Perceived Reputational and Administrative Capacity Biases & the Role of Carnegie Classifications in Funding Review Processes

Previous research on issues of social equity in funding distributions across institutions of higher education has pointed to reputation and administrative capacity biases in peer reviews of proposals, among other concerns. Further research is needed to identify what contributes to perceived biases and enables institutions to signal competitiveness to sponsors based on the principal-agent and resource dependency theories. For this study, a quantitative analysis was conducted on publicly available datasets to explore relationships among Carnegie Classification rankings, institutional control types, administrative capacities, and sponsored research and foundation funding levels. The study population included Carnegie Classifications of four-year institutions. Data sources included the Carnegie Classification 2018 Public Data Report, National Science Foundation's HERD FY2017 Survey, U.S. Department of Education's IPEDS 2016-2017 report, and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education's VSE FY2016-2017 report. Direct linear relationships were found between institutional rankings and administrative capacities and institutional funding levels. Further, funding source distributions differed by institutional control type. Increasing funding distributions to minority institutions and researchers will promote research development and improve social equity across funding mechanisms.