funded research visualizations at csu james folkestad cahs stephen c hayne business n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 23
Download Presentation

Funded Research Visualizations at CSU James Folkestad (CAHS) Stephen C. Hayne (Business) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

usoa
101 Views
Download Presentation

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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