Grants play a major role in higher education, including kinesiology. External funding is critical for many types of research and has come to be expected in higher education. This expectation has not always been the case, as 30–40 years ago very few faculty members were expected to obtain grants and
Jeffrey J. Martin
Catherine P. Abel-Berei, Grace Goc Karp, Marcis Fennell, Elisa Drake, and Simon Olsen
) grants were one way to assist with the funding and resource shortage that quality PE and PA programs are facing. Although PEP grants were discontinued in 2016, opportunities for funding through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) began during the 2016–2017 school year ( Society of Health and Physical
Brian D. Dauenhauer, Xiaofen D. Keating, and Dolly Lambdin
useful. They allow consideration of a broad range of prospective data sources that may be valuable in informing educational practice. In line with the trend toward standards-based education and effective data-use, Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) grants were developed to “initiate, expand
David D. Pascoe and Timothy E. Moore
The decline in federal research grant funding and incentive-based budget models to support a university’s mission has necessitated a paradigm shift in the pursuit of available sources of funding. Programs built around federal funding are once again pursuing funding opportunities from industry. Universities are reevaluating their research funding models and career expectations (tenure, promotion) that support a researcher, laboratories, and a defined research agenda. Kinesiology departments are in a strong position to pursue industry funding for fitness, sports, and performance-related research. While grant funding focuses on empirical data-driven research, industry looks for product exposure, validation (empirical data to support claims), and commercialization. Industry partnerships can provide funding in supporting research, developing sponsor-named facilities that benefit both parties. With these cooperative efforts come some unique challenges (financial, proprietary, data interpretation, etc.) that must be addressed.
William B. Strean
The theme of this special issue, following from the 1996 NAFAPA meeting, is “Questioning Our Research Assumptions.” Before assessing the validity of assumptions, they must first be identified. This paper describes how researchers can go about locating what they take for granted in their work. Attention is given to three types of assumptions: paradigmatic, prescriptive, and causal. The specific strategies discussed are examining the gap between conclusion and reasons, analyzing the ideas that support reasons, identifying with the researcher’s point of view, identifying with opposing viewpoints, learning more about relevant issues, and considering barriers in current thinking.
Katherine Thomas Thomas
External funding increases as the number of quality proposals submitted increases; increasing the number of faculty submitting proposals is a logical step to increase external funding. Reflecting on a physical educator’s > $1.5 million grant portfolio, two main themes emerge: the role of the PI and the unit administrator. Realizing increases in external funding is in part a result of administrators empowering faculty for success, and five administrator strategies have been identified. These strategies include: (1) value all sources of external funding (e.g., teaching, research, outreach, federal, foundation), (2) reward the process and the outcomes (a good proposal is equal to a data-based paper), (3) facilitate connections for collaboration (e.g., spread the word about your faculty), (4) provide infrastructure (from labs to personnel evaluation), (5) identify and develop potential. Important strategies for PIs include: (1) write proposals, (2) take risks, (3) answer the phone, (4) details matter, and (5) seek collaborators.
Peter R. Giacobbi Jr., Matthew P. Buman, Kimberly J. Romney, Monica R. Klatt, and Mari J. Stoddard
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the scope, impact, and methods of research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in kinesiology departments. Information was obtained from university websites, the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT), PubMed, Google Scholar, and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge. Abstracts from 2,227 published studies funded by the NIH were reviewed. The National Institute on Aging funded the largest portion of grants. Metabolic functioning, the nervous system, pathology, and cardiovascular diseases were the major foci. Human and animal studies were predominantly discovery-oriented (e.g., comparative studies, clinical research) with a large percentage of translational approaches. Recommendations for interdisciplinary research are provided.
Grace Goc Karp, Kay Williamson, and Bethany Shifflett
Traditionally, faculty members have had to balance three main components of their work: research, teaching, and service. This balance can be influenced by career stage, personal work orientations, and organizational climate. This study was an exploration of the work roles of physical education teacher educators (PETEs) by gender and tenure status in research or doctoral-granting institutions. A survey was devised to gather information regarding background, workload, institutional expectations, personal skills, sources of support and feedback, and job satisfaction. Respondents (N = 98) from programs cross-referenced with the Carnegie classification system (Carnegie Foundation, 1987), and the Physical Education Gold Book (1987) returned the survey (77% response rate). Frequencies, cross-tabulations, and measures of central tendency and variability for continuous variables were obtained. Results suggested dissonance existed in the areas of research and teaching. Structural ambiguity was evident between institutional values and personal skills, particularly for tenured women.
The evaluation of candidates for faculty appointments, tenure and promotion, grants, and scholarship awards is based on review from peers in their discipline. This expert judgment has been the principal mechanism or gold standard of evaluating research for over 100 years ( Belter, 2015 ; Bornmann
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes were designed to report outcomes in higher education by specific disciplines and professions, however, universities, states, and accreditation bodies also use these codes in other ways. This paper describes CIP-2010 usage in higher education and how these codes are used in funding public universities in Texas, and summarizes the American Kinesiology Association/National Academy of Kinesiology recommendations to the National Center for Education Statistics on updating kinesiology-related CIP codes. Kinesiology leaders should be knowledgeable about how CIP codes are often used behind the scenes in a variety of ways that affect our faculty, programs, and the field. Greater use of the term kinesiology in many future CIP codes would benefit the field and individual departments seeking alignment with institutional priorities.