University reward system
Faculty members were asked what they thought the Rice administration
did to provide support for increasing and maintaining the number of
underrepresented minority graduate students. Only 12% said that Rice
provided formal recognition for faculty participation in activities
related to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in
Rice’s graduate programs. An even smaller percentage (4%) indicated
that Rice considered mentoring minority students or diversity efforts
as a factor in its reward system. When asked how effective certain
factors would be in increasing and maintaining the number of underrepresented
minorities in Rice’s graduate programs, 54% of faculty respondents
said that consideration in the university reward system would be either
“very effective” or “effective.” Forty-nine
percent said that formal recognition would be either “very effective”
or “effective” as incentives for working toward this goal.
In response to the need to provide support the incentive for mentoring,
in 2003, Malcolm Gillis instituted the Presidential Mentoring Award.
The inaugural award and its accompanying $3000 were presented to Professor
Yin
Zhang of the Computational and Applied Mathematics Department.
In presenting the award, Dr. Gillis said,
Women and minorities often lack role models and face more than
the usual hardships in advancing in either academia or industry.
This award recognizes Rice faculty who are committed to helping
women and minority students reach their fullest potential.
External funding agencies and rewards
When asked whether funding agencies reward researchers for the recruitment
of underrepresented minorities 54% percent of those responding said
“no”. Faculty members who responded affirmatively that
funding agencies reward researchers were asked what types of rewards
were provided (Table 10).
Additional funding and higher rating on grant proposals were the two
categories that the majority of the respondents selected.
Table 11: Types of rewards provided by funding
agencies to encourage the recruitment of underrepresented minorities
to faculty respondents (n=36)
| Item
choices: rewards |
N (%) |
| Additional funding |
29 (81%) |
| Higher rating of proposal |
16 (44%) |
| Increased time frame for producing research results |
0 (0%) |
| Other |
7 (19%) |
Faculty
members were asked to rate how effective the current granting agency
reward system is in motivating them to recruit underrepresented
minorities into their research programs. Fifty-two percent of those
responding (n=48) thought that the current additional funding provided
was either “effective” or “very effective.”
Fifty percent of those responding (n=38) said that providing higher
ratings on proposals was either “effective” or “very
effective” in motivating them to recruit underrepresented
minorities.
Table 12: Faculty respondents’ rating
of how effective current rewards from agencies are in motivating
them to recruit underrepresented minorities into their research
program
| Item choices on rewards |
Ratings N (%) |
Not effective
(1) |
SomewhatEffective
(2) |
Effective
(3) |
Very effective
(4) |
Mean (S.D.) |
| Additional funding (n=48) |
10 (21%) |
13 (27%) |
12 (25%) |
13 (27%) |
2.25 (1.35) |
| Higher rating on proposals (n=38) |
12 (32%) |
7 (18%) |
13 (34%) |
6 (16%) |
1.62 (1.42) |
| Increased time frame for producing
research results (n=30) |
14 (47%) |
7 (23%) |
8 (27%) |
1 (3%) |
1.02 (1.16) |
When all survey respondents were asked what rewards
would encourage them to recruit underrepresented minorities
(Table 12), the majority said that both additional funding and higher
ratings on proposals would motivate them. Additionally, 36% of respondents
commented that providing an increased time-frame for producing research
results would serve as an incentive to recruit underrepresented
minorities to their research program.
Table 13: What factors would encourage
faculty respondents’ to recruit underrepresented minorities
to their research program* (n=97)
| Item choices on rewards |
N |
% |
| Additional funding |
64 |
66% |
| Higher rating on proposals |
49 |
51% |
| Increased time frame for producing research
results |
36 |
37% |
| Other |
12 |
12% |
| No reward would cause me to consider
it |
6 |
6% |
*Check all that apply survey question
Research proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation
are evaluated through two sets of review criteria. One criterion
relates to the intellectual merit of the proposal while the other,
known as “Criterion 2,” involves establishing the broader
impacts of the proposed activity (also called the “Broader
Impacts Criterion”).
NSF describes Criterion 2 with the following set of questions for
Principal Investigators:
- “How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding
while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
- How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation
of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability,
geographic, etc.)?
- To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research
and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and
partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance
scientific and technological understanding?
- What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?”
