Policy and Systems Issues Limiting the Participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the Federal Disability Research Agenda

Abstract

This study reports on an investigation of barriers that prevent Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) from fully participating in the federal disability and rehabilitation research and development (R&D) agenda. The Delphi technique was used to examine panelists' perceptions on the importance of contextual R&D barriers ensuing from policy/systems issues across 13 different categories. The findings provide information about what Federal research entities (e.g., National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research) and HBCU administrators can do to more effectively address the Section 21 Legislative Mandate of the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments and stimulate competitive R&D participation across the HBCU community. Moore et al. Keywords: historically Black colleges and universities, research capacity building, research and development, federal research entities and disability policyThe Section 21 Mandate of the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation that specifically addresses the unique needs of persons of color served by the state-federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) system. Congress enacted this legislation to respond to findings documenting patterns of inequitable treatment for persons of color (e.g., African Americans) in all junctures of the VR process. Section 21 provided a "legislative mandate" to address these VR system disparities by en-

Minority Entity Disability, Health, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Productivity Facilitators

“…The role of self-efficacy and confidence in increasing research productivity is well documented (Bai, 2010). Moore and his colleagues (Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012; Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, Eugene-Cross, et al, 2012) noted that lower levels of research self-efficacy can lead to lower rates of research productivity. Specifically, they postulated that poor U.S. federal research entity leaders’ expectations for ME research grant proposal success results in lower investigator research self-efficacy.…”

“…ME administrative culture is important in predicting investigator research productivity levels (Epps & Guidry, 2009), and can determine intellectual and capital investment decisions (Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012). Moore and his colleagues found that administrative culture was in fact the third most important challenge to research capacity and productivity at HBCUs.…”

“…Such rewards typically include monetary supplements, plaques, tenure and/or promotion affirmations, promotional literature acknowledgements, and so forth. Moore et al (Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012; Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, Eugene-Cross, et al, 2012) recommended that HBCU administrators develop new and innovative mechanisms for providing monetary rewards to investigators in an effort to increase their research motivation and productivity levels.…”

“…The U.S. federal research agency (i.e., National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research [NIDRR], National Institutes of Health [NIH], Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-term Care Policy) sponsored investigators’ research performance in the field of disability, health, independent living, and rehabilitation serves as a vital factor in addressing the employment, participation and community living, and health and functioning needs of persons with disabilities (PWDs) from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic populations (i.e., African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans; Broussard, 2009; Epps & Guidry, 2009; Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012; Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, Eugene-Cross, et al, 2012). Research productivity is a performance measure used to assess disciplinary, investigator, and institutional prestige across the U.S.-based academic enterprise (Agarwal et al, 2013; Chen, Vaughn, Zanskas, & Kuo, 2014; McGill & Settle, 2012), which includes minority entities (MEs [i.e., historically Black colleges/universities or HBCUs, Hispanic serving institutions or HSIs, and American Indian tribal colleges/universities or AITCUs]).…”

“…ME-based investigators’ scholarly production is important and can yield answers to questions worthy of scientific inquiry, particularly those with cultural nuance. These investigators are uniquely qualified as research producers given their recognition of culture as a contextual central explanatory variable rather than a discrete variable that can only be manipulated and controlled (Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012; Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, Eugene-Cross, et al, 2012). Because R&D has been historically conducted by White investigators targeting primarily White research participants, the “gold standards” with regard to the research processes have tended to project incorrect assumptions about effectiveness when unquestionably transferred to racially and ethnically diverse groups (George, Duran, & Norris, 2014).…”