F
Data-Gathering Tools
The MRSEC Impact Assessment Committee conducted numerous data-gathering activities in order to be able to circumscribe the current level of effort in the MRSEC program accurately. Owing to the diverse nature of the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) and the program’s numerous requirements, it was necessary to employ multiple approaches to obtain the best (and most) data possible. In addition to requesting the most recent and very first annual reports from each MRSEC—responses were received from 27 of 29 and 25 of 29 MRSECs, respectively—the committee developed and used the data-gathering tools presented in this appendix to conduct its study of the MRSEC program. After receiving the data on a particular request, the committee members and staff compiled the data into a summary form and discussed them at length. As the data suggested particular lines of inquiry, the committee followed up with subsequent data-gathering efforts.
DATA REQUEST TO MRSEC DIRECTORS
The committee sent a questionnaire to all 29 MRSECs, addressed to each center’s director (see Box F.1). The topics covered the MRSECs’ perceived scientific accomplishment, student output, education and outreach, industrial collaborations, and facilities and instrumentation. The committee received full responses from 23 of 29 MRSECs.
BOX F.1 Information Request to Center Directors for NRC MRSEC Impact Assessment Committee Please address these questions first and return this form to the National Research Council by Friday, February 24, 2006. *If you would, please send any evaluations as requested in number 2 below as soon as possible. Name of Center: _________________________________________________________________
|
DATA REQUEST TO NSF MRSEC PROGRAM MANAGERS
The committee sent a formal data request to the NSF MRSEC Program Managers (see Box F.2). NSF responded fully to all requests except for request 8(c), for which data were incomplete.
BOX F.2 Information Request to NSF MRSEC Program Managers for NRC MRSEC Impact Assessment Committee
|
DATA REQUEST REGARDING MRSEC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The committee sent a data request to the MRSEC directors and education and outreach (EO) coordinators (if applicable) seeking to understand the breadth of EO activities conducted and the mechanism by which MRSECs fund them (see Box F.3). The chart, which was quite instructive to the committee, helped unravel the complex nature of these programs. The committee received 15 of 29 responses for this data request.
BOX F.3 Information Request Regarding Education and Outreach for NRC MRSEC Impact Assessment Committee
|
SITE VISITS
As described in Box 3.2 in Chapter 3 of this report, the committee conducted a series of site visits at institutions that either have (or had) a MRSEC or a similar center-based research structure. These site visits consisted of speaking with center leadership, research faculty, students, education and outreach coordinators, and industrial collaboration coordinators, in addition to departmental and university leadership. The committee visited the following institutions:
-
Boston University:
-
Center for Nanoscience and Nanobiotechnology
-
Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems
-
Center for Information Systems and Engineering
-
-
California Institute of Technology: Center for the Science and Engineering of Materials (MRSEC)
-
Harvard University: MRSEC
-
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Center for Materials Science and Engineering (MRSEC)
-
Michigan State University: Center for Sensor Materials (MRSEC, now closed)
-
University of California at San Diego: Center for Magnetic Recording Research
-
University of California at Santa Barbara: Materials Research Laboratory
-
University of Florida:
-
Microkelvin Laboratory
-
Nanoscience Institute for Medical and Engineering Technology
-
Major Analytical Instrumentation Center
-
Center for Condensed Matter Sciences
-
Center for Nano-Bio Sensors
-
Particle Engineering Research Center (ERC)
-
Center for Macromolecular Science and Engineering
-
Quantum Theory Project
-
Center for Precollegiate Education and Training
-
South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate
-
-
University of Michigan: Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (ERC)
-
University of Southern California: Biomimetic Microelectronic Systems (ERC)
-
University of Southern Mississippi: Center for Response-Driven Polymeric Films (MRSEC)
The committee used a standardized set of questions during the site visits in order to be able to easily compare responses (see Box F.4). Since site visits included several centers outside the MRSEC program, the committee made small adjustments to the document as appropriate.
BOX F.4 Questions for Site Visits A. PURPOSES OF THE MRSEC PROGRAM Why should a MRSEC-like program continue as a mode of support at NSF? Why not just have individual investigator grants? The point of this discussion is to determine to what extent the original goals and intentions of the centers have been achieved AND to determine if centers, perhaps in a new mode, are still appropriate or necessary for the future of materials research. We will need as much quantitative data as possible, but also some qualitative information.
B. EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH AND THE ROLE OF MRSECS How and when does the science evolve or develop new themes? Does having a center lead to more or less agility in initiating or exploring new topics? Please identify examples. The point of this discussion is to explore the tension between providing continuing investment in topical areas of critical scientific import and in generating/exploring entirely new topics. There is no “right answer” here, but we need to understand how this tension is managed and why it is managed in the way it is.
|
C. BUDGETS AND RESOURCES The intent of this question is both historical and forward-looking. The budgets at NSF for the past 6 years were very constrained. This has led to a call by some to put a larger fraction (or 100%) of the DMR budget into single investigator grants. If MRSEC-like centers continue into the future, how can they be as effective as possible in their mission within the resource constraints?
D. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE PROGRAM
|
E. MISCELLANEOUS What did we miss? What else do you think is important or should be included in our report and recommendations? Our goal is to understand what (if any) differences exist for students’ educational experience based on their involvement in the MRSEC program (or if the presence of a MRSEC on campus provides comparable benefit to all students doing materials research). F. DISCUSSIONS WITH STUDENTS AND OTHER USERS We would like to talk about some of the following topics with students and other participants in the MRSEC.
|