1

Introduction

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–Serving Institutions (ANNHSIs), and other Minority Institutions (MIs) represent a valuable resource to expand the Department of Defense’s (DOD) science and technology workforce and research enterprise. There are more than 800 public and private 2- and 4-year Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) nationwide, including the U.S. territories, with many near DOD facilities.¹ Many of these institutions are already conducting cutting-edge research in areas of high priority to the U.S. government, while others could be positioned to do so with strategic investments. With their diverse population of U.S. citizens, they also offer DOD an opportunity to widen its talent pool, diversify science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research, and ultimately strengthen national security.

Defined in the U.S. federal statute (20 U.S. Code § 1067k), “minority institution” is a specific term referring to an institution of higher education whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of minorities

___________________

¹ The Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions maintains a list of current MSIs across the United States, based on the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education’s 2023 eligibility matrix. For the Rutgers Center’s list of MSIs, see https://cmsi.gse.rutgers.edu/msi-directory. For the Department of Education’s eligibility designations, matrix, and other MSI information, see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html.

exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment. This is in contrast to the term “minority-serving institution.” The U.S. federal statute (20 U.S. Code § 1067q) describes MSIs as institutions that range in enrollment from 10 to 40 percent of a single minority group. Discussions included in the town hall proceedings used the term minority institution to describe both federally designated MIs, such as HBCUs and TCUs, and federally designated MSIs, such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (see Table 1-1). Speakers throughout the series used both terms interchangeably.

This proceedings uses the definitions set in the 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus study report Defense Research Capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions: Transitioning from Good Intentions to Measurable Outcomes. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020,² and subsequent federal legislation, focuses on this smaller subset of the broader group of MSIs: minority institutions. That 2022 report examines the status of DOD research at these institutions. The report examined some of the methods and means necessary to advance research capacity to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States (NASEM, 2022).

The 2022 report builds upon the foundation set by the National Academies’ 2019 report Minority Serving Institutions: America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce, which highlighted the ways the broader group of MSIs across the country provide pathways to STEM educational success and workforce readiness for millions of students of color—and do so in a mission-driven and intentional manner (NASEM, 2019). As the 2022 report’s subtitle suggests (Transitioning from Good Intentions to Measurable Outcomes), DOD recognizes the potential contributions of and supports many HBCU/MI programs, but there are significant discrepancies in the amount, duration, and type of DOD funding when compared with non-HBCUs/MIs.

ORIGINS OF THE TOWN HALL SERIES

As DOD and other partners sought to implement the 2022 report’s

___________________

² For the federal legislation, see S.1790—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. In accordance with federal statute, the subset of institutions that are accredited postsecondary minority institutions (or MIs) are maintained by the Department of Education at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst-list-tab.html.

TABLE 1-1 Minority Institution Categories

recommendations, key questions remained to be explored, particularly related to how to seek ways of building research capacity at MIs and develop true partnerships between MIs, other institutions of higher education, and federal agencies. To consider these questions and related issues, the DOD HBCU/MI Program and Outreach Office of the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering asked the National Academies to hold a series of workshops in a town hall format. The 2022 report provided key recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to work with the military departments, defense agencies, and institutions of higher education to support MI defense-related research capacity, as well as foster true partnerships: “those that are mutually beneficial and grounded in mutual respect, meaningful engagement, and equity in funding and resources—can present opportunities for joint research and collaboration, workforce development, and transition and commercialization, and can help HBCU/MIs build and advance their own capacity to conduct DOD-funded research” (NASEM, 2022).

In early 2023, the National Academies convened a nine-member committee of STEM professionals across sectors and disciplines to develop this series of three workshops. (See Box 1-1 for the Statement of Task.) The workshops were held in a hybrid format in Washington, DC (April 24–25,

2023), Albuquerque, New Mexico (May 22–23, 2023), and Chicago, Illinois (June 28–29, 2023).

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PROCEEDINGS

The remainder of this publication is organized to follow the agenda of the three town halls. Chapters 2 and 3 cover the first town hall, which focused on capacity development, including faculty policies, culture and leadership models, and investments. The first town hall explored barriers that dissuade capacity building at MIs, investigated faculty workload policies, explored research portfolio diversification, and spotlighted models used across the federal government to support research capacity development at underresourced higher education institutions. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the second town hall, which looked at partnerships and presented the benefits of true partnerships to DOD, the challenges to development of partnerships, and a range of successful institutional and federal agency models. This town hall provided an overview of the defense research and development landscape and illustrated strategies for articulating the value proposition for partnership development. Speakers outlined defense industry criteria for developing partnerships with academic institutions and spotlighted models for developing synergistic partnerships, with representatives from academia, the defense industry, and federal programs that seek to facilitate equitable government-university-industry partnerships.

The third town hall, summarized in Chapters 6 and 7, looked at how to transition from low to high research activity through faculty recruitment and retention, administrative capacity, and other factors. In this final town hall, the committee and staff sought to evaluate the components necessary to elevate an institution’s research activity, highlighting support structures for research faculty and personnel and possible recruitment strategies to draw in research-centered faculty at MIs. The final town hall featured a recapitulation of the topics, programs, and institutions featured throughout the whole series with spotlights on strategies and best practices used at academic institutions to increase research capacity building and foster equitable research partnerships.

In sum, each town hall featured presentations by a variety of thought partners about successful programs for students, faculty, and/or institutions. The workshop series featured higher education programs and MIs with successful models and the problems and barriers they have encountered in

their efforts to increase MI defense-related research. Additionally, federal agency representatives shared their thoughts and programs of note to support MIs. The featured programs and institutional efforts provide brief case studies for MIs, DOD, and other government agencies to consider in their engagement with MIs. The workshop series did not feature commissioned research (conducted by researchers outside the National Academies staff or the committee), as the workshop committee and staff believed the range of programs, institutions, speakers, and topics featured across the workshop series provide the latest research to illuminate problems, barriers, and approaches to increase research capacity at these crucial institutions. A commissioned paper will be published separately from this proceedings as a supplemental document.

The town hall agendas and biographical sketches of the speakers can be found in Appendixes A and B, respectively. In accordance with the policies of the National Academies, workshop participants did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations about needs and future directions, focusing instead on issues discussed by the speakers and workshop participants. In addition, the planning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop. This proceedings was prepared by a rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.

REFERENCES