WMOD00593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Question No. of Responses Investigator's evaluation of project administration I I Modal Response Table 5. 16 No. in Mode 11 (14) 11 (16) 7 (12) 6 (11) 9 (12) & Meiman in mid-1975 3.a. Staff attitudes to the project are .... 3.b. Attitudes of each member to other members of project The morale of proj ec't workers is .... 3.d. Favorable 16 Favorable 16 High , 4.h. Should the project l,eader be an outstanding research~r? 16 Important 4.i. Should the project l~ader be an exc<;l1ent administra,tor? 16 Important I Source: Responses to the questionnaire administered to SJEP investigators by Benton (See Appendix A). I , Questions condensed from th~ actual form used. All questions were scored b~ each respondent on a scale with 7 classes. The modal response is the one used most frequently by responderts. For range of modal response classes, see Appendix A. Values in parentheses are fbr the modal class and the two adjacent ones. I I SAN JUAN ECOLOGY PROJECT Phose I I Appoint: I I I I I ~~v~e I _E.!~~~n_J of Reclamation Consultants Phose It I I I I I , IE" Quarterly L.:~~~o~~n__ _ , , Figure 1. The structure of the San Juan Ecology Project~ Phase I:and Phase II are separated in timej The arrows within each phase represent flows of information. , Proposals directed at these: components were then sought. At CU, a team of i~terested researchers was located and these workers were then asked to iden- tify problems and produce proposals. i , Funding decisions were made'on the basis of indi- vidual proposals rather tha~ a single all-inclusive proposal for the entire project. This filtering meant that, budget constraints aside, it became impossible to integrate SJEP as an ecosystem study. The decisions on funding al~o produced most of the early tensions in the proje~t, generating a sense of competition between the two main university groups rather than between $ubprojects. During Phase II, the formal process of reviewing research progress was entirely internal to SJEP and was carried out by the Steering Committee and the Bureau of Reclamation. This procedure also intro- duced bias to evaluations which tended to maintain extant research projects rather than to introduce new ones, though some modification of ongoing projects did occur in the final years of SJEP. The lack of major changes in Phase II of SJEP may, of course, indicate that the right decisions were made at the end of Phase 1. Three comments about the structure shown in Figure 1 are worth consideration here. They are the questions of public involvement, reviews of research progress. and separation of Phase I and Phase II work. Each of these topics could have been approached differently under SJEP. A final para- graph in this section suggests areas of research omitted from SJEP which we now feel should have . been included. ,. Public involvement in SJEP, whether for defining research needs or in information exchange, was slight. At the start of the project, some recog- nition of local (i.e. Colorado) environmental concern is implicit in the decision of the Bureau of Reclamation to seek a research team from in-state institutions, but during Phase II these concerns have been met only by Project Skywater Newsletters and infrequent news releases. Were the project to be initiated in 1976, this situation would not be duplicated, if only in response to a higher level of political interest in research expenditures. Perhaps because they consider a geographical area in which a larger population would be directly impacted by additional snowfall, Cooper et al. (1974) show a greater recognition of the social impli- cations of snowpack augmentation than appeared in the San Juan Ecology Project. In SJEP, the planning group was initially directed by the Bureau of Reclamation not to investigate social or economic questions. The internal review and evaluation of research progress in the SJEP was probably inconsistent since a standard policy was never stated explicitly. This deficiency seems to have developed from the early 25