DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing Complexity: Fostering Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Science Research at the Smithsonian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing Complexity: Fostering Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Science Research at the Smithsonian Addressing Complexity: Fostering Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Science Research at the Smithsonian Volume II: Detailed Findings Report prepared for the Smithsonian Under Secretary for Science by the Smithsonian Office of Policy and Analysis July 2009 Cover credit: Research & Node Layout: Kevin Boyack and Dick Klavans (mapofscience.com); Data: Thompson ISI; Graphics & Typography: W. Bradford Paley (didi.com/brad); Commissioned Katy Börner (scimaps.org) Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures.............................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 1 Context of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4 Defining “Interdisciplinary” ............................................................................................... 5 Organization of the Study Reports ...................................................................................... 6 A Shifting Paradigm for Science Research ..................................................................................... 7 Interdisciplinary Centers: Universities and Private Research Institutes ............................. 8 Science Agencies .............................................................................................................. 11 Two Recurrent Themes ..................................................................................................... 14 Smithsonian Science: Comparative Advantage and Relevance .................................................... 17 Smithsonian Science Has Unique National Value ............................................................ 17 Smithsonian Science Strengths ......................................................................................... 17 Smithsonian Science Weaknesses ..................................................................................... 23 Implications of IDR for Smithsonian Science and the Issue of Relevance ...................... 25 Communicating the Relevance of Smithsonian Science .................................................. 28 Current State of Collaboration and IDR ....................................................................................... 30 History of IDR at the Smithsonian.................................................................................... 30 A Thirst for IDR ................................................................................................................ 32 Inherently Interdisciplinary ............................................................................................... 38 Smithsonian Partnerships and Other Collaborations ........................................................ 41 Co-authorship Data ........................................................................................................... 42 Leadership ..................................................................................................................................... 44 The Starting Point: A Value-Driven Purpose ................................................................... 45 Vision ................................................................................................................................ 47 Strategic Research Direction ............................................................................................. 48 Setting Priorities................................................................................................................ 49 Follow-through ................................................................................................................. 50 Sustained Commitment ..................................................................................................... 51 Communication ................................................................................................................. 52 Hiring the Best .................................................................................................................. 52 Inspiration ......................................................................................................................... 53 Advocacy .......................................................................................................................... 53 i Management .................................................................................................................................. 55 Investing in Qualified Managers ....................................................................................... 55 Decision Making ............................................................................................................... 57 IDR Skill Building ............................................................................................................ 58 Brokering Knowledge ....................................................................................................... 61 Creating a Positive Work Climate .................................................................................... 65 Accountability ................................................................................................................... 68 Why Researchers Collaborate ....................................................................................................... 70 Reasons to Collaborate ..................................................................................................... 70 Barriers to Collaboration............................................................................................................... 76 Practical Barriers ............................................................................................................... 76 Barriers to Interdisciplinarity ............................................................................................ 78 Institutional Administrative and Bureaucratic Barriers .................................................... 80 Cultural Barriers—Science ............................................................................................... 80 Cultural Barriers—Smithsonian Science .......................................................................... 81 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................... 87 “Campus”-based Model .................................................................................................... 90 Distributed Research Models ............................................................................................ 92 Consortia ........................................................................................................................... 94 Matrix Management Model .............................................................................................. 97 Structural Challenges ...................................................................................................... 100 The Smithsonian Workforce ....................................................................................................... 104 An Overview of the Smithsonian Scientific Research Workforce ................................. 107 Importance of Staying Up-to-date .................................................................................. 116 Re-configuring the Smithsonian Workforce ................................................................... 125 A Biased Performance Evaluation System ..................................................................... 129 Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 137 Grants, Contracts, and Philanthropic Funds ................................................................... 138 Fundraising Incentives for Scientists .............................................................................. 141 Need for Stable Funding ................................................................................................. 142 Competitive Smithsonian Grants .................................................................................... 145 Administrative Support ............................................................................................................... 150 Systems and Processes .................................................................................................... 150 Support Personnel ........................................................................................................... 153 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 154 Space and IDR ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is EE Right for You?
    Erik Jonsson School of Engggineering and The Un ivers ity o f Texas a t Da llas Computer Science Is EE Right for You? • “Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” • Now that you are here, diii?id you make the right choice? • Electrical engineering is a challenging and satisfying profession. That does not mean it is easy. In fact, with the possible exceptions of medicine or law, it is the MOST difficult. • There are some things you need to consider if you really, really want to be an engineer. • We will consider a few today. EE 1202 Lecture #1 – Why Electrical Engineering? 1 © N. B. Dodge 01/12 Erik Jonsson School of Engggineering and The Un ivers ity o f Texas a t Da llas Computer Science Is EE Right for You (2)? • Why did you decide to be an electrical engineer? – Parents will pay for engineering education (it’s what they want). – You like math and science. – A relative is an engineer and you like him/her. – You want to challenge yourself, and engineering seems challenging. – You think you are creative and love technology. – You want to make a difference in society . EE 1202 Lecture #1 – Why Electrical Engineering? 2 © N. B. Dodge 01/12 Erik Jonsson School of Engggineering and The Un ivers ity o f Texas a t Da llas Computer Science The High School “Science Student” Problem • In high school, you were FAR above the average. – And you probably didn’t study too hard, right? • You liked science and math, and they weren’t terribly hard.
    [Show full text]
  • Robotics Engineer
    CONTENTS Robotics Engineer at a Glance 6 Introduction 7 Turning Science Fiction into Reality Chapter One 11 What Does a Robotics Engineer Do? Chapter Two 18 How Do You Become a Robotics Engineer? Chapter Three 26 What Skills and Personal Qualities Matter Most —and Why? Chapter Four 31 What Is It Like to Work as a Robotics Engineer? Chapter Five 37 Advancement and Other Job Opportunities Chapter Six 42 What Does the Future Hold for Robotics Engineers? Chapter Seven 49 Interview with a Robotics Engineer Source Notes 53 Find Out More 56 Index 59 Picture Credits 63 About the Author 64 5 ROBOTICS ENGINEER AT A GLANCE te’s Ba cia che so ee de lo As gr gr r’s de ee l D o r o o o t d c h n e t c o a le g s r r m a e a h v t o e l i e g i p u i q H d e Personal Minimum Educational Qualities Requirements Problem solving Creativity Working Conditions Attention to detail Indoors Strong science, math, and computer- programming skills Median Salary $81,591 Percent job increase by 278,000* 2024 Number of jobs *Numbers are for mechanical 5% engineers, a group that includes robotics engineers. Future Job Outlook Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. www.bls.gov. 6 CHAPTER 3 What Skills and Personal Qualities Matter Most—and Why? First and foremost, robotics engineers must be very good prob- lem solvers. They must have suffi cient technical skill to recognize and understand a problem and enough creativity to think up an original solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Photonic Design Engineer
    Photonic Design Engineer Are you looking for the ultimate startup challenge? Have you always wanted to transform innovative technology into real products? Are you ready to join OPTIUS among the first employees with all the advantages and opportunities? Optius is a new startup with the vision to transform the field of efficient AI computations by using optical computing. By joining OPTIUS, you are contributing to a growing team of motivated entrepreneurs and researchers passionate about bringing this vision into reality. The Photonic Design Engineer role will involve the design, optimization, and layout of photonic integrated circuits (PICs) and photonic devices. Your opportunity and benefits: • Solve problems by commercializing cutting edge technology – Major impact! • Mentorship, coaching and support – we are here for you! • Cool Startup environment – celebrations, endless lattes, healthy snacks What we offer: • Competitive compensation package • Opportunity for growth and personal development • Insurance benefits such as health, dental and vision • Cool Startup environment – celebrations, endless coffee, healthy snacks • Lunch and Learns What your day-today will look like: • Design and optimize photonic integrated circuits (PIC’s) • Layout photonic devices with common EDA • Conduct numerical electromagnetic simulation of photonic devices • Interacting with photonic foundries to understand design environment and rules • Designing optical bench experiments for device characterization • Collaborating with the team on research and development
    [Show full text]
  • Position Description
    position description Date: September 2017 Title: Engineer 1 Department: Biomedical Engineering School: Case School of Engineering Location: Bingham 308 Supervisor Name and Title: Ron Triolo, Professor POSITION OBJECTIVE Under general supervision, perform engineering objectives as a member of multidisciplinary research and development teams designing and investigating new medical devices and restorative technologies, and provide high level computing infrastructure support. Responsible for microprocessor, mobile device, or computer based software system design, testing and operation on specific research and development projects for new assistive technologies for individuals with neuro-musculo-skeletal disabilities, limb loss or cognitive dysfunction. The engineer will apply methods and techniques, adjust and correlate data, determine errors in results, and follow the operation through a series of related steps to completion. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS 1. Develop embedded control and operating systems for new and emerging assistive technologies and medical devices, and create both low and high level user and clinician interfaces. (20%) 2. Set system processing specifications, design and verify software operation of new computer- microprocessor- or mobile computing platform-based assistive technologies. (20%) 3. Construct embedded applications and integrate information from networks of distributed sensors in new medical devices. (20%) 4. Identify the work to be done to fulfill project requirements and objectives, plan and carry out the procedural and technical steps required, seek assistance as needed, independently coordinate work efforts with outside parties, and characteristically submit only completed work. (10%) 5. Design, maintain and interrogate databases for research-related operational information. (10%) 6. Fully document, test and validate design and system performance according to standard design controls and quality system practices, including incident reporting, error/bug tracking and repair, and version/release control.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer I/Ii/Iii
    ENGINEER I/II/III DEFINITION Under direct and general supervision, performs professional civil engineering work in the planning, design, technical investigation, inspection, and construction of projects in several areas of public works and civil engineering, and performs related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general supervision from assigned supervisory and managerial staff. Exercises no direct supervision of staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS Engineer I/II/III is a flexibly-staffed class series. Advancement from the Engineer I level to the II level is at the discretion of the appointing authority, provided that the following criteria are met: (1) the minimum qualifications and time-in-grade requirements, (2) demonstration of the ability to independently perform the full scope of the assigned duties. Advancement from the Engineer II level to the III level is at the discretion of the appointing authority, provided that the following criteria are met: (1) the minimum qualifications and time-in-grade requirements, (2) demonstration of the ability to independently perform the full scope of the assigned duties. Engineer I is the entry level engineer classification. Incumbents perform less complex office and field civil engineering work under direct supervision in preparation for advancement to the journey level of Engineer II. Engineer II is the advanced level class in the engineering series, not requiring registration. Positions in this class are flexibly staffed and are normally filled by advancement from the lower class of Engineer I, or if filled from the outside, require prior professional level experience and possession of an Engineer-in- Training Certificate. Incumbents in this class work under general direction and perform moderately difficult professional engineering work in civil engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2
    Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2 February 15, 2006 . DRAFT Cambridge-MIT Institute Multidisciplinary Design Project This Dictionary/Glossary of Engineering terms has been compiled to compliment the work developed as part of the Multi-disciplinary Design Project (MDP), which is a programme to develop teaching material and kits to aid the running of mechtronics projects in Universities and Schools. The project is being carried out with support from the Cambridge-MIT Institute undergraduate teaching programe. For more information about the project please visit the MDP website at http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk or contact Dr. Peter Long Prof. Alex Slocum Cambridge University Engineering Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Trumpington Street, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. Cambridge MA 02139-4307 CB2 1PZ. USA e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] tel: +44 (0) 1223 332779 tel: +1 617 253 0012 For information about the CMI initiative please see Cambridge-MIT Institute website :- http://www.cambridge-mit.org CMI CMI, University of Cambridge Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10 Miller’s Yard, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Mill Lane, Cambridge MA 02139-4307 Cambridge. CB2 1RQ. USA tel: +44 (0) 1223 327207 tel. +1 617 253 7732 fax: +44 (0) 1223 765891 fax. +1 617 258 8539 . DRAFT 2 CMI-MDP Programme 1 Introduction This dictionary/glossary has not been developed as a definative work but as a useful reference book for engi- neering students to search when looking for the meaning of a word/phrase. It has been compiled from a number of existing glossaries together with a number of local additions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanofi-Aventis Press Release
    Sanofi-aventis press release Sanofi-aventis appoints Dr. Elias Zerhouni, President, Global Research & Development Paris, France - December 14, 2010 - Sanofi-aventis (EURONEXT: SAN and NYSE: SNY) is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Elias Zerhouni as President, Global Research & Development, covering Medicines and Vaccines, effective January 1, 2011. Dr. Zerhouni will report directly to Christopher A. Viehbacher, Chief Executive Officer of sanofi-aventis, and join the Executive Committee and the Management Committee. Marc Cluzel, M.D., Ph.D., will resign as Executive Vice President, R&D but will continue to work closely with Elias as a scientific expert. “I would like to sincerely thank Marc for his long term contribution. His passion for science and commitment thus far has ensured a readiness to lead the implementation of the transformation of R&D over the past few years,” said Christopher A. Viehbacher, Chief Executive Officer of sanofi-aventis. Since his appointment as Scientific Advisor to Christopher Viehbacher in February 2009, Dr. Zerhouni has been instrumental in redesigning the R&D model to foster increased innovation, the first pillar of the Group’s strategy. The effect of this transformation has already delivered results with a reinvigorated R&D that will provide innovative solutions in response to specific, unmet needs of patients. Centered on the patient, the development of scientific networks and openness to the external scientific world has strengthened the creativity and the flexibility of the company and brought a truly entrepreneurial approach to research. “I have had the privilege of working with Elias for a long time. Through his vast experience and visionary approach, he has provided excellent advice and insight and has been central in implementing what is now one of the most promising R&D models in healthcare,” said Christopher A.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Protection Engineers: Using Science and Technology to Make the College Campus Safe from Fire
    Fire Protection Engineers: Using Science and Technology to Make the College Campus Safe from Fire Chris Jelenewicz, P.E. Engineering Program Manager, Society of Fire Protection Engineers As colleges and universities are trying to compete for • Investigate fires to discover how fire spreads, why the best students, there is an increasing demand to protective measures failed, and how those meas- improve and modernize college campus facilities. To ures could have been designed more effectively. keep up with this demand, colleges and universities are building larger stadiums, more modern laboratories and They can also assist campus administrators by working more comfortable housing units. These newer facilities with architects and other engineers, state and local are larger, taller and their designs are more complex. building officials and local fire departments to build Consequently, the fire protection systems that are and maintain fire safe campuses. In addition, they needed to protect students and faculty from fire are make recommendations for cost effective fire protec- also more complex. tion solutions to ensure that the structure, and the property and occupants contained within are ade- Furthermore, recent tragic fires in dormitories and fra- quately protected. ternity houses have placed a new interest in upgrading the fire protection features in existing residential fa- What are the Educational and Licensure Require- cilities. As financial resources are limited for such up- ments for Fire Protection Engineers? grades, it is essential that the most efficient fire pro- Like engineers in other disciplines, fire protection en- tection be provided. gineers are required to earn college degrees from ac- To help make their campuses safe from fire, many col- credited engineering programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer I/II DEFINITION DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS TYPICAL DUTIES
    Class Code: 428,429 Engineer I/II DEFINITION Under supervision, performs a variety of professional environmental engineering work in connection with water quality studies, treatment and distribution system operations, water quality regulations, facility improvements, and other related work; assists other engineering disciplines on assigned projects; provides administrative support to District projects and programs; may exercise technical and functional oversight over engineering support staff; and performs other related work as required. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS Engineer I is the entry level in the engineering series. Under close to general supervision within a framework of established policies and procedures, incumbents perform a variety of engineering and administrative tasks of limited to moderate difficulty. Assignments are given in specific terms and are subject to frequent review while in progress and upon completion, except where tasks are well defined by established standards, policies and procedures. Assignments may cover the entire field of environmental engineering and may include other engineering and technical disciplines. There is limited latitude for independent judgment. This class is distinguished from the intermediate-level Engineer II (Environmental) class by the routine nature and limited complexity of work assignments and the level of supervision received. Upon recommendation of the immediate supervisor and approval by the department manager, incumbents in this class may advance to the Engineer II classification after gaining experience and achieving proficiency that meets the Engineer II experience requirements. Engineer II is the intermediate level in the environmental engineering series. Under general supervision within a framework of established policies and procedures, incumbents perform a variety of engineering and administrative tasks of moderate difficulty requiring the use of some independent judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Engineering Education
    Paper ID #9586 Defining Engineering Education Dr. Alan Cheville, Bucknell University Alan Cheville studied optoelectronics and ultrafast optics at Rice University, followed by fourteen years as a faculty member at Oklahoma State University working on terahertz frequencies and engineering edu- cation. While at Oklahoma State he developed courses in photonics and engineering design. After serving for two and a half years as a program director in engineering education at the National Science Founda- tion, he took a chair position in electrical engineering at Bucknell University. He is currently interested in engineering design education, engineering education policy, and the philosophy of engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 A Century of Defining Engineering Education Abstract The broad issue question addressed in this paper is how the complex interface between engineering education and the larger contexts in which it is embedded change over time. These contexts—social, intellectual, economic, and more—define both the educational approaches taken and how various approaches are valued. These contexts are themselves inter-related, forming a complex system of which engineering education is a part. The interface between engineering education and the larger system is not unidirectional; while environmental changes can affect engineering education so too does engineering education affect the larger environment. This paper adopts a philosophical perspective in exploring some interrelationships between engineering education and the larger social-technical-economic system. To explore the extent to which a meaningful conceptual ontology exists for dialog of the role on engineering education in society, definitions of how engineering for the purpose of engineering education are examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the 2019 Interdisciplinarity Report
    CREATING NEW INTELLECTUAL SPACES INTERDISCIPLINARITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | 2019 University of Washington Box 353770 Seattle, WA 98195-3055 grad.uw.edu INTRODUCTION The University of Washington has been a leader in interdisciplinary research and training well before the concept of interdisciplinarity became commonplace. Our first interdisciplinary graduate programs were initiated in the mid-1960s: Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management (QERM, 1966) and Urban Development and Planning (UDP, 1967). Our first graduate from our Interdisciplinary Individual Ph.D. program was in 1970. And Museology was established in 1972. These ground-breaking programs — all still active and vital — predate, or coincide with, the first international workshop on interdisciplinary studies. Organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED), the workshop was held in 1972. This meeting resulted in the publication of the book, “Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.” Between the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, some aspects of interdisciplinary approaches were beginning to find a foothold in parts of the academy; however, disciplinary distinctions (and silos) tended to define the university landscape. In 1995, “The Reshaping of Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers,” published by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, recommended that scientists be skilled to work in interdisciplinary groups to enhance their understanding of different theoretical and methodological approaches. It was around this time that we begin to see scholarly work on interdisciplinary research, teaching and learning, and funders such as NSF and NIH advocating for enhanced interdisciplinary training. Today, interdisciplinary approaches are far more integrated into the academy with fields such as neuroscience, molecular engineering, bioengineering as well as area studies considered standard fare.
    [Show full text]
  • Eulogy for the Clinical Research Center
    Eulogy for the clinical research center David G. Nathan, David M. Nathan J Clin Invest. 2016;126(7):2388-2391. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI88381. Op-Ed The extramural General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) program has been funded for more than 50 years, first by the National Center for Research Resources, NIH, and more recently as part of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program through the newly formed National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences (NCATS). The GCRCs represent the federally funded laboratories that employ a highly trained cadre of research nurses, dietitians, and other support staff and in which generations of clinical investigators trained and performed groundbreaking human studies that advanced medical science and improved clinical care. Without the opportunity for adequate discussion, NCATS has now stopped funding these Research Centers. In this “eulogy,” we review the origins and history of the GCRCs, their contributions to the advancement of medicine, and the recent events that have essentially defunded them. We mourn their loss. Find the latest version: https://jci.me/88381/pdf OP-ED The Journal of Clinical Investigation Eulogy for the clinical research center David G. Nathan1 and David M. Nathan2 1Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. icans with a desire to learn the biomedical research technology of the early twentieth The extramural General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) program has been century were forced to travel to England, funded for more than 50 years, first by the National Center for Research France, Austria, or Germany.
    [Show full text]