1 / 13

Research Issues and IUPUI Informatics

Research Issues and IUPUI Informatics. Geoffrey Fox August 15 2008. Why worry about Research?. Maybe your institution or chair demands that you do research? I do research as I want to discover interesting useful ideas e.g. curiosity

bobby
Download Presentation

Research Issues and IUPUI Informatics

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. Research Issues and IUPUI Informatics Geoffrey Fox August 15 2008

  2. Why worry about Research? • Maybe your institution or chair demands that you do research? • I do research as I want to discover interesting useful ideas e.g. curiosity • Research is needed to allow faculty to keep up with the field • I would view much of CS curricula misguided as the teachers of it have not kept up with the field • PS I don’t believe there are many “fundamental ideas” in CS/Informatics • Unlike Physics where Mother Nature made fundamental decisions • Informatics/CS is a field largely created and shaped by what computers/networks/data systems we can engineer

  3. What is Research? • In Physics (where I started research in 1964) the difference between research (new ideas) and development (skilful building of things based on known ideas) is relatively clear • But an experimental physicist spends 95% of their time on development (“engineering”) • A theoretical physicist spends 95% of their time on research? • In computing/Informatics, it is not so obvious • The field changes faster than physics but much of it is advanced development • Developing Google maps, XML, Flash etc are advanced development but they are transformational in impact • I would aim at advanced development OR research

  4. Research Strategy I • Always aim to do best possible work and structure research strategy and proposals to reflect this • It is very unlikely that your nifty idea is new unless you are really familiar with field • Don’t start serious work unless you know current state of the art • It usually takes a long time to develop a fundable proposal • Need to nurture future areas while “living off” current areas • Currently I am developing multi-core research and I suspect it will repalce my “Grid research” 3-5 years from now

  5. Research Strategy II • It took me 4 years from co-organizing a computational earthquake science meeting in 1997 to obtaining NASA funding • Several NASA projects funded since 2001 but all NSF proposals in this area turned down. • NSF proposals were technically as strong as NASA ones but different reviewer base • Note communities are surprisingly distinct; NSF does not acknowledge our work even though NASA gave it accolades • Sometimes it doesn’t work out: in 1997 I developed pretty innovative web-based Crisis Management Collaboration system; all follow up NSF/NASA/DoD proposals turned down; finally got a DoD grant in 2005 in a different area but based on contacts I made from previous work • The rejected proposals were very good like accepted ones but not in areas reviewers related to as most work in this area from industry; • Some areas are hard to fund!

  6. Collaborate • US Funding agencies love collaborative multi-institution proposals • Often easier to get 20% of a $1M proposal with 5 institutions than one $200K solo proposal • 20 years ago I got a Caltech only proposal for $1.8M/year (mainly people) – such days have past for me • Note very unlikely (statistically) that best work in any area done locally so expect to need (inter)national collaboration • Only prepare proposals with only people from your institution if all components are world class and perceived to be world class • Build long term partners; today’s research colleague is tomorrow’s program manager at Darpa or Lilly • Not important to be Principal Investigator • It is important to pursue an agenda identified with you in a collaboration • Once I developed an innovative technology; nobody took it seriously as I was collaborating with a really great researcher in that technology area; key people assumed he did work and there was nothing he could do to change this perception • Obvious lessons for students of well known faculty `

  7. Know your Funding Agencies and their review strategy/peer review community • NSF: The research and education community • NIH: In between NSF and NASA in style of successful proposals • NASA: Work with laboratories (Goddard, JPL etc.) • DoE: Work with laboratories (Argonne, Oak Ridge etc.) • DoD/Darpa: Must know the real intent of solicitation and program manager who often has strong technical impact on program • Industry: Very erratic in USA; stronger in Europe • Local (your own university or State): Obviously pursue but won’t clearly add to national reputation

  8. Know your Reviewers • Reviewing involves “peer” review by mail from funding agency, panels and agency program managers • Different agencies have different balances here • Varies from NSF peer reviewers and panels • to DoD program managers • Other USA agencies are in between • Many reviews are incorrect as the reviewers do not understand your proposal and if it is too innovative, cannot understand it • Example: My “best” proposals in 1995 for web-based computing and web-based education were soundly rejected even though in retrospect “right-on” • Make your proposals exciting but not too far out • NSF OCI and CISE are computer/computational scientists; NSF EHR are Cognitive Science/School of Education • Neither unit will easily fund researchers from the other • All my EHR proposals turned down except for a small $50,000 grant • Implies education technology very weak in USA

  9. Interdisciplinary work • Many people extol the value of interdisciplinary work and much of my research is of this type • However some dangers as hard to get respect from people of a different field • Publish papers in arenas natural for component disciplines • Only do interdisciplinary work where each involved field is high class • Collaboration (even in a discipline) more important than “mindless interdisciplinary” work

  10. Glittering Diamonds • Often reviewers judge proposals on people involved and not the content (which they don’t in fact understand because it is “too far out” or an area outside their expertise) • Thus good to put “glittering diamonds” on proposals; researchers who are and are perceived to be world class • However reviewers note “fake collaborations”; only put those really involved on proposal and best to have pre-existing collaborations documented with joint papers etc. • Write papers with your collaborators before submitting proposal • Take important fields at IUPUI (media, biomedical …..) and identify the needed distinguished collaborators • If there are no obvious ones, ask your chair to hire or help find! • Collaborators MORE important than mentors

  11. The Institutional Advantage • Although institutions important, remember for federal proposals Indiana is not usually perceived to be a leader so • for example, do not write an IU proposal; write an national/regional proposal • Often artifacts – hardware, software, power – are very important and can be leveraged for success • I leverage “power” of “Alliance for Equity in Higher Education” which represents 335 Minority serving institutions • NSF funding and indeed project successes partnering with AIHEC, HACU and NAFEO • In outreach look for systemic not point solutions • UITS has excellent infrastructure • The medical school must have useful artifacts • Create and nurture your artifacts and glittering diamonds

  12. Further Principles and Issues I • Don’t waste time on hopeless idealistic proposals • Safe strategy is to get started as a partner with one or more “Glittering Diamonds” • Best to be funded as a servant in heaven rather than be rejected as a ruler in hell ….. • The Glittering Diamond is a perfect tenure reference • Do not tabulate a lot of wishful thinking i.e. possible but not real activities • Publications and papers benefit from results with good graphics • Have clearly stated ideas and activities in your proposal; make it clear you know competing work • Focus – do not be too broad; quality better than quantity • Involve PhD not Masters students!

  13. Further Principles and Issues II • Not important to be PI; co-PI role in many ways best • If you put together a joint proposal, the PI must expect to do 95% of work; organize brainstorming sessions as they create links between collaborators and this shows in proposal quality • Organizing specialized workshops is a good way to become known • Letters of support of dubious value; all escalated so not useful for reviewer; letter writers are restricted from being NSF reviewers for your proposal • Now you should be exploiting your current knowledge but thinking of the new thrusts that you will exploit 5 years from now • I have made many mistakes here; early on I dismissed Grids as obviously wrong but it was me that was wrong as it evolved to tackle different problems where it is a good idea. • Budgets take a lot of effort but remember even if proposal approved, agency will change budget – so budget should “compile correctly” and clearly match proposal but details not important; do justify what you put in!

More Related