Why Pursue R2 Now? Building Research Capacity in Uncertain Times.

Written By Naomie Nyanungo

Federal research policy, student enrollment at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, shrinking budgets, public confidence in higher education, and the rapid spread of AI are all in motion at the same time. In that environment, it is fair to ask whether an institution should be investing in a research classification at all.

This post makes the case that it should, with open eyes and a thoughtful plan. Pursuing R2 is not a bet on a label. It is a decision to build capacities that serve an institution in good times and difficult ones: a broader base of funded research, strengthening of academic mission, more robust graduate education, and an infrastructure that can compete for and manage external support.

The Uncertainty Is Real

Any case we make for pursuing R2 designation has to start by acknowledging what is unsettled. Here is what we are seeing across the higher education landscape:

  • Research funding has been in flux. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is operating below previously anticipated levels (grants.nih.gov).

  • Public confidence in higher education is slipping. In 2026, 38% of Americans reported a great deal or quite a lot of confidence, down from 42% in 2025 (Gallup).

  • Graduate enrollment is under strain. International graduate enrollment fell 12% in fall 2025 (AAU), and dozens of doctoral programs chose to admit fewer students or pause admissions (The Chronicle). Grad PLUS loans also ended for new borrowers on July 1, 2026, a further caution for graduate programs whose enrollment depends on student borrowing (Saving for College).

  • The undergraduate pipeline is projected to shrink. High school graduates peaked in 2025 at about 3.8 million and are projected to decline over the next 15 years (Higher Ed Dive).

  • Technology is changing how research and work are done. Forty-six percent of Americans expect AI to make college degrees less important (Gallup), and 58% of researchers now use AI, up from 34% a year earlier (Cursor, TU/e, reporting on an Elsevier survey).

  • Employer expectations and early-career paths are shifting. Almost 70% of employers say new graduates need a great deal or a moderate amount of additional training once hired (Indiana Public Media).

In this uncertain environment, institutions can choose to stand still and watch what happens next, or they can strategically position themselves to build on their strengths and capacity to weather the shifts. For some institutions, pursuing R2 designation makes sense for that reason.

Why R2 Still Makes Sense

We propose the following reasons. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are some of the compelling reasons to pursue R2 status.

  1. R2 can be built from more than one funding source. The NSF Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey counts research spending from six sources: federal government, state and local government, business, nonprofit organizations, institutional funds, and other sources. Institutional funds include institutionally financed research, cost sharing, and unrecovered indirect costs (NSF NCSES). An institution working toward the $5 million threshold can develop a mix of support, which strengthens its resilience if any one source changes.

  2. It strengthens graduate education. The threshold of at least 20 research/scholarship doctorates is a statement about the depth of an institution’s academic programs. Doctoral students also do much of the work of research, and research assistantships give them funded, meaningful experience. At a time when some programs are admitting fewer students, funded research is one of the ways to keep doctoral education viable and to recruit graduate students. Because assistantships paid from sponsored projects count toward research spending and support students at the same time, the same dollars serve both R2 thresholds. A smaller cohort that is well supported, with funding, mentoring, and a clear path to completion, can be a strength.

  3. It helps with faculty recruitment. Faculty choose where to build their careers partly on whether the institution supports their research. Seed funding, research development, and responsive grants administration are reasons for talented faculty to join, stay, and compete for external awards.

  4. It provides experiential learning opportunities for students. Undergraduate and graduate students who take part in research gain skills and relationships that a classroom alone does not provide. In a period of shifting enrollment, that is part of what an institution can offer to make them competitive.

  5. The benefits do not depend on reaching the designation. Seed grants, research administration, shared equipment, and graduate research support strengthen research, faculty, and students, whether or not the institution is ever classified R2.

Building Toward R2

R2 is a means, not an end. The end is a stronger research enterprise, built steadily and in ways that hold up whatever happens next. Five practices can keep the effort on track:

  • Start with an honest baseline. R2 requires both research spending and research doctorates. Know where the institution stands on each, and which one is the harder gap to close.

  • Favor low-regret investments. Prioritize steps that pay off under many scenarios, such as faculty seed support, graduate research opportunities, and strong grants administration, before commitments that only make sense if a particular outcome occurs.

  • Diversify the sources of support. Federal awards matter, but state, industry, foundation, and institutional support all count toward the total.

  • Build administrative capacity alongside activity. More proposals and awards require the systems and staff to manage them well.

  • Measure a few things, consistently. Track research spending, proposal and award activity, and doctoral production over time, and be ready to adjust as policies and thresholds change.

Is R2 the Right Goal for Your Institution?

We have made what we hope is a strong case to pursue R2 designation. However, we recognize that this may not be the right goal for every institution. Determining whether it makes sense for your institution starts with three questions:

  • Would building research capacity strengthen the teaching, student, and regional mission, rather than detract from it?

  • Does the institution have doctoral programs, or a realistic plan for them, that could produce research doctorates?

  • Would the investments still serve students and faculty if the classification never changed?

The last question is the most important. As noted above, the capacities last longer than the classification.

Preparing for What Comes Next

The question is not whether the future is uncertain, but how prepared an institution will be for it. For institutions where it fits, pursuing R2 is one way to build readiness for an uncertain future. The first step is an honest look at where you stand. Academic Advance Partners built its R2 Readiness Scorecard to show institutions their gap on both R2 thresholds and pairs it with a Grant Pathway Builder and an R2 Progress Dashboard to turn that gap into a multi-year plan and keep it on track. Start the conversation at academicadvancepartners.com.

Sources

Naomie Nyanungo
Next

How F&A Recovery Works, and Where the Dollars Go