Building Defense Research Capacity at U.S. Minority Institutions

Proceedings of a Workshop Series—in Brief

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 400 public and private, two- and four-year minority institutions across every U.S. state and territory, including many in areas near DoD facilities. Many already conduct 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 populations, MIs support students and faculty that have a wealth of knowledge and talent to support diversifying STEM research, and ultimately strengthening national security.

In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) conducted a consensus study report, Defense Research Capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions, that examined 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.¹ As the report’s subtitle suggested (Transitioning from Good Intentions to Measurable Outcomes), DoD supports and recognizes the potential contributions of many HBCU/MI programs, but there are significant discrepancies in the amount, duration, and type of DoD funding, as well as the research infrastructure at HBCUs/MIs, when compared to non-HBCUs/MIs.

Some key questions remain to be explored, particularly related to the report’s recommendations to seek ways of “building research capacity” at MIs and developing “true partnerships” between MIs, other institutions of higher education, and federal agencies. Additional issues to explore are the specific short- and long-term actions that DoD and other government agencies can take to support and engage HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other minority-serving institutions in the development of new or additional defense-related research capacity. A related and on-going National Academies consensus study, Development of a Plan to Promote Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions, is considering the actions that may be taken by the

__________________

Secretary of Defense, Congress, MIs, and other agencies or organizations to increase the participation of MIs in defense-related research activities.

To consider these questions and related issues, DoD asked the National Academies to hold a series of workshops. In early 2023, the National Academies convened a nine-member committee of STEM professionals across sectors and disciplines to develop a series of three “town hall” workshops. They were held in Washington, DC (April 24–25, 2023), Albuquerque, NM (May 22–23, 2023), and Chicago, IL (June 28-29, 2023). This proceedings-in-brief serves to highlight points made by presenters in the series.^2,3 The discussions included in the workshop series address existing federal programs outside of the Department of Defense and best practices used at institutions identified as having very high research activity to explore opportunities for the DoD and historically underresourced minority institutions to adapt in support of increasing the engagement of MIs in the defense research ecosystem.

FIRST TOWN HALL: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

The first town hall, as outlined by committee chair Oscar Barton, Jr. (Morgan State University), highlighted barriers faced by HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs as they pursue increased engagement in federally funded research and development; investigated faculty workload policies; elucidated strategies for research portfolio diversification; and addressed the threshold for infrastructure investments necessary for engagement in federally funded R&D. Administrators and faculty at the minority institutions highlighted during the workshop’s first session described the strides they have made in terms of capacity development at their historically underresourced higher education institutions. This first town hall began with an overview of the opportunities various MIs offer the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, in addition to the challenges they have historically and presently face. In addition, speakers throughout subsequent sessions explored strategies and policies for institutions to support faculty in research and teaching, opportunities to transform culture and leadership models at MIs, and highlighted several mechanisms being implemented at federal agencies to address components of research infrastructure, such as support for ancillary services as outlined in the 2022 report.

Overview of Institutions

As context for the rest of the discussions, representatives from each type of institution described the opportunities they offer to DoD, as well as some challenges in carrying out their research portfolios. One significant development since issuance of the National Academies report is that Howard University became the first HBCU to host a DoD University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), and John Anderson (Howard University) noted the promise but also the responsibility to “get this right.” Both he and Farin Kamangar (Morgan State University) described their institution’s trajectories and goals to become R1 institutions under the Carnegie classification system. They both pointed to the need for new systems and relationships to execute larger grants and contracts and the challenges in developing a higher research profile while remaining true to their missions.

Andrea Christelle (Diné College) highlighted how Diné’s unique perspectives and knowledge can provide strategic value to DoD, while also providing economic development to the Navajo nation. Diné College has begun an intentional effort to increase its research and development capacity, culminating in a Master of Science degree, several new bachelor’s degrees, aspirations towards a doctoral degree, and the development of a sponsored research office led by Andrea Christelle as the new vice president for research. The institution’s research strategy includes three prongs: facilitating technology transfer, capacity development (infrastructure, hardware, professional development), and strengthening community support through professional resources for the Navajo community. Emily Biggane (United Tribes Technical College) identified challenges and opportunities in four areas relevant to many TCUs: faculty capacity, expertise and interest, infrastructure, and partnerships. Looking across the more than 35 TCUs, Al Kuslikis (American Indian Higher Education Consortium [AIHEC]) identified areas of DoD-

__________________

Tribal priority linkages and shared the AIHEC’s STEM vision statement. Given that most tribal intuitions are undergraduate-centric or research-engaged, there are several opportunities to engage TCUs more fully. Al Kuslikis highlighted that Indigenous research must have equitable representation and that any interaction must be grounded in the complex layers of Indigenous identity to ensure a sustained engagement with TCUs. Suggestions provided during the TCU panel included addressing inequities in Facilities and Awards funds provided through federal grants, developing regional resources to access cutting-edge instruments and equipment, and providing support for faculty release time to facilitate more engagement in research,

The HSI representatives came from larger institutions. Karen Butler-Purry (Texas A&M) stressed the benefits of engaging Latinx and other diverse undergraduates in DoD-related research, noting that regular engagement with DoD personnel could demystify the agency. According to Frank Gomez (STEM-NET, California State University [CSU]), the CSU system is the largest and most diverse university system in the United States. He noted a two-way exchange: DoD can offer MIs opportunities for their students, while the MIs offer DoD a diverse student body to move into the workforce. Drilling down to one CSU institution, Folarin Erogbogbo (San Jose State University) described several programs, including a no-barriers summer engineering program, that DoD may view as a model.

During the ANNHSI panel, Helen Turner (Chaminade University of Honolulu) described how Chaminade grew from conducting virtually no federally funded research to a large portfolio. She pointed to a conducive institutional environment, committed champions, relationships, extraordinarily committed faculty, alignment with regional and national priorities, and a laser focus on outcomes and proof points. From the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Aaron Dotson and Michele Yatchmeneff noted their state’s strategic geographic location has led to a number of successful DoD and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiatives. They stressed the indigenous connection to the land for all students and faculty, which extends beyond those with indigenous backgrounds.

Institutional Policies and Models

High teaching loads pose a challenge for faculty not only to find the time to conduct research, but also develop networks, explore opportunities, and write and manage proposals. As one model to balance these demands, Mark Ginsberg (George Mason University) described a system with two categories of faculty: tenure-track and term. The tenure-track faculty are more research focused, while term faculty (who also have a role in governance) take on heavier teaching loads. In other ideas to allow faculty more time for research, John Crockett (San Diego State University [SDSU]) said SDSU looks for ways to help faculty take extra tasks off their plate, makes use of post-docs, and takes advantage of its location to find contingent faculty to relieve teaching loads.

A related session focused on the cultural and leadership models that institutions have used to become more responsive to DoD research priorities. Jagannathan Sankar (North Carolina A&T University [NCAT]) discussed the importance of starting small, building a research infrastructure over time, and self-evaluating to understand the institution’s competitive advantages and foundational strengths. Twyla Baker (Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College) stressed the need for trust, which takes time to develop. Echoing other presenters, she expressed frustration when other institutions that require a TCU partner to submit a proposal contact her and require a quick sign-off for a partnership in name only. She also urged that some funding opportunities explicitly mention TCUs; otherwise, in part because of their relatively low student numbers, they are left out.

Federal Funding Opportunities

Representatives from an R2 and an R1 institution described how their programs have grown. Kamal Kayat (Missouri University Science and Technology) noted that leaders at his institution undertook strategic planning to identify areas of growth, invest in and pursue large proposals in these core areas of strength, and build capacity in emerging areas such as biomedical and environmental science and sustainability. Through the establishment of nine research centers, multidisciplinary,

multi-institutional proposals are developed for federal agencies and industry. He also noted the value of subscribing to consortia for access to education, publications, conferences, and networking, which particularly helps early career researchers.

Georgia Tech Research Institute is one of the largest UARCs in the country, but Renata Rawlings-Goss (Georgia Institute of Technology/South Big Data Innovation Hub) explained that it began as an engineering experiment station in the 1920s. She echoed the benefit of starting small, building a niche, and concentrating in particular areas. As director of the South Big Data Hub, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Rawlings-Goss said seed grants are useful to “raise all boats.” The hub comprises more than 1,300 partners and is able to offer less-resourced partners access to a central finance, administrative, and other back office functions.

In a discussion of critical infrastructure investments, Jaret Riddick (Center for Security and Emerging Technology) said “formidable and formalized metrics” can help inform where and what kind of investments are most needed. He pointed to language in the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates the Secretary of Defense to create a ten-year program to help MIs and HBCUs move from R2 to R1 status, as an important opportunity. Vincent McCrary (University of the District of Columbia) pointed to several R2 HBCUs that, aided by stronger administrative talent, could transition to R1s. He stressed a paradigm that encompasses both academic and entrepreneurial strengths. He stressed the need for university leaders to be at the table, band together with other MI leaders, think big, and engage with federal agency program leaders. Shannon Arnold (GBL Global Systems Corporation) reminded participants that partnering with DoD means supporting the warfighter. Stressing the range of needs and technologies needed to fulfill that goal, he urged HBCUs and other MIs to “get your foot in the door.”

The first Town Hall ended with presentations about capacity-building programs that may serve as models to DoD and other agencies. (Several other DOE and NSF efforts, as well as a program out of the National Institutes of Health, were presented at the second two Town Halls and are highlighted below.) Natalia Melcer (Department of Energy [DOE]) introduced two crosscutting initiatives coordinated by DOE’s Office of Science: Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce (RENEW) and Funding for New and Inclusive Research (FAIR). RENEW focuses on students from underrepresented institutions conducting research at DOE labs, and directly addresses barriers to outreach and retention.⁴ FAIR builds research programs, mostly at non-R1 MIs and emerging research institutions (ERI) as defined in the CHIPS and Science Act.⁵ Dina Stroud (National Science Foundation) focused on NSF’s Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity (GRANTED) program⁶ to increase participation from underrepresented investigators and institutions by strengthening their research enterprise. “We have operated too long on the belief that all institutions are functioning from a similar space of resources to support infrastructure, when they are not,” she stated.

SECOND TOWN HALL: BUILDING TRUE PARTNERSHIPS

An important theme in the 2022 National Academies report and one that came up many times throughout the Town Halls was the need for mutually beneficial partnerships. Several institutional leaders related situations when they are contacted “at the eleventh hour” to sign on as a partner because a solicitation that an R1 institution plans to submit requires it. Conversely, as one participant said, MIs must evaluate whether an opportunity offered to them fits with their strategic goals and avoid “grabbing at shiny objects.”

Broadening the Defense Research Ecosystem

The first session spotlighted partnerships that have led to productive activities in research and development (R&D) and the matriculation of students into careers within the defense R&D environment. Vincent McCrary returned

__________________

to describe the partnerships that the University of the District of Columbia has with UARCs, federal agencies, and the new HBCU S&T Council.⁷ He offered reasons that a research ecosystem may not succeed, including if the vice president for research lacks strategic authority to make and close deals; a lack of cultural competency on both sides; the pay-off versus the time and effort expended does not materialize; a lack of balanced expectations; and formation of transactional versus transformational relationships. Santosh Devasia (University of Washington [UW]) described the Boeing Advanced Research Center as an example of how an academic institution and company can build a relationship. It took several years to develop, and a key factor of success is that it is a co-located effort, which means more engagement both by Boeing and UW. As another model, Thomas Tubon (BioMADE) offered nonprofits to bring different stakeholders together. Other resources suggested by the three presenters included Manufacturing Institutes, Manufacturing USA, local chambers of commerce, and federal agency workforce development programs.

Articulating the Value Proposition for Developing Equitable Partnerships with the Department of Defense and Defense-Related Industries

Panelists during this session included representatives from the DoD and a defense-related organization to spotlight what variables the DoD and industry identify as important for building relationships with academic institutions to demystify these internal deliberations and decision-making frameworks for administrators and faculty at MIs. Remarks provided by speakers include components that MIs can either develop or leverage as they conduct outreach to articulate better the value that their institutions can provide the DoD and defense-related industry partners. Dr. Barton drew on Dr. McCrary’s earlier comment about the importance of “being at the table.” That said, he asked, “We may be at the table, but is that enough for strong partnerships and alliances?” Eric Adolphe (Forward Edge-AI, Inc.) described how his company, in its development of new technology, shares intellectual property rights with HBCUs and other MIs, including with the students involved in the R&D. An important ingredient is already-established partnerships with many HBCUs and MIs; then when DoD posts a topic of interest, his company reaches out to these partners to see who has relevant expertise.

Christine Deckard (U.S. Air Force) suggested finding the right messaging in forming partnerships, stressing that cultural issues are important to consider. Dr. Deckard described NSF’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs), which aim to bridge the gap between early academic research and commercial readiness. IUCRCs provide value to industry (access to talent; access to research results and intellectual property; leveraged research dollars); value to universities (funding; industry insight; student placement); and value to government (leverage research dollars; networking; training). These symbiotic regional hubs provide a way to instill diversity as the norm in terms of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition, as well as diversity of thought. Robert St. Amant (DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory) noted the benefits when students are involved in research, then go on to work for industry or the government.

Institutional Challenges to Developing Partnerships

Notwithstanding their potential value, challenges exist for all institutions to form true partnerships, particularly smaller institutions. Ganesh Bora (Fayetteville State University [FSU]) noted that FSU tries to capitalize on its location near Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg) and hired a recently retired general to strengthen the bridge between the two. FSU’s chief research officer also connects with counterparts throughout the University of North Carolina system. He said FSU and other HBCUs sometimes have to counter the misperception that they do not have strong research expertise. Elmer Guy (Navajo Technical University [NTU]) highlighted some of NTU’s existing partnerships, as well as its Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory. A challenge that he identified is that agencies may say that a smaller institution is not serving many students and faculty and be reluctant to support infrastructure support, yet equipment is still essential in running many programs. Other challenges are the amount of time needed to connect with DoD and other partners to submit proposals and then have limited success. He urged DoD to establish a TCU set-aside, which NSF and other

__________________

federal agencies have done, because they tend to be small and cannot compete with larger institutions.

Teresa Orok (Alabama A&M University) reminded participants of the historic roots of HBCUs and their mission to serve students. Looking across the landscape of HBCUs, it is important to keep in mind their diversity of size, geography, who they are serving, and whether they are public or private. Most have limited tech transfer and sponsored research capacities. “What tends to happen when we enter into partnerships with major institutions HBCUs and MIs do the work and collaborate, and at the end, others get credit for our work,” she said. “There has to be a level playing ground.”

According to Sheryl Ehrman (San Jose State University), SJSU has had to find creative ways to do research without Ph.Ds. on campus (per the California structure for higher education). Post-docs and lab managers can provide continuity with master’s and bachelor students, and there are opportunities for students at community colleges. Many students are veterans or come from places of conflict, and they clearly understand the mission for U.S. security and the need to get the mission correct. She offered four recommendations to DoD. First, she urged thinking regionally, noting that most students at regional institutions want to stay in that region post-graduation, which contributes to the workforce. Second, long-term student engagement can be achieved through early research experiences and direction towards DoD support for graduate programs. Third, support for mid-scale research instrumentation, including support staff to maintain it, can help build a body of results. Finally, she suggested incentives to strengthen the partnerships between research-intensive and regional institutions.

Models and Examples of Synergistic Partnerships

A series of panels focused on examples of partnerships within and across institutions and agencies.

Kelly Freidenfelds (Princeton-HBCU Alliance for Collaborative Research and Innovation [PACRI]) explained that PACRI is a new initiative to promote research collaboration between Princeton and HBCU faculty. Proposals are co-submitted and reviewed by reviewers from HBCUs and Princeton, with the benefits of the collaboration as one of the review criteria. She said the goal is not only the funded research, but also the building of authentic relationships between Princeton and HBCU partners. The Science and Engineering Alliance (SEA) began in 1990 as a partnership between four HBCUs and the Lawrence Livermore Lab, explained Robert Shepard (The Shepard Institute). SEA had a board with a stand-alone office and executive director in Washington, DC, which sought out opportunities, provided central support, and helped with balance among the partners. The backbone was an identification of technical core strengths so that the partners’ expertise was complementary. From an industry perspective, Aaron Wecksler (Genentech) described several programs at his company to foster future scientists at different levels: internships and co-ops for undergraduates, a Pharmaceutical Development Rotational Program for recent bachelor’s and masters graduate’s, and a postdoctoral program.

Chad Womack (United Negro College Fund [UNCF]) presented on the Applied Research Institute for Mathematics and Computational Sciences (ARI), a new initiative that emerged from work by UNCF, the Thurgood Marshall Fund, presidents at HBCUs, and Google. The vision is “to establish an HBCU-anchored institute that conducts leading-edge applied research in a variety of mathematical and computational fields and produce commercially applicable solutions that have positive social impact.” Key priorities are to (1) build math and computer science research and teaching capacity at HBCUs; (2) (re)build the research and academic talent pipeline; and (3) build tech entrepreneurship and commercialization capacity at HBCUs.

Representatives from the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy highlighted partnership opportunities at their agencies (see also elsewhere in this publication). Jesus V. Soriano Molla,(NSF) provided an overview of NSF programs that accelerate research to impact, with a focus on NSF’s new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships. They include regional innovation engines, the Enabling Partnerships to Increase Innovation Capacity, Partnerships for

Innovation, an entrepreneurial fellowship program called Activate, and other efforts.⁸ From DOE, Terrence Mosley (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy [EERE]) explained that EERE often seeks out existing programs rather than re-invent the wheel, such as an interagency agreement with NSF to broaden STEM participation beyond DOE’s traditional R&D audience, A partnership with NSF’s Engineering Research program will fund researchers at non-R1 institutions. EERE also takes part in the MI STEM R&D Consortium, which consists of more than 70 MIs and is aimed at reducing barriers to entry for MIs to do more research for DOE and other agencies.⁹ Both Dr. Soriano and Mr. Mosley stressed the need to reach K-12 students to interest them in STEM and also underscored the need for evaluation and tracking.

THIRD TOWN HALL: SYNTHESIZING THE LEARNING

The purpose of the third Town Hall was to evaluate the components necessary to elevate an institution’s research activity, highlight research faculty and personnel support structures, and investigate recruitment and retention strategies for research-centered faculty. A concluding session revisited the topics discussed throughout the workshop series that are of relevance to institutions and federal agencies, with a focus on DoD.

Transitioning from Low to High Research Activity

Rosemarie Wesson (City College of New York [CCNY]) and Gillian Wilson (University of California Merced) spoke from institutions that are located on opposite coasts, in a big city and a more agricultural area, and from schools founded in 1847 and 2005.

As Dr. Wesson related, CCNY is one of eight schools and divisions with the City University of New York system. It has embarked on a path of slow growth, which is somewhat by design because the research office is very lean. To increase research activity with limited resources, she suggested identifying and communicating strengths and emerging opportunities with university leadership, encouraging collaboration, focusing on junior faculty, outreach with prospective faculty, taking advantage of databases like Pivot¹⁰ and targeted announcements, and sharing of accomplishments. She also recommended funding for core equipment, including support personnel; fellowships and stipends to increase Ph.D. capacity; and distinguished faculty support for mentoring.

Dr. Wilson explained that UC Merced was established in 2005 to address chronically low levels of educational attainment in California’s Central Valley and became an R2 institution after only 11 years. It is one of the most diverse in the system. Referring to the National Academies consensus study report, she underscored the large impact that MIs have on students’ lives but their struggle for resources. She recommended that vice presidents of research at MIs serve on relevant committees and working groups, since they bring a perspective that peers at non-MIs will not have. She also suggested placement of Defense Research Capacity Liaison Officers within MI offices of research, even on a part-time or temporary basis; faculty cluster hires to increase diversity; and shared costs for research infrastructure.

Both Wesson and Wilson agreed on the challenge of getting “upstream” of funding opportunities. Personal relationships and proactive communications are important because, as Wesson said, by the time a solicitation hits the street, there is not enough time to start a collaboration or develop a strong proposal.

Recruiting Research-Centered Faculty at non-R1 Institutions

Joanna Brooks (San Diego State University [SDSU]), Catherine Armwood-Gordon (Tennessee State University), and Ivan Mosley (Tennessee State University) spoke about recruiting and retaining faculty.

Brooks said SDSU’s strategic plan to become a premier public research university acknowledges its historic mission and values, geographic location, and connection with Latinx and other BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) communities. An important element is recruitment of faculty whose research can capitalize on the school’s assets while extending benefits to a diverse student body. Because legal constraints against

__________________

affirmative action (California’s Proposition 209), SDSU developed Building on Inclusive Excellence for faculty hiring. Using eight criteria developed at the University of California Davis, faculty do not identify as part of an underrepresented population but must demonstrate how they serve or address issues related to underserved populations.¹¹ BIE criteria are now used in all tenured and tenure-track faculty hires. In 2016, 13 percent of the faculty were underrepresented minorities. They are now about one-half of new hires.

Armwood-Gordon acknowledged the difficulty in competing for faculty as an HBCU with limited resources, but noted effective practices. Faculty are made to feel supported through mentorship, negotiation with the university to lower teaching loads, and access to equipment and space to do research. Speaking from TSU’s Department of Applied and Industrial Technology, Mosley stressed the need for faculty to have hands-on experience and for both faculty and students to develop the ability to work in teams.

To retain and support faculty, Brooks called attention to resources from the National Center for Faculty Diversity and Development.¹² Surveys of SDSU faculty have revealed compromised health outcomes and housing stresses, especially for faculty of color. She said housing costs are the top non-retention factor for faculty. Armwood-Gordon noted this is also an issue for new TSU Ph.D.s and faculty in Nashville.

Adapting Administrative Bandwidth for Increased Research Activity

As noted throughout the workshop, infrastructure is key to building the research ecosystem. Three research administrators shared their experiences. Almesha Campbell (Jackson State University) said that Jackson State’s division of research has fewer staff than when she joined 14 years ago because of reduced state funding. One work-around is cross-training for staff and integration of platforms so the process to develop and submit proposals is as seamless as possible. She noted several programs have helped build capacity, such as the NIH Path to Excellence & Innovation Initiative to improve capability statements and budgeting.¹³

Laura Collins (North Carolina A&T) noted that faculty at her institution are submitting more full proposals and receiving more awards, and dollar amounts increased. While good news, this puts more burden on the research office. Many positions are vacant and some were filled within the last 12 to 18 months. While HBCUs and other MIs have a reputation of “punching above their weight,” she said A&T looks for institutional funding from the UNC system and state legislature, foundations, and other sources. She also noted the importance of conversations with faculty so they understand the benefit to them and the institution of receiving full F&A (facilities and administrative) costs and, conversely, the negative impact of offering to cost-share when not a requirement of the grant. Low-resourced institutions should be strategic with cost shares; from her perspective at A&T, Dr. Collins notes cost shares do not necessarily make proposals submitted to various federal agencies more competitive.

Elmer Guy (Navajo Tech) said research is a key component to economic development. The school started as a workforce development project in 1979, mostly offering certificates. STEM degrees were added at the associate’s and now at the bachelor’s levels. A critical improvement was a DoD grant to provide high-speed broadband Internet to campus, which has allowed for the expansion into new fields and attracted new students and faculty. When he announced at graduation that Navajo Tech will become a university over time, he said faculty and the staff were inspired to take on this challenge.

Expanding the Defense Research Workforce Pipeline

DoD is looking to expand its domestic STEM workforce, which requires new ways to engage students and trainees. Shannon Arnold (GBL Systems Corp.) returned to the Town Hall series to give a flavor of the opportunities in trusted AI and autonomy, his areas of

__________________

expertise. Multi-purpose models are a must for trust, reliability, and consistency, he said, and the required skillsets encompass calibration of trust, information protection, “explainability” and interpretability, robustness, and performance across multiple environments and domains. He urged institutions to take advantage of DoD scholarships, internships, and other programs.

The next two presenters described innovative programs at their institutions. Kerin Hilker-Balkissoon (George Mason University) explained efforts aimed at transfer students, which she said is an overlooked population for STEM readiness and yet a huge opportunity for investment. The ADVANCE program is a guided pathway program for community college students by cross-aligning curricula to reduce credit loss when students transfer to a four-year institution and by expanding access to research. About 45 percent of the program’s 4,000 participants are STEM majors; overall, participants are more diverse than the overall George Mason population (which is itself the most diverse institution in Virginia). Retention is extremely high. To improve engagement in research, the Mason Science Transfer Equity and Success Initiative identifies and overcomes barriers for students to access research opportunities. The SCTR program (Scientific Community of Transfer Researchers) forms cohorts of students to enhance STEM career readiness through high-impact practices: first-year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, diversity, and global learning, and, particularly, undergraduate research. Early outcomes are strong. The next phase is a RISE (Research and Interdisciplinary STEM Experiences) Program with stipends and scholarships to provide access to research experiences. She noted the importance both of student-focused and systemic interventions.

Charlene Mello (University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth) explained the National Defense Education Program, a workforce development partnership. The award she discussed involves her and other academic institutions, Clear Path for Veterans, DoD facilities, and others, with a focus on synthetic biology. Undergraduates, graduates, expert faculty, and Army scientists operate as “one team” with multiple, parallel pathways to learning. Students recognize the value of and develop a professional network, and they receive and provide mentoring. Students are developing educational modules, seminars, participating in internships and research, for a holistic awareness of DoD career opportunities.

Tim Williams (UARC Program Manager) highlighted the new UARC at Howard University, the fifteenth in the system and the first at an HBCU. A consortium with eight additional HBCUs support the UARC. In addition to the specific lines of effort around tactical autonomy, complementary thrusts are to engage in STEM outreach and to move the R2 institutions into R1 classification. Lessons learned to date are that many students are not aware of DoD opportunities beyond the uniformed services. Full teaching loads are common across the institutions, and the offices of sponsored research have limited experience in managing contracts. A major positive element is the high number of U.S. citizens in STEM at HBCUs.

Challenges and Opportunities for MI Researchers and Personnel Engaging in Federally Funded Research

With the key role that faculty play in building the research enterprise, a panel discussed this role at various career levels.

In addition to high teaching loads, faculty at HBCUs serve on many committees, do community service, and advise students, reminded Jill Keith (Winston-Salem State University [WSSU]). Related to research, they have to keep up with relevant literature and hire and train students. High-impact practices for student success include opportunities for undergraduate research and reduction of student debt. Students are paid a competitive wage to do research so they can take these jobs rather than those that are not relevant to their education. WSSU is next to Wake Forest School of Medicine, which has led to partnerships and joint grants. WSSU has also received its first-ever patent and is looking for spin-off opportunities.

From the California State system, Michael Groves (Cal State Fullerton) said the chemistry and biochemistry department requires undergraduate research as a mandatory capstone requirement, and 86 percent do research with a faculty PI. The students present at scientific meetings and co-author peer-reviewed publications, and a number of grants have resulted from undergraduate work. As the start of collaboration with DoD, Groves recalled receiving a cold call from a DoD scientist who became aware of his research focus. Through that contact, Groves has encouraged students to become involved in DoD summer internships and other opportunities. The challenge in building the research program is that research excellence is not a strategic goal or priority for the leadership. Except for the chance contact, he would not have been aware of DoD opportunities and he was not aware of any place on campus to find out. In his experience, research administration manages instead of enables faculty, and provides limited feedback on proposals. However, he stressed, his institution and others can develop a strong pipeline for underrepresented students and provide the “missing millions” of diverse students.

Abraham Wolcott (San Jose State University [SJSU]) spoke as a younger researcher at an HSI and an emergent research institution. He noted an alternate title to any technical talk he would give is “experiences and wisdom performing high-quality research with undergraduates while remaining rational.” He highlighted his research areas, many of which involve new tools and techniques of interest to DoD and other funders. Challenges at SJSU include no large capital instrumentation, poor infrastructure quality, the need for a large group for continuity to maintain research activity, unexpected departure of researchers, lags in publishing, a constant search for access for high-capital equipment across the Bay Area, and lack of support from higher-ups. He noted that many of his students are dealing with challenges outside of school, such as housing and immigration issues, and that as PI, he handles science, administration, and human resources matters.

He recommended DoD require universities to publicly acknowledge faculty awards, post any changes to HBCU/MI award criteria at least a year in advance, disclose changes in allowable costs change, assign specific program managers to collaborate with MIs, and create a DoD-based training program similar to NIH’s MARC (Maximizing Access to Research Careers) and NSF’s RISE (Research, Innovation, Synergies, and Education) programs. In terms of possible actions at his institution, he recommended SJSU acknowledge successful research faculty, hire technical staff to maintain and aid research, reduce non-technical administrative hires, reduce burden by pooling resources, maintain infrastructure, ask research faculty what they need to succeed, provide meritorious salary, and hire more Black and Hispanic STEM faculty.

Saleh Zein-Sabbato (Tennessee State University [TSU]) noted the commonality of challenges at TSU with other MIs. Despite the challenges, as with other MIs, he underscored that “it’s all about students.” He highlighted TSU’s expertise in AI, machine learning, and other fields. Among challenges, he pointed to high teaching loads, little staff support for proposal development, attracting high-quality graduate students from other places, and limited infrastructure especially for new faculty. A significant percentage of engineering faculty are international, which means they cannot engage in some DoD and other federal research, which limits the opportunities for growth. Teaching loads made it hard to find the time to build connections and be proactive, especially for early-career faculty who are prioritizing multiple demands on their time. He suggested federal agencies target junior faculty at HBCUs and other MIs and fund them to attend conferences.

In the discussion, the difficulties and inconsistent policies in payment of students for their lab work was discussed. Unintended consequences include irregular payments and tax implications (for example, if withholding was not taken out and students are unaware of their tax liabilities). Other points raised were the need for research administrators to have necessary expertise to support faculty and for supportive policies related to teaching loads.

Federal Capacity Programs for Faculty and Trainee Support

In the final technical panel, programs at NSF, NIH, and DOE that target scientists at different stages in

their careers were discussed. Narcrisha Norman (NSF) explained one of NSF’s most well-known programs, the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP).¹⁴ More than 70,000 awards have been made since 1952. It is for students who are early in their career, either undergraduate or early in their graduate studies. She highlighted the application package and a typical timeline. She also noted that a comprehensive holistic review is carried out that looks at intellectual merit and broader impacts.

Moving to resources for faculty, Sailaja Koduri (NIH) described programs at NIH, with a focus on those supported by the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS).¹⁵ Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) facilitates a timely transition of postdoctoral researchers from diverse backgrounds into independent, tenure-track or equivalent research-intensive faculty positions. Several Research Enhancement Awards are available, including to researchers at institutions with smaller overall research programs. The Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) has a program for early-stage investigators (ESIs) and another for both established and new investigators. She noted that MIRA has become an increasingly large component of the NIGMS portfolio, particularly for ESIs.

LaRico Treadwell (Sandia National Lab) discussed the Securing Top Research & Talent at Historically Black Colleges & Universities (START HBCU) Program at Sandia. It began with a review of demographics at the lab and goal to increase more African American representation.¹⁶ Sandia already partnered with many universities, but only a few HBCUs. It was recommended to look at schools with larger pools of African American students and faculty than their traditional partners. After analysis of publicly available data of enrollments, publication alignments, and other metrics, START HBCU was launched as a pilot. It includes recruitment, program partnerships, research, and HBCU partnership development, with immediate, near-term, and long-term goals. For example, through an exchange program, faculty can spend time at the lab while Sandia scientists teach and work on campus. Dr. Treadwell reviewed the university partners with whom they have worked to date, as well as programmatic and technical accomplishments and milestones.

Concluding Remarks: Building Capacity and Developing True Partnerships

In wrapping up the series of Town Halls, committee members and several Town Hall participants shared takeaways. Committee chair Oscar Barton, Jr. noted the conversations showed the barriers faced by institutions in creating or strengthening research ecosystems are not the same. Some relate to infrastructure, size, location, and resources. Some institutions, especially smaller institutions, have challenges in gaining recognition for their accomplishments and faculty expertise. Faculty are the linchpin to success, which requires ensuring that institutional policies align with research, for example, related to teaching and service expectations. It is incumbent on leadership to enhance the elements for a vibrant research culture, he stated. A range of infrastructure needs among MIs were discussed, and many of which would benefit from initial investments from DoD and other funders in order to build out programs.

Committee member Keith McGee (Alcorn State University) spoke of the need for stronger communications between faculty researchers and administrators, as well as with partners at DoD and others in the U.S. government. In institutions with very small research staffs, he reminded the group of the need to spread expertise; otherwise, when someone leaves, they exit with all the institutional knowledge. Helen Turner noted that capacity building has institutional and personal aspects. In all the discussions about relieving teaching loads, she noted some faculty prioritize teaching and would not necessarily want to turn over their students to an adjunct. She said it is important to reskill, upskill, and support faculty who want to do research, while also moving current faculty along the continuum.

__________________

Abraham Wolcott commented that geography and space came up frequently during the Town Halls. Building research capacity is different in the Cal State system than at TCUs or ANNHSIs, especially those in rural areas, he observed. He urged flexibility in DoD-related programs and frameworks to allow teams to be creative and allow for innovation. Innovation may come gradually and will not look the same at each institution. Michael Groves suggested a lens on student development and building a pipeline as a unifying focus. Dr. Wolcott agreed but noted the need for faculty development for sustainability, as students come in and out of programs. Building on that point, Dr. Christelle also underscored the role of research administrators to sustain the enterprise. Student, faculty, and administrative development are intertwined.

Dr. Turner noted the HHMI Inclusive Excellence Program, of which Chaminade is a part, builds on the recognition that systems, not students, “need fixing.” She suggested this applies to research at small institutions that are sometimes perceived as not capable to conduct research as part of the national STEM landscape. Dr. Wolcott said growing this recognition is one reason that institutions should spotlight faculty accomplishments.

In talking about partnerships, Chad Womack stressed the value of broadening peer-to-peer institutional partnerships, with the Howard UARC and other consortia as examples, as well as with R1 institutions, federal facilities, and other entities. A common denominator is to make sure the partnerships are win-win. Drilling down, he said this means making sure that HBCUs and MIs are not on the losing end of resources, are building capacity, and are left better off at the end and not worse, for example in retention of their faculty. There might be a need for new models, such as the Applied Research Institute for Mathematics and Computational Sciences, which will leverage resources and assets across HBCUs. He noted that IP, tech transfer, and commercialization are also major concerns. Dr. Christelle observed that TCUs offer real value when they enter into partnerships with R1s, but they usually do not benefit from any commercialization that results. A tech transfer office at a TCU, even a small one, shows what is possible to students and can ensure more fairness in terms of partnerships, she said.

Considering smaller institutions, Dr. McGee reflected that they must be at the table as leading-edge technologies emerge, or they will be left behind for another generation. Many of these technologies do not require huge capital investments on campus. Dr. Christelle noted the value that her institution gets from mentorship and connections with University of Arizona; however, the issues are so different that what she would welcome is a consortium of research administrators across TCUs to support one another. Dr. Turner noted that many of the partnerships at Chaminade derive from personal relationships, for example meeting at a conference. Figuring out how to take the “element of chance” out of the equation is an important question to solve. A collective impact framework from the start can ensure that all benefit, rather than tokenism or trickle-down benefits for the smaller partner.

Dr. McGee picked up on the discussion about being intentional about federal partnerships and being part of conversations early on in negotiations. Independent organizations like UNCF and Thurgood Marshall Fund can play an important facilitative role with federal agencies, as can consortia of HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs, although he urged that they talk with each other and not just within their own groups. “Go-together” strategies are critical, Dr. Womack said, and consortia aligned with federal and industry R&D priorities can contribute to wealth-building. For example, several HBCUs are engaged in AI/ML research, and they could come together to seek larger grants and contracts, rather than seek smaller, specific grants to individual faculty. The federal government has a tremendous number of opportunities, Dr. Wolcott agreed, but it is challenging with limited time and resources to identify, compete for, and execute them, especially contracts. How to tap into opportunities is often not clear, he commented. Vice presidents of research play a key role, suggested Dr. Barton, but contract work often must be performed by full-time research faculty.

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop Series—in Brief was prepared by Paula Whitacre as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the author or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Oscar Barton, Jr., Morgan State University; Bryn Adams, U.S. Army DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory; Melvin Greer, Intel Corporation; Keith A. McGee, Alcorn State University; Abigail S. Newsome, Mississippi Valley State University; Shawné Raiford, The Aerospace Corporation; Thomas C. Tubon, BioMADE; Abraham Wolcott, San José State University; Chad Womack, United Negro College Fund.

STAFF André Porter, Senior Program Officer; John Veras, Associate Program Officer; Karla Riley, Senior Program Assistant; Clara Harvey-Savage, Senior Finance Business Partner; Maria Lund Dahlberg, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop Series—in Brief was reviewed by Keiara Auzenne, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Emily Biggane, United Tribes Technical College; and Paul Deaderick, The Aerospace Corporation. Marilyn Baker, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

SPONSOR This workshop was supported by the United States Department of Defense.

For more information, visit https://www.nationalacademies.org/bhew/.

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Building Defense Research Capacity at U.S. Minority Institutions: Proceedings of a Workshop Series—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27437.