THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by the W. M. Keck Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09435-6 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-54727-X (PDF)
Available from the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; 202-334-2807; Internet, http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission to use the following items: the drawings on pages 25, 40, 69, and 150 are reprinted with permission by Sid Harris, drawings on pages 109, 144, and 178 were commissioned by the Committee and appear courtesy of Mike Mikula; and the drawing on page 132 is reprinted with permission from the New Yorker/Cartoon Bank.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council
COMMITTEE ON FACILITATING INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
NANCY C. ANDREASEN (Co-Chair), Andrew H. Woods Chair of Psychiatry,
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics;
Director,
MIND Institute;
Adjunct Professor,
University of New Mexico
THEODORE L. BROWN (Co-Chair), Founding Director Emeritus,
Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois—Urbana Champaign
JENNIFER CHAYES, Scientist,
Microsoft Corporation
STANLEY COHEN, Kwoh-Ting Li Professor of Genetics and Professor of Medicine,
Stanford University School of Medicine
JONATHAN R. COLE, John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University;
Provost and Dean of Faculties, Emeritus, Columbia University
ROBERT CONN, Managing Director,
Enterprise Partners Venture Capital
MILDRED DRESSELHAUS, Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GERALD HOLTON, Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics and Research Professor of History of Science,
Harvard University
THOMAS KALIL, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology,
University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT W. KATES, Professor Emeritus,
Brown University
TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, Director,
National Center for Atmospheric Research
MARIO MOLINA, Institute Professor,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PATRICK SUPPES, Lucie Stern Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
Stanford University
JAN H. van BEMMEL, Professor of Medical Informatics,
Erasmus University Rotterdam
TANDY WARNOW, Professor of Computer Science,
University of Texas, Austin
ROBERT M. WHITE, University Professor and Director,
Data Storage Systems Center, Carnegie Mellon University
MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist,
Earthquake Hazards Team, U.S. Geological Survey
Principal Project Staff
DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director
LAUREL HAAK, Program Officer
ALAN ANDERSON, Consultant Science Writer
ERIN MCCARVILLE, Project Assistant
CAMILLE COLLETT, Senior Project Assistant
HEATHER AGLER,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
MARY ANDERSON,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
MARY FEENEY,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
JESSE GRAY,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
REBECCA JANES,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
JOSHUA SCHNELL,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
GRETCHEN SCHWARZ,
Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President Emeritus,
Carnegie Institution of Washington
BRUCE ALBERTS (Ex-officio), President,
The National Academies
R. JAMES COOK,
R. James Cook Endowed Chair in Wheat Research, Washington State University
HAILE DEBAS, Dean,
School of Medicine and
Vice Chancellor,
Medical Affairs, University of California, San Francisco
GERALD DINNEEN (Ex-officio), Retired Vice President,
Science and Technology, Honeywell, Inc.
HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex-officio), President,
Institute of Medicine
MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex-officio), Chancellor,
University of California, San Diego
ELSA GARMIRE, Sydney E. Junkins Professor of Engineering,
Dartmouth College
NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
WILLIAM JOYCE (Ex-officio), Chairman and CEO,
Hercules Incorporated
MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics,
University of Washington
W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry,
Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado
ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President for Programs,
W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan
CECIL PICKETT, President,
Schering-Plough Research Institute
GERALD RUBIN, Vice President for Biomedical Research,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor,
Department of Economics, The University of Chicago
JOHN D. STOBO, President,
University of Texas Medical Branch of Galveston
IRVING WEISSMAN, Karel and Avice Beekhuis Professor of Cancer Biology,
Stanford University
SHEILA WIDNALL, Abbey Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
WM. A. WULF (Ex-officio), President,
National Academy of Engineering
MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist,
Earthquake Hazards Team, U.S. Geological Survey
Preface
Over the last decade, the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) has issued a series of reports on how science and engineering are performed and supported in the United States and how future generations of scientists are trained and educated.1 A point made by each report is that science and engineering research continually evolves beyond the boundaries of single disciplines and offers employment opportunities that require not only depth of knowledge but also breadth of knowledge, integration, synthesis, and an array of skills. Several reports suggested that a greater emphasis on interdisciplinary research and training would be consistent with those findings.
In May 2003, the National Academies and the W.M. Keck Foundation announced the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative, a program designed to realize the full potential of interdisciplinary research (IDR). Specifically, the Futures Initiative was created to “stimulate new modes of inquiry and break down the conceptual and institutional barriers to interdisciplinary research that could yield significant benefits to science and society.”
As indicated by Robert A. Day, chairman and chief executive officer of the W. M. Keck Foundation, “The Futures Initiative is designed to create a
powerful, ongoing forum where the best and brightest minds from across the disciplines of science, technology, and medical research can come together and ask each other, ‘What if…?’ More than that, they can then secure the funds necessary to pursue ideas and conduct follow-on research. Training individuals who are conversant in ideas and languages of other fields is central to the continued march of scientific progress in the 21st century. The W. M. Keck Foundation is proud to participate in this important effort.”
As part of the Futures Initiative, the Keck Foundation asked the National Academies to review the state of interdisciplinary research and education in science and engineering and recommend ways to facilitate them. Accordingly, COSEPUP, under the aegis of the National Academies, created the Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, whose members were drawn from government, academe, and industry and had long experience in leading and performing IDR.2 The committee was charged with the following tasks:
-
Review proposed definitions of interdisciplinary research, including similarities and differences from research characterized as cross-disciplinary, intradisciplinary, and multidisciplinary, and develop measures to determine whether research is interdisciplinary or not.
-
Identify and analyze current structural models of interdisciplinary research.
-
Identify and analyze the policies and procedures of Congress, funding organizations, and institutions that encourage or discourage interdisciplinary research.
-
Compare and contrast current structural models and policies and procedures in academic and nonacademic settings as well as traditional and nontraditional academic settings that encourage or discourage interdisciplinary research.
-
Identify measures that can be used to evaluate the impact on research, graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, and researchers expected from their engagement in greater interdisciplinary research and cross-professional opportunities.
-
Develop findings and conclusions as to the current state of interdisciplinary research and the factors that encourage (or discourage) it in academic, industry, and federal laboratory settings.
-
Provide recommendations to academic institutions and public and private sponsors of research as to how to better stimulate and support interdisciplinary research.
2 |
Biographical information on members of the committee are listed in Appendix A. |
The committee’s methods and the framework for this report are provided in the “Note to the Reader” that follows the Executive Summary. In sum, the committee based its analysis of how to facilitate IDR on its Convocation on Facilitating IDR, surveys, focus groups, interviews with scholars, and an extensive literature review.
The committee was hampered in its attempt to compare models and policies that encourage IDR by a lack of recent published information. There is a considerable history of research, but the committee found insufficient evidence to answer such questions as, Which, if any, emerging IDR fields and subfields should be strengthened? What technologies and instruments are most likely to generate new ID fields and subfields? Where (if anywhere) should the government increase its investment in IDR? This report is the latest in a growing literature on models and policies that situates the discussion in the current context of science and engineering, and it formally recommends increased research to provide the necessary answers.
Similarly, in attempting to compare academic and nonacademic research practices, the committee found substantial asymmetries. Interdisciplinarity has long been accepted and familiar in many industrial and government laboratories and other nonacademic settings; such settings traditionally emphasize teams and problem-driven research, and they permit researchers to move easily between laboratories, to share their skills, and to acquire new ones. In academe, however, such collaboration is often impeded by administrative, funding, and cultural barriers between departments, by which most research and teaching activities are organized. For that reason and because the highest concentration of scholarly expertise is found in universities, this report focuses primarily on facilitating IDR in academe.
The study identified academic institutional customs that create a small but persistent “drag” on researchers who would like to do interdisciplinary research and teaching. They include especially the academic promotion and reward system and the department-based budgeting structures of universities. The committee concluded that IDR nevertheless plays an essential and growing role in permitting researchers to venture beyond the frontiers of their own disciplines and address questions of ever-increasing complexity and societal urgency. The committee identified “best practices” identified in its investigation that can be applied by those who wish to facilitate IDR, including undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty members, researchers, funding organizations, academic and nonacademic institutions, and disciplinary societies. In some of the cases, institutions have experimented with substantial alteration of the traditional academic structures or even replacement with new structures and models to reduce barriers to IDR. It also found that improved evaluation tools, such
as the ability to provide a broader peer review of interdisciplinary proposals and publication submissions, can greatly assist those who wish to conceptualize, fund, and administer IDR. More best practices, of course, exist than are provided in this report.
In conclusion, this report is a “call to action” for all those who perform, administer, support, and organize interdisciplinary research and training. Its purpose is to facilitate collaborative practices that can increase the productivity of science and engineering. The majority of the report suggests “incremental” changes that will facilitate interdisciplinary research. In Chapter 9, however, the committee provides suggestions for “transformative” changes for those institutions who are willing to experiment with new approaches. Research partnerships must be especially tailored to address scientific and societal challenges in innovative ways. The purpose of this report is not to privilege the pursuit of IDR over disciplinary research, but rather to seek to provide suggestions to those interested or engaged in interdisciplinarity to optimize its effectiveness and strengthen both IDR and the disciplinary foundations from which it springs.
Nancy C. Andreasen
Theodore L. Brown
Co-Chairs
Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
Acknowledgments
This report is the product of many people. First, we thank all those who spoke at our convocation in January 2004. They were (in alphabetical order)
ANTHONY ARMSTRONG, Director, Indiana 21st Century Research & Technology Fund
RUZENA BAJCSY, Director, Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society, University of California, Berkeley
WILLIAM BERRY, Director, Basic Research, ODUSD, Department of Defense
MARYE ANNE CARROLL, Professor, Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences; Professor, Chemistry; Director, Program for Research on Oxidants: Photochemistry, Emissions, and Transport (PROPHET); Director, Biosphere-Atmosphere Research and Training (BART); University of Michigan
CARMEN CHARETTE, Senior Vice President, Canada Foundation for Innovation
UMA CHOWDHRY, Vice President, Central Research and Development, DuPont
HARVEY COHEN, Professor, Pediatrics, Stanford School of Medicine, and Chair, The Interdisciplinary Initiatives Committee, Bio-X, Stanford University
JOEL E. COHEN, Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor, Laboratory of Populations, Rockefeller University and Columbia University
JAMES P. COLLINS, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment, Arizona State University
RITA R. COLWELL, Director, National Science Foundation
CLIFFORD GABRIEL, Deputy Associate Director, Science Division, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
LAURIE R. GARDUQUE, Program Director for Research, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
BARRY GOLD, Program Officer, Conservation and Science, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
ALICE GOTTLIEB, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Clinical Research Center, UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey
ROBERT GRANGER, President, William T. Grant Foundation
VICTORIA INTERRANTE, Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota
JULIE THOMPSON KLEIN, Professor of Humanities, Wayne State University
LINDA J. (LEE) MAGID, Professor, Chemistry, University of Tennessee, and Acting Director, Joint Institute for Neutron Sciences, UT and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
EDWARD L. MILES, Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs, University of Washington
MARVIN SINGER on behalf of RAY L. ORBACH, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy
JULIO DE PAULA, Professor of Chemistry, Haverford College
MARIA PELLEGRINI, Program Director for Science, Engineering, and Liberal Arts, W. M. Keck Foundation
FENIOSKY PE–A-MORA, Associate Professor of Construction Management and Information Technology, William E. O’Neil Faculty Scholar, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
DIANA RHOTEN, Program Officer, Social Science Research Council
CATHERINE ROSS, Director, Center for Quality Growth, Georgia Institute of Technology
F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND, Bren Research Professor, Chemistry and Earth System Science, University of California at Irvine
LAWRENCE A. TABAK, Director, National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institute of Health
JEFFREY WADSWORTH, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PIERRE WILZIUS, Director, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, and Professor, Materials Science and Engineering Department and Physics Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Without the input of each of these speakers, this report would not have been possible.
Next, we would like to thank the reviewers of this report. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Armstrong, IBM (Retired); William Brinkman, Princeton University; Norman Burkhard, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Carmen Charette, Canada Foundation for Innovation; James Collins, Arizona State University; Rita Colwell, National Science Foundation; Marilyn Fogel, Carnegie Institute; Robert Frosch, Harvard University; Hedvig Hricak, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Victoria Interrante, University of Minnesota; Leah Jamieson, Purdue University; Edward L. Miles, University of Washington; Diana Rhoten, Social Science Research Council; Douglas Richardson, Association of American Geographers; Dean Keith Simonton, University of California, Davis; Richard Stein, University of Massachusetts; Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University; Jeffrey Wadsworth, Oak Ridge Laboratory; George E. Walker, Indiana University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Rebecca Chopp, Colgate University, and Pierre Hohenberg, New York University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
In addition, we would like to thank Maxine Singer, the chair of COSEPUP and the guidance group that oversaw this project which included:
JAMES DUDERSTADT (Guidance Group Chair), President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and Engineering, University of Michigan
MARY-CLARE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington
GERALD M. RUBIN, Vice President for Biomedical Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Professor and Chair, Department of Medical Informatics, Columbia University, Vanderbilt Clinic, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
MAXINE SINGER, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Finally, we would like to thank the staff for this project, including Deborah Stine, associate director for the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and study director, who managed the project; Laurel Haak, program officer with the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy who conducted interviews, wrote boxes, organized the convocation, and conducted research and analysis; Alan Anderson, the science writer for this report; Erin McCarville and Camille Collett, who provided project support; Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellows Heather Agler, Mary Anderson, Mary Feeney, Jesse Gray, Rebecca Janes, Joshua Schnell, and Gretchen Schwarz, who all provided research and analytical support; and Richard Bissell, executive director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and of Policy and Global Affairs.
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
1-1 |
Number of Departments at Selected Universities, 1900-2000, |
|||
2-1 |
Difference between Multi- and Interdisciplinary, |
|||
4-1 |
Consistent Undergraduate Interest in Interdisciplinary Studies at Brown University, |
|||
4-2 |
Trends in Undergraduate Interest in Interdisciplinary Studies at Columbia University, |
|||
4-3 |
Survey: Recommendations to Educators, |
|||
4-4 |
Survey: Recommendations to Postdoctoral Scholars, |
|||
4-5 |
Survey: Top Impediments to IDR, |
|||
4-6 |
Survey: Recommendations for Principal Investigators, |
|||
5-1 |
Survey: Institutional Environment for IDR, |
|||
5-2 |
Survey: Size of Seed Money Grants, |
|||
5-3 |
Survey: Recommendations for Institutions, |
|||
5-4 |
Survey: Institutional Methods for Program Evaluation, |
|||
5-5 |
Survey: Recommendations for Departments, |
|||
6-1 |
Survey: Recommendations to Funding Agencies, |
|||
6-2 |
Trends in Teams: Single vs. Multiple Investigator Awards at the National Science Foundation, 1982-2001, |
|||
7-1 |
Growth in Numbers of Professional Societies, 1880-1985, |
|||
8-1 |
Degrees Awarded by Stanford School of Earth Sciences, |
TABLES
ES-1 |
List of Boxes by Order of Appearance, by Category and Title, |
|||
1-1 |
Key Conditions for Successful IDR at Academic Institutions Based on Committee Interviews with IDR Leaders and Scholars, |
|||
2-1 |
Interdisciplinary Research Structures, |
BOXES
|
Innovative Practice |
|
||
2-4 |
The Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) Funding Initiative, |
|||
3-1 |
Philips Physics Research Laboratory, |
|||
3-2 |
The Role of IDR at IBM, |
|||
3-3 |
Establishing an Interdisciplinary Environment for Hard-Disk-Drive Research, |
|||
4-2 |
Interdisciplinary Departments Train Interdisciplinary Students, |
|||
4-3 |
The Global Environmental Assessment Project, |
|||
4-4 |
The Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications, |
|||
4-5 |
Combining Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education, |
|||
5-2 |
Breaking Down Institutional Barriers by Breaking Bread Together, |
|||
5-3 |
IDR at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions, |
|||
5-4 |
The Cluster Hiring Initiative at the University of Wisconsin, |
|||
6-1 |
NIH Roadmap: Research Teams of the Future, |
|||
6-2 |
The DoD’s Multidisciplinary Research Initiative, |
|||
6-3 |
NASA Fosters the Development of Interdisciplinary Fields, |
|||
6-5 |
Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Transition Awards, |
|||
6-7 |
Creating Spaces for Interdisciplinary Research, |
|||
7-3 |
The Association of American Geographers, |
|||
7-4 |
Models for Collaboration Between Professional Societies, |
|||
8-2 |
Evaluating IDR Center Proposals and Programs: The National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers, |
|||
9-2 |
Replacing Courses and Majors with Programs and Planning Units, |
|||
9-3 |
A University Without Departments: Rockefeller University, |
|||
9-4 |
Cross-Cutting Reorganization of Academic Departments, |
|||
9-5 |
Cohiring: Collaborations Between Centers and Departments, |
9-6 |
Hotel Space: The Allocation of Space by Project, |
|||
9-7 |
Supporting Teamwork with Distributed Information Technologies: The Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN), |
|||
|
Toolkit |
|
||
4-1 |
IDR Immersion Experiences: Summer Research Opportunities, |
|||
4-6 |
Creating and Managing Interdisciplinary Collaboration, |
|||
5-5 |
Providing for Interdisciplinarity in the Tenure and Review Process, |
|||
5-6 |
The Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, |
|||
5-7 |
Stirring the Pot, |
|||
5-8 |
Making Money Flow Sideways: Budgeting Models at UC Davis and the University of Michigan, |
|||
6-8 |
OSTP Business Models Initiative, |
|||
7-1 |
The Role of Journals in Fostering IDR, |
|||
7-2 |
Professional Societies Have Fostered IDR Through a Number of Initiatives, |
|||
8-1 |
Measures to Evaluate Interdisciplinary Work, |
|||
8-4 |
Evaluating the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Trainee (IGERT) Program, |
|||
8-5 |
Assessment of Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Research in the Netherlands, |
|||
8-6 |
Determining How to Assess a Program: The Case of the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers, |
|||
|
Definition |
|
||
9-1 |
What is Matrix Management?, |
|||
|
Evolution |
|
||
2-1 |
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), |
|||
2-2 |
The Development of Microwave Radar at MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, |
|||
2-3 |
Protein Structure Determination Using X-Ray Crystallography, |
|||
2-5 |
Tool-Driven Interdisciplinary Research: The Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National Laboratory, |
|||
5-1 |
Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs, |
6-4 |
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, |
|||
6-6 |
Fullerene Research at Rice University, |
|||
6-9 |
The Emergence of Biomedical Engineering: A Case Study in Collaboration Among Researchers, Societies, and Funders, |
|||
8-3 |
Social Network Evaluation of IDR Centers, |
|||
|
Structures/Policies |
|
||
1-1 |
University Departments and Centers. Case Study: Columbia University, |
|||
1-2 |
(1+1)>2: Promoting Multidisciplinary Research in the Netherlands, |
|||
1-3 |
Interdisciplinary Research in Europe: The EURAB Report, |