An Assessment of the National Science Foundation's Science and Technology Centers Program (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4. HOW WELL HAS THE STC PROGRAM BEEN MANAGED AND EVALUATED?
4. HOW WELL HAS THE STC PROGRAM BEEN MANAGED AND EVALUATED?
Pages 26-34
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 26... ...
Visiting peer-review committees provide recurring scientific and managerial review of the individual centers. Center directors are, of course, responsible for ensuring that the research, education, and knowledge-transfer activities funded under their proposals are carried out effectively and efficiently.
|
From page 27... ...
In the few cases where problems occurred at individual centers, the source of the problem turned out to be the executive leadership of the director. · Because centers vary widely in their scope, objectives, research foci, appropriate institutional linkages, and so forth, effective control of organizations and pro grams presents problems for both center directors and NSF program managers.
|
From page 28... ...
But when this center began, it had some difficulty in managing interinstitutional research, which resulted in warnings from its own advisory committee and a highly critical NSF site review. After a year of provisional funding, the problems were corrected.
|
From page 29... ...
From such considerations, we conclude that the overall management of the STCs was very good but can be improved by recognizing the previous pitfalls mentioned and by proper use of the review process. NSF's Administrative and Scientific Management of the STC Program When the STC program began, staff from the various NSF directorates was not enthusiastic about the center concept.
|
From page 30... ...
In addition, the education expertise of potential site visitors is a factor in selecting teams. In November 1995, two of the STCs made a formal presentation on their educational activities to the Education and Human Resources Advisory Committee.
|
From page 31... ...
The panel considers the STCs as examples of a mode of support that allows particular types of research problems to be addressed that otherwise would not be. If research problems are regarded as arrayed along a spectrum, with some problems well-suited to individual-investigator modes of inquiry, others to a center mode, and others to a facility mode, STCs emerge as one mode of support that helps balance the NSF portfolio of funding instruments.
|
From page 32... ...
Science and engineering research and education have thrived in a variety of venues, and NSF must offer a rich array of modes for the best results. In fact, the NSF strategic plan states explicitly that NSF "encourages flexibility in the methods used to promote the progress of science and its benefits to society." Thus, the STC program fits NSF' s strategic plan well.
|
From page 33... ...
However, the burden placed on some centers is excessive because of additional reviews-such as those of the NSF inspector general, NAPA, and the GPRA pilot program. The normal review process facilitated the solution to several management problems when they occurred in specific centers; it plays a valuable role.
|
From page 34... ...
Furthermore, program goals and priorities should be clearly articulated and communicated and closely linked to overall NSF priorities. Of particular concern are the equal emphasis that NSF now places on the three program goals, with the inclusion of K12 education as an addition to these program goals, and the evolutionary manner in which these priorities have shifted.
|
Key Terms
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.