Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix E Survey of Institutions and Individuals Conducting Interdisciplinary Research
Pages 254-280

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 254...
... The "individual survey," a slightly modified version of the convocation survey, was posted on the committee's Web site. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to universities, professional societies, nongovernment organizations, and participants in federal and private interdisciplinary programs; 423 people responded to the solicitation.
From page 255...
... The results are representative of a wide population of researchers, but cannot be extrapolated to the entire population of researchers involved in interdisciplinary projects and programs. That said, the findings corroborate and extend previous studies of IDR, and offer unique insights on joint appointments and differences between researchers and administrators, and provide suggestions for how to prioritize change efforts.
From page 256...
... · Barnard College · Boston University · Carnegie Mellon University · Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · Clarkson University · Columbia University · Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office · Florida State University · Georgia State University · Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · Iowa State University · Jackson Laboratory · Johns Hopkins University · Lewis & Clark College · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Medical College of Georgia · Miami University · National Cancer Institute · National Dairy Council · New York University · North Dakota State University · Northwestern University · Pennsylvania State University · Purdue University · Simon Fraser University · Stanford University · Syracuse University · Texas A&M University · Tulane University · University at Buffalo · University of Arizona · University of California, Irvine · University of California, Los Angeles · University of California, Santa Barbara · University of Chicago · University of Cincinnati College of Medicine · University of Houston · University of Idaho · University of Illinois, Chicago
From page 257...
... Convocation Individual Provost Position n % n % n % Student 2 2.2 26 6.2 0 0 Postdoctoral scholar 0 0.0 18 4.3 0 0 Researcher/faculty 29 31.9 325 76.8 3 5.3 Administrator 26 28.6 5 1.2 12 21.1 Researcher/admin. 17 18.7 47 11.1 40 70.2 Funder 16 17.6 0 0 0 0 Other/not answered 1 1.1 2 0.5 2 3.5 Total 91 100.1 423 100 57 100.1 Respondents to the convocation and provost surveys predominantly held senior positions.
From page 258...
... Industry researchers, funders, and disciplinary-society representatives were targeted for participation only at the convocation and are not represented in the individual or provost survey populations.
From page 259...
... Percent is calculated using the total number of surveys returned, and may add up to more than 100%. Type of Institution 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Responses 20.0 % 10.0 0.0 R&D Not Public R&D Private Other research institute academic academic Industrial answered organization Government organization Independent FIGURE E-1 Type of institutions responding.
From page 260...
... Responses indicated that institutions tended to have over 500 faculty, 10,000 undergraduates, and over 2,500 graduate students (Figures E-3, E-4, and E-5)
From page 261...
... Number of Postdoctoral Fellows and Trainees 40.0 30.0 20.0 Responses 10.0 0.0 0 1-10 500 11-50 know 51-100 101-500 Over not answered Do Not FIGURE E-6 Number of postdoctoral fellows and trainees at the respondents' institutions.
From page 262...
... Convocation Individual Provost Involvement in IDR n % n % n % Oversee or support IDR programs 19 23.5 0 0 45 97.8 Fund IDR programs or grants 14 17.3 0 0 Research is interdisciplinary 41 50.6 366 89.3 23 50.0 Collaborate with others in different disciplines 3 3.7 97 23.7 2 4.3 Head/director of IDR program 7 8.6 28 6.8 1 2.2 Involved with IDR training program or teach IDR classes 2 2.5 18 4.4 1 2.2 Editor of IDR journal 0 0.0 2 0.5 0 0 Other 8 9.9 8 2.0 0 0 Total involved in IDR 81 410 46 Not interdisciplinary or not answered 10 13 11
From page 263...
... Environment for IDR Convocation Individual Provost Current institution 7.74 +/­ 2.07 7.25 +/­ 2.31 7.24 +/­ 1.70 Previous institutions 5.95 +/­ 2.17 6.35 +/­ 2.57 5.67 +/­ 2.04 To determine whether rank was associated with institution size or budget, we sorted the rankings by annual budget, number of faculty, and number of undergraduates (see Figures E-7 and E-8)
From page 264...
... . Top Impediments to IDR 25.0 Top as 20.0 Individuals Provosts 15.0 Ranking 10.0 Impediment 5.0 Respondents 0.0 % ICR criteriacontrol plans Space credit Other reporting Publication Autonomy answered Budget Strategic Unit agreements Not Promotion Authorship Award FIGURE E-9 Top impediments to interdisciplinary research at various institutions.
From page 265...
... Seed Money Respondents were asked whether their institution provided seed money to help start up interdisciplinary programs and were asked to briefly describe the amounts available and the major criteria used in making awards. Over half the institutions provided such "venture capital" for interdisciplinary work.
From page 266...
... Three main criteria were cited by survey respondents for evaluating proposals for seed money: 1. What is the likelihood that this project or program, once developed, would generate outside funding?
From page 267...
... Joint Appointments When asked whether their institutions made joint appointments for interdisciplinary faculty or staff in which salary is shared, most respondents answered yes. However, in most cases, fewer than 10 percent of the faculty at the respondents' institutions held such joint positions.
From page 268...
... EVALUATION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH PROGRAMS Respondents were asked to describe dominant forms of evaluation used by their institutions to evaluate interdisciplinary programs. The predominant methods of evaluation were internal and external visiting committees and informal feedback.
From page 269...
... Provosts ranked enhancing the reputation of their institutions third, and individual researchers ranked enhancing student experiences third. Individual Provost Personal Evaluation Methods n % n % Level of (or potential for)
From page 270...
... , to develop and implement a more effective review process for IDR proposals (17.7 percent) , and to rethink funding allocation strategies (11.3 percent)
From page 271...
... (seed Funding tenure & recommendations Faculty policies incentives/hiring environment Foster Institutional collaborative 5.0 0.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 Respondents % E-14 FIGURE
From page 272...
... 272 APPENDIX E Departments 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Respondents % 10.0 0.0 New IDR Other resoucesteaching initiatives problem approaches No response/no organizational departmentalNew Adapt/increase No recommendation Recognize/reward FIGURE E-15 Departmental recommendations for adapting approaches to IDR. Finally, respondents (n = 171)
From page 273...
... 273 Not answered Other do job They good already up that set IDR Don't barriers discourage IDR. on of to grants project based quality Agencies Give support IDR sure IDR more Funding truly Make funded is in provide risks to IDR funding innovative Take agencies funds Allocate differently funding for for IDR Better review process IDR more Support Recommendations 0.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 E-16 Respondents % FIGURE
From page 274...
... Educators 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Responses % 20.0 10.0 0.0 of Other Student problem Curriculum institution/ No development development opportunities infrastructure Organization Educator/teacher FIGURE E-19 Recommendations for educators.
From page 275...
... APPENDIX E 275 Postdoctoral Scholars 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 Responses % 5.0 0.0 FIGURE E-20 Recommendations for postdoctoral scholars. Students 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 Responses 10.0 % 5.0 0.0 Cross Broad Develop Develop Network Be cautious Nothing Do not Other boundaries range of solid diverse set outside about IDR know between courses backround of skills your lab disciplines in one discipline FIGURE E-21 Recommendations for students.
From page 276...
... a. Annual budget: __ $0-1 Million __ $100-250 M __ $750 M-1 Billion __ $1-10 M __ $250-500 M __ >$1 B __$10-100 M __$500-750 M __Do Not Know b.
From page 277...
... __ Budget control __ Indirect cost recovery distribution __ Publication in disciplinary/interdisciplinary journals __ Compatibility with college/dept strategic plans __ Promotion and tenure criteria __ Credit for joint authorship __ Unit reporting relationships __ Space __ Honoring award agreements __ Restrictions on faculty autonomy __ Other_____________________________ 7. Does your institution provide seed money to help start up interdisciplinary programs?
From page 278...
... at your institution with which you are currently involved. These programs could be centers, organized research units (ORUs)
From page 279...
... What are the dominant methods of evaluation employed by your institution to evaluate interdisciplinary programs? (check all that apply)
From page 280...
... scientific discovery or innovation __ Quality of leadership __ Attracting a greater number/mix/caliber of undergraduates into science __ Enhancing the richness of the undergraduate/graduate experience __ Increasing the ability to attract outstanding faculty/postdocs __ Societal relevance of problem being addressed __ Enhancing institution's reputation __ Increasing institution's research funding levels __ Do not know __ Other (Please describe) : Proposed Recommendations 12.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.