class 1 research university

• SSTI Conference

Search form

• What is TBED?
• TBED Community of Practice
• SSTI Digest
• Funding Supplement
• Awards Program
• Upcoming Webinars
• Webinar Library
• Federal Policy
• Membership Benefits
• Member List
• Join or Renew
• Member-only Documents
• SSBCI Resources

Most Popular

• AI-focused Manufacturing USA institute notice of funding opportunity now open
• Good Jobs Challenge $25M funding opportunity released
• NSF Convergence Accelerator program expansion is intended to enable more research to address regional problems
• SSTI updates key technology area investment data tool
• Site selection process for first three CHIPS R&D facilities revealed

Staff Picks

• U.S. Department of the Treasury Announces Up to $83 Million in American Rescue Plan Small Business Support to Drive Economic Growth for 125 Alaska Tribes | U.S. Department of the Treasury
• What is the Average Startup CEO Salary in 2024? | Kruze Consulting
• Workers with 4-year degrees will hold most good jobs in 2031, report predicts | Higher Ed Dive
• Six States Perform Around 90% of Semiconductor Business R&D, Led by California | NSF
• Federally Funded R&D Centers Report 13% Increase in R&D Spending in FY 2023 | NSF
• If AI Puts Everyone Out of Work, Is UBI the Solution? | Governing
• Surface air temperature for June 2024 | Copernicus
• Colleges offer AI degrees — could they give job seekers an edge?
• New SBIR website | America’s Seed Fund
• Stable but Slowing: State Revenues Start to Squeeze Policy Ambitions

You are here

Join your peers at SSTI's 2024 Annual Conference!

Join us December 10-12 in Arizona to connect with and learn from your peers working around the country to strengthen their regional innovation economies. Visit  ssticonference.org  for more information and to register today .

Become an SSTI Member

As the most comprehensive resource available for those involved in technology-based economic development, SSTI offers the services that are needed to help build tech-based economies.  Learn more about membership...

Subscribe to the SSTI Weekly Digest

Each week, the SSTI Weekly Digest delivers the latest breaking news and expert analysis of critical issues affecting the tech-based economic development community. Subscribe today!

2021 Carnegie Classifications of Higher Education Institutions released

In January, the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education released an updated 2021 classification list for universities. In this update, nine more universities have achieved the “Doctoral/Very High Research Activity” or “R1” category, the highest possible rank among research universities. Six additional universities were also added to the list following a six-week review period. To achieve the “R1” classification, a university must meet the following requirements : award at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees in the update year; spend at least $5 million in total research (as reported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research & Development Survey (HERD)); and, score high in a Research Activity Index calculation.

The Carnegie Classification list is updated every three years and provides a framework for administrators, policymakers, and researchers and impacts decisions on grant-making and federal and state funding for institutions. Overall, about 3,900 institutions were recognized in the 2021 classifications, down from 4,300 in 2018 and 4,600 in 2015. According to a press release from Indiana University — the current producer of the classification list — this appears to result from compressions in the higher education sector from mergers and closures.

More prominent research universities, like those classified as “R1” institutions, seem to be exempt from this compression. These “R1” institutions are the only division of the sector to show growth — by about 10 percent — in the number of classified institutions. 

The 15 additional universities that met the requirements and received their official “R1” classification status at the end of January, following six weeks of public review, are:

• Baylor University
• Colorado School of Mines
• Kent State University
• North Dakota State University
• Ohio University
• Old Dominion University
• The University of Alabama at Huntsville
• University of Denver
• University of Louisiana at Lafayette
• The University of Maine
• The University of Maryland-Baltimore County
• University of Memphis
• The University of Montana
• Utah State University
• University of Texas at San Antonio

Note: this story was updated Feb. 7 to reflect the final status.

Related articles

States moderate fy2025 higher ed support, some propose reforms.

This year’s legislative sessions saw a handful of governors and lawmakers proposing noteworthy reforms or other changes to their states’ institutions of higher education—from system overhauls to the expansion of tuition-free community college...

Read more »

Useful Stats: Undergraduate enrollment below pre-pandemic levels in 43 states, grad enrollment up in 33 states

Total postsecondary enrollment is down 5% from fall 2019 to fall 2023 due to a 6% drop in undergraduate students. While undergraduates are down, graduate students have surpassed pre-pandemic enrollment numbers by 4%. Enrollments in undergraduate and...

Useful Stats: 40+ year trends in postgraduate science, engineering, and health

The number of graduate students in science, engineering, and health has grown from approximately 328,000 to 760,000 from 1975 to 2021, a 132% increase, according to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Survey of Graduate Students and...

The State Science & Technology Institute (SSTI) is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving initiatives that support prosperity through science, technology, innovation and entrepreneurship.

• 614.901.1690
• Contact us by email
• Privacy Policy
• Member Benefits

Carnegie Classifications, College Tiers, and What They Mean

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, or as it is more commonly known, the Carnegie Classification, is a framework for categorizing all accredited, degree-granting institutions in the United States.

Key Takeaways

• Graduate degree programs in science and engineering, humanities, social science, STEM, business, education, public policy, and social work are all included in the Carnegie scale for development and research expenditures.
• Doctoral universities, master’s colleges and universities, baccalaureate colleges, baccalaureate/associate colleges, associate’s colleges, special emphasis institutions, and tribal colleges are the different types of institutions that Carnegie categorizes.
• The so-called research designations (R-1, R-2, and R-3) only apply to institutions that are desigated as doctorate universities. The highest research activity is denoted by R-1, higher research activity by R-2, and moderate research activity by R-3.

As you search for the right college or university, be sure that you understand the meaning of commonly used classifications such as Tier 1 Universities, R1 Universities, and Top Tier Universities. Commonly referred to as the Carnegie Classifications, these classifications are an indication of both prestige and commitment to research among colleges and universities. But what do these classifications mean, and what do they mean for you? What impact will these classifications have on your search for the right school? Read on to find out how the Carnegie Classifications can help you zero in on the right school.

What does Carnegie Classification mean?

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, or as it is more commonly known, the Carnegie Classification, is a framework for categorizing all accredited, degree-granting institutions in the United States. Originally formulated in 1970 by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and administered through the University of Indiana’s Center for Postsecondary Research since 2014, the Carnegie Classification is “the leading framework for recognizing and describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education.” (cite: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/)

Every three years, the Foundation classifies every institution listed in the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The institutions are first classified by type:

• doctoral universities (R)
• master’s degree colleges and universities (M)
• baccalaureate colleges
• baccalaureate/associate colleges
• associate’s colleges
• special focus institutions;
• and tribal colleges

These categories are fairly straightforward indicators based on the level of degree offered. Carnegie subsequently ranks these schools on separate tiers. Tiers are determined based on a quantitative formula that, for doctoral programs, measures the number of degrees conferred versus research dollars spent, and for master’s programs, measures the number of degrees conferred versus the size of the student body.

See below for a chart listing all of the Carnegie Classifications, as well as their defining criteria.

What are college tier rankings based on?

Research institutions are ranked based on three indicators:

• the number of research or practice doctorates awarded;
• the amount of money spent on research; and
• the number of research faculty.

This drives a formula for quantitative categorization that tells us how much money is raised and spent on research versus how many students and faculty the institution has.

What do these tiers mean to universities?

The Carnegie Classifications are very important to institutions, especially graduate schools with a focus on research. Colleges and universities care deeply about how they rank and make deliberate choices to improve and/or maintain their ranking. There is a lot of prestige that comes with a high ranking. For many colleges and universities, the Carnegie Classifications can contribute to reputation and standing in the academic community, and may figure prominently into the ability of schools to attract top students and faculty.

For instance, if Carnegie classifies a college or university as an R1 (or top-tier research institution), it is highly likely that this same institution will enjoy a high ranking from a noted college ranker such as U.S. News & World Report . In fact, most prominent college ranking services rely to some extent on the tiers dictated by the Carnegie Classification system.

Though unofficial, these tier-based labels are tied largely to each school’s investment in both research and faculty, and how favorably these investments match the size of a student body. These factors may correlate directly to an institution’s ability to attract top talent and generous endowments, and consequently, their capacity to leverage academic influence across a wide spectrum of disciplines.

What do Carnegie Classifications mean for students?

The Carnegie Classification won’t necessarily tell students which schools are best, and it really isn’t meant to. The Carnegie Classification is simply a system for categorization, intended to sort schools into categories by degree type and emphasis on research. In fact, while college ranking services will usually acknowledge the Carnegie Classifications, these tiers will be incorporated into a larger set of indicators before a service like U.S. News & World Report can arrive at a qualitative ranking.

Carnegie Classifications aren’t explicitly tied to the quality of education or the student experience. The Carnegie Classifications are not informed by student-focused metrics such as graduation rates, extracurriculars, after-graduation employment, student services, or campus facilities. In this regard, the Carnegie Classifications aren’t meant as a way to discern the overall quality of an institution.

Instead, the classifications are designed to group colleges and universities based on their research activities. For students and prospective students, Carnegie’s tiers offer basic groupings within which schools are comparable in terms of their size, research emphasis, and their student-to-faculty ratio.

This means that the Carnegie Classification may be one helpful starting point for students in search of the right school. It may be an especially good way to determine if your graduate school is more focused on research or teaching. Your preference for one experience or the other will play a major role in your grad school destination. The Carnegie Classification can help point you in the right direction.

From there, you must take into account the indicators that are most important from you, whether they relate to student experience, faculty influence, affordability, accessibility, geographical location, or the countless other factors that will enter into this important decision.

For help weighing these factors, find out what you should look for in a graduate school.

Or read on to learn more about the differences between teaching and research universities.

What About Carnegie Classifications?

Carnegie classifications have long been used to determine top-tier research universities. But despite all efforts, lots of academics noticed a great flaw in these rankings.

Rethinking Carnegie Classifications

While beneficial, the Carnegie classifications can also cause bigger problems in higher education. For example, universities tend to hire more staff and produce more doctorates than is necessary to shift from R-3 to R-2 or R-2 to R-1. This may cause a waste of taxpayer dollars.

From a pedagogical perspective, the high number of research doctorates awarded reduces spending on professoriate hiring and curriculum development per student. This will likely lead to low-quality education in humanities departments where student consumption drives the business model more than learning and teaching.

From an economic perspective, universities are creating an endowment market where they compete against each other to be the best at conferring these “research” initiatives while they build no productive infrastructure or faculty-hiring capacity within their institutions.

The Carnegie classifications are, unfortunately, based on aggregate numbers, which fail to account for the quality of scholarly research or actual faculty productivity. They do not account for the quantity of peer-reviewed papers published by department members, their worth, or their efficacy; instead, they measure aggregate amounts of people and investment.

Regardless of apparent faults, the Carnegie classifications are not at all useless today. Just that they are being misapplied and abused, which harms higher education as a whole economically.

In the past, the Carnegie classifications were used to identify the prestige of a university. However, these classifications have become less helpful for this purpose as research quality has risen dramatically over the years. At many universities today, experts are questioning the value of Carnegie classifications in determining the identity or quality of research performed at institutions.

In addition, the Carnegie classifications do not measure research activity. The Carnegie rankings are supposed to be a measure of the amount of research expenditure going on at each university. However, if a university spends money on R-1 and R-2 but does not yield research results, that would be a bad investment. It seems as though Carnegie may reward or penalize universities for spending more money on funding than actually producing results.

Research and Innovation

Search form.

• Research News
• Poster Session 2024
• Research Day
• Research On Tap
• Huron Migration Announcement
• Research Roadmap
• Reports and Statistics
• Proposals Dashboard
• Awards Dashboard
• Expenditures Dashboard
• Get started
• Student Research Events
• Engage with Research
• Search Opportunities
• Grants and Other Funding
• Get Published
• Sponsored Project Handbook
• Steps to Proposal Submission
• Request a Grants and Contracts Specialist
• Application Guides & Resources
• GRAMS Guide & Resources
• Proposal Submission FAQ
• Budget Basics & Cost Categories
• Fringe Benefits Rates
• Indirect Cost Rates
• Subrecipient vs Vendor Determination
• Data Management Planning
• Available College Resources
• No-Cost Extensions (NCE)
• Programmatic Reporting
• Effort Reporting
• Summer Salary / Salary Cap
• Budget Revisions
• Cost Transfer
• Allocation of Cost Guidelines
• Online PI Training
• Institutional Information
• IRB Protocol Submission
• IRB Forms and Templates
• Training and Education
• Multi-Institutional or Collaborative Research
• IRB Deadlines, Review, and Roster
• Human Subjects Research Determinations
• IRB Policies and Procedures
• External Resources
• Reporting a Concern
• Student Research Guidance
• Participant Compensation
• Human Subjects Recruitment
• IBC Protocol Submission
• IBC Forms and Templates
• Training determination table
• Meeting Dates & Deadline 2023
• References and Resources
• IACUC Protocol Submission
• IACUC Procedures
• IACUC Forms and Templates
• Occupational Health and Safety for Animal Workers
• Field Research
• Resources and Guidance
• Tissue Protocols
• Reporting Animal Welfare Concerns
• Submit a Conflict of Interest Disclosure
• PHS Investigators
• Department of Energy Interim COI Policy
• Conflict of Interest Information Requests
• Scope of Research Requiring Oversight Under Dual Use Research of Concern
• Categories of experiments
• Protocol Review Process
• Export Control
• Federal Research Regulations
• International Affiliations in Research
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
• International Visiting Scholars
• Countries of Concern
• Foreign Travel
• Foreign Talent Recruitment
• Cybersecurity
• Request a Contract
• Commercialization Process
• Technologies Available For Licensing
• Proposal Managers
• NSF Broader Impacts Review Process
• Partner with UNT Programs
• Additional External Broader Impacts Resources
• Hispanic Serving Institution Proposal Guidance
• Workshops & Information Sessions
• Research BREAKS
• Washington D.C. Fellows Program
• Research Development Resources
• Hispanic Serving Institution Funding Opportunities
• Limited Submissions Program
• External Funding Announcements
• Research Seed Grant
• Research and Creativity Awards
• DRI Conference Sponsorship
• Institutes of Research Excellence
• Instrumentation
• Sample Submission
• Targeted Metabolomics
• Untargeted Metabolomics
• 13C-Stable Isotope Labeling
• Macromolecules
• Policies and Guidelines
• Education and Resources
• About Genomics Center
• Services and Instrumentation
• Questions and Answers: RNAseq
• Designing Your Run
• UNT Greenhouse Core Research Facilities
• User Information
• Request Space
• Materials Research Facility
• Research Computing Services
• Center for Agile and Adaptive Additive Manufacturing (CAAAM)
• Outcome and Broader Impacts
• NSF - Participation Organizations
• Emerging Research Centers
• Center for Microelectronics in Extreme Environments (CMEE)
• Annual Report
• Research Magazine
• Research Radar
• Postdoctoral Affairs Program
• Student Research
• Research Councils and Committees
• Research Seminars

UNT Reaffirmed as Tier One Research University

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education ™ reaffirmed UNT’s standing as a Tier One Research University in its 2021 report, released Feb. 2. Only 146 universities nationwide are classified as “Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity,” which places UNT among the nation’s most elite, top-tier research institutions.

“UNT’s continued inclusion in Carnegie’s ‘very high research activity’ classification is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our faculty and staff as we’ve strengthened our research enterprise across the board the last several years,” says UNT President Neal Smatresk, noting that UNT was first included in the Carnegie rankings in 2015.

“We bolstered our research equipment and spaces, propelled an increasing number of our academic programs to national rankings, boosted enrollment at a time when others are lagging, and invested in our faculty and students — significantly growing our number of doctoral students and faculty in programs ranging from engineering to music,” Smatresk says. “This recognition by Carnegie is further evidence of our momentum in growing our research profile and our rise toward greater national prominence.”

The Carnegie Classification is a highly regarded framework for measuring universities’ research activity and graduate programs. The classifications are released every three years and are based on research, expenditures and doctoral degrees awarded. The 2021 rankings are based on fiscal years 2019 and 2020. This year’s pool of the top-tier universities was expanded slightly.

Committed to becoming — and then maintaining — its Tier One status, UNT has focused on continued progress toward excellence in research and reputation while ensuring its students receive a top-tier academic experience. 

In 2020, UNT was named one of only 18 Tier One research universities designated as a Hispanic-Serving and Minority-Serving Institution. Participating in the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities’ Aspire: National Alliance for Inclusive and Diverse STEM Faculty , UNT has been committed to developing faculty recruitment, hiring and retention practices specifically for underrepresented populations in STEM.

In addition to investing in its faculty and students, UNT invested heavily in its research infrastructure  — opening a Biomedical Engineering Building , renovating and expanding its Art Building , upgrading the Water Research Field Station and converting incubator space to wet labs at Inspire Park in Frisco. Additionally, a demonstration facility for autonomous vehicles was established at the new Center for Integrated Intelligent Mobility Systems , which also recently received funding for a netted test flight facility for unmanned aerial vehicles. UNT also partnered with the Texas Advanced Computing Facility to provide enhanced high-speed computing and cyberinfrastructure and expanded more core research facilities to faculty across campus.

During the 2021 Texas legislative session, UNT also received a Tuition Revenue Bond for $113.4 million to construct a new Science and Technology Research Building that will provide vital state-of-the-art space for faculty and student researchers. UNT also pulled in $20 million from the Texas Legislature over the last two sessions for its Center for Agile and Adaptive Additive Manufacturing (CAAAM) . This innovative center, which launched in 2019, works to transform manufacturing technologies to create market-based solutions involving fundamental science impacting everything from medical implants to next-generation drones and encouraging new industry and global collaborations for North Texas while ensuring a workforce of engineers trained to lead in this disruptive new technology space.

“This is a journey, and UNT is making steady progress toward our ultimate goal — set by the state of Texas — of becoming an institution of the same quality as the nation’s best research universities,” says Jennifer Cowley, UNT’s provost and vice president for academic affairs. “We are proudly building off our legacy and historic strengths. While Carnegie is one measure of our progress, we ultimately must look at the impact we make as a research university.”

UNT has a broad base of research and scholarship across 244 academic programs spanning disciplines from science and engineering to arts, education, business and political science. The university also consistently leads the region and ranks among the state’s top universities for the number of doctoral degrees it awards annually.

UNT has established programs to help faculty better compete for research funding opportunities and boasted a record-breaking $50 million in new contracts and grants awarded to its faculty researchers in the last year alone. 

“UNT has seen quite a transformation in the last few years,” says Mark McLellan, vice president for research and innovation. “Our faculty are continuing their efforts to push out new research proposals in record numbers. This past year, we saw a dramatic 17% increase in the value of proposals, propelling our research engine full steam ahead as evidenced by the 30% increase in our research expenditures.” 

UNT’s leaders recognize there is still more to do.

“Our momentum as a research university will continue as we expand our research space and build on our innovative programs,” Smatresk says. “Through high-level research and scholarship, Tier One universities drive innovation and contribute significantly to the region and state through intellectual capital and economic development. UNT is making an impact for our students but also our region, state and beyond.”

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation

Baylor University Earns Prestigious Research 1 Status from Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education

Media Contact: Lori Fogleman , Baylor University Media and Public Relations, 254-709-5959 Follow us on Twitter: @BaylorUMedia

WACO, Texas (Dec. 16, 2021) – Baylor University has been named a Research 1 university by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, joining the nation’s top-tier research institutions as a doctoral university with very high research activity and elevating Baylor as a preeminent Christian research university.

Baylor joins fellow Carnegie R1 institutions in Texas in UT-Austin, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UT-El Paso, UT-San Antonio, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, University of North Texas and fellow private institution Rice University.

“Our R1 aspirations have represented an incredible opportunity – one given to us by God – to do what very few, if any, universities have achieved: maintaining our foundational Christian mission while reaching R1 status as a top-tier research university,” Baylor President Linda A. Livingstone, Ph.D., said in her weekly Presidential Perspective email. “Through the dedicated work of our faculty and staff and our academic and research leadership, we have made remarkable progress since 2018 on our Illuminate strategic plan , which provided the framework to build on Baylor’s historic strengths and strategically invest in new areas of research and service.

“Through top-tier research, scholarship and external funding support, R1 universities – that now include Baylor University – bring their voice to bear in addressing our world’s most significant challenges. And as a Christian research university, Baylor infuses the quest for solutions, at the highest levels, with the University’s distinct Christian voice and mission,” President Livingstone said.

Carnegie reclassifies institutions every three years. R1 universities meet benchmarks across 10 indicators, including research expenditures, research doctorates awarded and number of research staff in science and engineering fields. The latest classification is under a six-week public review before becoming official by the end of January 2022.

In August 2019, Baylor University officially announced plans to pursue Research 1/Tier 1 (R1/T1) recognition by building on Illuminate , which launched in 2018 and accelerated the quest toward preeminence as a Christian research university. The University had anticipated reaching R1 status by 2024.

“This is a moment of exuberant joy for Baylor University. It has been a labor of love for so many people,” said Baylor Provost Nancy Brickhouse, Ph.D. “As we look ahead to the future, achieving R1 designation will make it easier for us to continue our growth in recruiting world class faculty, graduate and undergraduate students and to attract people who are serious about research and want to be at a place with a compelling Christian mission like Baylor. It’s to the glory of God that we do this, and we now get to double down further in pursuit of the impact we hope to have as a Christian research university.”

“This has truly been a collective effort to achieve R1 designation — many people over many years have played a role in seeing this through,” said Baylor Vice Provost for Research Kevin Chambliss, Ph.D. “Our administration, faculty, staff, deans and more have rallied around this vision and done the work to make it happen. It’s an incredible time to be here at Baylor University, and we’re poised even more definitively for growth in the years ahead because of all that has been implemented to make R1 recognition a reality.”

The Illuminate strategic plan is built upon the foundation of Four Pillars, where Baylor will be a community recognized for its:

• Unambiguously Christian Educational Environment
• Transformational Undergraduate Education
• Research and Scholarship Marked by Quality, Impact, and Visibility
• Nationally Recognized Programs in Human Performance through the Arts and Athletics

“As we have traversed this journey to R1, our commitment to excellence university-wide has grown even stronger,” President Livingstone said. “That commitment remains evident in our transformational undergraduate education, in providing impactful services to students that support them academically, spiritually, personally and in their future careers, and in achieving at the highest levels of human performance in the arts and athletics as we prepare students for worldwide leadership and service.”

In July, Drs. Brickhouse and Chambliss updated the Baylor Board of Regents on the significant progress on Illuminate and R1 goals, including:

• Increased research doctorates from 110 in 2016-2017 to 167 in 2020-2021;
• Growth in research expenditures from $29.4 million in 2017 to $47 million in 2021, with external research expenditures currently growing at 28%;
• Increased awarded research dollars from around $11 million in 2017 to more than $27 million so far in 2021; and
• Increased research staff (STEM, social sciences and health) from 47 in fall 2016 to 68 in fall 2020.

Additional R1-related progress over the past year included:

• Procuring a $43.4 million research grant for the Global Flourishing Study, the largest single funded research project in Baylor history and  the largest initiative of its kind to investigate the factors that influence human flourishing (Baylor, Harvard, Gallup and Center for Open Science);
• Four professors winning highly competitive National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER grants in 2020, the most ever in a single year at Baylor;
• Welcoming two endowed faculty chairs in the School of Engineering and Computer Science to provide leadership to Illuminate 's data sciences and material science initiatives: Henry Han, Ph.D. , The McCollum Family Chair in Data Sciences, and Alan X. Wang, Ph.D. , The Mearse Chair in Biological and Biomedical Engineering; and
• Completing the transformational Baylor Academic Challenge, now known as the Foster Academic Challenge , a dollar-for-dollar matching program that generated significant support from alumni and donors to establish 14 new endowed faculty chairs and significantly advance the aspirations of Illuminate .

In November, the Baylor Board of Regents affirmed the framework for the next five years of Illuminate , including hiring 100 new faculty over this time, further accelerating the University’s academic enterprise.

“I want to personally thank our Board of Regents, who supported Baylor’s institutional aspirations with the approval of Illuminate four years ago and for their most recent reaffirmation of our R1 goals through Illuminate Forward for 2022-27. I am also deeply appreciative of the ongoing support of the Baylor Family through our Give Light campaign on behalf of our faculty, students and campus overall,” President Livingstone said.

For additional information about Baylor Research, visit www.baylor.edu/research.

ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked Research 1 institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 20,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions.

ABOUT THE CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION®

The Carnegie Classification® has been the leading framework for recognizing and describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education for the past four and a half decades. Starting in 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification of colleges and universities to support its program of research and policy analysis. Derived from empirical data on colleges and universities, the Carnegie Classification was originally published in 1973, and subsequently updated in 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2021 to reflect changes among colleges and universities. This framework has been widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty.

Media and Public Relations

Baylor University One Bear Place #97024 Waco, TX 76798

• General Information
• Academics & Research
• Administration
• Gateways for ...
• About Baylor
• Give to Baylor
• Social Media
• Strategic Plan
• College of Arts & Sciences
• Diana R. Garland School of Social Work
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary
• Graduate School
• Hankamer School of Business
• Honors College
• Louise Herrington School of Nursing
• Research at Baylor University
• Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences
• School of Education
• School of Engineering & Computer Science
• School of Music
• University Libraries, Museums, and the Press
• More Academics
• Compliance, Risk and Safety
• Human Resources
• Marketing and Communications
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Operations, Finance & Administration
• Senior Administration
• Student Life
• University Advancement
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Baylor Law School Admissions
• Social Work Graduate Programs
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary Admissions
• Online Graduate Professional Education
• Virtual Tour
• Visit Campus
• Alumni & Friends
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• Anonymous Reporting
• Annual Fire Safety and Security Notice
• Cost of Attendance
• Digital Privacy
• Legal Disclosures
• Mental Health Resources
• Web Accessibility

More From Forbes

Movin’ on up: nine universities climb to highest carnegie classification in 2021.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Kent State University is one of nine universities moving up to a Carnegie R1 classification in 2021.

Nine more universities have achieved the highest category of research universities in this year’s updated classification of higher education institutions by the  Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education .

The new classification was released earlier this month; it’s now subject to a six-week review and comment period that extends through the end of January, after which the classifications become official.

The highest - and most coveted - rank is the “Doctoral/Very High Research Activity,” category, often referred to simply as “R1” institutions. That ranking is reserved for universities that:

• awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees during the update year;
• had at least $5 million in total research expenditures, as reported through the National Science Foundation Higher Education Research & Development Survey;
• scored highly on two indices of research activity - the aggregate level of research activity, and per-capita research activity using research expenditure and research staffing measures divided by the number of full-time faculty within the assistant, associate, and full professor ranks.

In 2021, 137 institutions have R1 status. The nine universities climbing to the top rank this year are:

• Baylor University
• Kent State University
• North Dakota State University
• Old Dominion University
• University of Denver
• University of Louisiana at Lafayette
• University of Memphis
• Utah State University
• University of Texas at San Antonio

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

The Carnegie Classification was initiated in 1973 by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. It’s now produced by the  Center for Postsecondary Research  at Indiana University (IU), which describes it as “the main system for describing the diversity of U.S. colleges and universities.” According to an IU news release , “the tool is used by researchers, policymakers and administrators, as well as for informing grant-making and federal and state funding of institutions.”

This year will be the final time the classification is conducted by the IU center. It will be moving to Albion College in Michigan, which already conducts the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, a system that designates the extent of community engagement by higher ed institutions.

The Carnegie Classification serves as the basis for the different categories of schools referred to in annual college rankings such as that compiled by U.S. News & World Report . It also categorizes institutions by undergraduate and graduate instructional programs, enrollment profile, undergraduate profile, size and setting.

Classification updates are completed every three years. In the 2018, the number of institutions that were classified declined from 4,600 to 4,300. The 2021 update classified just under 3,900 institutions.

"We've seen a contraction mostly through a combination of closures and mergers," said Project Director Victor Borden, who is also a professor of higher education and student affairs in the IU School of Education.

Attaining R1 status is frequently a stretch goal for institutions that don’t have it, and it’s a very unwelcome outcome for those who lose it, like Brandeis University, New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute were initially slated to do in this latest update, However, after some updating of information by those institutions, their reclassifications were reversed and they remained in the R1 category.

Strategic plans are often written with the aim of climbing up the classification ladder. Institutional budgets are drafted, facilities are built, academic programs are started, and new faculty are hired - all with an eye toward making it more likely that an R1 classification can be reached.

As might be expected, the new R1 institutions have trumpeted their achievements in the past few days. Baylor University set a goal in 2019 to reach R1 status by 2024. Commenting on the significance of reaching the goal ahead of schedule, Baylor President Linda Livingstone called it “just a tremendous accomplishment for Baylor for so many reasons.”

Utah State President Noelle E. Cockett claimed , “to achieve this top-tier designation has been years in the making and now sets our university apart as a premier research institution in the nation.”

And at the University of Memphis, President David Rudd was effusive, calling the news a “truly remarkable accomplishment that will stand forever as a moment of great significance in the history of our wonderful University.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

UMBC ascends to the nation’s highest level as a research university

Published: Feb 2, 2022

By: Dinah Winnick

UMBC has officially reached the nation’s highest level of research performance. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education today announced that UMBC has been placed into the category of doctoral universities with very high research activity , popularly known as Research 1 (or R1). UMBC is now ranked as one of only 146 R1 institutions nationally, including 107 public and 39 private universities.

“This is an amazing accomplishment by faculty, staff, and administrative leaders who have built a research culture that nurtures undergraduate and graduate students,” says President Freeman Hrabowski. “This milestone reflects our commitment to excellence across the disciplines, from the humanities to the sciences.”

Carnegie’s research activity index is based on many factors, including productivity in research and creative achievement, graduate education, and research expenditures across a broad range of fields. The university’s classification as an R1 university with comprehensive doctoral programs reflects the strength and diversity of UMBC’s research portfolio.

Reputation for research

UMBC’s research enterprise has grown steadily over the course of decades, ascending to new heights in recent years. Faculty secured more than $200M in new research awards in 2021 alone. 

“This historic moment for our campus is an outcome of long-term strategic priorities and investments in the research and creative achievement community at UMBC—people, facilities, and programs,” says Karl Steiner , vice president for research. “It is essential to recognize that this reflects the work of our entire campus community, including engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. UMBC faculty from all fields successfully compete for research funding and national recognition at the highest level.”

Recent examples of high-impact research awards abound.

Yonathan Zohar , professor and chair of marine biotechnology, leads a new $10 million award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to advance large-scale, sustainable land-based aquaculture —raising fish on land. This work has particular resonance at a time of global supply chain issues and sustainability concerns.

Kimberly Moffitt , interim dean of UMBC’s College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, is leading a partnership with Morgan State University and the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD) focused on developing a pipeline to higher ed leadership for arts and humanities scholars , particularly faculty from underrepresented groups. Patrice McDermott , vice provost for faculty affairs, is joining Moffitt in leading UMBC’s implementation of the project, supported through $3 million from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

UMBC is also partnering with the UMD and the DEVCOM Army Research Lab (ARL) on a $68-million, five-year endeavor, funded by ARL, to strengthen the U.S. Army’s artificial intelligence technology . UMBC’s work on the project is led by Aryya Gangopadhyay , professor of information systems.

Among UMBC’s many interdisciplinary research initiatives is a new $72 million NASA award , with UMBC leading a national consortium supporting over 120 researchers.

An expansive mission

This new classification reflects UMBC’s reputation as a leader both in research and education. While these two areas are regarded by some universities as separate or even competing components of their institutional mission, at UMBC they are inextricably linked. Both graduate and undergraduate research contribute to the campus’s overall research endeavor, and UMBC sees the research experience as a critical component of undergraduate and graduate education.

Janet C. Rutledge , vice provost and dean of the Graduate School, firmly believes that intellectual breadth has been key to UMBC’s success. “The strength of our Ph.D. programs across all disciplines contributed both to our R1 classification and our graduate program portfolio being recognized as comprehensive,” she says.

Provost Philip Rous shares that the R1 designation “recognizes our commitment to our shared values, strategic priorities, and our mission as a public research university. This includes advancing research and creative achievement across disciplines and inter-disciplines, community-engaged scholarship, high-quality graduate education, and the authentic engagement of our undergraduate students in advancing knowledge.”

Prioritizing students and research impact

This research designation comes on the heels of UMBC’s joining the University Innovation Alliance , a consortium of public research universities focused on student success, and receiving the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification in recognition of a deep commitment to strengthening the bonds between campus and community. UMBC’s U.S. News rankings also recognize the university for national leadership in both innovation and teaching .

Maryland is fortunate also to be home to R1 universities UMD and Johns Hopkins University, as well as the specialized research powerhouse, the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The Carnegie Classification also recognizes both the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, and Morgan State University as high research activity (R2) institutions. UMBC has established partnerships with each of these universities, as well as numerous others nationwide. 

Shares President Hrabowski, “Now that we have reached this milestone, I encourage our community to pause and savor this moment. I look forward to seeing what UMBC achieves in the next chapter.”

Featured image: Members of the Race and Social Justice CoLab student research group in summer 2018, with Frank Anderson, LLC PhD candidate and then-associate director of the Shriver Center’s Choice Program (center foreground), and Lee Boot, research associate professor and director of the Imaging Research Center (right). All photos by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC.

Tags: majoraward , Rankings , Research

Related Posts

• Science & Tech

27th Summer Undergraduate Research Fest prepares students for scholarly next steps

• Class of 2024
• Policy & Society

Peter Wilschke ’24, political science and economics, celebrates national research accomplishments

Academic Minute: Centering the voices of Black farmers

Want more umbc news, get top stories delivered to your inbox..

Sign up for our weekly UMBC Top Stories email :

Share a story idea and learn more about the news team.

Search UMBC Search

• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Equal Opportunity
• Privacy PDF Download
• Web Accessibility

Search UMBC.edu

A Tier One Research University

UTSA and the Carnegie R1 Classification

Be a part of our research success

UTSA is designated as a Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education R1 Research university, which places us among the top 4% of research universities in the nation.

What it means to be Top Tier

Every five years, Carnegie announces the names of a limited number of universities nationwide that have demonstrated substantial progress in their research efforts. The criteria for reaching the R1 classification include measures such as research spending, staff levels and the number of doctorates awarded by an institution.

R1 universities have a greater ability to attract world-class faculty members and talented undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.

The Carnegie R1 designation is synonymous with academic and research excellence Ambika Mathur, Vice Provost of Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School

Solving grand challenges

UTSA's researchers are tackling the challenges that impact our daily lives, from Alzheimer’s to cyber privacy.  R1 universities attract  new businesses ,  research dollars ,  world-class faculty members   and the   talented students  who want to learn from them, resulting in more discoveries to help you and the ones you love.

About UTSA's groundbreaking research

UTSA's researchers are tackling the challenges that impact our daily lives, from Alzheimer’s to cyber privacy. R1 universities attract new businesses ,  research dollars , world-class faculty members and the talented students  who want to learn from them, resulting in more discoveries to help you and the ones you love.

About our groundbreaking research at UTSA

Top Tier sets UTSA apart

Holding R1 status is part of UTSA's rapid trajectory as a premier public research university and a driver of economic opportunity and social mobility for Texas. UTSA is in the company of Texas's top research institutions as well as those across the nation. The designation elevates UTSA’s distinctiveness, making us:

universities designated as both Hispanic Serving Institutions & Top Tier for research

Tier One universities to hold three National Centers of Academic Excellence

Tier One universities to have the Seal of Excelencia for Latino student success

Carnegie R1 is a historic waypoint on our trajectory to transform UTSA into one of the nation’s great public research universities. Taylor Eighmy, UTSA President

Looking to the Future

Our R1 designation is a significant milestone in UTSA’s vision to be a model for student success and great public research university. To build on this recognition, UTSA is continuing to grow its annual research expenditures, expand its pipeline of doctoral students, garner national recognition for its researchers and adding National Academy members to its faculty.

What Tier One means for you

San antonio community.

• Increases local talent. Attracts the world's brightest minds to study, work and live in San Antonio, including local students who can pursue a degree from one of the top research universities in the nation without leaving home.
• Boosts economic development. Brings new talent and business to Texas, diversifying our economy and helping to drive the state’s economic development.

Partners (Research & Higher Ed)

• Opens new collaborative opportunities. Our new designation can help facilitate research collaborations, joint funding applications and research exchanges.
• Increases partnership investment value. The R1 designation serves as an additional endorsement of the high caliber of research produced at the university.

UTSA Students, Alumni & Faculty

• Improves your degree value. Your UTSA degree is seen as more valuable to prospective employers and graduate schools.
• Sets you apart professionally. Your affiliation with an R1 university enhances your professional reputation and puts you in touch with the most recent trends in your field.
• Elevates your scholarly stature. For faculty and graduate students, R1 affiliation recognizes your role in advancing knowledge, contributing to your discipline and creating impactful solutions.

• Campus LIfe
• R1 Research
• Rebels Make it Happen
• Directories

Quick Links

• Directories Home
• Colleges, Schools, and Departments
• Administrative Units
• Research Centers and Institutes
• Resources and Services
• Employee Directory
• Contact UNLV
• Social Media Directory
• UNLV Mobile Apps

UNLV: A Top-Tier R1 Research University

UNLV has been recognized as one of the top research universities in the U.S. by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

"Research is central to our success as a university and to our ability to make real and lasting contributions to our state and regional economy." UNLV President Keith E. Whitfield.

The R1 Research Designation

What is an r1 university.

R1 is the gold standard for university research classifications. The R1 designation signifies “very high research activity” and it is the highest possible tier a doctoral research university can achieve in the Carnegie Classification, the leading framework for classifying the research activities of U.S. universities.

Why is UNLV one of the top research universities in the U.S.?

UNLV first reached R1 classification in 2018. Our research has captured international headlines. Mechanical Engineering Professor H. Jeremy Cho and his research team, through a process called atmospheric water harvesting , are studying ways to capture water vapor from the air to transform it into drinkable water; and our geoscientists identified the first-ever mineral from Earth’s lower mantle. We are also graduating more students with doctoral degrees, and bolstering the number of non-faculty researchers in sciences and health.

Learn About Our Latest Research

Research Resources

"Starting out, I solely focused on my classes…until I discovered undergraduate research opportunities right here at UNLV and joined the Rebel Research and Mentorship Program. Through this program, I was partnered with a graduate student who taught me the research process and showed me how interconnected various disciplines are." Allyssa Chua, political science and anthropology major

Interdisciplinary Research at UNLV

Innovative solutions can be found when groups of researchers from diverse disciplines and backgrounds approach complex problems together. UNLV fosters interdisciplinary collaborations through thoughtfully designed dedicated facilities, specialized centers and institutes, and other resources it provides.

This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy .

"R1" Research Institutions

"Ivy Plus" Institutions. The eight traditional "Ivy League" institutions (plus four others.)

Institutions listed as R1 in the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Learning.

Institutions listed as R2 in the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Learning.

The following institutions are listed as R1 in the Carnegie Classification * of Institutions of Higher Education:

** indicates institution also has "Ivy Plus" designation.

Arizona State University Campus Immersion Auburn University Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College Boston University Brandeis University Brown University** California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Clemson University Colorado School of Mines Colorado State University-Fort Collins Columbia University in the City of New York** Cornell University** CUNY Graduate School and University Center Dartmouth College** Drexel University Duke University** Emory University Florida International University Florida State University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus Georgia State University Harvard University** Indiana University-Bloomington Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Kent State University at Kent Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Massachusetts Institute of Technology** Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University New Jersey Institute of Technology New York University North Carolina State University at Raleigh North Dakota State University-Main Campus Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University-Main Campus Ohio University-Main Campus Oklahoma State University-Main Campus Old Dominion University Oregon State University Princeton University** Purdue University-Main Campus Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rutgers University-New Brunswick Stanford University** Stony Brook University SUNY at Albany Syracuse University Temple University Texas A & M University-College Station Texas Tech University The Pennsylvania State University The University of Alabama The University of Montana The University of Tennessee-Knoxville The University of Texas at Arlington The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Dallas The University of Texas at El Paso The University of Texas at San Antonio Tufts University Tulane University of Louisiana University at Buffalo University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Alabama in Huntsville University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of California-Berkeley University of California-Davis University of California-Irvine University of California-Los Angeles University of California-Riverside University of California-San Diego University of California-Santa Barbara University of California-Santa Cruz University of Central Florida University of Chicago** University of Cincinnati-Main Campus University of Colorado Boulder University of Colorado Denver/Anschutz Medical Campus University of Connecticut University of Delaware University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Houston University of Illinois Chicago University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Louisiana at Lafayette University of Louisville University of Maine University of Maryland-Baltimore County University of Maryland-College Park University of Massachusetts-Amherst University of Memphis University of Miami University of Michigan-Ann Arbor University of Minnesota-Twin Cities University of Mississippi University of Missouri-Columbia University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Nevada-Las Vegas University of Nevada-Reno University of New Hampshire-Main Campus University of New Mexico-Main Campus University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania** University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus University of Rochester University of South Carolina-Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Southern Mississippi University of Utah University of Virginia-Main Campus University of Washington-Seattle Campus University of Wisconsin-Madison University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington State University Washington University in St Louis Wayne State University West Virginia University Yale University**

[Back to Top of Page]

*The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. For more information, see https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/ .

2023 Best National Research Uni­ver­si­ties Top 50 Consensus Ranked National Research Uni­ver­si­ties for 2023

Ready to start your journey.

Get a personalized list of degree programs that fit your needs.

Students who want a place at one of the best research universities are in the right place with College Consensus. With the Top Consensus Ranked National Research Universities for 2023, College Consensus brings prospective college students all they need to know about the best research universities nationwide. For future professionals, researchers, scientists, and scholars, College Consensus gathers data from national and international ranking agencies and verified student reviews for a complete view of their educational options.

How Did We Rank the Best Research Universities?

College Consensus rankings combine the results of the most respected college ranking systems with the averaged ratings of thousands of real student reviews from around the web to create a unique college meta-ranking. This approach offers a comprehensive and holistic perspective missing from other college rankings. Visit our about page for information on which rankings and review sites were included in this year’s consensus rankings.

The National Research Universities category is limited to schools with a national or international reach offering a broad range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral-level programs and a demonstrated commitment to research. These are schools designated Doctoral Universities by the Carnegie Classification.

The top research universities include some of the most prestigious and world-renowned names in higher education. We define national research universities as institutions that draw a student body from across the US and world, rather than a primarily regional population. These are universities that are classified by the Carnegie Foundation as research universities: R1 (Highest Research Activity), R2 (Higher Research Activity), or R3 (Moderate Research Activity). These designations include well over 300 universities nationwide. National research universities are dedicated not only to teaching, but on creating new knowledge through scientific, social scientific, and humanities research.

Recommended Online Colleges & Universities

Explore our featured online programs to find the right match for you today.

What’s Different About the College Consensus Ranking?

The difference between College Consensus and other ranking sites is the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and your favorite movie reviewer. College Consensus is comprehensive. It’s not just one voice stating an opinion – it’s many, many voices, computed objectively and equally. Students who are actually there day to day have as much say about their college as experts who have never visited. And all of those perspectives mean an even playing field for every college and university, from the richest and best-known university to the smallest and hardest-working regional college.

This ranking focuses on the best nationally-recognized, major research universities. For students who are interested in the more traditional atmosphere of a small college, College Consensus has also ranked the Best National Liberal Arts Colleges . For the full, comprehensive ranking of all American colleges and universities, regardless of size or class, see the Best Colleges and Universities . For online schools, see the Best Online Colleges & Universities .

The Top Consensus Ranked National Research Universities are listed in descending order by their Consensus score. In the event of ties, schools are ranked in alphabetical order with the same rank number.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA

Stanford university stanford, ca, yale university new haven, ct, princeton university princeton, nj, harvard university cambridge, ma, vanderbilt university nashville, tn, cornell university ithaca, ny, dartmouth college hanover, nh, brown university providence, ri, university of notre dame notre dame, in, recommended online colleges & universities.

Visit sites to learn more about enrollment, tuition, and aid

Duke University Durham, NC

Rice university houston, tx, university of pennsylvania philadelphia, pa, university of california-los angeles los angeles, ca, california institute of technology pasadena, ca, columbia university in the city of new york new york, ny, washington university in st louis saint louis, mo, university of california-berkeley berkeley, ca, university of chicago chicago, il, university of michigan-ann arbor ann arbor, mi, northwestern university evanston, il, university of north carolina at chapel hill chapel hill, nc, university of southern california los angeles, ca, university of california-davis davis, ca, georgetown university washington, dc, university of virginia-main campus charlottesville, va, university of florida gainesville, fl, johns hopkins university baltimore, md, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pa, emory university atlanta, ga, university of wisconsin-madison madison, wi, university of illinois urbana-champaign champaign, il, georgia institute of technology-main campus atlanta, ga, university of california-san diego la jolla, ca, wake forest university winston-salem, nc, university of california-irvine irvine, ca, university of washington-seattle campus seattle, wa, university of california-santa barbara santa barbara, ca, boston college chestnut hill, ma, the university of texas at austin austin, tx, tufts university medford, ma, virginia polytechnic institute and state university blacksburg, va, lehigh university bethlehem, pa, new york university new york, ny, purdue university-main campus west lafayette, in, brigham young university provo, ut, william & mary williamsburg, va, texas a & m university-college station college station, tx, tulane university of louisiana new orleans, la, university of maryland-college park college park, md.

Why choose a research university? The best research universities offer opportunities for students to engage with faculty who are expanding their fields. Because professors are making new breakthroughs all the time, the learning environment is charged with excitement and students are able to learn about the latest studies before the results make it into their textbooks.

In addition, attending a research university often affords students opportunities they would not have at other schools. For example, they may have access to internships and have opportunities to do research with experts in their fields. They may even be invited to networking events with well-known professors, which could introduce them to valuable contacts and mentors.

What Makes a University a Research University?

So what is the difference between a research university vs. a teaching university? A focus on research is what makes a university a research university. The definition of a research university is a university that is committed to furthering our collective body of knowledge through research. 

Unlike teaching universities, which put teaching above everything else, research universities place a higher importance on research. This does not mean that the teaching at a research university is sub-par, however. At the best research universities, professors who are excited about their research often carry their enthusiasm into the classroom. They ignite passion in their students by sharing the results of their research with their classes.

If you’re looking for the best research universities, look through our research university rankings. We have carefully considered each school’s strengths and weaknesses and compiled a list of the top research universities in the country. Our research university rankings will help you choose the right university for you.

What is the Relationship Between Government Funding and Research Universities?

Government funding to universities is currently around 60% of the total R&D budget. This is down from a high of 73% in the late 1960s. However, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount has actually increased from around $8 billion per year to over $30 billion in spite of the lower percentage. This indicates that, adjusted for inflation, R&D budgets at research universities have grown over the past few decades.

Still, federal research grants to universities account for over half of the R&D funding for these schools. However, since federal funding covers less of the costs than it has in the past, schools have had to cover a larger share of their R&D budgets themselves. The percentage paid by the schools was less than 10% in the late 60s, but has risen to more than 20% today.

Since government funding to universities now covers a smaller percentage of research costs, many universities have responded by charging higher tuition and fees to make up the difference. However, public outcry against the burgeoning student debt crisis is forcing research universities to come up with an alternative way to make up for the reduced federal research grants to universities.

Many research universities have come up with new ways to gain additional funding or reduce expenses. These include partnerships with corporations and cooperative agreements with other schools that allow for expanded research efforts at all of the partner schools. Some schools are also engaging in their own development projects in order to raise additional funding.

Top Research Universities by Funding

Looking at the top research universities by funding, Johns Hopkins University receives more than twice as much federal funding as the #2 school. Around $2 billion of Johns Hopkins’s $2.3 billion R&D budget comes from the federal government. The school is followed by the University of Washington in 2nd place ($960.6 million), the University of Michigan in 3rd ($756.1 million), Stanford University in 4th ($679.6 million), and the University of California, San Diego in 5th ($643.0 million).

Are Research Universities Only for STEM Majors?

Although the best undergraduate research universities include the best science colleges in the world, research universities are not just for STEM majors . In fact, a recent study by Drexel University found that non-STEM students are just as likely to benefit from undergrad research experiences as STEM students.

The results were based on a survey of students who participated in the STAR (Students Tackling Advanced Research) program at Drexel University, one of the best science colleges in the world. Students indicated that they felt that the research benefited them in all areas of study, not just in STEM subject areas.

Some of the benefits students reported included improvements in their ability to work independently, feeling more comfortable discussing concepts or explaining projects to people outside of their fields, and gaining hands-on experience that they feel will help enhance their resumes.

At the best research universities, students have plenty of opportunities to participate in research. Regardless of major, being involved in a research project increases the chances that the student will remain in the program and eventually graduate. This effect is stronger when the research is conducted earlier in the program.

Calculate for all schools

Your chance of acceptance, your chancing factors, extracurriculars, what is an r1 research university and why does it matter.

Hi everyone! While looking into colleges, I've come across the term 'R1 research university.' I'm confused about what it means and why it would be significant in my college search. Could anyone please provide an explanation? I'm looking to major in economics, so I'm curious if attending an R1 university would benefit me in any way. Thanks!

Hello! An 'R1 research university' is a classification given to universities in the United States that engage in the highest levels of research activity, as determined by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. These universities typically have a large number of research-focused faculty and a significant amount of funding dedicated to supporting research projects across various disciplines.

For an economics major, attending an R1 university can certainly have its benefits, particularly if you're interested in engaging in research as an undergraduate student or plan to pursue graduate studies in the field. These universities often offer a wide variety of research opportunities, including access to faculty who are experts in their fields, well-funded research centers, and strong connections to relevant industries. Additionally, R1 universities are usually well-regarded by employers and graduate programs, which can help create a strong foundation for your future academic or professional pursuits. Good luck with your college search!

About CollegeVine’s Expert FAQ

CollegeVine’s Q&A seeks to offer informed perspectives on commonly asked admissions questions. Every answer is refined and validated by our team of admissions experts to ensure it resonates with trusted knowledge in the field.

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

Wharton Stories

The advantage of choosing a research-intensive university.

The research resources available to doctoral students makes a big difference. Here’s what R1, R2, and R3 Carnegie Classifications mean.

You may have seen R1, R2, and R3 classifications come up in your search for doctoral programs. But what do they mean?

Every five years the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education releases classifications for more than 4,500 universities. Doctoral universities are assigned to one of three categories based on a measure of research activity: R1, R2, and R3.

Institutions that awarded at least 20 research and/or scholarship doctoral degrees during the updated year are included in the report. However, universities that awarded professional practice doctoral-level degrees, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc. are not included.

R1 doctoral universities are considered to have the “highest research activity.” R2 universities are considered to have “higher research activity.” Finally, R3 schools have “moderate research.”

Kevin Kinser, an associate professor of educational administration and policy studies at the State University of New York at Albany, also serves on the advisory board of the Carnegie initiative. He told The Washington Post that for many, R1 is considered “sort of the pinnacle of higher education — a shorthand for institutions to identify themselves.”

What Differentiates an R1 School

One of the nation’s top research universities, the University of Pennsylvania has an R1 classification. Penn’s wide breadth of resources facilitate scholarship and collaboration for students and faculty that cross interdisciplinary lines.

Wharton alone has more than 20 research centers and initiatives, and our professors are among the most published faculty of any business school. Many of our doctoral candidates say they came to Wharton for the resources to do groundbreaking research.

Here are just two examples of resources our students use the most:

Wharton Research Data Services (WRDS)

This award-winning research platform and business intelligence tool for over 49,000 corporate, academic, government and nonprofit users at over 400 institutions and more than 30 countries. WRDS is the global gold standard in data management and research.

Prof. Cathy Schrand , Vice Dean of Wharton Doctoral Programs, said, “The fact that the people who create the data are here is super important. I’ve had early access to data before it even becomes available to other subscribers. Universities all over the world have subscriptions to WRDS and to certain elements of it, but we have access to all of it and it’s here on site which does provide an advantage.” Read more about WRDS.

Wharton Behavioral Lab (WBL)

This lab provides a variety of services that support data collection for behavioral research on business-related topics. The primary goal is to enhance the research productivity of Wharton faculty by minimizing the operational costs, both time and money, of conducting research. With the WBL, doctoral students can gather original data through lab experiments and panels, instead of using secondary data created by others. Each year, the lab collects about 23,000 subject hours of data.

Research from WBL can consistently be found in relevant publications such as the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, and the Journal of Business Ethics. As of April 2016, there were 18 articles published in various publications from WBL. In 2015, there were 21 published reports. Read more about WBL.

Posted: August 4, 2017

• Admissions and Applying

Doctoral Programs

How the classifications are determined.

First started in 1973, the list evaluates colleges and universities using a specific set of criteria. In 2014, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching transferred responsibility for the project to IU Bloomington’s Center for Postsecondary Research in the IU School of Education.

They determine the research tier a university falls into based on a scale, which includes:

• research & development (R&D) expenditures in science and engineering;
• R&D expenditures in non-S&E fields;
• S&E research staff (postdoctoral appointees and other non-faculty research staff with doctorates);
• doctoral conferrals in humanities fields, in social science fields, in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, and in other fields (e.g., business, education, public policy, social work).

According to the classification website, “These data were statistically combined using principal components analysis to create two indices of research activity reflecting the total variation across these measures (based on the first principal component in each analysis).”

Related Content

This PhD Student Found the Resources and Expertise at Wharton to Conduct Groundbreaking Research

Why This PhD Student Thinks Wharton Is the “Perfect” Place to Do Research

Building Community and Connection with Women in Business Academia

Meet Seven New Members of Incoming MBA Class of 2026

In Honor of Deaf Awareness Month, Meet the Pioneering Sheila Xu

Wharton Climate Prof Tackles Greenwashing and More

How I Launched a Startup During the EMBA Program

Applying a Legal Lens to Impact Investing

Honoring Veteran Students in the Wharton MBA Program for Executives

Prof. Cade Massey Explains the Analytics Behind His NFL Rankings

How Strategy and Time Management Can Help Improve Your GMAT Score

Prof. Arthur van Benthem Examines Energy and Environmental Markets Through an Economist’s Lens

Social Impact Investing Professional Finds Strong Interest in Field at Wharton

Growing Hockey in China from the Ground Up

Finding Business Opportunities in Zillow’s “Dreamers”

Why Sustainable Investing is a Safe Bet

MBA Student Aims to Open Financial Opportunities in the Middle East

• Twin Cities

Discovery happens here. The University of Minnesota Twin Cities is a top 10 U.S. public research university with world-class academics, award-winning faculty, and state-of-the-art facilities. Our researchers and students uncover new knowledge and find solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing society today.

Among public research institutions

Million Square Feet of Research Space

Nobel Prize Recipients

Student Research

From unlocking the secrets of DNA repair to zero gravity flight, students experience the thrill of discovery, learning under the direction of faculty who are leaders in their fields.

Undergraduate Research

In fields from engineering to medicine, business, law, and liberal arts, our students become tomorrow’s trailblazers through limitless research opportunities.

Graduate Research

Graduate students have the opportunity to perform research through any of more than 200 master’s and doctoral degree programs.

“Our hope is that we've recast questions so the origins of life can more clearly be studied by evolutionary biology. It’s not understanding how life emerged early on, but how it  could  emerge."

Research in the Colleges

Our centers and institutes connect researchers with similar interests to increase funding and strengthen the quality of research.

With 16 colleges and more than 300 centers and institutes, the opportunities for discovery are endless.

• Biological Sciences
• Liberal Arts
• Public Affairs
• Public Health
• Education and Human Development
• Science and Engineering
• Veterinary Medicine
• Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences

Industry and Collaborations

Our research advances society through new ideas, technologies, treatments, and cures, and we continue to create and transfer technology to companies for the development of new products and services that benefit the public good and foster economic growth.

economic impact in Minnesota

Fortune 500 companies--fourth in the nation, per capita.

in research expenditures

Discover Unique Opportunities

We drive innovation that lifts Minnesota and solves global challenges. We do this by working together—with government, business, and industry partners—in new and creative ways.

Faculty Resources

The University of Minnesota Twin Cities is one of the most comprehensive research universities in the nation. We support the groundbreaking interdisciplinary research efforts of our more than 5,000 faculty, who are driven to make the world a better place through research and discovery.

Research News

The technicolor world of life after glaciers

As the Andean glaciers retreat, Mariana Cardenas studies how lichens pave the way for new ecosystems.

Belligerent bonobos

A new study reveals the darker side of humans’ “peaceful” primate cousin.

Scientists propose plan to store bio samples on the moon

U of M researchers are working with scientists across the country on a plan that could safeguard Earth’s endangered biodiversity thanks to the extremely low temperatures of the moon's permanently shadowed craters . 

Get Started

What is research.

Research is independent study and discovery in a field of interest. In the sciences, research is usually conducted in a laboratory led by a Principal Investigator (PI) – this is the faculty member who runs a research project. Research addresses a hypothesis, or scientific question. New student researchers typically join an ongoing project in a faculty’s lab and are often trained & supervised by postdoctoral scholars & graduate students.

WHY CONDUCT RESEARCH?

• Conducting independent study complements your studies, your academic goals, and your professional goals
• UCLA is a world-class research institution with prestigious faculty conducting original research in their fields. Take advantage of the resources available to you
• Find out if a career in research is right for you
• Get valuable research experience to make you a competitive applicant for graduate or professional school
• Research can serve as valuable work experience to make you a competitive applicant for your future career
• Earn university credit and funding for your research
• Build meaningful relationships with and receive mentorship from faculty and lab members

Conducting research as an undergraduate is an excellent way to gain experiences and skills that will benefit you both academically and professionally. In addition to exploring your areas of interest, undergraduate research develops skills in collaborative learning and critical thinking. For students interested in pursuing graduate or professional school, undergraduate research is a way of expanding your education outside of the classroom and better preparing yourself for the rigors of graduate study. Even if you are unsure about graduate studies, conducting undergraduate research is a way of exploring your research interests and testing the suitability of a research career to your interests.

STEP 1. IDENTIFY YOUR RESEARCH INTERESTS

Getting involved in research is an important decision that will shape your undergraduate experience. The right research experience can greatly enhance your education and further your preparation for industry, business, and graduate/professional school. UCLA is a world-class research institution with over a thousand faculty performing original research across all disciplines. While students commonly do research with faculty in their home department or a closely related department, students may work with faculty in any of UCLA’s 150+ academic departments.

You should first consider what type of research you are interested in pursuing. Make a list of subjects and topics that interest you and that you would want to commit time to. Review courses you have previously taken, revisit assigned readings, and talk to your professors and TAs about your interests and what type of work is currently being done in those fields.

NOTE: If your major or minor has a research requirement, you may be restricted to working with faculty in certain departments to satisfy those requirements. Meet with a student affairs officer or academic counselor in your department to learn more

GETTING INTO RESEARCH WORKSHOPS

We strongly encourage all students interested in research to attend our “Getting into Research” workshop. These workshops are led by our experienced Graduate Student Mentors and are offered multiple times each quarter. Click here to find an upcoming workshop.

This workshop introduces students to research in the sciences, how to find a faculty research mentor, and opportunities for student researchers after joining a lab.

Download a copy of the workshop slides here .

HOW TO PREPARE FOR UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Some questions to ask yourself as you plan your research are:

• What subjects am I interested in and passionate about?
• How much time can I commit to research?
• Will I need financial support to conduct research throughout the summer and academic year?
• What do I want to gain from my research experience?
• How can I best prepare myself academically and professionally to do research?
• What courses should I take that will complement the work I do?
• What safety courses will I need to take to do research in my field or lab?

The better you plan your academic coursework, the better you will be able to organize your time for research. Whatever your future professional and academic plans are, gaining experience in research will enhance your application and your preparedness for more self-directed research.

Once you have evaluated your research interests and organized your time, the next step is finding a faculty mentor. As part of a collaborative research team, you will need to find the right position both for you and your potential research lab.

You can also enroll in RES PRC 97XD: Research Unwrapped: Introduction to Research in Sciences . This introductory course will help you understand what research means and provide guidance in how to find a research position.

JOIN A STUDENT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION/CLUB

Visit the Student Organizations, Leadership, & Engagement (SOLE) website . There are over one hundred registered student organizations involved in research!

Joining a research lab is less like registering for a class and more like finding a job. While our Center does not directly place students into research labs/groups, we do offer resources to help students navigate the process of finding faculty to work with.

STEP 2. MAKE A LIST OF FACULTY TO CONTACT & RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY TO

Once you have an idea of the area in which you would like to do research, you should compile a list of at least 5-10 faculty members to contact and research opportunities to apply to from the following resources:

• Undergraduate Research Portal : The Undergraduate Research Portal can be found on MyUCLA under the “Academics” tab. This is a platform where faculty from across campus post research opportunities they are actively recruiting student researchers for. The opportunities posted here are not comprehensive of all opportunities at UCLA so do not be discouraged if you don’t see a listing that interests you. Learn more here .
• College of Letters and Science
• David Geffen School of Medicine
• Samueli School of Engineering
• School of Nursing
• School of Dentistry
• Fielding School of Public Health
• Biomedical Research Minor : The UCLA Minor in Biomedical Research was designed to make laboratory research a core part of the scientific curriculum as early as the first year of college. Independent research is complemented by coursework that develops important skills such as critical thinking, analysis of research literature and data presentation. In addition, an ethics and social science component trains students to recognize the political, social and philosophical issues facing science today.
• Apply for a volunteer research assistant position with Regenerative Medicine Institute at Cedars-Sinai .
• Review 31 Cedars-Sinai faculty and select a few labs you would like to work with.
• Email the Program Coordinator at Cedars-Sinai a copy of your resume and the labs you are interested in joining.
• Program Coordinator: Katherine Aragon
• Email: [email protected]
• *UCLA students conducting research at Cedars Sinai are required to be enrolled in an independent research course (SRP-99, Departmental 196, 198, or 199) at all times. Students are not allowed to begin their research activities until enrollment is verified by the Cedars Sinai Research Coordinator. ”

STEP 3. CONTACT FACULTY & APPLY TO RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

If you have identified a research opportunity on the Undergraduate Research Portal, follow the application instructions in the listing.

If you are contacting faculty directly, we recommend emailing them a cover letter and CV. For general guidance on writing a professional and well-formatted email, refer to this video .

Your cover letter will comprise the body of your email and should clearly & concisely:

• Introduce yourself
• Explain your interest and enthusiasm in their research
• Identify your goals and how working with them will help you progress towards those goals
• Request an interview to further discuss a potential research opportunity (include your general availability and a potential start date)
• Include your contact information (email & phone)

As an attachment to your email, include your curriculum vitae (CV). A CV is similar to a resume but is a more comprehensive document outlining your qualifications. Be sure to include:

• Relevant coursework – you may want to include a short description of techniques/concepts mastered.
• Relevant work history & experience
• Leadership experience (on/off campus) that demonstrates organizational skills, independent thinking, etc.)
• Honors, awards or distinctions (include name of award, granting college/department, and monetary value if appropriate)

Anticipate that at this stage, your CV should be 1-2 pages in length. For help refining your CV or cover letter, we recommend students visit the UCLA Writing Center or UCLA Career Center . Both centers offer appointments where professionals can meet one-on-one students.

If you don’t hear back from a specific faculty you emailed or research opportunity you applied to, send a polite follow-up email 1-2 weeks after your initial email. You should not drop-in to a faculty’s lab or office unannounced.

Click here to view a sample cover letter .

Click here to view a sample CV .

These resources are provided as examples and need not be utilized as templates. There are many ways to create an effective cover letter and CV. We encourage you to explore various approaches in order to develop materials that present your unique background and skill sets most effectively.

UCLA Career Center Resources for CVs and Cover Letters:

• UCLA Career Guide: Resumes & Cover Letters Chapter (CV template, p. 9)
• CV vs. Resume : At the undergraduate level CV’s and resumes are very similar except as noted in this chart.
• Active Verb List : Craft compelling experience descriptions that demonstrate your skills and accomplishments.

STEP 4. PREPARE FOR AN INTERVIEW

If you are invited to interview, make sure you are on time and that you have questions to ask regarding the research project and the laboratory environment, such as:

• Who will be supervising and training me?
• How is the project structured?
• What techniques and equipment will I be using?
• What safety training(s) do I need to complete?
• What is the expected time commitment? Are hours flexible during exam season?
• How long or short term of a commitment would be expected of me? (e.g. quarter-to-quarter, 1 year minimum, etc.)
• Are there any additional obligations (e.g. lab meetings) that I would be expected to attend?
• How many people are currently working in the lab?

COMPLETE YOUR REQUIRED SAFETY TRAININGS

UCLA Policy 906 : Undergraduate Researcher Laboratory Safety applies to all UCLA undergraduate researchers.

Review the policy at your earliest convenience and consult with your lab’s Principal Investigator about what safety trainings you are required to complete prior to beginning your research activities.

REGISTER AS A VOLUNTEER IF YOU ARE WORKING WITH A UCLA HEALTH SCIENCES FACULTY OR STAFF

The UCLA Health Sciences Volunteer Program provides on-boarding and clearances for invited students and other eligible individuals to participate in laboratory-based assignments, clinical research/quality improvement projects, administrative projects, and/or educational endeavored volunteer programs.

All UCLA undergraduates working with a UCLA Health faculty (David Geffen School of Medicine, School of Dentistry, or School of Nursing) must receive clearance from the UCLA Health Sciences (UHS) Volunteer Office . This does not apply to students working at an off-campus institution such as Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. For more information on the clearance process, visit their website and scroll to the “To Get Started” section.

RECEIVE COURSE CREDIT FOR RESEARCH WITH SRP & RES PRC

COMMUNICATING YOUR RESEARCH

NEED HELP WRITING RESEARCH MATERIALS?

The UCLA Library has an entire research support center where the library team will support you through research consultations, connecting you to a specialist in your field of study and tutoring support in data, mapping and geographic information systems (GIS).

Check out  Writing Instruction and Research Education (WI+RE) for research workshops, tutorials and handouts.

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH WEEK

UCLA ranks among the top research universities in the world, and undergraduate research and creative inquiry are key components of the Bruin experience. Undergraduate Research Week celebrates the innovative work of students across campus who are performing research and creative inquiry in all disciplines.

Undergraduate Research Week is a week-long celebration of undergraduate research and creative inquiry at UCLA. Students from all disciplines gather to share their innovative and impactful work with the UCLA community at events such as the Undergraduate Research & Creativity Showcase. Now in its eleventh year, Undergraduate Research Week is UCLA’s largest undergraduate conference.

APPLY FOR RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND SCHOLARSHIPS

Various departments across the university offer research programs that provide academic, financial, and professional support for student researchers. The Undergraduate Research Center – Sciences currently offers ten programs ranging from one quarter to two years, with scholarships ranging from $300-$21,000 per student. The URC-Sciences awards $800,000+ in undergraduate research scholarships annually! Browse our current programs under the “Programs and Scholarships” tab in the main menu bar.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A Student Planning Guide to Grad School and Beyond GRE Information GRE Practice Test MyIDP: Individual Development Plan

GRADUATE SCHOOL INFORMATION

 UCLA Career Center- Graduate School and Pre-Professional Services Post-Baccalaureate Training Graduate School Web Finder UCLA Biosciences M.D./Ph.D. Programs

GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

Programs that you can apply to an an undergraduate. The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship The Hertz Foundation Applied Science Fellowship Graduate Fellowships for STEM Diversity GEM Foundation

OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DATABASES

Community of Science (COS) , GrantForward , and Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPIN)  databases contain thousands of federal and non-federal funding opportunities. COS, IRIS, and SPIN are services by subscription, and therefore  only available to the UCLA community . Access is FREE for those using a UCLA public terminal or Bruin OnLine.

NASA’s Student On-Line Application for Recruiting (SOLAR)  system offers a comprehensive and searchable database of internships and fellowships at NASA facilities.

FELLOWSHIP DIRECTORIES

The following directories of extramural support can be found at most university libraries:

Annual Register of Grant Support Directory of Financial Aids for Women Financial Aid for African Americans Financial Aid for Asian Americans Financial Aid for Hispanic Americans Financial Aid for Native Americans Financial Aid for the Disabled and Their Families Financial Aid for Veterans, Military Personnel, and Their Families Funding for Persons with Visual Impairments Funding for United States Study Money for Graduate Students in the Arts & Humanities Money for Graduate Students in the Biological Sciences Money for Graduate Students in the Health Sciences Money for Graduate Students in the Physical Sciences Money for Graduate Students in Social Sciences

UCLA RESEARCH SPOTLIGHTS

Priscilla Yang

Austin Aguirre

Sophia Rueda

• Carnegie Classification
• American Council on Education
• Higher Education Today
• Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education

2025 Research Designations

• Research Designations

The 2025 Carnegie Classifications will include research designations as separate listings from the Basic Classification. There will be three research groupings, all of which will be set by a threshold. Thresholds may be changed in future years; updated methodology will be shared ahead of each classification release.

In 2025, the Carnegie Classifications will use the higher of either a three-year average (2021, 2022, 2023) or most recent single year data (2023). In future releases, the classifications will use only a three-year average. Spending data will be taken from the Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey for FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023. Doctorate production will be taken from data reported to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for academic years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. Research doctorates include all degrees reported as a Doctor’s Degree – Research/Scholarship in IPEDS, following the  IPEDS definition .

These changes are part of a series of updates for the Carnegie Classifications. For more information about the changes, please see the press release and the FAQ .

Research 1: Very High Spending and Doctorate Production

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $50 million on research & development and produce at least 70 research doctorates.

Research 2: High Spending and Doctorate Production

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $5 million on research & development and produce at least 20 research doctorates.

Research Colleges and Universities

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $2.5 million on research & development. Institutions that are in the R1 or R2 categories are not included.

Join Our Mailing List

Join our mailing list to be the first to receive ACE's news on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

Our email opt-in form uses iframes. If you do not see the form, please check your tracking or privacy settings. ​​​

• Seeking Patient Care?

Home  /  News  /  Medical Education  /  Medical Education

A Physician’s First Step: M.D. Class of 2028 Orientation

The annual, two-day event marks the beginning of medical school for the Miller School’s new class and is the first time the entire cohort gathers together.

The Rosenstiel Medical Science Building buzzed with excitement as 235 new medical students from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine’s Class of 2028 gathered for M.D. orientation.

The annual, two-day event marks the beginning of medical school for the Miller School’s new class and is the first time the entire cohort gathers together. Henri R. Ford, M.D., M.H.A., dean and chief academic officer of the Miller School, welcomed the students.  

“You represent the finest students our universities and colleges can produce,” Dean Ford said. “We are confident that you will thrive and become transformative leaders who will shape the future of medicine and improve the health of humanity. Welcome to the Miller School family.”

Celebrating the Highest-Ranking Class

The Class of 2028 boasted an average undergraduate GPA of 3.83 and a 515 MCAT score. Thirty-two students in the class are in the M.D./M.P.H. program and 30 are in the M.D./M.B.A. program . Six students are pursuing M.D./Ph.D. degrees.

The class is comprised of 141 women and 94 men, with 65% from Florida and 35% from out of state. The students hail from institutions such as the University of Miami, Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina.

“I’m thrilled to be here. Getting into medical school is a huge achievement,” said Julia Apshe, a Class of 2028 student. “This moment marks the beginning of the rest of my life, and I can’t wait to join the medical community. I’m proud to enter a profession that excites me every day and allows me to make a real impact in people’s lives.”

Utilizing Resources and Practicing Self-Care

Miller School leadership shared words of wisdom with the incoming class, highlighting the importance of maintaining a healthy balance and prioritizing mental and physical well-being during the demanding years of medical school.

“You can’t go through this journey by only studying night and day,” Dean Ford said. “Take time for yourself and make strong connections with each other. Remember, we’re here for you. Our doors are always open.”

The speakers also emphasized the vast array of resources available at the Miller School, encouraging students to take full advantage of mentorship opportunities, wellness programs and other support systems designed to help students navigate the rigorous journey ahead while fostering personal and professional growth.

“Be proud to be a part of this class and know that we made the right choice selecting you,” added Hilit Mechaber, M.D. ’95, senior associate dean for student affairs at the Miller School. “This class is full of amazing people ready to embark on a transformative experience.”

Important Introductions

Orientation also familiarized students with the NextGenMD curriculum and the roles of student-focused offices at the Miller School.

Aneesha Raj, Class of 2026 and the Miller School student government president, shared insights about her role, the purpose of the chapter and her own medical school experience.

“Be proud of everything you’ve achieved to get here,” Raj said. “You are surrounded by talented peers. Let them inspire and fuel your passions. Get excited for the journey ahead and enjoy the city you’re in. Miami is a great place to build your life as you work toward your career.”

As always, the Miller School Medical Alumni Association extended a warm welcome to the class. Maria Del Pilar Gutierrez, B.S. ’84, M.D. ’90, president of the association, reminded the students that the alumni organization is here to help them succeed. These words resonated with Samuel Cole, whose father graduated in the M.D. Class of 1995.

“Growing up the son of two physicians, I knew very early on that I wanted to be just like my parents,” Cole said. “My calling is to merge the worlds of public health and medicine to provide better care for my patients. I hope to gain a strong clinical foundation here at the Miller School, build lifelong friendships and get involved in the greater Miami community.”

The Class of 2028 will take their formal entry into the medical field at the John G. Clarkson White Coat and Freshman Pinning Ceremony on August 23. Stay tuned as we highlight members from the incoming class leading up to the event.

Tags: Dean Henri Ford , Dr. Hilit Mechaber , medical education , medical students , orientation

A Match Made in Med School

Maya and Becky met in medical school and are now looking forward to Match Day to see where their residencies will take them as a couple.

Exploring Unknown Territory: Krisna Maddy’s Passion for Neuroscience

For Krisna Maddy, 2024 Match Day will be a chance to celebrate and learn where her passion for neuroscience will take her for residency.

Introducing, the Miller School M.D./M.P.H. Class of 2028

The 32 students embarking on the M.D./M.P.H. dual-degree program met faculty and classmates as they looked to the future.

• Clinical Care
• Community Outreach
• Grants and Awards
• Medical Education
• Research and Innovation
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Digestive Health and Liver Diseases
• Infectious Diseases
• Neurosciences
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopaedics
• Otolaryngology
• Philanthropy

Share this Story

This article was printed from The Miller School of Medicine Medical News at the following URL: https://news.med.miami.edu/md-class-of-2028-orientation/

Copyright © 2024 University of Miami Health System

(e.g. [email protected])

Remember me

Forgot Password?

• SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LLOYD J. AUSTIN III
• Combatant Commands
• Holiday Greetings Map
• Taking Care of Our People
• Focus on the Indo-Pacific
• Support for Ukraine
• Value of Service
• Face of Defense
• Science and Technology
• Publications
• Storytellers
• Media Awards
• Hometown Heroes
• Create Request
• Media Press Kit

• DVIDS DIRECT

Hometown News

Media requests, about dvids.

• Privacy & Security
• Copyright Information
• Accessibility Information
• Customer Service

Carderock, ONR, University of Memphis and University of Michigan Collaborate to Advance World-Class Ship Propulsor Design: "Exploring Cavitation Erosion Research, Part One"

Add the following CSS to the header block of your HTML document. Then add the mark-up below to the body block of the same document.

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, UNITED STATES

Video by travis troller  , naval surface warfare center carderock division.

Engineer Joel Hartenberger highlights the crucial role of Carderock's Model Fabrication Shop at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division in an Office of Naval Research project focused on cavitation erosion, June 5, 2024. The shop was responsible for inspecting and modifying a 15,000-pound nickel-aluminum-bronze hydrofoil with a 10-foot span and 7-foot chord length. Following precision machining, the HIFOIL undergoes testing in the Large Cavitation Channel at Carderock's Memphis Detachment, the world's largest variable pressure water tunnel. By analyzing pitting rates and cavitating flow data, engineers from Carderock's Computational Fluid Dynamics and Propulsors Division and Surface Ship Hydrodynamics Division, along with researchers from University of Michigan and University of Memphis, enhance Navy maintenance practices, reduce costs and advance propulsor design. Carderock's collaboration with these key partners helps ensure a maritime-dominant naval force ready for tomorrow's challenges. (U.S. Navy video by Travis Troller & Devin Pisner)

Video Analytics

PUBLIC DOMAIN  

This work, Carderock, ONR, University of Memphis and University of Michigan Collaborate to Advance World-Class Ship Propulsor Design: "Exploring Cavitation Erosion Research, Part One" , by Travis Troller , identified by DVIDS , must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright .

MORE LIKE THIS

Controlled vocabulary keywords.

No keywords found.

•   Register/Login to Download

Carderock, ONR, University of Memphis and University of Michigan Collaborate to Advance World-Class Ship Propulsor Design: "Exploring Cavitation Erosion Research, Part One"

Dvids control center.

• 404-282-1450
• [email protected]

Web Support

• [email protected]
• 1-888-743-4662
• Links Disclaimer
• No FEAR Act
• Small Business Act
• Open Government
• Strategic Plan
• Inspector General
• Sexual Assault Prevention
• DVI Records Schedule
• DVI Executive Summary
• Section 3103

• Open access
• Published: 07 August 2024

Management training programs in healthcare: effectiveness factors, challenges and outcomes

• Lucia Giovanelli 1 ,
• Federico Rotondo 2 &
• Nicoletta Fadda 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  904 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

154 Accesses

Metrics details

Different professionals working in healthcare organizations (e.g., physicians, veterinarians, pharmacists, biologists, engineers, etc.) must be able to properly manage scarce resources to meet increasingly complex needs and demands. Due to the lack of specific courses in curricular university education, particularly in the field of medicine, management training programs have become an essential element in preparing health professionals to cope with global challenges. This study aims to examine factors influencing the effectiveness of management training programs and their outcomes in healthcare settings, at middle-management level, in general and by different groups of participants: physicians and non-physicians, participants with or without management positions.

A survey was used for gathering information from a purposive sample of professionals in the healthcare field attending management training programs in Italy. Factor analysis, a set of ordinal logistic regressions and an unpaired two-sample t-test were used for data elaboration.

The findings show the importance of diversity of pedagogical approaches and tools and debate, and class homogeneity, as effectiveness factors. Lower competencies held before the training programs and problems of dialogue and discussion during the course are conducive to innovative practice introduction. Interpersonal and career outcomes are greater for those holding management positions.

Conclusions

The study reveals four profiles of participants with different gaps and needs. Training programs should be tailored based on participants’ profiles, in terms of pedagogical approaches and tools, and preserve class homogeneity in terms of professional backgrounds and management levels to facilitate constructive dialogue and solution finding approach.

Peer Review reports

Several healthcare systems worldwide have identified management training as a precondition for developing appropriate strategies to address global challenges such as, on one hand, poor health service outcomes in front of increased health expenditure, particularly for pharmaceuticals, personnel shortages and low productivity, and on the other hand in terms of unbalanced quality and equal access to healthcare across the population [ 1 ]. The sustainability of health systems itself seems to be associated with the presence of leaders, at all levels of health organizations, who are able to correctly manage scarce resources to meet increasingly complex health needs and demands, at the same time motivating health personnel under an increasing amount of stress and steering their behaviors towards the system’s goals, in order to drive the transition towards more decentralized, interorganizational and patient-centered care models [ 2 ].

Recently, professional training as an activity aimed at increasing learning of new capabilities (reskilling) and improving existing ones (upskilling) during the lifetime of individuals (lifelong learning) has been identified by the European Commission as one of the seven flagship programs to be developed in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRP) to support the achievement of European Union’s goals, such as green and digital transitions, innovation, economic and social inclusion and occupation [ 3 ]. As a consequence, many member states have implemented training programs to face current and future challenges in health, which often represents a core mission in their NRRPs.

The increased importance of developing management training programs is also related to the rigidity and focalization of university degree courses in medicine, which do not provide physicians with the basic tools for fulfilling managerial roles [ 4 ]. Furthermore, taking on these roles does not automatically mean filling existing gaps in management capabilities and skills [ 5 ]. Several studies have demonstrated that, in the health setting, management competencies are influenced by positions and management levels as well as by organization and system’s features [ 6 , 7 ]. Hence, training programs aimed at increasing management competencies cannot be developed without considering these differences.

To date, few studies have focused on investigating management training programs in healthcare [ 8 ]. In particular, much more investigation is required on methods, contents, processes and challenges determining the effectiveness of training programs addressed to health managers by taking into account different environments, positions and management levels [ 1 ]. A gap also exists in the assessment of management training programs’ outcomes [ 9 ]. This study aims to examine factors influencing the effectiveness and outcomes of management training, at the middle-management level, in healthcare. It intends to answer the following research questions: which factors influence the management training process? Which relationships exist between management competencies held before the program, factors of effectiveness, critical issues encountered, and results achieved or prefigured at the end of the program? Are there differences, in terms of factors of effectiveness, challenges and outcomes, between the following groups of management training programs’ participants: physicians and non-physicians, participants with or without management positions?

Management training in healthcare

Currently, there is a wide debate about the added value of management to health organizations [ 10 ] and thus about the importance of spreading management competencies within health organizations to improve their performance. Through a systematic review, Lega et al. [ 11 ] highlighted four approaches to examine the impact of management on healthcare performance, focusing on management practices, managers’ characteristics, engagement of professionals in performance management and organizational features and management styles.

Although findings have not always been univocal, several studies suggest a positive relationship between management competencies and practices and outcomes in healthcare organizations, both from a clinical and financial point of view [ 12 ]. Among others, Vainieri et al. [ 13 ] found, in the Italian setting, a positive association between top management’s competencies and organizational performance, assessed through a multidimensional perspective. This study also reveals the mediating effect of information sharing, in terms of strategy, results and organization structure, in the relationship between managerial competencies and performance.

The key role of management competencies clearly emerges for health executives, who have to turn system policies into a vision, and then articulate it into effective strategies and actions within their organizations to steer and engage professionals [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. However, health systems are increasingly complex and continually changing across contexts and health service levels. This means the role of health executives is evolving as well and identifying the capacities they need to address current and emerging issues becomes more difficult. For instance, a literature review conducted by Figueroa et al. [ 20 ] sheds light on priorities and challenges for health leadership at three structural levels: macro context (international and national), meso context (organizations) and micro context (individual healthcare managers).

Doctor-managers are requested to carry both clinical tasks and tasks related to budgeting, goal setting and performance evaluation. As a consequence, a growing stream of research has speculated whether managers with a clinical background actually affect healthcare performance outcomes, but studies have produced inconclusive findings. In relation to this topic, Sarto and Veronesi [ 21 ] carried out a literature review showing a generally positive impact of clinical leadership on different types of outcome measures, with only a few studies reporting negative impacts on financial and social performance. Morandi et al. [ 22 ] focused on doctor-managers who have become middle managers and investigated the potential bias in performance appraisal due to the mismatch between self-reported and official performance data. At the individual level, the role played by managerial behavior, training, engagement, and perceived organizational support was analyzed. Among others indications they suggested that training programs should be revised to reduce bias in performance appraisal. Tasi et al. [ 23 ] conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 115 largest U.S. hospitals, divided into physician-led and non-physician-led, which revealed that physician-led hospital systems have higher quality ratings across all specialities and more inpatient days per hospital bed than non-physician-led hospitals. No differences between the groups were found in total revenue and profit margins. The main implication of their study is that hospital systems may benefit from the presence of physician leadership to improve the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients as long as education and training are able to adequately prepare them. The main issue, as also observed by others [ 4 , 24 ], is that university education in medicine still includes little focus on aspects such as collaborative management, communication and coordination, and leadership skills. Such a circumstance motivates the call for further training. Regarding the implementation of training programs, Liang et al. [ 1 ] have recently shown how it is hindered, among others, by a lack of sufficient knowledge about needed competencies and existing gaps. Their analysis, which focuses on senior managers from three categories in Chinese hospitals, shows that before commencing the programs senior managers had not acquired adequate management competencies either through formal or informal training. It is worth noticing that significant differences exist between hospital categories and management levels. For this reason, they recommend using a systemic approach to design training programs, which considers different hospital types, management levels and positions. Yarbrough et al. [ 6 ] examined how competence training worked in healthcare organizations and the competencies needed for leaders at different points of their careers at various organizational levels. They carried out a cross-sectional survey of 492 US hospital executives, whose most significant result was that competence training is effective in healthcare organizations.

Walston and Khaliq [ 25 ], from a survey of 2,001 hospital CEOs across the US concluded that the greatest contribution of continuing education is to keep CEOs updated on technological and market changes that impact their current job responsibilities. Conversely, it does not seem to be valued for career or succession planning. About the methods of continuing education, an increasing use of some internet-based tools was found. Walston et al. [ 26 ] identified the factors affecting continuing education, finding, among others, that CEOs from for-profit and larger hospitals tend to take less continuing education, whereas senior managers' commitment to continuing education is influenced by region, gender, the CEO's personal continuing education hours and the focus on change.

Furthermore, the principles that inspire modern healthcare models, such as dehospitalization, horizontal coordination and patient-centeredness, imply the increased importance of middle managers, within single structures but also along clinical pathways and projects, to create and sustain high performances [ 27 , 28 , 29 ].

Whaley and Gillis [ 8 ] investigated the development of training programs aimed at increasing managerial competencies and leadership of middle managers, both from clinical and nonclinical backgrounds, in the US context. By adopting the top managers’ perspective, they found a widespread difficulty in aligning training needs and program contents. A 360° assessment of the competencies of Australian middle-level health service managers from two public hospitals was then conducted by Liang et al. [ 7 ] to identify managerial competence levels and training and development needs. The assessment found competence gaps and confirmed that managerial strengths and weaknesses varied across management groups from different organizations. In general, several studies have shown that leading at various organizational levels, in healthcare, does not necessarily require the same levels and types of competencies.

Liang et al. [ 30 ] explored the core competencies required for middle to senior-level managers in Victorian public hospitals. By adopting mixed methods, they confirmed six core competencies and provided guidance to the development of the competence-based educational approach for training the current and future management workforce. Liang et al. [ 31 ] then focused on the poorly investigated area of community health services, which are one of the main solutions to reducing the increasing demand for hospital care in general, and, in particular, in the reforms of the Australian health system. Their study advanced the understanding of the key competencies required by senior and mid-level managers for effective and efficient community health service delivery. A following cross-sectional study by AbuDagga et al. [ 32 ] highlighted that some community health services, such as home healthcare and hospice agencies, also need specific cultural competence training to be effective, in terms of reducing health disparities.

Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, Liang et al. [ 33 ] developed a management competence framework. Such a framework was then validated on a sample of 117 senior and middle managers working in two public hospitals and five community services in Victoria, Australia [ 34 ]. Fanelli et al. [ 35 ] used mixed methods to identify the following specific managerial competencies, which healthcare professionals perceive as crucial to improve their performance: quality evaluation based on outcomes, enhancement of professional competencies, programming based on process management, project cost assessment, informal communication style and participatory leadership.

Loh [ 5 ], through a qualitative analysis conducted in Australian hospitals, examined the motivation behind the choice of medically trained managers to undertake postgraduate management training. Interesting results stemming from the analysis include the fact that doctors often move into management positions without first undertaking training, but also that clinical experience alone does not lead to required management competencies. It is also interesting to remark that effective postgraduate management training for doctors requires a combination of theory and practice, and that doctors choose to undertake training mostly to gain credibility.

Ravaghi et al. [ 36 ] conducted a literature review to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of different types of training and educational programs delivered to hospital managers. The analysis identifies a set of aspects that are impacted by training programs. Training programs focus on technical, interpersonal and conceptual skills, and positive effects are mainly reported for technical skills. Numerous challenges are involved in designing and delivering training programs, including lack of time, difficulty in employing competencies in the workplace, also due to position instability, continuous changes in the health system environment, and lack of support by policymakers. One of the more common flaws concerns the fact that managers are mainly trained as individuals, but they work in teams. The implications of the study are that increased investments and large-scale planning are required to develop the knowledge and competencies of hospital managers. Another shortage concerns the outcome measurement of training programs, which is a usually neglected issue in the literature [ 9 ]. It also emerges that the training programs performing best are specific, structured and comprehensive.

Kakemam and Liang [ 2 ] conducted a literature review to shed light on the methods used to assess management competencies, and, thus, professional development needs in healthcare. Their analysis confirms that most studies focus on middle and senior managers and demonstrate great variability in methods and processes of assessment. As a consequence, they elaborate a framework to guide the design and implementation of management competence studies in different contexts and countries.

In the end, the literature has long pointed out that developing and strengthening the competencies and skills of health managers represent a core goal for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of health systems, and management training is crucial for achieving such a goal [ 37 ]. The reasons can be summarized as follows: university education has scarcely been able to provide physicians and, in general, health operators, with adequate, or at least basic, managerial competencies and skills; over time, professionals have been involved in increasingly complex and rapidly changing working environments, requiring increased management responsibilities as well as new competencies and skills; in many settings, for instance in Italy, delays in the enforcement of law requiring the attendance of specific management training courses to take up a leadership position, hindered the acquisition of new competencies and the improvement of existing ones by those already managing health organizations, structures and services.

For the purposes of this study, management competencies refer to the possession and ability to use skills and tools for service organization and service planning, control and evaluation, evidence-informed decision-making and human resource management in the healthcare field.

Management training in the Italian National Health System

The reform of the Italian National Health System (INHS), implemented by Legislative Decree No. 502/1992 and inspired by neo-managerial theories, introduced the role of the general manager and assigned new responsibilities to managers.

However, the inadequate performance achieved in the first years of the application of the reform highlighted the cultural gap that made the normative adoption of managerial approach and tools unproductive on the operational level. Legislation evolved accordingly, and in order to hold management positions, management training became mandatory. Decree-Law No. 583/1996 (converted into Law No. 4/1997) provided that the requirements and criteria for access to the top management level were to be determined. Therefore, Presidential Decree No. 484/1997 determined these requirements and also the requirements and criteria to access the middle-management level of INHS’ healthcare authorities. This regulation also imposed the acquisition of a specific management training certificate, dictated rules concerning the duration, contents, and teaching methods of management training courses issuing this certificate, and indicated the requirements for attendance. Immediately afterwards, Legislative Decree No. 229/1999 amended the discipline of medical management and health professions and promoted continuous training in healthcare. It also regulated management training, which became an essential requirement for the appointments of health directors and directors of complex structures in the healthcare authorities, for the categories of physicians, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, biologists, chemists, physicists and psychologists.

The second pillar of the INHS reform was the regionalization of the INHS. Therefore, the Regions had to organize the courses to achieve management training certificates on the basis of specific agreements with the State, which regulated the contents, the methodology, the duration and the procedures for obtaining certification. The State-Regions Conference approved the first interregional agreement on management training in July 2003, whereas the State-Regions Agreement of 16 May 2019 regulated the training courses. The mandatory contents of the management training outlined the skills and behaviors expected from general managers and other top management key players (Health Director, Administrative Director and Social and Health Director), but also for all middle managers.

A survey was used to gather information from a purposive sample of professionals in the healthcare field taking part in management training programs. In particular, a structured questionnaire was submitted to 140 participants enrolled in two management programs organized by an Italian university: a second-level specializing master course and a training program carried out in collaboration with the Region. The programs awarded participants the title needed to be appointed as a director of a ward or administrative unit in a public healthcare organization, and share the same scientific committee, teaching staff, administrative staff and venue. The respondents’ profile is shown in Table  1 .

It is worth pointing out that the teaching staff is characterized by diversity: teachers have different educational and professional backgrounds, are practitioners or academics, and come from different Italian regions.

The questionnaire was submitted and completed in presence and online between November 2022 and February 2023. All participants decided to take part in the analysis spontaneously and gave their consent, being granted total anonymity.

The questionnaire, which was developed for this study and based on the literature, consisted of 64 questions shared in the following five sections: participant profile (10 items), management competencies held by participants before the training program (4 items), effectiveness factors of the training program (23 items), challenges to effectiveness (10 items), and outcomes of the training program (17 items) (an English language version of the questionnaire is attached to this paper as a supplementary file). In particular, the second section aimed to shed light on the participants’ situation regarding management competencies held before the start of the training program and how they were acquired; the third section aimed to collect participants’ opinions regarding how the program was conducted and the factors influencing its effectiveness; the fourth section aimed to collect participants’ opinions regarding the main obstacles encountered during the program; and the fifth section aimed to reveal the main outcomes of the program in terms of knowledge, skills, practices and career.

Except for those of the first section, which collected personal information, all the items of the next four categories – management competencies, effectiveness factors, challenges and outcome — were measured through a 5-point Likert scale. To ensure that the content of the questionnaire was appropriate, clear and relevant, a pre-testing was conducted in October 2022 by asking four academics and four practitioners, both physicians and not, with and without management positions, to fill it out. The aim was to understand whether the questionnaire really addressed the information needs behind the study and was easily and correctly understood by respondents. Therefore, the four individuals involved in the pre-testing were asked to fill it out simultaneously but independently, and at the end of the compilation, a focus group that included them and the three authors was used to collect their opinions and suggestions. After this phase, the following changes were made: in the ‘Participant profile’ section, ‘Veterinary medicine’ was added to the fields accounting for the ‘Educational background’ (item 3); in Sect. 2, it was decided to modify the explanation given to ‘basic management competencies’ and align it to what required by Presidential Decree No. 484/1997; in Sect. 3, item 25 was added to catch a missing aspect that respondents considered important, and brackets were added to the description of items 15, 16 and 29 to clarify the concepts of mixed and homogenous class and pedagogical approaches and tools; in Sect. 4, in the description of item 40, the words ‘find the energy required’ were added to avoid confusion with items 38 and 39, whereas brackets were added to items 41 and 45 to provide more explanation; in Sect. 5, brackets were added to the description of item 51 to increase clarity, and the last item was divided into two (now items 63 and 64) to distinguish the training program’s impact on career at different times.

With reference to the methods, first, a factor analysis based on the principal component method was conducted within each section of the questionnaire (except for the first again), in order to reduce the number of variables and shed light on the factors influencing the management training process. Bartlett's sphericity test and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value were performed to assess sampling adequacy, whereas factors were extracted following the Kaiser criterion, i.e., eigenvalues greater than unity, and total variance explained. The rotation method used was the Varimax method with Kaiser normalization, except for the second section (i.e., management competencies held by participants before the training program) that), which did not require rotation since a single factor emerged from the analysis. Bartlett's sphericity test was statistically significant ( p  < 0.001) in all sections, KMO values were all greater than 0.65 (average value 0.765), and the total variances explained were all greater than 65% (average value of approximately 70.89%), which are acceptable values for such analysis.

Second, a set of ordinal logistic regressions were performed to assess the relationships existing between management competencies held before the start of the course, effectiveness factors, challenges, and outcomes of the training program.

The factors that emerged from the factor analysis were used as independent variables, whereas some significant outcome items accounting for different performance aspects were selected as dependent variables: improved management competencies, innovation practices, professional relationships, and career prospects. Ordered logit regressions were used because the dependent variables (outcomes) were measured on ordinal scales. Some control variables for the respondent profiles were included in the regression models: age, gender, educational background, management position, and working in the healthcare field.

With the aim of understanding which explanatory variables could exert an influence, a backward elimination method was used, adopting a threshold level of significance values below 0.20 ( p  < 0.20). Table 4 shows the results of regressions with independent variables obtained following the criterion mentioned above. All four models respected the null hypothesis, which means that the proportional odds assumption behind the ordered logit regressions had not been rejected ( p  > 0.05). Third and last, an unpaired two-sample t-test was used to examine the differences between groups of participants in the management training programs selected based on two criteria: physicians and non-physicians, and participants with or without management positions.

First, descriptive statistics is useful for understanding the aspects participants considered the most and least important by category. This can be done by focusing on the items of the four sections of the questionnaire (except for the first one depicting participant profiles) that were given the highest and lowest scores at the sample level and by different groups of participants (physicians and non-physicians, participants with or without management positions). Table 2 summarizes the mean values and standard deviations by group of these higher and lower scores. Focusing on management competencies, all groups reported having mainly acquired them through professional experience, except for non-physicians who attributed major significance to postgraduate training programs, with a mean value of 3.05 out of 5. All groups agreed on the poor role of university education in providing management competencies, with mean values for the sample and all four groups below 2.5. It is worth noting that this item exhibits the lowest value for physicians (1.67) and the highest for non-physicians (2.37). In addition, physicians are the group attributing the lowest values to postgraduate education and professional experience for acquiring management competencies. In reference to factors of effectiveness, all groups also agree on the necessity of mixing theoretical and practical lessons during the training program with mean values of well above 4.5, whereas exclusive use of self-assessment is generally viewed as the most ineffective practice, except for non-physician, who attribute the lowest value to remote lessons (mean 1.82). Among the challenges, the whole sample and physicians and participants without management positions see the lack of financial support from their organization as the main problem (mean 4.10), while non-physicians and participants with management positions believe this is represented by a lack of time, with mean values, respectively, of 3.75 and 4. All agree that dialogue and discussion during the course have been the least relevant of the problems, with mean values below 1.5. Outcomes show generally high values, as revealed by the fact that the lowest values exhibit mean values around 3.5. It is worth noting that an increased understanding of the healthcare systems has been the main benefit gained from the program, with mean values equal to or higher than 4.50. The lowest positive impact is attributed by all attendees to improved relationships with superiors and top management, with mean values between 3.44 and 3.74, with the exception of participants without management positions who mention improved career prospects.

To shed light on the factors influencing the management training process, the findings of the factor analyses conducted by category are reported. Starting from the management competencies held before the training program, the following single factor was extracted from the four items, named and interpreted as follows:

Basic management competencies, which measures the level of management competencies acquired by participants through higher education, post-graduate training and professional experience.

The effectiveness factors are then grouped into six factors, named and explained as follows:

Diversity and debate, which aggregates five items assessing the importance of diversity in participants’ and teachers’ educational and professional backgrounds and pedagogical approaches and tools, as well as level of participant engagement and discussion during lessons and in carrying out the project work required to complete the program.

Specialization, which includes three items accounting for a robust knowledge of healthcare systems by focusing on teachers’ profiles and lessons’ theoretical approaches.

Lessons in presence, which groups three items explaining that in-presence lessons increase learning outcomes and discussion among participants.

Final self-assessment, made up of three items asserting that learning outcomes should be assessed by participants themselves at the end of the course.

Written intermediate assessment, composed of two items explaining that mid-terms assessment should only be written.

Homogeneous class, which is made up of a single component accounting for participants’ similarity in terms of professional backgrounds and management levels, tasks and responsibilities.

The challenges are aggregated into the following four factors:

Lack of time, which includes three items reporting scarce time and energy for lessons and study.

Problems of dialogue and discussion, which groups three items focusing on difficulties in relating to and debating with other participants and teachers.

Low support from organization, which is made up of two items reporting poor financial support and low value given to the initiative from participants’ own organizations.

Organizational issues, which aggregates two items demonstrating scarce flexibility and collaboration by superiors and colleagues of participants’ own organizations and unfamiliarity to study.

Table 3 shows the component matrix with saturation coefficients and factors obtained for the management competencies held before the training program (unrotated), effectiveness factors (rotated), and challenges (rotated).

A set of ordinal logistic regressions was performed to examine the relationships between management competencies held before the start of the course, effectiveness factors, challenges and outcomes of the training program. The results, shown in Table  4 , are articulated into four models, one for each selected outcome. In relation to model 1, the factors ‘diversity and debate’ ( p  < 0.001), ‘written intermediate assessment’ ( p  < 0.05) and ‘homogeneous class’ ( p  < 0.001) have a significant positive impact on the improvement of management competencies, which is also increased by low values attributed to ‘problems of dialogue and discussion’ ( p  < 0.01). In model 2, the change of professional practices in light of lessons learned during the program, selected as an innovation outcome, is then positively affected by ‘diversity and debate’ ( p  < 0.001), ‘homogeneous class’ ( p  < 0.05) and ‘organizational issues’ ( p  < 0.01), while it was negatively influenced by a high value of ‘basic management competencies’ held before the course ( p  < 0.05). Regarding model 3, ‘Diversity and debate’ ( p  < 0.001) and ‘homogeneous class’ ( p  < 0.01) have a significant positive effect on the improvement of professional relationships as well, whereas the same is negatively affected by ‘lessons in presence’ ( p  < 0.05). Finally, concerning model 4, the outcome career prospects benefit from ‘diversity and debate’ ( p  < 0.05) and ‘homogeneous class’ ( p  < 0.01), since both factors exert a positive effect. ‘Low support from organization’ negatively influences career prospects ( p  < 0.001). Table 4 also shows that the LR test of proportionality of odds across the response categories cannot be rejected (all four p  > 0.05).

Finally, it is worth noting that none of the control variables reflecting the respondent profiles (age, gender, management position, working in the healthcare field, and educational background) was found to be statistically significant. These variables are not reported in Table  4 because regression models were obtained following a backward elimination method, as explained in the method section.

In the end, the t-test reveals significant differences between physicians and non-physicians, as well as between participants with or without management positions. Table 5 shows only figures of t-test statistically significant with regards to competencies held before the attendance of the course, the factors of effectiveness, challenges of the training program, and outcomes achieved. In the first comparison, non-physicians show higher management competencies at the start of the program, with a mean value of 0.31, while physicians suffer from less support from their own organization with a mean value of 0.13 compared to -0.18, the mean value of the non-physicians. Concerning the second comparison, participants with management positions have higher management competencies at the start of the program (0.19 versus -0.13) and suffer more from lack of time, with higher mean values compared to participants without managerial positions, respectively 0.23 and -0.16. For what concerns the factors related to the effectiveness of the training program, participants with management positions exhibit a lower mean value in relation to written mid-term assessments, -0.24 versus 0.17, reported by participants with management positions. Differently, the final self-assessment at the end of the program is higher for participants with management positions, 0.24 compared to -0.17, the mean value of the participants without management positions. This latter category feels more the problem of low support from their organizations, with a mean value of 0.16 compared to -0.23, and is slightly less motivated by possible career improvement, with a mean value of 3.31 compared to 3.73 reported by participants with management positions.

The results stemming from the different analyses are now considered and interpreted in the light of the extant literature. Personal characteristics such as gender and age, differently from what was found by Walston et al. [ 26 ] for executives’ continuing education, and professional characteristics such as seniority and working in public or private sectors, do not seem to affect participation in management training programs.

The findings clearly show the outstanding importance of ‘diversity and debate’ and ‘class homogeneity’ as factors of effectiveness, since they positively impact all outcomes: competencies, innovation, professional relationships and career. These factors capture two key aspects complementing each other: on the one hand, participants and teachers’ different backgrounds provide the class with a wider pool of resources and expertise, whereas the use of pedagogical tools fostering discussion enriches the educational experience and stimulates creativity. On the other hand, due to the high level of professionalism in the setting, sharing common management levels means similar tasks and responsibilities, as well as facing similar problems. Consequently, speaking the same language leads to deeper knowledge and effective technical solutions.

In relation to the improvement of management competencies, it also emerges the critical role of a good class atmosphere, that is, the absence of problems of dialogue and discussion. ‘Diversity and debate’ and ‘class homogeneity’, as explained before, seem to contribute to this, since they enhance freedom of expression and fair confrontation, leading to improved learning outcomes. It is interesting to notice that the problems of dialogue and discussion turned out to be the least relevant challenge across the sample.

Two interesting points come from the factors affecting innovation. First, it seems that lower competencies before the training programs lead to the development of more innovative practices. The reason is that holding fewer basic competencies means a greater scope for action once new capabilities are learned: the spirit of openness is conducive to breaking down routines, and innovative practices hindered by a lack of knowledge and tools can thus be introduced. The reason is that holding fewer basic competencies means greater scope for action once new capabilities are learned: the spirit of openness is conducive to breaking down routines, and innovative practices hindered by a lack of knowledge and tools can thus be introduced. This extends the findings of previous studies since the employment of competencies in the workplace is influenced by the starting competence equipment of professionals [ 36 ], and those showing gaps have more room to recover, also in terms of motivation to change, that is, understanding the importance of meeting current and future challenges [ 26 ]. Second, more innovative practices are introduced by participants perceiving more organizational issues. This may reveal, on the one side, a stronger individual motivation towards professional growth of participants who suffer from lack of flexibility and collaboration from their own superiors and colleagues. In this regard, poor tolerance, flexibility and permissions in their workplace act as a stimulus to innovation, which can be viewed as a way of challenging the status quo. On the other side, in line with the above-mentioned concept, this confirms that unfamiliarity with the study increases the innovative potential of participants. Since this study reveals that physicians are neither adequately educated from a management point of view nor incentivized to attend post-graduation training programs, it points out how important is extending continuing education to all health professional categories [ 25 , 26 ].

The topic of competencies held by different categories needs more attention. The study reveals that physicians and participants without management positions start the program with less basic competencies. At the sample level, higher education is viewed as the most ineffective tool to provide such competencies, whereas professional experience is seen as the best way to gather them. Actually, non-physicians give the highest value to postgraduate education, which suggests they are those more interested or incentivized to take part in continuing education. Although holding managerial positions does not automatically mean having higher competencies [ 5 ], it is evident that such a professional experience contributes to filling existing gaps. Physicians stand out as the category for which university education, postgraduate education and professional experience exert the lowest impact on management competence improvement. Considering the relationship between competence held before the course and innovation, as described above, engaging physicians in training programs, even more if they do not have management responsibilities, has a major impact on health organizations’ development prospects. The findings also point out that effective management training requires a combination of theory and practice for all categories of professionals, not just for physicians, as observed by Loh [ 5 ].

The main outcome, in general and for all participant categories, is an increased understanding of how healthcare systems work, which anticipates increased competencies. This confirms the importance of knowledge on the healthcare environment [ 31 ], and clarifies the order of aspects impacted by training programs as reported by Ravaghi et al. [ 36 ]: first conceptual, then technical, and finally interpersonal. However, interpersonal outcomes are by far greater for those holding management positions, which extends the findings by Liang et al. [ 31 ]. In particular, participants already managing units report the greatest impacts in terms of ability to understand colleagues’ problems, improvement of professional relationships and collaboration with colleagues from other units. Obviously, participants with management positions, more than others, feel the lack of collaborative and communication skills, which represents one of the main flaws of university education in the field of medicine [ 4 ] and is also often neglected in management training [ 36 ]. This also confirms that different management levels show specific competence requirements and education needs [ 6 , 7 ]. 

It is then important to discuss the negative effect of lessons in presence on the improvement of professional relationships. At first glance, it may sound strange, but its real meaning emerges from a comprehensive interpretation of all the findings. First, it does not mean that remote lessons are more effective, as revealed by the fact that they, as a factor of effectiveness, are attributed very low values and, for all categories of participants, lower values than those attributed to lessons in presence and hybrid lessons. Non-physicians, in particular, attribute them the lowest value at all. At most, remote lessons are viewed as convenient rather than effective. The negative influence of lessons in presence can be explained by the fact that a specific category, i.e., those with management positions, rate this aspect much more important than other participants and, as reported above, find much more benefits in terms of improved relationships from management training. Participants with management positions, due to their tasks and responsibilities, suffer more than others from lack of time to be devoted to course participation. For them, as for the category of non-physicians, lack of time represents the main challenge to effectively attending the course. In the literature, such a problem is well considered, and lack of time is also viewed as a challenge to apply the skills learned during the course [ 36 ]. Considering that class discussion and homogeneity contribute to fostering relationships, a comprehensive reading of the findings reveals that due to workload, participants with management positions see particularly convenient and still effective remote lessons. Furthermore, if the class is formed by participants sharing similar professional backgrounds and management levels, debate is not precluded and interpersonal relationships improved as a consequence. From the observation of single items, it can be concluded that participants with management positions and in general those with higher basic management competencies at the start of the program, prefer more flexible and leaner training programs: intermediate assessment through conversation, self-assessment at the end of the course, more concentrated scheduled lessons and greater use of remote lessons.

Differently from what was found by Walston and Khaliq [ 25 ], the findings highlight that participants with management positions value the impact of management training on career prospects positively. These participants are also those more supported by their own organizations. Conversely, the lack of support, especially in terms of inadequate funds devoted to these initiatives, strongly affects physicians and participants without management positions, which clarifies what this challenge is about and who is mainly affected by it [ 36 ]. Low incentives mean having attended fewer training programs in the past, which, together with less management experience, explains why they have developed less competencies. Among the outcomes of the training program, the little attention paid by organizations is also testified by the lowest values attributed by all categories, except for participants without management positions, to the improvement of relationships with superiors and top management.

In general, the study contributes to a better understanding of the outcomes of management training programs in healthcare and their determinants [ 9 ]. In particular, it sheds light on gaps and education needs [ 1 ] by category of health professionals [ 2 ]. The research findings have major implications for practice, which can be drawn after identifying the four profiles of participants revealed by the study. All profiles share common characteristics, such as value given to debate, diversity of pedagogical approaches and tools and class homogeneity, rather than the need for a deeper comprehension of healthcare systems. However, they present characteristics that determine specific issues and education gaps, which are summarized as follows:

Physicians without management positions: low competencies at the start of the program and scarce incentives for attending the course from their own organization;

Physicians with management positions: they partially compensate for competence gaps through professional experience, suffer from lack of time, and are motivated by the chance to improve their career prospects;

Non-physicians without management positions: they partially fill competence gaps through postgraduate education, suffer from lack of time, and have scarce incentives for attending the course from their own organization;

Non-physicians with management positions: they partially bridge competence gaps through postgraduate education and professional experience, are the most affected by a lack of time, and are motivated by the chance to improve their career prospects.

Recommendations are outlined for different levels of action:

For policymakers, it is suggested to strengthen the ability of higher education courses in medicine and related fields to advance the understanding of healthcare systems’ structure and operation, as well as their current and future challenges. Such a new approach in the design curricula should then have as a main goal the provision of adequate management competencies.

For healthcare organizations, it is suggested to incentivize the acquisition of management competencies by all categories of professionals through postgraduate education and training programs. This means supporting them from both financial and organizational point of view, for instance, in terms of more flexible working conditions. Special attention should be paid to physicians who, even without executive roles, manage resources and directly impact the organization's effectiveness and efficiency levels through their day-by-day activity, and are the players holding the greatest innovative potential within the organization. Concerning the executives, especially in the current changing context of healthcare systems, much higher attention should be paid to fostering interpersonal skills, in terms of communication and cooperation.

For those designing training programs, it is suggested to tailor courses on the basis of participants’ profiles, using different pedagogical approaches and tools, for instance, in terms of teacher composition, lesson delivery methods and learning assessment methods, while preserving class homogeneity in terms of professional backgrounds and management levels to facilitate constructive dialogue and solution finding approaches. Designing ad hoc training programs would give the possibility to meet the needs of participants from an organizational point of view as well as, for instance, in terms of program length and lesson concentration.

Limitations

This study has some limitations, which pave the way for future research. First, it is context-specific by country, since it is carried out within the INHS, which mandatorily requires health professionals to attend management training programs to hold certain positions. It is then context-specific by training program, since it focuses on management training programs providing participants with the title to be appointed as a director of a ward or administrative unit in a public healthcare organization. This determines the kind of management competencies included in the study, which are those mandatorily required for such a middle-management category. Therefore, there is a need to extend research and test these findings on different types of management training programs, participants and countries. Second, this study is based on a survey of participants’ perceptions, which causes two kinds of unavoidable issues: although based on the literature and pre-tested, the questionnaire could not be able to measure what it intends to or capture detailed and nuanced insights from respondents, and responses may be affected by biases due to reactive effects. Third, a backward elimination method was adopted to select variables in model building. Providing a balance between simplicity and fit of models, this variable selection technique is not consequences-free. Despite advantages such as starting the process with all variables included, removing the least important early, and leaving the most important in, it also has some disadvantages. The major is that once a variable is deleted from the model, it is not included anymore, although it may become significant later [ 38 ]. For these reasons, it is intended to reinforce research with new data sources, such as teachers’ perspectives and official assessments, and different variable selection strategies. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods for data elaboration could then be used to deepen the analysis of the relationships between motivations, effectiveness factors and outcomes. Furthermore, since the investigation of competence development, acquisition of new competencies and the transfer of acquired competencies was beyond the purpose of this study, a longitudinal approach will be used to collect data from participants attending future training programs to track changes and identify patterns.

Availability of data and materials

An English-language version of the questionnaire used in this study is attached to this paper as a supplementary file. The raw data collected via the questionnaire are not publicly available due to privacy and other restrictions. However, datasets generated and analyzed during the current study may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Italian National Health System

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

National Recovery and Resilience Plan

Liang Z, Howard PF, Wang J, Xu M, Zhao M. Developing senior hospital managers: does ‘one size fit all’? – evidence from the evolving Chinese health system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(281):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05116-6 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kakemam E, Liang Z. Guidance for management competency identification and development in the health context: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(421):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09404-9 .

European Commission. Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy. 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0575&from=en

Blakeney EAR, Ali HN, Summerside N. Sustaining improvements in relational coordination following team training and practice change: a longitudinal analysis. Health Care Manag Rev. 2021;46(4):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000288 .

Loh E. How and why medically-trained managers undertake postgraduate management training - a qualitative study from Victoria. J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(4):438–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-10-2013-0233 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yarbrough LA, Stowe M, Haefner J. Competency assessment and development among health-care leaders: results of a cross-sectional survey. Health Serv Manag Res. 2012;25(2):78–86. https://doi.org/10.1258/hsmr.2012.012012 .

Liang Z, Blackstock FC, Howard PF, Briggs DS, Leggat SG, Wollersheim D, Edvardsson D, Rahman A. An evidence-based approach to understanding the competency development needs of the health service management workforce in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(976):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3760-z .

Whaley A, Gillis WE. Leadership development programs for health care middle managers: an exploration of the top management team member perspective. Health Care Manag Rev. 2018;43(1):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000131 .

Campbell C, Lomperis A, Gillespie K, Arrington B. Competency-based healthcare management education: the Saint Louise University experience. J Health Adm Educ. 2006;23:135–68.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Issel ML. Value Added of Management to Health Care Organizations. Health Care Manag Rev. 2020;45(2):95. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000280 .

Lega F, Prenestini A, Spurgeon P. Is management essential to improving the performance and sustainability of health care systems and organizations? a systematic review and a roadmap for future studies. Value Health. 2013;16(1 Suppl.):S46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.004 .

Bloom N, Propper C, Seiler S, Van Reenen J. Management practices in hospitals. Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) working papers 09/23, HEDG, c/o department of economics, University of York. 2009.

Vainieri M, Ferrè F, Giacomelli G, Nuti S. Explaining performance in health care: how and when top management competencies make the difference. Health Care Manag Rev. 2019;44(4):306–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000164 .

Del Vecchio M, Carbone C. Stabilità dei Direttori Generali nelle aziende sanitarie. In: Anessi Pessina E, Cantù E, editors. Rapporto OASI 2002 L’aziendalizzazione della sanità in Italia. Milano, Italy: Egea; 2002. p. 268–301.

Google Scholar  

McAlearney AS. Leadership development in healthcare: a qualitative study. J Organ Behav. 2006;27:967–82.

McAlearney AS. Using leadership development pro- grams to improve quality and efficiency in healthcare. J Healthcare Manag. 2008;53:319–31.

McAlearney AS. Executive leadership development in U.S. health systems. J Healthcare Manag. 2010;55:207–22.

McAlearney AS, Fisher D, Heiser K, Robbins D, Kelleher K. Developing effective physician leaders: changing cultures and transforming organizations. Hosp Top. 2005;83(2):11–8.

Thompson JM, Kim TH. A profile of hospitals with leadership development programs. Health Care Manag. 2013;32(2):179–88. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e31828ef677 .

Figueroa C, Harrison R, Chauhan A, Meyer L. Priorities and challenges for health leadership and workforce management globally: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(239):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4080-7 .

Sarto F, Veronesi G. Clinical leadership and hospital performance: assessing the evidence base. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(169):85–109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1395-5 .

Morandi F, Angelozzi D, Di Vincenzo F. Individual and job-related determinants of bias in performance appraisal: the case of middle management in health care organizations. Health Care Manag Rev. 2021;46(4):299–307. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000268 .

Tasi MC, Keswani A, Bozic KJ. Does physician leadership affect hospital quality, operational efficiency, and financial performance? Health Care Manag Rev. 2019;44(3):256–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000173 .

Hopkins J, Fassiotto M, Ku MC. Designing a physician leadership development program based on effective models of physician education. Health Care Manag Rev. 2018;43(4):293–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000146 .

Walston SL, Khaliq AA. The importance and use of continuing education: findings of a national survey of hospital executives. J Health Admin Educ. 2010;27(2):113–25.

Walston SL, Chou AF, Khaliq AA. Factors affecting the continuing education of hospital CEOs and their senior managers. J Healthcare Manag. 2010;55(6):413–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-201011000-00008 .

Garman AN, McAlearney AS, Harrison MI, Song PH, McHugh M. High-performance work systems in health- care management, part 1: development of an evidence-informed model. Health Care Manag Rev. 2011;36(3):201–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e318201d1bf .

MacDavitt K, Chou S, Stone P. Organizational climate and healthcare outcomes. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(S11):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33112-7 .

Singer SJ, Hayes J, Cooper JB, Vogt JW, Sales M, Aristidou A, Gray GC, Kiang MV, Meyer GS. A case for safety leadership training of hospital manager. Health Care Manag Rev. 2011;36(2):188–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e318208cd1d .

Liang Z, Leggat SG, Howard PF, Lee K. What makes a hospital manager competent at the middle and senior levels? Aust Health Rev. 2013;37(5):566–73. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH12004 .

Liang Z, Howard PF, Koh L, Leggat SG. Competency requirements for middle and senior managers in community health services. Aust J Prim Health. 2013;19(3):256–63. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY12041 .

AbuDagga A, Weech-Maldonado R, Tian F. Organizational characteristics associated with the provision of cultural competency training in home and hospice care agencies. Health Care Manag Rev. 2018;43(4):328–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000144 .

Liang Z, Howard PF, Leggat SG, Bartram T. Development and validation of health service management competencies. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32(2):157–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-06-2017-0120 . (Epub 2018 Feb 8).

Howard PF, Liang Z, Leggat SG, Karimi L. Validation of a management competency assessment tool for health service managers. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32(1):113–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-08-2017-0223 .

Fanelli S, Lanza G, Enna C, Zangrandi A. Managerial competences in public organisations: the healthcare professionals’ perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(303):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05179-5 .

Ravaghi H, Beyranvand T, Mannion R, Alijanzadeh M, Aryankhesal A, Belorgeot VD. Effectiveness of training and educational programs for hospital managers: a systematic review. Health Serv Manag Res. 2020;34(2):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484820971460 .

Woltring C, Constantine W, Schwarte L. Does leadership training make a difference? J Public Health Manag Prac. 2003;9(2):103–22.

Chowdhury MZI, Turin TC. Variable selection strategies and its importance in clinical prediction modelling. Fam Med Comm Health. 2020;8(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2019-000262 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

DM 737/2021 risorse 2022–2023. Funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari (Italy), Via Muroni 25, Sassari, 07100, Italy

Lucia Giovanelli & Nicoletta Fadda

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sassari (Italy), Via Roma 151, 07100, Sassari, Italy

Federico Rotondo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Although all the authors have made substantial contributions to the design and drafting of the manuscript: LG and FR conceptualized the study, FR and NF conducted the analysis and investigation and wrote the original draft; LG, FR and NF reviewed and edited the original draft, and LG supervised the whole process. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Rotondo .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research involved human participants. All authors certify that participants decided to take part in the analysis voluntarily and provided informed consent to participate. Participants were granted total anonymity and were adequately informed of the aims, methods, institutional affiliations of the researchers and any other relevant aspects of the study. In line with the Helsinki Declaration and the Italian legislation (acknowledgement of EU Regulation no. 536/2014 on January 31st, 2022 and Ministerial Decree of November 30th, 2021), ethical approval by a committee was not required since the study was non-medical and non-interventional.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Giovanelli, L., Rotondo, F. & Fadda, N. Management training programs in healthcare: effectiveness factors, challenges and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 904 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11229-z

Download citation

Received : 15 January 2024

Accepted : 20 June 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11229-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Management training programs
• Healthcare professionals
• Factors of effectiveness

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]