“One could possibly argue there is an increased urgency about it, but it’s always a very high priority,” Toiv said. “Research universities, generally speaking, are always looking for ways to increase the amount of investment funding come into the university.”

J. Ian Gray, vice president for research and graduate studies, said there is one way to catapult MSU back into the ranks of premier research institutions.

“What we must do at MSU is grow its research grant portfolio,” Gray said. “That’s the clear message to deans and faculty members. It’s not anything different from what we’ve been advocating the last two or three years.”

Gray said his office is working with the Office of the Provost to introduce ways to boost MSU’s external funding, including an overhaul of the internal grants programs offered through Gray’s office and a possibility of adding more doctoral students. Some academics at MSU worry the push could hinder their research and instructor duties in the long run.

Refining research

MSU dropped four slots between 2006-07 and 2007-08 in a recent National Science Foundation ranking of U.S. universities’ expenditures on science and engineering research.

In another recent NFS ranking, MSU decreased from 54 to 65 among the nation’s top 100 universities and colleges receiving federal funds for science and engineering — a trend Provost Kim Wilcox said MSU can’t continue if it is to retain its title as an internationally respected research institution. An NFS spokeswoman said there is a two-year lag in survey results.

“It’s a slide that we simply can’t afford to tolerate both reputationally and financially,” Wilcox said at an Oct. 13 Faculty Council meeting.

At MSU, talks about the university’s future don’t mention becoming a significant research institution. It already is one, said Douglas Gage, an assistant to the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.

“We are a major research institution,” Gage said. “I wouldn’t say we want to become a research institution. We want to improve our national stature among the research institutions.”

Numbers define a university and MSU is eyeing a climb up national rankings, Gray said.

“That’s an important metric in terms of national reputation,” Gray said. “The federal grant portfolio is increasing yearly. What we want to do is ensure it increases faster than what it’s doing now.”

The amount of research generated by colleges is not equal across the university, but College of Arts and Letters Dean Karin Wurst said her faculty members are answering the administration’s call for more research.

“In our case, much of the research and scholarship consists of publication of scholarly works, books, edited books, articles and book chapters of national and international significance,” Wurst said in an e-mail. “In most instances, one would not expect an external research funding component, so this is a bit different than in the sciences.”

Changing tools

In 10 years, MSU increased its received federal funding from $108 million in 1999-2000 to about $240 million in 2008-09. Gray said the more than 100 percent increase in federal funds is impressive, but falls short of a targeted 10 percent increase each year — about 6 percent higher than the portfolio’s most recent increase.

Officials calculate the amount of federal funds received by MSU based on a three-year average, Gage said.

“What that does is it smooths out the spikes and dips, and reflects more accurately trends in overall funding,” Gage said.

Gage said the Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies offers about $2.5 million in internal grants to allow MSU faculty members to remain competitive in the fight for funding.

Competition is tight for federal dollars, but Gray said his office and administrators are implementing ways to keep faculty members in the chase.

Revamping the Office for the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies’ internal grants programs, hiring more faculty members with federal funding and submitting more proposals with several principal investigators are initiatives supported by Gray’s office and administrators.

But another administrative-led push could alter the student population.

“We need more doctoral students and fewer undergraduate students,” Wilcox said at an Oct. 13 Faculty Council meeting. “We have to find ways to grow our doctoral student cohort both for reputation and productivity’s sake.”

The 36,489 undergraduate students enrolled this fall represent almost 80 percent of MSU’s total enrollment, according to a report from the Office of the Registrar. Doctoral student enrollment increased by 1.4 percent — or by 48 students — between 2008 and 2009. This year’s 3,372 doctoral students still account for about 7 percent of MSU’s 47,278 enrolled students.

“We can only do that if we have ways to fund the doctoral students because each undergraduate student we replace is tuition lost and each doctoral student we add is money spent to pay their stipend and tuition,” Wilcox said.

Growing concerns

But some faculty members question how administrators look to increase external funding. On Oct. 16, Wilcox requested every college dean submit a list of cost-saving recommendations as part of a larger university initiative to slash operating budgets.

Chemistry professor James McCusker said although the administration wants faculty members to increase research, deep cuts to department operating budgets could hinder long-term research projects as university-supplied resources, such as the chemistry department’s chemical stock room, vanish.

For some research grants, MSU takes 52 percent of the money to be used toward indirect costs — a number that reduces the amount of dollars MSU researchers can use toward funding research assistants and buying equipment. Indirect costs account for infrastructure expenditures that accompany each research project, including trash disposal and energy costs.

“Historically, within the chemistry department, as the graduate program has grown, so has the number of research dollars that come in and consequently the amount of indirect costs that come in,” McCusker said. “The problem I have as a faculty member looking at the budget process the last several months is that while that’s a great idea, what the administration has been doing is working in the absolute opposite direction.”

McCusker said one area officials are eyeing in the Department of Chemistry’s budget is its teaching assistant budget.

“If you start dismantling the infrastructure, then the faculty will spend a larger fraction of their time on some teaching responsibilities and less time on research, so the grant will not get renewed,” McCusker said. “There’s a fairly well known domino effect and it’s not hard to predict.”

David Morrissey, a university distinguished professor of chemistry, spends a majority of his time on administrative tasks from creating class lessons to preparing grants.

“I feel I’ve been contributing as best I can to this problem,” Morrissey said.

“Some people have research grants and are bringing significant money to the university and some aren’t. I think trying to balance things inside departments would be a reasonable expectation.”