WMOD00593

• Contract/Permit #: 14-06-D-7052
• Title: Ecological Impacts of Snowpack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado
• Date: 3/1/1976
• State: CO
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

Table 2. Perceived interdikciplinary nature of the San Juan Ecology Project
I
Question \ No. of Responses Modal Response No. in Mode
I
9.a. How interdisciplinary is
the project? I 16 Very Interdisc. 5 (10)
9.b. The project effectedl interdisc.
connections 15 Agree 9 (11)
9.c. I have gained new id~as etc.
from the project 16 Strongly Agree 6 (8)
9.d. The project solved interdisc.
problems 15 Agree 6 (11 )
I
9.e. Objectives unattainaple by disc.
methods 16 Agree 7 (12)
9.f. I would participate ~gain 16 Strongly agree 8 (10)
9.g. Results have signifi~ant social impac t 16 Agree 6 (14)
9.h. Project contributed to interdisc.
education 15 Agree 7 (12)
9. i. Project had impact on research
methods 16 Agree 8 (13)
9.j. Project had impact I public
on
policy-making 16 Agree 6 (12)
I
9.k. Results transmitted ~o appropriate
audience 16 Agree 7 (12)
9.l. Given fiscal constraints, the
project was 16 Effective 5 (10)

Source:

Responses to the q~estionnaire administered to SJEP investigators by Benton & Meiman in mid-1975
(Appendix A).

I
Questions condensed from th~ 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 responde4ts. For range of modal response classes, see Appendix A.

Values in parentheses are f6r the modal class and the two adjacent ones.
I

"project administration."

Some flexibility in the administrative structure of
SJEP seems to be reflected in the way in which the
administration was seen to ~perate. Table 4 shows
that individuals felt that they were able to parti-
cipate in goal-setting and were responsible for
achieving project objective~. They were also aware
of the leaders' search for ~deas and concern for
interpersonal relations amo~g the researchers. How-
ever, it is important to note the low level of con-
sensus among the responses ~ummarized in Table 4:
the modal classes usually i~clude only 25 to 40
percent of the responses. ~ wide disparity ifr the
perceived working of the project administration
reflects interinstitutional Idifferences in
administration or questionnalire responses, other
administrative inconsistenci'es, or perceptual
differences between investigators.

An evaluation of the project; administration from an
investigator's point of vie~ is summarized in
Table 5 which also includes explicit responses about
the qualities needed in interdisciplinary research
administration. SJEP invest~gators clearly felt that
it is most important that the leader of an inter-
disciplinary project be a gopd administrator and,
secondarily, an outstanding researcher. In fact,
the modal class of "importan~" was the lowest
response to the question about 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 from
SJEP (Appendix II, p. 488), and, the funding of work
related to the project from agencies other than the
Bureau of Reclamation. It is tempting to account
for the perceived success of the project in terms of
the flexible approach and fiscal independence pro-
vided by its multi-institutional nature. The Benton-
Meiman survey does not show SJEP to have been sig-
nificantly more flexible than other interdisciplinary
projects but its investigators do seem to have
enjoyed a greater-than-average level of fiscal
independence.

Project Planning and Research Priorities

The topics of research initiation and ongoing evalu-
ation are not addressed by the Benton-Meiman
questionnaire and so this section of the project
evaluation is based upon a more qualitatively
assessed consensus of workers on the SJEP. 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