Research, Reputation, and Resources: The Effect of Research Activity on Perceptions of Undergraduate Education and Institutional Resource Acquisition.

Introduction Critics of higher education have suggested that the emphasis placed on performing academic research at major universities has created a consequent deterioration of undergraduate education. Even though the performance of academic research requires the allocation of faculty time and attention that might otherwise be directed toward undergraduate education, research activity also creates institutional benefits. For example, a graduate program whose faculty actively engage in research is likely to achieve a more favorable reputation than a lower producing program at another institution (Goldberger, Maher, & Flattau, 1995). A reputation for scholarly excellence can, in turn, result in an increased capacity to attract research funds and high ability graduate students to the program. Despite these and other potential benefits, many people feel that the disadvantages of an institutional commitment to research sometimes outweigh the advantages. The reputations of graduate programs at an institution and the reputation of undergraduate education have generally been examined independently of each other. As a result there is little direct evidence to indicate whether activities that enhance the reputation of one functional area may actually harm perceptions of another. This is no small matter. Studies (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 1995) indicate that the academic reputation of an institution's undergraduate educational program is the most important decision factor for prospective university students selecting a college to attend. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among reputations of undergraduate education, graduate programs, and doctoral education at research universities. Particular attention is given to the effect that increased research activity may have on attitudes toward an institution's undergraduate educational programs. Furthermore, a preliminary investigation is made of relationships among reputational ratings, the underlying attitudes they reflect, and an institution's ability to obtain needed resources from its environment. Past Research Measuring Undergraduate Educational Reputation Although a great deal of attention has been directed toward measuring the reputation of graduate programs at major universities (Cartter, 1966; Hughes, 1925; Hughes, 1934; Jones, Gardner, & Coggeshall, 1982; Roose & Andersen, 1970), fewer studies have examined reputation at the undergraduate level. In a broad-based study, Astin (1970; also, Astin & Lee, 1972) found that the "prestige" of an undergraduate educational program was largely a function of the institution's "quality" and to a lesser extent its "visibility. " He proposed that the mean SAT scores of entering freshmen at each institution was the single best measure of undergraduate educational quality, whereas institutional enrollment was the most important determinant of visibility. Thus, institutions with large enrollments and high average SAT scores for entering freshmen would have the greatest prestige. In a related study (Astin, 1985; Astin & Solomon, 1981; Solomon & Astin, 1981) faculty members in six liberal arts fields (biology, chemistry, economics, English, history and sociology) were asked to rate other undergraduate departments in their fields according to six criteria: overall quality of undergraduate education, scholarly and professional accomplishment of faculty, faculty commitment to undergraduate teaching, innovativeness of curriculum and pedagogy, preparation of students for graduate or professional school, and preparation of students for employment after college. Overall quality ratings among the six fields were highly intercorrelated. The most important characteristic of institutions that received high overall undergraduate educational quality ratings was that they were highly selective, that is, their entering freshmen had high average SAT scores. Institutional enrollment was also found to be significantly related to ratings of overall undergraduate departmental quality, but in a complex way. …