The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 133-156

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 133... ... One questionnaire solicited feedback from facility managers, the other from facility users. Because of biases introduced by the self-selected population that responded to the questionnaire, the committee does not believe that these results are statistically significant; rather, they are intended to give a flavor of the population. Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... by a variety of techniques: � Direct e-mail to facilities identified by committee members and staff, as indicated below in the list of 275 facilities; � Electronic posting on the committee's public Web site; � Paper distribution at the American Physical Society's March 2004 meeting in Montreal, Canada, and the Materials Research Society's April 2004 meeting in San Francisco, California; and � E-mail solicitation to subscribed members of the American Physical Society's Division of Materials Physics and Division of Condensed Matter Physics. Following is the list of facilities specifically targeted to receive the facilities' and users' questionnaires by direct e-mail solicitation. Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... Advanced Materials Characterization Laboratory, State University of New York at Stony Brook 5. Advanced Materials Processing and Analysis Center, University of Central Florida 6. Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... Center for Materials Research, Ohio State University Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University 71. Center for Nanoscience and Technology, University of Notre Dame 72. Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... Chicago Materials Research Center, University of Chicago 97. Colorado Advanced Materials Institute, Colorado School of Mines 98. Read the entire page →
From page 144... ... Institute for Biological Research and Technology, University of South Carolina 142. Institute for Materials Research, State University of New York at Binghamton 143. Read the entire page →
From page 145... ... Materials Research Center, University of Missouri-Rolla 176. Materials Research Laboratory, University of California at Santa Barbara 177. Read the entire page →
From page 146... ... Molecular Materials Research Center, California Institute of Technology 207. Molecular Resource Center, University of Tennessee at Knoxville 208. Read the entire page →
From page 147... ... North Carolina Center for Nanoscale Materials, University of North Carolina 229. Northwestern University Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Northwestern University 230. Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... University of Maryland Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, University of Maryland at College Park 266. University of Massachusetts Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 267. Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... Center for Advanced Materials Research, Central Electron Microscope Facility, Brown University 5. Center for Advanced Materials Research, Central Microelectronics Facility, Brown University 6. Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... Colorado Advanced Materials Institute, Colorado School of Mines 23. Columbia Materials Research Science and Engineering Center Shared Instrument Facility, Columbia University 24. Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... Materials Characterization Laboratory of the Materials Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University 49. Microfabrication Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley 50. Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... University of Wisconsin Materials Science Center, University of Wisconsin at Madison ANALYSIS Quantitative analysis of the responses to the facility managers' questionnaire is inappropriate, of course, because of sample bias and size, but several figures (Figures C.2 through C.6) are presented here to provide information, based on responses to the facilities questionnaire, regarding sources of support for and distribution of annual operating budgets, numbers of users and makeup of the user base, and full-time-equivalent staff supporting midsize facilities. Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... 153 on federal based from ta are Da support percent) Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... Data based on responses to the committee's survey. 20 15 10 Frequency 5 0 10 75 150 300 450 600 750 More Number of Reported Distinct Annual Users FIGURE C.4 Spectrum of reported number of distinct annual users for midsize facilities. Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... Each bar represents the number of facilities that have the indicated number of FTE staff or fewer; for instance, the leftmost bar indicates that about 15 facilities have one staff member or fewer. Data based on responses to the committee's survey. Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... 156 10 facility additional midsize an of users percent institution, 8 National same about the users Finally, within from travel) Read the entire page →

From page 133...

... One questionnaire solicited feedback from facility managers, the other from facility users. Because of biases introduced by the self-selected population that responded to the questionnaire, the committee does not believe that these results are statistically significant; rather, they are intended to give a flavor of the population.