The Changing Organization of Biomedical Research: An AAMC Project on Centers and Institutes

Phase I. Survey of the Status of Centers and Institutes

One of the crucial questions in this project is the most basic: What is a center? There existed no reliable data source for answering this question, so the first phase of this project was to gather information on centers and institutes at medical schools and research universities. Toward this end, a current database of centers and institutes was created by researching the Web sites of research-intensive medical schools and research universities, and gathering contact information for the biomedical and health-related centers listed on those sites. Through this process, we developed a database of 1,495 centers, institutes, and related non-departmental research entities at 126 different universities.

Next, in winter 2003-04, we surveyed the directors of 761 centers and institutes affiliated with medical schools and research universities in the United States to determine their size, scope, extent of effort, and range of activities. Data collection continued through January 2004, and 756 surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 52 percent.

Results from this survey (PDF, 35 KB) indicate that indicate that centers and institutes are organizational units with many different purposes, forms, sizes, and scope. The findings also suggest that research centers and institutes make important contributions to the interdisciplinarity and research mission of academic institutions. Research centers can be important mechanisms for providing financial, physical, and human resources to sustain and grow the research enterprise.

Phase II. Case Studies of Innovative Models of Organization

Site visits of six institutions were conducted in Spring 2004 to examine how a handful of institutions have grappled with centers and institutes as they manage and further develop their biomedical research enterprises. We focused on medical schools that have significant research enterprises and have committed resources to interdisciplinary and inter-college initiatives. The institutions selected for the case study phase of the project include: Case Western Reserve University, Stanford University, University of Alabama-Birmingham, University of California-San Francisco, University of Michigan, and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Meetings with individuals throughout the institutions took place at each visit, and included the university president and/or provost, medical school dean and associate deans, department chairs, center directors, and junior and senior faculty members. These interviews focused on the purpose of centers; their role in the research enterprise of the university; details of how centers are created, organized, funded, and staffed; and participants views about the future of biomedical research and the implications for increased need for interdisciplinary collaboration. These audio-recorded conversations with over 150 people were later transcribed and qualitative data analysis performed. Results offer rich detail about different models of organization, and are highlighted in several of the reports in the results section.

Phase III. Survey of Faculty Work Life

This faculty work life survey (PDF, 54 KB) was designed to examine the impact of organized research centers on faculty productivity and work life at major research universities in the United States. This survey on faculty activity, behavior, and attitudes was administered to a random stratified sample of full-time faculty at the 40 university-based medical schools with the most research grant funding from the National Institutes of Health. The pilot survey was launched in Fall 2004 to check for validity and reliability, and the full survey was administered in Winter 2004/2005. The overall response rate for the survey was 72 percent, with 778 faculty members completing the instrument.

Specific research questions driving this phase of the study included: 1) To what extent, if any, do faculty with affiliations with centers and institutes and those without such affiliations differ in the amount of effort spent on various activities and in research productivity? 2) In what ways, if any, do center-affiliated faculty differ from non-center-affiliated faculty in terms of their perceptions of employment arrangements and work satisfaction? And 3) To what extent, if any, do tenure-track junior faculty with center affiliations differ from those without center affiliations in their perceptions of the tenure process?

To address these questions, the survey asked faculty about the extent of faculty involvement in centers and institutes, the direction and extent of their activities, about their perceptions of the tenure and promotion process, and about their level of satisfaction with various dimensions of their work. Results indicate that opportunities and benefits that faculty derive from centers differ by faculty type and rank.

This page contains documents in Portable Document Format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat® Reader® is required to view PDF documents. Download Acrobat® Reader®.

Contact Us    © 1995-2008 AAMC    Terms and Conditions    Privacy Statement