V. Professional Development

Internal Grant Programs (Q 27)
Click to view snapshot results of (Q 27)

The next series of survey questions explored faculty members’ knowledge of grant and professional development programs that are sponsored by Purdue, as well their use of these programs. This question set also sought information regarding faculty attitudes toward the value of these programs and their satisfaction with their own professional development.

Of the seven grant programs, faculty are most likely to be aware of the following: travel grants (92% are aware of these), summer salary grants (86% are aware), graduate student fellowships based on faculty applications (76% are aware), and academic reinvestment grants (73% are aware). Only a minority is aware of PRF matching grants for equipment purchases (41%) and Office of International Programs (IP) model department grants (31%).   ( See Table 19 )

Purdue Grant Programs - Table 19 

Grant Program

 Are you aware of this grant program ?

If yes, have you applied for this grant in the past five years ?

If yes, have you been awarded this grant in the past five years?

Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) summer salary grants

No
14%

Yes
86%

No
73%

Yes
27%

No
33%

Yes
67%

PRF matching grants for equipment purchases

59%

41%

80%

20%

70%

30%
PRF travel grants (domestic and international)

8%

92%

58%

42%

26%

74%

Multimedia Instructional Development Center grants

41%

60%

82%

18%

33%

67%

Office of International Programs model department grants

69%

31%

80%

20%

40%

60%
Academic Reinvestment grants

27%

73%

60%

40%

59%

41%

Graduate student fellowships based on faculty applications (e.g., Special Initiative, University, Andrew, and Minority Graduate Opportunity Fellowships; Interdisciplinary Research Awards.)

24%

76%

58%

42%

21%

79%

Among those who are aware of the grant programs, faculty members are most likely to have applied for a travel grant (42% have done so), a fellowship for one of their graduate students (42% have done so), and an academic reinvestment grant (40% have done so). Grant applicants are most likely, in turn, to have been awarded a fellowship for a graduate student (79% of applicants have received this award) or a travel grant (74% have received this award).

Differences by School and Race

Because of the relatively small numbers who have applied for these grants and particularly the small numbers who have been awarded these grants, analysis by school and race beyond awareness of these grants is not appropriate. So by school, Management faculty are among the least aware of the equipment grants, the Multimedia Instructional Development Center (MIDC) grants, the IP grants, the academic reinvestment grants, and the graduate student fellowships. Libraries and Technology faculty are less likely than most to know about summer salary grants, equipment grants, and graduate student fellowships.

By race, underrepresented minorities are the least likely to be aware of every grant program except the summer salary grants.

Differences by Rank

Assistant professors are the least likely to be aware of every one of the grant programs, particularly the MIDC grants (41% are aware compared to 64% of associate and 68% of full professors) and the academic reinvestment grants (44% are aware vs. 78% of associate and 86% of full professors). Among those who are aware of the grants, assistant professors are also the least likely to have applied for an equipment grant, a travel grant, an IP grant, or a graduate student fellowship.

The proportion of those who applied and were subsequently awarded a grant is highest for assistant professors in the following cases: summer salary grants (74% vs. 61% of associate and 55% of full professors) and MIDC grants (88% vs. 63% of associate and 58% of full professors). The proportion of applicants who were awarded the grant is lowest for assistant professors in the following cases: matching equipment purchase grants (50% vs. 65% of associate and 78% of full professors), International Program grants (50% vs. 62% of associate and 61% of full professors), and academic reinvestment grants (31% vs. 35% of associate and 47% of full professors). In the case of travel grants and graduate student fellowships, the proportions of awardees were approximately equal across the ranks.

Differences by Gender

Females are less likely than males to be aware of all but the summer salary grants and the MIDC grants. (In these two cases, the proportions are equal.) However, a higher proportion of females compared to males have applied for summer salary grants (37% vs. 24%), academic reinvestment grants (42% vs. 39%), and graduate student fellowships (49% vs. 40%).

In the case of each of the seven grants, the proportion of female applicants who were awarded the grants is lower than the proportion of male applicants who were awarded the grants. Specifically, 62% of female and 68% of male applicants have been awarded summer salary grants, 30% of female and 77% of male applicants have been awarded matching equipment purchase grants, 71% of female and 75% of male applicants have been awarded travel grants, 62% of female and 68% of male applicants have been awarded MIDC grants, 50% of female and 62% of male applicants have been awarded IP grants, 33% of female and 44% of male applicants have been awarded academic reinvestment grants, and 73% of female and 81% of male applicants have been awarded graduate student fellowships. 

Faculty also had the opportunity to explain through an open-ended response why they had not applied for grants that they thought would be beneficial to them. Four out of ten respondents answered this portion of the question, mentioning four primary reasons they had not applied for a grant. These reasons are listed below, beginning with the most commonly cited reason.

  • Time constraints
    “I'm so busy that it is hard to find the time to put together a strong proposal.  That's because the faculty resources in my unit are stretched too thin and we all have more responsibility than we can handle.”

    "Mostly because there simply isn't enough time in the day it seems to do what needs to be done and to also pursue such development.  I am so busy doing what I do that there is little time to pursue development opportunities.”

    “No time to spend on developing a proposal.”
  • Grants should go to less senior faculty
    “Because I am a senior faculty member and such grants preferentially go to younger faculty, as it perhaps should be.”

“I do not think senior faculty should be applying for PRF funds. They should be used for development of junior faculty.”

“Nearing retirement! Programs primarily for new staff.”

  • Undesirable research area for the grants
    “    My application would not receive a high enough ranking within the unit.  My work is too ‘classical’." 

"If you are not working in the latest molecular biological area, you do not receive administrative support.”

“Graduate student fellowships are for only the most basic of research and would not fund any project in the application and implementation area that I do research in.”

“Because of the service nature of my duties I did not apply.”
  • Grant amounts are too small
    “    I have been fairly successful with outside grants. At the moment, I regard Purdue base sources of funding as requiring a lot of effort for not very much money.”

“Grant amounts are too small to be worthwhile.”

“Too much work for too little money. Better to put the effort into an external grant.”

Differences by School

The most common reason for respondents from Veterinary Medicine, Technology, Liberal Arts, and Education to not apply for a grant was time constraints. Engineering and Agriculture faculty most often mentioned that the grants were designed for less senior faculty than themselves, while those in Science were most likely to say that grant amounts were too small for their needs. Too few respondents from Health Sciences, CFS, the Libraries, and Management answered this question to allow to comment on their responses