WMOD00593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

among its participants. It I may be argued that SJEP has been multidisciplinary rather than inter- disciplinary since it has operated as a set of disci- plinary projects. Nevertheless, some interdisci- plinary aspects are evident~ particularly in the project planning stages, during which an integrated approach was envisaged, and, in the subsequent link- ing of subprojects. Whether SJEP is described as interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary does not, however, change the need for cooperation among participating scientists. In SJEP, scientific cooperation has been achieved relatively easily within th~ two research teams since, for the most part, each team worked on its own campus. At CU, this haS been achieved by the identification of SJEP with I the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research which provided a core of workers, and laboratory and office space. The contact be- tween subproject investigators has been reinforced by the concentration of field operations on a few sites in both the forest and tundra ecosystems. The next stage of conducting all SJEP field operations in close proximity was noc-Implemented. Had it been, inter-university cooperatiort might have increased. Such cooperation between teams has been more nebulous and resulted mainly from wo~kshops held at approxi- mately annual intervals. Even these workshops were not as useful as they might lhave been. Tight scheduling frequently minim~zed opportunities for informal discussion and interchange, and these meetings also seem to have been intended as review sessions rather than as a means of facilitating integration. ' Some evaluation of the leve~ of scientific coopera- tion is provided by the responses to the Benton- Meiman questionnaire; relev~nt results are summarized in Table 6. This summary shows a large number of "middle ground" responses (i.e. modal classes with a value of 3 or 4 on a scale qf 7), suggesting a modicum of scientific cooperation. For example, the modal response to the first question in Table 6 defines a moderate amount of teamwork (6 responses) but five respondents answered this question with "relatively little" and one with "none." Again, there are problems in evaluating these responses be- cause of the potential ambiguity in the interpre- tation of "cooperation." This could have been inter- preted as meaning either cooperation within a single university team, or within the entire Ecology Project. However, it is noteworthy that SJEP respondents seem to have found a significantly higher level of cooper- ative teamwork and fewer personality conflicts in their project than did respondents from other similar projects included in the Benton-Meiman survey. This is supported by the clear consensus in the responses about interpersonal attitudes in Table 6. Table 7 shows the results of an internal evaluation of the competence of SJEP investigators. In, general, it shows that a level of mutual respect existed among the project investigators. This should have aided cooperative work and may account for the relative success of SJEP in this regard. A relatively low level of scientific cooperation is probably not surprising, in view of the inter- university tensions generated in the early years of the SJEP and its division into subprojects. Nevertheless, most SJEP workers have felt that the project workshops and conferences have been useful in promoting interaction. This function might have been better served had workshops been held more frequently than once a year, and if they had been held in situations with fewer distractions than occur on a "home" campus. Their importance in SJEP was increased since they served as a basis for evaluating research progress through the review procedure. The question of scientific cooperation also applies to external contacts with scientists and agencies outside SJEP. On a formal level, the list of publi- cations and theses from SJEP addresses this concern. Table 6. Scientific cooper~tion in the San Juan Ecology Project Question No. of Responses Modal Response No. in Mode I 4.j. How much cooperative lteamwork on SJEP? 16 Moderate Amount 6 (10) 4.k. How much interperson~l conflict? 16 Some 6 (8) 4.1. How much conceptual/~ethodological conflict? 16 Some 6 (9) 5.e. How would you rate i~teraction on the SJEP? , 16 Moderate 7 (15) 3.b. Attitudes of each me~ber to other members of project 16 Favorable 11 (16) 8.c. Your responsibility for achieving project goals? 15 Substantial 4 (10) Source: Responses to the qtiestionnaire administered to SJEP investigators by Benton & Meiman in mid-1975 (See Appendix A). Questions condensed from the 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 respondenlts. For range of modal classes, see Appendix A. Values in parentheses are fo,r the modal class and the two adj acent ones. 27