 1 Private company 1 Total 78 TABLE D-2 Job Titles of Respondents Job Title Number of Respondents Experiment station director 2 Extension administrator 9 Faculty (tenured professor or associate professor)
Read the entire page →
From page 47...
... 2: Inter-institutional collaborations do not routinely engage faculty from 34 across the full range of LG colleges and universities. Topics mentioned: Agree: 23 - 1862s just check box when seeking collaboration with 1890s or 1994s Disagree: 11 - Historical and current inequities - Regional rural development - Cluster collaborations - Function of the research goals; could be tailored to 1890 and 1994 focus - Funding excludes some institutions Obs.
Read the entire page →
From page 48...
... Agree: 11 Topics mentioned: Disagree: 13 - Yes, but mostly in theory - Indirect costs eat up budgets - Management of bureaucracy comes with a cost - LGs need to embrace National Science Foundation model of broader impacts - Systems between 1862s and 1994s too different and lead to frustration Obs. 6: Institutions use different approaches for approving funds to support 8 faculty involvement in collaborations that may create varying expectations on Agree: 6 the nature of collaborations and the role of participants.
Read the entire page →
From page 49...
... 12: Leading collaborations requires team building, emotional intelligence, 23 and project management skills that many faculty lack. Agree: 17 Topics mentioned: Disagree: 6 - Being a collaborator is different than being a principal investigator - Training is needed but worry about useless training - Offer sabbaticals to undertake leadership of team - Training is needed - Full-time manager who is not a faculty member is ideal Obs.
Read the entire page →
From page 50...
... Disagree: 8 Topics mentioned: - Do not tailor it to them, engage them - Need a major marketing effort to communicate - Researchers need to be held accountable 50
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • topics mentioned
  • regional association
  • responses obs
  • job titles
  • indirect costs

  • state agency
  • foundation model
  • faculty involvement
  • reason multistate
  • extension administrator

  • station committee
  • crop initiatives
  • allow human
  • regional rural
  • access file

  • optional questions
  • robust fiscal
  • broader impact
  • grant timelines
  • management obs

  • multiple geographies
  • teaching people
  • job title
  • teachers association
  • leaving insufficient

  • time seeking
  • agency experiment
  • collaborations requires
  • pursuing collaboration
  • differing administrative


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.