The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
E
Survey of Institutions and Individuals Conducting Interdisciplinary Research
To enhance scholarship and collect quantitative data on the impediments, programs, and evaluation criteria related to interdisciplinary research (IDR), the committee developed survey instruments and disseminated them to provosts and others.1 In this appendix, we analyze the results of the committee’s surveys of those interested in IDR, including students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty, funders, policy makers, and disciplinary societies.
The first survey, referred to in the report as the “convocation survey,” was given to the 150 persons who attended the Convocation on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, on January 29-30, 2004 (see Appendix C); 91 convocation participants responded to the survey—about a 75 percent return rate. 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. An invitation to participate in a third survey, the “provost survey,” was distributed on line to provosts or vice-chancellors of institutions that conduct IDR; 57 institutions responded.
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole. Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 254
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
E
Survey of Institutions and Individuals Conducting Interdisciplinary Research
To enhance scholarship and collect quantitative data on the impediments, programs, and evaluation criteria related to interdisciplinary research (IDR), the committee developed survey instruments and disseminated them to provosts and others.1 In this appendix, we analyze the results of the committee’s surveys of those interested in IDR, including students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty, funders, policy makers, and disciplinary societies.
The first survey, referred to in the report as the “convocation survey,” was given to the 150 persons who attended the Convocation on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, on January 29-30, 2004 (see Appendix C); 91 convocation participants responded to the survey—about a 75 percent return rate. 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. An invitation to participate in a third survey, the “provost survey,” was distributed on line to provosts or vice-chancellors of institutions that conduct IDR; 57 institutions responded.
1
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/interdisciplinary/SurveyHome.html. The survey instrument for individuals is appended. It differs from the provost survey in question #1.
OCR for page 255
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
It must be noted that the survey population does not represent a random sample. There was undoubtedly selection bias in those who attended the Convocation on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and in those who responded to the Web-based survey. 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.
DISSEMINATION
The convocation survey was distributed at the convocation in Washington, D.C. and the individual survey was distributed by the following organizations. We made every attempt to distribute the survey as widely as possible. Our strategy was to request larger organizations and umbrella societies in a variety of fields to distribute the survey
American Chemical Society (ACS)
American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)
Association for Integrative Studies
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Association of American Universities (AAU)
Association of Independent Research Institutes
Biophysical Society
Council of Graduate Students (CGS)
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
National Academy of Public Administration
National Institutes of Health Bioengineering Consortium (NIH BECON)
DOE National Laboratories
National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Centers
NSF Frontiers in Integrative Biological Research (FIBR) awardees
NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT) awardees
NSF Science and Technology Centers
Washington Science Policy Alliance
OCR for page 256
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
The following institutions participated in the provost survey. We received the assistance of NASULGC and AAU in distributing the survey to their member universities.
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
OCR for page 257
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri, Columbia
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Tennessee
University of Texas, Austin
University of Utah
University of Washington
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Wayne State University
Wright State University
SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
The committee collected information on respondent position and rank, involvement in IDR, age, and institution type, size, and budget.
Position and Rank
Respondents were predominantly faculty researchers, administrators, or both.
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. The individual survey showed a wider array of ranks, but people holding senior-level positions outnumbered middle-level and junior positions by 2 to 1.
OCR for page 258
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
Convocation
Individual
Provost
Rank
n
%
n
%
n
%
Senior
64
70.3
194
45.9
52
91.2
Middle-level
17
18.7
113
26.7
1
1.8
Junior
6
6.6
105
24.8
2
3.5
Not answered
4
4.4
11
2.6
2
3.5
Total
91
100.0
423
100.0
57
100.0
Age Distribution
Overall, age distribution was fairly normal, with a mean of about 50 years.
Convocation
Individual
Provost
Total
Age
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
20-29
3
3.3
31
7.3
0
34
6.0
30-39
11
12.1
103
24.3
1
1.8
115
20.1
40-49
27
29.7
122
28.8
7
12.3
156
27.3
50-59
35
38.5
95
22.5
30
52.6
160
28.0
60-69
11
12.1
48
11.3
12
21.1
71
12.4
>70
3
3.3
6
1.4
0
9
1.6
Not answered
1
1.1
18
4.3
7
12.3
26
4.6
Total
91
100.1
423
99.9
57
100.1
571
100.0
Type of Institution
The majority of respondents were working at public academic institutions. About half as many worked at private academic institutions. (See Figure E-1.) 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.
OCR for page 259
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
Convocation
Individual
Provost
Type of Institution
n
%
n
%
n
%
Public academic
42
46.2
264
62.4
33
57.9
Private academic
15
16.5
122
28.8
17
29.8
Industrial R&D org.
2
2.2
3
0.7
0
Government R&D org.
3
3.3
17
4.0
3
5.3
Indep. research inst.
3
3.3
9
2.1
1
1.8
Public funding inst.
9
9.9
8
1.9
0
Private funding inst.
8
8.8
0
0
Professional society
6
6.6
0
0
Other/not answered
8
8.8
0
3
5.3
Total Surveys (Totala)
91(96)
105.6
423
101.8
57
100.1
aSome respondents gave multiple answers to this question. Percent is calculated using the total number of surveys returned, and may add up to more than 100%.
FIGURE E-1 Type of institutions responding.
Size, Budget, and Number of Researchers
Survey respondents were asked to indicate the annual budget of their institutions and the numbers of faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows (see Figure E-2). It appears that most respondents were working at large research institutions. Annual budgets showed a bimodal distribution, with peaks at $10 million–100 million and over $1 billion. At the same time, almost half the respondents indicated that they
OCR for page 260
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-3 Number of faculty and researchers at the respondents’ institutions.
were not aware of their institutions’ annual budget. 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). Most respondents did not know how many postdoctoral fellows were at their institutions (Figure E-6).
FIGURE E-2 Annual institutional budgets.
OCR for page 261
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-4 Number of undergraduate students at the respondents’ institutions.
FIGURE E-5 Number of graduate students at the respondents’ institutions.
FIGURE E-6 Number of postdoctoral fellows and trainees at the respondents’ institutions.
OCR for page 262
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
RELATIONSHIP TO INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Participation in Interdisciplinary Research
In the combined surveys, 94 percent of respondents were at least partially involved in IDR.
Convocation
Individual
Provost
Participation
n
%
n
%
n
%
Primarily interdisciplinary
53
58.2
263
62.2
24
42.1
Partially interdisciplinary
28
30.8
147
34.8
22
38.6
Not interdisciplinary
0
12
2.8
4
7.0
Not answered
10
11.0
1
0.2
7
12.3
Total
100.0
433
102.4
57
100.0
Specific Roles
Respondents were asked to indicate how they were involved in IDR. This was a free-answer section; responses were analyzed and categorized by staff. Because more than one answer could have been provided, results may add up to more than 100 percent.
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
OCR for page 263
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
Ranking of Institutional Environment for IDR
Respondents were asked to rank the general supportiveness for IDR at their current institution and up to two previous institutions on a scale of 0 (IDR-hostile) to 10 (IDR-supportive). There appears to be a trend toward more supportive environments for IDR. It is possible that respondents moved to institutions that were more supportive during the course of their careers. Rankings are reported as mean +/– standard deviation. Not all respondents provided an answer. The total number of responses to this question was n = 480.
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). There was no relationship between number of undergraduates and ranking, but there are some interesting trends for budget and number of faculty. It appears that smaller or larger institutions have a better environment for IDR than those with intermediate budget and faculty numbers.
FIGURE E-7 Relationship between institutional budget and rank.
OCR for page 264
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-8 Relationship between number of faculty and rank.
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AT INSTITUTIONS
When asked whether there were impediments to IDR at their current institutions, 70.7 percent of the respondents answered yes, 23.2 percent answered no, and 6.2 percent did not know or did not answer (see Figure E-9).
FIGURE E-9 Top impediments to interdisciplinary research at various institutions.
OCR for page 270
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Finally, respondents were asked to list one action that each stakeholder group could take to best facilitate IDR. Responses were categorized and are illustrated below in graphs for institutions, units and departments, funders, journal editors, principal investigators and team leaders, educators, post-doctoral scholars, and students. These were free-response questions; staff analyzed and categorized the responses. Percentages are based on the numbers of responses provided for each category.
The top three recommendations for institutions (n = 341) were to foster a collaborative environment (26.5 percent), to provide faculty incentives (including hiring and tenure policies) that reflect and reward involvement in IDR (18.4 percent), and to provide seed money for IDR projects (11.1 percent). See Figure E-14.
The top three recommendations for departments (n = 294) were to adopt new organizational approaches to IDR (32.1 percent), to recognize and reward faculty and other researchers for interdisciplinary work (20.8 percent), and to adapt or increase departmental resources to support IDR (12.3 percent). See Figure E-15.
The top three recommendations for funding agencies (n = 266) were to provide more support for IDR (39.1 percent), to develop and implement a more effective review process for IDR proposals (17.7 percent), and to rethink funding allocation strategies (11.3 percent). See Figure E-16.
The top two recommendations for journal editors (n = 196) were to adjust the expertise of editorial and review panels and incorporate more reviewers with IDR experience (38.8 percent) and to feature novel innovations and initiatives (36.2 percent); 17.3 percent of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the current situation. See Figure E-17.
The top three recommendations for principal investigators (n = 186) were to increase leadership and team-forming activities (44.1 percent), to develop and clearly state their research goals and their overall vision (34.4 percent), and to build networks with researchers in other disciplines (20.4 percent). See Figure E-18.
Respondents (n = 190) recommended that educators develop curricula that incorporate interdisciplinary concepts (64.7 percent), take part in teacher-development courses on interdisciplinary topics (40 percent), and provide student opportunities in IDR (23.7 percent). See Figure E-19.
Respondents (n = 157) encouraged postdoctoral scholars to get a broad background and learn new skills (14.0 percent), to find a postdoctoral fellowship in a field different from their own graduate work (12.7 percent), and to develop collaborations and seek additional mentors (12.1 percent). See Figure E-20.
OCR for page 271
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-14 Institutional recommendations to best facilitate IDR.
OCR for page 272
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-15 Departmental recommendations for adapting approaches to IDR.
Finally, respondents (n = 171) recommended that students cross boundaries between disciplines (25.1 percent), take a broad range of courses (23.4 percent), but also develop a solid background in one discipline (12.3 percent). See Figure E-21.
OCR for page 273
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-16 Recommendations for funding agencies to provide more support to IDR.
OCR for page 274
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-17 Recommendations for journal editors.
FIGURE E-18 Recommendations for principal investigators.
FIGURE E-19 Recommendations for educators.
OCR for page 275
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
FIGURE E-20 Recommendations for postdoctoral scholars.
FIGURE E-21 Recommendations for students.
OCR for page 276
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
THE “INDIVIDUAL” IDR SURVEY
Demographics
Please tell us about yourself:
__ Researcher/faculty member
__ Administrator
__ Student
__ Postdoc
Rank:
__ Senior
__ Mid-level
__ Junior
Age: _____
Describe your research:
__ Primarily interdisciplinary
__ Partially interdisciplinary
__ Not interdisciplinary
Which of these best describes your institution?
__ Public Academic
__ Private Academic
__ Industrial R&D organization
__ Government R&D organization
__ Independent research institute
__ Other (Please describe): _______________________________
What is the size of your institution?
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
If research institution, number of:
Faculty/ Researchers
0
1-50
50-200
200-500
500-2000
Over 2000
Do Not Know
Undergraduates
0
1-500
500-2000
2000-5000
5000-10,000
Over 10,000
Do Not Know
Graduate Students
0
1-200
200-500
500-1000
1000-2500
Over 2500
Do Not Know
Postdoctoral Researchers, Fellows, and Trainees
0
1-10
11-50
51-100
101-500
Over 500
Do Not Know
OCR for page 277
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
Relationship to Interdisciplinary Research
How are you involved with interdisciplinary research?
Based on your personal experiences, rate your present institution and prior institutions (that you feel able to judge) on general supportiveness of interdisciplinary research (IDR) using a scale from 0 (IDR-hostile) to 10 (IDR-friendly):
Interdisciplinary Research at Your Institution
Are there impediments to interdisciplinary research at your institution?
Yes ______ No ______ Do Not Know ______
If yes, please indicate the top 5 impediments in order of importance.
__ 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_____________________________
Does your institution provide seed money to help start up interdisciplinary programs? If yes, please briefly describe the amounts available and major criteria employed in making awards.
Yes ______ No ______ Do Not Know ______
OCR for page 278
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
If yes, please indicate:
Amount:
Duration:
Award Criteria:
Does your institution make joint appointments for interdisciplinary faculty/staff members in which salary support is shared between departments, units, and/or schools?
Yes ______ No ______ Do Not Know ______
If yes, what proportion of the faculty/staff have such joint appointments?
__0-10% __10-25% __Over 25%
Using the table below, please list and describe up to three interdisciplinary program(s) at your institution with which you are currently involved. These programs could be centers, organized research units (ORUs), teaching programs, etc.
A
B
C
Program/Center Name:
URL:
Contact person:
Phone #/e-mail:
i. Number of involved depts/ schools/colleges
__ 1 __Don’t know
__ 2-4
__ 5-10
__ Over 10
__ 1 __Don’t know
__ 2-4
__ 5-10
__ Over 10
__ 1 __Don’t know
__ 2-4
__ 5-10
__ Over 10
ii. List the primary depts. involved
iii. Extrainstitutional groups involved?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
iv. Number of Researchers
__1-5
__5-10
__10-20
__Over 20
__Don’t know
__1-5
__5-10
__10-20
__Over 20
__Don’t know
__1-5
__5-10
__10-20
__Over 20
__Don’t know
OCR for page 279
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
A
B
C
v. Faculty Lines?
__Yes
__No
__Don’t know
__Not applicable
__Yes
__No
__Don’t know
__Not applicable
__Yes
__No
__Don’t know
__Not applicable
vi. Source of Funding?
__ DoD
__ DoE
__ NASA
__ NIH
__ NSF
__ Foundation:
__ Institutional:
__ Don’t know
__ Other:
__ DoD
__ DoE
__ NASA
__ NIH
__ NSF
__ Foundation:
__ Institutional:
__ Don’t know
__ Other:
__ DoD
__ DoE
__ NASA
__ NIH
__ NSF
__ Foundation:
__ Institutional:
__ Don’t know
__ Other:
vii. Central Facility?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
viii. Space Allocation
__ Project-driven
__ Researcher-specific
__ Don’t know
__ Project-driven
__ Researcher-specific
__ Don’t know
__ Project-driven
__ Researcher-specific
__ Don’t know
ix. Training Slots?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Research Programs
What are the dominant methods of evaluation employed by your institution to evaluate interdisciplinary programs? (check all that apply)
__ Visiting Committee
__ Internal Committee
__ Benchmarking Surveys
__ Interviews
__ Informal Feedback
__ Principal Investigator Assessment
__ Do not know
__ Other (Please describe):
OCR for page 280
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
What are the dominant methods you use to evaluate the success of interdisciplinary programs? (select up to three or add your own).
__ Level of (or potential for) 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
If you could recommend one action each of the following could take that would best facilitate interdisciplinary research, what action would that be?
Institutions:
Units/Departments:
Funding Agencies:
Journal Editors:
Principal Investigators/Team Leaders:
Educators:
Postdocs:
Students:
Items in cart [0]
