WSP09641

• File Number: 8200.750
• Description: San Juan River General
• State: CO
• Basin: San Juan/Dolores
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 3/9/1976
• Author: Steinhoff and Ives
• Title: Ecological Impacts of Snowpack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains - Colorado - March 9 1976
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OD2:~76

Table 2. Perceived interdisciplinary nature of the San Juan Ecology Project

Question No. of Responses Modal Response No. in Mode
9.a. How interdisciplinary i.
the project? 16 Very Interdisc. 5 (10)
9.b. The project effected interdlsc.
connections 15 A.gree 9 (11)
9.e. r have gained new ideas etc.
from the project 16 Strongly Agree 6 (8)
9.d. The project solved interdisc.
problems 15 Agree 6 (11)
9.e. Objectives unattainable by disc.
methods 16 Agree 7 (12)
9.f. 1 l,I'ould participate again I~ '3t. 'tangly agree 8 (10)
9.g. Result s have signific8nt social impac.t 16 Agree 6 (14)
9.h. Project contributed to interdisc.
education 15 Agree 7 (12)
9.!. Project had impact on research
methods 16 Agree B (13)
9.j. Project had impact on public
polic.y-m..1.king 1~ Ag'tee 6 (12)
9. k. Results transmitted to appropriate
audience 16 Agree 7 (12)
9.!. Gi ven fiAcal constraints, the
projec.t '\O'as 16 Effective 5 (0)

Source: Responses to the questionnaire administered to SJEP investigators by Benton & Meiman in mid-1975
(Appendix A).

Questions condensed from the actual form used.

All questions were scored by each respondent on a scale with 7 classes. The modal response is the one used
most frequently by respondents. For range of modal response classes, see Appendix A.

Values in parentheses are for the modal class and the two ad1acent ones.

"project administration."

Some flexibility 1n the administrative structure of
SJEP seems to be reflected 1n the way in which the
administration was seen to operate. Table 4 shows
that individuals felt that they were able to parti-
cipate in goal-settin& and ~e~~ Tesponsible for
achieving project objectives. They were also aware
of the leaders. search for ideas and concern for
interpersonal relations among the researchers. How-
ever, it is important to note the low level of con-
sensus among the responses summarized in Table 4:
the modal classes usually include only 25 to 40
percent of the responses. A wide disparity in the
perceived working of the project administration
reflects interinstitutional diffeTenc.es in
administration or questionnaire responses, other
administrative inconsistencies, or perceptual
differences between investigators.

An evaluation of the project odministration from an
investigator's point of view is summarized in
Table 5 which also includes explicit responses about
the qualities needed in interdisciplinary research
administration. SJEP investigators clearly felt that
it is most important that the leader of an inter-
disciplinary project be a good administrator and,
secondarily, an outstanding researcher. In fact.
the modal class of "important" was the lowest
reSponse to the question ~bout the administrative
qualities of the leader; four responses were in the

highest class. "very important." There is also a
strong consensus among these responses which shows
a high morale among the workers on the project and
favorable attitudes to both the project and to other
workers. A generally good opinion of SJEP is also
shown in the record of publications resulting froro
SJEP (Appenllix II, p.488), and, the funding of work
related to the project from agencies other than the
Bureau of Reclamation. It is tempting tD account
for the perceived success of the project in terms of
the flexible a~~roach and fiscal inaependence pro-
vided by its multi-institutional nature. The 8enton-
Meiman survey does not show SJEP to have been sig-
nificantly more flexible than other interdisciplinary
projects but its investigators do seem to have
en~oy~d a gTeat~T-tnan-avetage level of fiscal
independence.

Pr01ect Plannin~ and Research Priorities

The topics of research initiation and ongoing evalu-
ation are not addressed by the Benton-Meiman
questionnaire and so this Aeetion of the project
evaluation is based upon a more qualitatively
assessed cons~nSU$ of ~oTkeTs on the SJEf. The his-
tory of decisions about the areas and needs of
studies which were part of SJEP is reviewed in the
Introduction to this report and is summarized here
before an evaluation is attempted.

23