Themes and Research Questions

The Steering Committee agreed on five themes for the Self-Study and elected to establish the working groups around these themes. The working groups have each been assigned specific questions to study, and each will be directed to study the questions in the context of specific Middle States standards. The working groups are as follows: 

Working Group 1 - Educational Innovation and Transformation

Standards: 11, 12, and 14

Co-Chairs: David B. Mallott, MD, and David Roffman, PharmD


  1. What, if any, are the benefits to UMB of leveraging technology and emerging pedagogical models and tools to improve, design, and launch high-quality, high-demand, and self-sustaining academic offerings?
  2. What actions can UMB undertake to promote interprofessional teaching and learning across the professions?
  3. How can UMB ensure that its academic programs remain affordable and accessible?

Working Group 2 - Research, Scholarship, and Entrepreneurship

Standards: 3, 5, 6, and 10

Co-Chairs: Kathleen M. Byington, MBA, and Peter W. Swaan, PhD  


  1. What strategies can UMB adopt to diversify the sources of funding for biomedical and social sciences research?
  2. How could the University enhance its research environment to make the institution more competitive in securing additional grants and awards such as a Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA)?
  3. How could UMB nurture, promote, and sustain an environment where innovation and entrepreneurship in teaching, research, and scholarship are recognized, rewarded, and encouraged?
  4. How could UMB continue to effectively promote ethics and integrity in our research, scholarship, and clinical activities?

Working Group 3 - Student Life, Career Development, and Support Services

Standards: 8 and 9

Co-Chairs:  Erin Golembewski, PhD, and Flavius R. Lilly, PhD, MA, MPH


  1. How could UMB pursue a more integrated and coordinated co-curricular program for our students to both support and enhance their academic experience?
  2. What trends in the employment market or changes in competition may affect enrollment and training in UMB schools and programs?
  3. What is the outlook for the U.S. and global biomedical research workforce, and what, if any, changes could UMB contemplate with respect to its graduate and postdoctoral training program to adequately prepare its students and trainees to succeed?
  4. In what ways could student support services change to support a more diverse student body and enhance career development services?

Working Group 4 - Institutional Effectiveness

Standards: 2, 4, and 7

Co-Chairs: Teresa K. LaMaster, JD, and Kathryn Schaivone, MPA


  1. How could UMB design and operationalize an institutional decision-making framework that promotes the University’s Core Values and positions the institution to realize its strategic objectives?
  2. What are the key metrics by which the University measures institutional effectiveness, and are they still appropriate and relevant in determining UMB’s baseline performance?
  3. How could UMB capitalize on the robust culture of accreditation among its schools to design a conceptual framework to create a culture of assessment that holistically evaluates student learning outcomes on a graduate and professional campus?

Working Group 5 - Community Engagement

Standards: 1 and 13

Co-Chairs: Geoffrey Heinzl and Rebecca Wiseman, PhD, RN


  1. How could UMB leverage its status as an anchor institution to drive economic growth and community development in West Baltimore?
  2. How could UMB create learning opportunities for students that foster community involvement and service?
  3. How could UMB bring about better coordination of our community initiatives to maximize community impact and to extend our outreach efforts?