Exploring the investment

Four universities' experiences with the Spencer Foundation's research training grant program: A retrospective

Anna Neumann*, Aaron M. Pallas, Penelope L Peterson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: This article serves as a conclusion to a TCR special issue devoted to understanding the impact of the Spencer Foundation's Research Training Grant (RTG) initiative. We examine four case reports prepared by scholars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and Michigan State University, as well as the introductory article prepared by Lauren Jones Young of the Spencer Foundation. Objective: To identify a set of principles that might guide the construction and ongoing operation of researcher preparation programs in graduate schools of education, both in the four institutions that generously scrutinized the successes and failures of their own efforts, and in other institutions concerned with preparing education researchers. Research Design: Analytic essay Conclusions: We recommend that academic leaders not count on researcher preparation programs to drive broader efforts to change their organizations. Second, we place more stock in initiatives that allow students to construct a "personal core" of curricular knowledge that draws on institutional resources rather than a "common core" of knowledge that will carry all students throughout their doctoral studies. Third, we caution that providing some students with differential financial, intellectual, and social resources poses risks for many faculty and students around questions of status and autonomy. And finally, because organizational (bureaucratic) boundaries may not be isomorphic with the boundaries that define meaningful communities of research practice, academic leaders should recognize the strengths and limitations of such boundaries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1477-1503
Number of pages27
JournalTeachers College Record
Volume110
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jan 1 2008

Fingerprint

grant
university
experience
student
leader
school graduate
research practice
resources
research planning
education
autonomy
community

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{d52378b5a7e042568a9402fa128a8cf3,
title = "Exploring the investment: Four universities' experiences with the Spencer Foundation's research training grant program: A retrospective",
abstract = "Background: This article serves as a conclusion to a TCR special issue devoted to understanding the impact of the Spencer Foundation's Research Training Grant (RTG) initiative. We examine four case reports prepared by scholars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and Michigan State University, as well as the introductory article prepared by Lauren Jones Young of the Spencer Foundation. Objective: To identify a set of principles that might guide the construction and ongoing operation of researcher preparation programs in graduate schools of education, both in the four institutions that generously scrutinized the successes and failures of their own efforts, and in other institutions concerned with preparing education researchers. Research Design: Analytic essay Conclusions: We recommend that academic leaders not count on researcher preparation programs to drive broader efforts to change their organizations. Second, we place more stock in initiatives that allow students to construct a {"}personal core{"} of curricular knowledge that draws on institutional resources rather than a {"}common core{"} of knowledge that will carry all students throughout their doctoral studies. Third, we caution that providing some students with differential financial, intellectual, and social resources poses risks for many faculty and students around questions of status and autonomy. And finally, because organizational (bureaucratic) boundaries may not be isomorphic with the boundaries that define meaningful communities of research practice, academic leaders should recognize the strengths and limitations of such boundaries.",
author = "Anna Neumann and Pallas, {Aaron M.} and Peterson, {Penelope L}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "1477--1503",
journal = "Teachers College Record",
issn = "0161-4681",
publisher = "Teachers College Record",
number = "7",

}

Exploring the investment : Four universities' experiences with the Spencer Foundation's research training grant program: A retrospective. / Neumann, Anna; Pallas, Aaron M.; Peterson, Penelope L.

In: Teachers College Record, Vol. 110, No. 7, 01.01.2008, p. 1477-1503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the investment

T2 - Four universities' experiences with the Spencer Foundation's research training grant program: A retrospective

AU - Neumann, Anna

AU - Pallas, Aaron M.

AU - Peterson, Penelope L

PY - 2008/1/1

Y1 - 2008/1/1

N2 - Background: This article serves as a conclusion to a TCR special issue devoted to understanding the impact of the Spencer Foundation's Research Training Grant (RTG) initiative. We examine four case reports prepared by scholars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and Michigan State University, as well as the introductory article prepared by Lauren Jones Young of the Spencer Foundation. Objective: To identify a set of principles that might guide the construction and ongoing operation of researcher preparation programs in graduate schools of education, both in the four institutions that generously scrutinized the successes and failures of their own efforts, and in other institutions concerned with preparing education researchers. Research Design: Analytic essay Conclusions: We recommend that academic leaders not count on researcher preparation programs to drive broader efforts to change their organizations. Second, we place more stock in initiatives that allow students to construct a "personal core" of curricular knowledge that draws on institutional resources rather than a "common core" of knowledge that will carry all students throughout their doctoral studies. Third, we caution that providing some students with differential financial, intellectual, and social resources poses risks for many faculty and students around questions of status and autonomy. And finally, because organizational (bureaucratic) boundaries may not be isomorphic with the boundaries that define meaningful communities of research practice, academic leaders should recognize the strengths and limitations of such boundaries.

AB - Background: This article serves as a conclusion to a TCR special issue devoted to understanding the impact of the Spencer Foundation's Research Training Grant (RTG) initiative. We examine four case reports prepared by scholars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and Michigan State University, as well as the introductory article prepared by Lauren Jones Young of the Spencer Foundation. Objective: To identify a set of principles that might guide the construction and ongoing operation of researcher preparation programs in graduate schools of education, both in the four institutions that generously scrutinized the successes and failures of their own efforts, and in other institutions concerned with preparing education researchers. Research Design: Analytic essay Conclusions: We recommend that academic leaders not count on researcher preparation programs to drive broader efforts to change their organizations. Second, we place more stock in initiatives that allow students to construct a "personal core" of curricular knowledge that draws on institutional resources rather than a "common core" of knowledge that will carry all students throughout their doctoral studies. Third, we caution that providing some students with differential financial, intellectual, and social resources poses risks for many faculty and students around questions of status and autonomy. And finally, because organizational (bureaucratic) boundaries may not be isomorphic with the boundaries that define meaningful communities of research practice, academic leaders should recognize the strengths and limitations of such boundaries.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49549087312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49549087312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 110

SP - 1477

EP - 1503

JO - Teachers College Record

JF - Teachers College Record

SN - 0161-4681

IS - 7

ER -