Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2002-2009.  ISTeC  NSF/NIH Funding  Research Questions  CSU Funded Research Visualizations Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science) Research.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2002-2009.  ISTeC  NSF/NIH Funding  Research Questions  CSU Funded Research Visualizations Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science) Research."— Presentation transcript:

1

2  ISTeC  NSF/NIH Funding  Research Questions  CSU Funded Research Visualizations Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science) CSU 2

3  Events National Academies Report (late 2004) NSF/NIH “interdisciplinary policy” emerges (2005) CSU Supercluster Initiative announced (2006)  Innovation for Global Competitiveness  Porter – “strength of linkages” (2000)  Porter’s “Economic Clusters” (1998)  Silicon Valley Technology Hub, California Wine Cluster CSU 3

4  Innovation “myth of the lone inventor” (Berkun, 2007)  Creativity “key concerns of organizations and businesses” (Runco, 2004)  Collaboration “increased innovation in bio-tech startups” (Napier & Nilsson, 2006) CSU 4

5  Collaboration is hard… Many barriers to success (various)  Interdisciplinary Collaboration is harder! “merely reconfiguration of old studies” (Rhoten, 2004)  Academia consists of disparate cultures and tribes that continue to operate in isolated disciplines CSU 5

6  What is the structure of the relationships between researchers at CSU?  Are there any differences in these structures pre/post the “supercluster” change events? CSU 6

7 7

8  Not Communications Data  Not Publication Data  Not Citation Data  No External Relationships  No Implicit Relationships  However, $$ speaks loudly Less gaming? CSU 8

9 9  Sponsored Programs data from 2002 to is PRE is POST  5291Funded Grants  1411 CSU Researchers  5111 Relationships PI, Co-PI, Collaborator

10 CSU 10

11 YearProposalsAmount $281M $418M $411M $381M $441M $405M $515M $901M YearGrantsAmount $159M $175M $189M $199M $170M $161M $224M $187M FundedNot Funded CSU 11

12  Density How tightly bound a system is, and denser networks are desired, being more resilient, and for increasing productivity and collaboration.  Centrality A centralized network is highly dependent on a few key people to start initiatives and distribute information. CSU 12

13  Cut Ties (Bridges) Bridges are ties (lines) in a network whose removal would cause a separation between network components and disconnect one part of the network from another  Bridges are important … CSU 13

14 CSU 14

15 Isolated Researchers Cut Ties Biology Cluster Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities CSU 15

16 FundedProposals $ Mean (Normalized) Individuals (Teams) InterDisc Relationships DensityBetweenness Centrality Cut-Ties (InterDisc) PRE 2067 $349,682 *** 676 (229) *** * 66 (41) POST 3224 $230,000 *** 767 (305) *** * 65 (30) Not Funded PRE 2914 $510,922 *** 742 (430) *** (77) POST 4337 $521,640 *** 826 (535) *** (74) (Significance codes: ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05) CSU 16 Note: Grants are 2x larger ($$) if interdisciplinary ***

17  Less funding ($$) per proposal  Fewer relationships and much fewer interdisciplinary relationships  Fewer interdisciplinary cut-ties, i.e. less connections between clusters  Yet, interdisciplinary grants are 2x larger! CSU 17

18 Isolated Well Funded Researchers Less Funded Connected Researchers Well Funded Isolated Cluster Mike Kirby Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities CSU 18

19 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Pre ( ) CSU 19

20 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Post ( ) CSU 20

21  Density Not Significantly Different  Betweenness Centrality Decreasing! (p <.0212)  Cut-Ties (Interdisciplinary Bridges) Decreasing!Pre=66(41)Post=65(30) Collaborations: 659(22%)700(16%) CSU 21

22 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Pre ( ) CSU 22

23 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Pre ( ) CSU 23

24 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Post ( ) CSU 24

25 Math/Physics Chemistry CS/EE Engineering Biotechnolgoy Earth Sciences Biology Infectious DiseasesMedicalBrainHealth ProfessionalsSocial Sciences Humanities Post ( ) CSU 25

26  Involved in Less Funding From $243M to $155M  10 Cut-Ties in Pre and Post Data Less Funding: $85M to $45M  Interdisciplinary Ties: Slightly more funding: $67.3M to $75.4M But, 182 to 263 relationships CSU 26

27  Density of overall network is very low Lots of individual researchers!  Relatively few teams with very few interdisciplinary ties, thus even fewer interdisciplinary cut-ties!  IS CSU poorly positioned for interdisciplinary funding? CSU 27

28  Is this the direction CSU intends to go?  Nationally – are larger $$ being awarded to inter-disciplinary teams? Is CSU missing these opportunities?  Or? CSU 28


Download ppt "2002-2009.  ISTeC  NSF/NIH Funding  Research Questions  CSU Funded Research Visualizations Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science) Research."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google