1 / 23

Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business)

Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business). 2002-2009. Outline. ISTeC NSF/NIH Funding Research Questions CSU Funded Research Visualizations Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science). Background. Events

usoa
Download Presentation

Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Funded Research Visualizations at CSUJames Folkestad (CAHS)Stephen C. Hayne (Business) 2002-2009

  2. Outline • ISTeC • NSF/NIH Funding • Research Questions • CSU Funded Research Visualizations • Interdisciplinary Collaborations (Map of Science) Research @ CSU

  3. Background • 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 Research @ CSU

  4. Prior Research • 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) Research @ CSU

  5. Prior Research • 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 Research @ CSU

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

  7. Research Model with Events Research @ CSU

  8. Considerations • Not Communications Data • Not Publication Data • Not Citation Data • No External Relationships • No Implicit Relationships • However, $$ speaks loudly • Less gaming? Research @ CSU

  9. CSU Federally Funded Research Research @ CSU • Sponsored Programs data from 2002 to 2009 • 2002-2005 is PRE • 2006-2009 is POST • 5291Funded Grants • 1411 CSU Researchers • 5111 Relationships • PI, Co-PI, Collaborator

  10. Grants and Proposals Research @ CSU

  11. Measures • 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. Research @ CSU

  12. Measures • 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 … Research @ CSU

  13. Research @ CSU

  14. Cut Ties Isolated Researchers BiologyCluster CS/EE Biology Math/Physics Engineering Chemistry Biotechnolgoy Research @ CSU Humanities Earth Sciences Infectious Diseases Medical Brain Health Professionals Social Sciences

  15. Summary Statistics (Significance codes:  ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05) Note: Grants are 2x larger ($$) if interdisciplinary *** Research @ CSU

  16. Pre vs. Post Network Structure 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! Research @ CSU

  17. Pre (2002-2005) CS/EE Biology Math/Physics Engineering Chemistry Biotechnolgoy Research @ CSU Humanities Earth Sciences Infectious Diseases Medical Brain Health Professionals Social Sciences

  18. Post (2006-2009) CS/EE Biology Math/Physics Engineering Chemistry Biotechnolgoy Research @ CSU Humanities Earth Sciences Infectious Diseases Medical Brain Health Professionals Social Sciences

  19. 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%) Research @ CSU

  20. Pre (2002-2005) CS/EE Biology Math/Physics Engineering Chemistry Biotechnolgoy Research @ CSU Humanities Earth Sciences Infectious Diseases Medical Brain Health Professionals Social Sciences

  21. Post (2006-2009) CS/EE Biology Math/Physics Engineering Chemistry Biotechnolgoy Research @ CSU Humanities Earth Sciences Infectious Diseases Medical Brain Health Professionals Social Sciences

  22. Cut-Ties • 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 Research @ CSU

  23. Strategy for CSU? • 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? Research @ CSU

More Related