The survey targeted Principal Investigators (PIs) directly affiliated with HBCUs who had received grants either from the NIH or NSF. We obtained the email addresses of PIs from grant databases. We extracted all PI contacts combinedly from the NSF website, while it was necessary to visit each grant’s webpage for NIH. Altogether, 306 email addresses were successfully obtained, with 139 from NIH and 167 from NSF websites.

The development of the survey tool was guided by a review of relevant literature utilizing published research as a basis for creating the survey questionnaire (Matthews, 2008; Toldson, 2017; Moore et al., 2012). The tool underwent multiple revisions and was reviewed by the research team before finalization. The survey encompassed 40 questions categorized into 10 sections, featuring 2–4 questions per category. Eight questions were open-ended, with the remaining being close-ended and employing various question forms. Subsequently, we conducted a pilot test of the survey tool with the internal research team to identify any further revisions required. Following the completion of necessary revisions the survey tool was finalized.

The survey tool was formatted into an online survey platform named “Qualtrics XM” for which we created a survey link (Qualtrics, 2025). We sent the survey link to all 306 selected PI’s email addresses obtained from the grantee websites. Of the 306 emails, 18 (7 from NIH PIs’ and 11 from NSF) bounced back during the distribution of the survey link. Thus, we followed up with 288 PI emails. Data collection took place between February 7th and April 10th, 2024. Even after sending out weekly reminders to encourage participation, we had a low response rate (7%), leading us to extend the deadline and to engage in a personalized email outreach strategy, acknowledging the busy schedules and workloads of the PIs. The final survey is based on 43 completed responses, resulting in a 15% response rate.

For the phase 1 study, we conducted a qualitative content analysis of funded grants and categorized them by topic area based on the titles, abstracts, and keywords on the websites. This approach, rooted in qualitative content analysis methodology, allowed for both manifest and latent content interpretation (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Through this, we obtained a detailed description of the distribution and focus of grants across states and research areas. This phase aimed to explore the funding trends across states and research priorities. For the second phase PI survey data were collected through Qualtrics and downloaded into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (IBM Corp, 2014). Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale to indicate the degree to which they described the balance of conducting research compared to teaching, student advisement, and service commitments. Finally, we used descriptive statistics, performing frequency and percentages.

We imported the qualitative responses from the survey into NVivo version 14, a qualitative data analysis software (Lumivero, 2023). Given that the data were extracted from a self-administered survey and the responses were focused and concise, initial coding was straightforward, leading to the identification of concepts and patterns. Responses were analyzed thematically within each domain. During analysis, we extracted direct quotations to illustrate the views and experiences of the faculty members.

Of the 105 HBCUs, 72 institutions received grants from either the NIH or NSF during the study period. In total, 18 HBCUs received 212 NIH awards across 9 states, while 26 HBCUs received 227 NSF awards across 8 states. North Carolina and Georgia were the leading recipients of NIH funding, receiving 51 and 59 grants, respectively. The District of Columbia and Delaware followed with 43 and 24 NIH grants, respectively. For NSF funding, North Carolina and Texas led with 67 and 65 grants, followed by Georgia (Allen and Jewell, 2002) and Alabama (Toldson, 2017). States such as Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and the Virgin Islands received fewer grants overall (Table 1). The results show that although NIH and NSF funding reached many HBCUs, most of the awards were concentrated in just a few states.

NIH grants were categorized into non-communicable diseases (NCDs), communicable diseases (CDs), and other health-related topics (Table 2). Among the NCD-related projects, there were 18 distinct cancer-focused grants, 16 focused on neurological disorders, and 9 related to cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Alcohol and drug-related topics appeared in 4 grants, while 14 grants supported biomedical and translational research initiatives. Approximately 12 grants focused on communicable diseases, primarily HIV and other infections. An additional 30 grants covered other topics such as community engagement, research infrastructure, student mentoring, health disparities, and public health innovation.

Of the 227 NSF grants awarded to HBCUs, 27 grants (approximately 12%) were classified as health-related: cancer biology, neurodevelopment, antimicrobial resistance, and environmental health (Table 3). The remaining 200 grants (88%) were non-health-focused and categorized into four major research domains (Table 4). These included 34 grants on STEM diversity and student engagement, 20 on advanced technology and data science, 17 on cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, and 17 on environmental sciences. An additional 112 grants covered a wide range of topics, reflecting the breadth of NSF-supported research at HBCUs.

Among the NIH and NSF grant-receiving HBCUs in our sample, 58% (18/31) were public and 42% (13/31) were private (Table 5). Looking specifically at agency-level distributions, 61% of NIH-funded awardees were public institutions and 39% private, reflecting NIH’s concentration in larger, state-supported universities. For NSF, awards were more evenly distributed, with 54% of recipients being public and 46% private. When viewed as proportions within each group, 56% of public HBCUs and 46% of private HBCUs received NIH funding, while 67% of public and 77% of private HBCUs received NSF funding. This suggests that NIH support was somewhat more concentrated among public institutions, whereas NSF resources reached both public and private HBCUs at comparable rates, with slightly greater participation among privates.

Of the 43 principal investigators (PIs) who responded in the qualitative portion of the study, the majority were affiliated with public HBCUs. Despite this distribution, no distinctive differences were observed in the experiences reported by faculty at public versus private institutions. Instead, respondents described shared challenges and opportunities, largely shaped by institutional context and funding-related constraints.

Carnegie-classified HBCUs were represented in our awardee sample, with seven institutions identified as one R1 and six R2, while the remaining were presented as non-Carnegie (Table 5). Overall, 23% (7/31) of awardees were Carnegie-classified HBCUs, compared to 77% (24/31) that were non-Carnegie. Carnegie institutions demonstrated a clear advantage, with most receiving awards from both NIH and NSF, whereas non-Carnegie institutions showed more fragmented funding patterns, often limited to a single agency. A subset of non-Carnegie HBCUs particularly smaller private liberal arts and theological colleges also received federal awards.

The survey included 43 faculty members from HBCUs across the United States. The majority were male (58.1%), with 18.6% between 30–45 years, 34.9% between 46–55 years, and 46.5% between 56–75 years. Racial composition was evenly split between Asian and Black or African American participants (30.2% each), with White participants comprising 23.3%. Most respondents identified as Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino (74.4%) (Table 6).

Regarding educational attainment, 93.0% held terminal degrees, while 7.0% had a Master’s degree. Appointment types varied: 53.5% were on 12-month contracts, 44.2% on 9 or 10-month contracts, and one respondent had a 3-year appointment. Academic ranks included Professors (51.2%), Associate Professors (30.2%), Assistant Professors (9.3%), and others (9.3%). Administrative roles were held by 41.8% of participants, including Department Chairs (9.3%), Graduate or Program Directors (20.9%), and Center Directors (11.6%). A significant majority (88.4%) were expected to conduct research. On average, participants had 13.6 years of experience at their current institution (range: 2–38 years). Effort distribution across responsibilities was: teaching (M = 32.7%, SD = 3.0), research (M = 46.9%, SD = 3.4), service (M = 21.1%, SD = 2.9), and other areas (M = 27.3%, SD = 6.2) (see Table 6).

Most survey respondents were affiliated with public HBCUs, while a smaller proportion represented private institutions. Institutional classifications also varied: most public universities were designated R2 (high research activity), only one was classified as R1, private medical schools were categorized as Special Focus institutions, and smaller private colleges were baccalaureate-level. This distribution highlights the diversity of research capacity and missions represented in the sample.

Respondents’ disciplinary backgrounds and research interests reflected both breadth and mission-driven priorities. Most were clustered in STEM and health sciences (biology, chemistry, neuroscience, computer science, and clinical research), while a smaller group represented social sciences, humanities, and education. Research interests often linked biomedical fields such as cancer, neuroscience, aging, and health disparities to community engagement and equity. Others emphasized STEM and computational fields, and a third theme centered on social justice, race and intersectionality. These patterns reflect the range of disciplinary expertise and research interests represented among HBCU faculty in the sample.

Participants described their activities balancing research, teaching, service commitments, and other work, their satisfaction with their institution’s administrative culture, and the collaborative research engaged in Table 7.

The vast majority of survey participants (94.4%) reported engaging in collaborative research including collaboration within their institutions or through partnerships with external organizations. Only a small fraction (5.6%) of faculty did not participate in collaborative research. Regarding pilot research funding, 66.7% of participants did not believe sufficient funding was available. These responses reflect the perceived limitations in financial support for initiating research projects.

In assessing institutional support for research, 55.3% of faculty members felt the administrative culture at their institution as either somewhat or very unsupportive of promoting and rewarding research activities. About institutional policies, 62.2% of participants found encountering specific policies that they found challenging during the application or implementation of research.

Among the faculty surveyed, 97.2% had submitted grant proposals to federal agencies as a PI or Co-PI. Of these, 65.0% reported that they found the process of applying for grants challenging. These results indicated the extent of grant-seeking activity and faculty perspectives on institutional and administrative support (Table 8).

Participants highlighted the urgent need for greater institutional support to balance research with teaching and administrative duties. Key recommendations included hiring teaching and research assistants, postdoctoral fellows, and adopting team-based teaching models to reduce individual burden and teaching load. Faculty called for aligning teaching duties with research expectations, increasing research funding, and ensuring timely disbursement of funds. Several participants also advocated for smaller class sizes, more teaching support, and incentive structures to recognize research excellence. Many also emphasized the need to reduce administrative responsibilities and improve institutional administrator competence. As one department chair shared “My issue is the amount of administrative duties the chairperson has. There is no conflict between teaching and research but research and administrative duties are a different story” (Professor and Department Chair).

Participants reported a strong need for better administrative support for their service commitments. Many faculty members expressed frustration with handling administrative tasks like purchasing, travel orders, and reimbursement duties that detract from their core responsibilities. One assistant professor shared:

Faculty also called for more flexible work policies, including remote work options and realistic expectations, particularly for untenured faculty. As one associate professor noted, “Lessening the burden and the reduction of unrealistic duties and flexible work schedules would be helpful, particularly for untenured faculty” (Associate Professor). Additionally, suggestions were made for more effective meeting schedules and minimizing committee work. Participants mentioned the need for better planning and accountability.

Participants emphasized the need for improved administrative and advising support to reduce faculty burden and enhance the effectiveness of student advisement. They suggested the hiring of dedicated advisors, implementing technology to streamline advising processes, and protecting junior faculty from excessive advising duties. Many advocated for systemic changes such as reducing the number of advisees per faculty member and improving overall support for students. One department chair explained, “I include student advising as part of the Chair’s responsibilities. And, student advising is not the same as mentoring (research), which I do as well” (Department Chair).

Respondents also called for clearer role definitions between advising and mentoring, stricter adherence to advising deadlines, and the introduction of skill-building workshops. Better scheduling practices were proposed to optimize the advisement process.

Participants expressed the need for improved Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) services to reduce administrative burden and streamline grant processes. They identified the need for better support for proposal writing, assistance with locating funding opportunities, and managing deadlines. Faculty emphasized the importance of dedicated administrative help for both pre- and post-award grant management, including purchasing and hiring. A respondent noted the need for stronger leadership; “There was a desire for better staffing within the OSP, including the appointment of a responsible director to oversee operations and ensure accountability” (Professor).

Having knowledgeable, communicative staff to guide faculty through grant processes was identified as a crucial area for improvement.

Participants highlighted the need for stronger institutional support to develop structured and effective mentorship programs. Many advocated for leveraging both internal and external opportunities, including creating centralized pools of qualified mentors and encouraging cross-institutional collaborations. A key concern was that tenured faculty often disengage from research, limiting their mentoring capacity. Effective mentorship, respondents emphasized, requires dedicated time, institutional recognition, and compensation. As one respondent mentioned, “The mentors should be given enough free time and recognition. True mentoring is not supported because the time of a mentor is not compensated” (Associate Professor).

While structured programs were recommended, several participants valued informal mentorship based on strong personal relationships. Additional suggestions included incorporating mentorship activities into annual evaluations for senior faculty, offering mini-grants for mentor-mentee research, and establishing mentor groups across institutions. Participants also supported initiatives such as exchange programs and connections with federal agencies and industry to broaden mentoring networks and enhance career development opportunities.

Participants highlighted the need for stronger institutional and financial support to sustain faculty research. Key recommendations included dedicated research funds, competitive salaries, reduced teaching loads, and recognition of research in faculty evaluations. Institutions were encouraged to provide protected time for research, assist with grant applications, and encourage a culture that values research alongside teaching. As one respondent shared, “The lack of support for faculty researchers is discouraging for them. The university administration cheers on and recognizes their efforts to get grants but does not provide support to sustain them” (Professor and Associate Vice President).

This sentiment reflects a broader call for policies that move beyond symbolic recognition to provide sustained, practical support for faculty research.

Participants emphasized the need for stronger administrative and professional support throughout the grant submission process. Skilled staff were seen as essential for assisting with grant writing, proposal reviews, and budget development. Some suggested mandatory mock reviews to strengthen applications prior to submission. In addition to procedural support, faculty especially early-career researchers stressed the importance of release time, start-up funds, equipment, and graduate student support. These resources were viewed as critical for initiating research and competing for external funding. As one senior participant explained,

Respondents also called for improved infrastructure, equitable access to pilot funding, and stronger support for community-engaged research. Respondents also emphasized the value of training opportunities such as workshops, peer reviews, NIH-led sessions, and the importance of mentorship for new faculty. As one respondent stated, “Being connected with senior collaborators and a productive research team doing similar research would have been invaluable; it significantly impact on my grant success rate” (Professor).

Simplifying grant procedures and increasing pre-award support were seen as essential steps to reduce administrative burdens and enhance competitiveness, which is also essential for successful grant submission.