U.S. Research Universities Now Confront Fateful Choices

Wilson: Different Players Are Joining The Game Editor's Note: An article in The Scientist's Jan. 20, 1992, issue ("Radcliffe President Lambastes Competitiveness In Research," page 3), conveyed the views of Radcliffe College president Linda Wilson on the subject of scientific competitiveness. Wilson, a chemist and former vice president of research at the University of Michigan, had made her case during the course of a National Academy of Sciences meeting on the future of the United States research university--in a formal address, in exchanges with colleagues during a subsequent panel discussion, and in comments made to former news editor Jeffrey Mervis. As The Scientist reported, Wilson was critical of a research culture developed for centuries under the domination of white males; she declared that the era of "macho" science was over; and she strongly recommended creation of a research atmosphere more attractive and hospitable to women and minorities. The article has received unusually high reader response--some of it challenging Wilson's views, some applauding her opinions. At the right is an edited text of Wilson's NAS speech, which, she says, expresses accurately her message concerning competitiveness in relation to the U.S. research university. Says Wilson: "While I do believe that adjustments are needed in our academic research system in order to take better advantage of the full range of talent in our population and to succeed in a context of global interdependence, I did not reject or decry competitiveness." Below are edited versions of several letters from readers responding to the article on Wilson, particularly on remarks she made during the panel discussion in, as the article reported, a "sharp verbal exchange" with Massachusetts Institute of Technology astrophysicist Bernard Burke, who defended the competitive spirit prevailing among researchers--and in discussions with The Scientist's reporter. ---- We are in an era in which we must educate well a much greater percentage of the population than we have ever tried to reach in the past. In this "Age of Knowledge," as we have come to call it, we will develop not just more knowledge, but also better and broader knowledge, more connections among knowledge areas, and much better assimilation and accommodation of knowledge in the basic functions of society. I would like to contribute four specific points to the discussion about fateful choices for the future of the American research university enterprise. First: Although the specific focus of the current discussions of the future of the American research university is its role in science and engineering research and education, we must keep clearly in mind the full range of fields that universities address. Important relationships among the federal and state governments, universities, and industries have shaped the science and engineering fields in the academic enterprise we know today. Indirectly, these relationships have affected the whole life of our universities in the past. They will also do so in the future. There is, therefore, a broader set of stakeholders whose perspectives and contributions will need to be heard. Second: We need to consider our approach carefully. We will not be able to meet this stimulating challenge if the expectations and behavior of those who inhabit the system focus principally on their individual interests. Our American research university is itself a complex system, and the network of universities is, de facto, a metasystem with great diversity, filled with idiosyncratic solutions to a variety of common problems. Third: We need to recognize and gain more value from the interdependence of different roles that individuals and institutions play within the academic research enterprise and in the larger U.S. research system. We must have three ingredients: high talent in every part of this system; effective processes to guide each part and to link the various parts of the system; and effective ways for individuals to move among roles and parts of the system. All three of these ingredients depend on mutual respect. All three are necessary for adaptability to changing context. The system will not function well with all of the highest talent concentrated in any one part, and the talent will concentrate if multiple roles are not valued. Fourth: We must recognize much more fully the implications of the transformation of the characteristics of the population to be engaged in science and engineering in the academic research enterprise. This enterprise was designed when most of the players were males, sole wage earners living near their workplaces, and supported physically, emotionally, and socially by their families. Much of the rapidity of academic science and engineering progress has come through their sacrifice of personal life to long hours and intense focus in their laboratories. Much of that sacrifice has been made possible by the accommodations and support of other family members and by accessibility to their work environment. The design features of our academic research enterprise--from tenure to research-support mechanisms, mentoring, and information-exchange strategies--were built on assumption of a context that permitted single-minded devotion to task, rather than a context for persons with multiple competing responsibilities spanning work and home. What has changed is the diversity of the roles of the players in the enterprise itself--where faculty are educators, researchers, entrepreneurs, policy advisers, peer reviewers, public relations managers, financial managers, and personnel managers--and in the diversity of roles played outside the enterprise, where responsibilities encompass child care, elder care, politics, school board service, and home maintenance and repair. Increasing distances between home and work as cities have sprawled change the character of the faculty role, complicate the orchestration of the parts, and intrude on the time available for any of these pursuits. We need to tap the entire pool of talent to strengthen, replenish, and renew our science and engineering work force. But the new "immigrants" to the science and engineering work force, women and minorities, bring some differences in expectations, some of which are based on care-giving responsibilities that have been traditionally assigned in a differentiated way. Redistribution of roles among men and women will take place, but the cultural roots are very deep and the stakes are very high, since the realignment so centrally affects children. These transitions are seriously compromised by some of the design features of our institutions. We must therefore expect some change in how we do business as the different players join the game. Mutual adaptation and respect are needed. It is a matter of cross-cultural communication, reconsideration of assumptions, learning new skills and habits, and adjusting priorities. New entrants have always been a source of vitality and resiliency for the research system. They represent an important opportunity during this period of overall transformation of the system to fit with the changed global and national context. Our near-term decisions therefore will involve personal attitudinal change, organizational change, and systemic change. These decisions are themselves interdependent--a set of human resources issues of a scope larger than we have had to address for many years. This will be a period of mutual adaptation. At this stage leadership is needed--an enabling and empowering leadership that engages our scientists and engineers and our citizens broadly, which infuses them with self-confidence but not arrogance, with commitment but not unprincipled opportunism. We are confronting a new era. "Business as usual" will not be a winning strategy. We could choose to pursue a definitive course, or elect to bob and weave, or default and drift. I recommend that we confront the question of our future as knights, not pawns.

U.S. Research Universities Now Confront Fateful Choices

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of