Other responses were provided only by 1862 respondents. Using emergent codes, these were identified and ranked by most frequently used code as follows. In many cases, wording is left as provided to avoid misunderstanding. Prioritization across many roles – difficulty setting priorities, faculty having too many responsibilities (i.e., teaching, etc.), need for greater attention to wood products and community and economic development
Community connection – growing community leadership, cross state/cross Land-grant programming, trust
Volunteers – finding volunteers, and continued recognition of the value and appreciation for the work of volunteers
Funding challenges –
• High in directs, difficulty of field staff to be PIs [principal investigators] on grant and/or administer them remotely under our institutional requirements
• Some areas of our work cannot be connected to a “pay to play” mentality
Evaluation methods – collective impact evaluation
Strategic plan, implementation
Historically strained relationship with legislators
Poor choices in recruiting and hiring for positions
Responses related to funding identified as other top challenges by 1862 Land-grant respondents in the initial question included:
Historical perspective, the effect of policy formation, the Land-grant university mission and type of institution and how the conversation is shaped because of these legislative decisions
Low salaries/wages - Retaining quality people with appropriate pay (i.e., we're losing good people who find better compensation elsewhere, exacerbating recruitment and training challenges)
Office and storage space
16
Powered by FlippingBook