Search

Research for many years has been a large focus of higher education. While much of the research within higher education can be attributed to faculty members and departments, research centers also account for some of this work as well as other benefits to universities. However, research centers are often plagued with the uncertainty of financial funding for which leaders and boards must overcome. Thus, the purpose of this case study is to examine how leaders of research centers, along with the board, guide their center during periods of loss of funding. Additionally, this study examines how the board of the center assists leadership and plays an integral part in securing new funding. This single, historical, interpretive case study focused on one research center that had experienced funding uncertainty during its 20 years of existence. To more fully understand the role of leadership and boards, this study used a conceptual framework of shared transformational leadership and resource dependency theory. Findings suggest that leadership utilized shared transformational leadership characteristics, meeting structures, anticipated the need for new funding, and consulted and collaborated with experts and outside stakeholders when guiding their research center. Furthermore, boards had a positive impact on the center’s financial standing through board membership, serving as external perspectives, and advocating within their connections. The board also assisted with securing new funding by serving as a think tank, utilizing their connections, and giving personal financial contributions. Ultimately, a center’s leadership had a critical role in the center’s funding and success. Additionally, while the board may not have played as critical a role, they still served a purpose in supporting, advocating, and connecting for the good of the center. The findings of this study contribute to the studies on research centers as well as brings new understanding to the role of leaders and boards in the funding and sustainability of a research center.

Public universities and their university-wide research institutes constantly search for ways to evolve to stay relevant and "marketable" in an ever-changing environment. The scholarly literature shows that the majority of higher educational institutes do not participate in succession planning, although numbers of research projects and researchers continue to increase over time, suggesting a great need for universities and institutes to learn how to sustain their work beyond current faculty or how to strategically grow and develop their current employees. The purpose of this research was to review current succession management strategies in large complex organization and to determine whether and how succession planning applies to university-wide research institutes in public, doctoral universities with very high research activity. To understand how succession planning might apply to institutes, this research involved a three phase process: 1) qualitative synthesis of scholarly literature, 2) electronic surveys of institute directors and university-level administrators, and 3) follow-up telephone interviews. The research synthesis focused on successful succession programs in for-profit, non-profit, and governmental organizations. Characteristics that were found across all three sectors were incorporated into a survey of executive directors and administrative overseers of research institutes to see which features applied in this university setting. Results from the survey were used in the development of a model for succession planning, which then was reviewed by institute directors for relevance to their organizations. Although several suggestions for improvement were given, many interviewees agreed that the model was relevant to their institutes. As such, I confirmed that succession planning should be a part of university-wide research institutes' management strategies to help officials make intentional decisions about their employee needs. This research is important for public administrators as they look at how best to use public funds and other resources in public universities' research activities.