Research Issues and IUPUI
Informatics
Why worry about Research?
•
Maybe your institution or chair demands that you do
research?
•
I do research as I want to discover interesting useful
ideas e.g. curiosity
•
Research is needed to allow faculty to keep up with
the field
– I would view much of CS curricula misguided as the teachers of it have not kept up with the field
•
PS I don’t believe there are many “fundamental ideas”
in CS/Informatics
– Unlike Physics where Mother Nature made fundamental decisions
What is Research?
•
In Physics (where I started research in 1964) the
difference between research (new ideas) and
development (skilful building of things based on known
ideas) is relatively clear
– But an experimental physicist spends 95% of their time on development (“engineering”)
– A theoretical physicist spends 95% of their time on research?
•
In computing/Informatics, it is not so obvious
– The field changes faster than physics but much of it is advanced development
– Developing Google maps, XML, Flash etc are advanced development but they are transformational in impact
Research Strategy I
• Always aim to do best possible work and
structure research strategy and proposals to
reflect this
• It is very unlikely that your nifty idea is new
unless you are really familiar with field
–
Don’t start serious work unless you know current
state of the art
• It usually takes a long time to develop a
fundable proposal
–
Need to nurture future areas while “living off”
current areas
Research Strategy II
•
It took me 4 years from co-organizing a computational
earthquake science meeting in 1997 to obtaining NASA
funding
– Several NASA projects funded since 2001 but all NSF proposals in this area turned down.
– NSF proposals were technically as strong as NASA ones but different reviewer base
– Note communities are surprisingly distinct; NSF does not
acknowledge our work even though NASA gave it accolades
•
Sometimes it doesn’t work out: in 1997 I developed pretty
innovative web-based Crisis Management Collaboration
system; all follow up NSF/NASA/DoD proposals turned
down; finally got a DoD grant in 2005 in a different area
but based on contacts I made from previous work
– The rejected proposals were very good like accepted ones but not in areas reviewers related to as most work in this area from industry;
Collaborate
• US Funding agencies love collaborative multi-institution proposals
– Often easier to get 20% of a $1M proposal with 5 institutions than one $200K solo proposal
– 20 years ago I got a Caltech only proposal for $1.8M/year (mainly people) – such days have past for me
• Note very unlikely (statistically) that best work in any area done locally so expect to need (inter)national collaboration
– Only prepare proposals with only people from your institution if all components are world class and perceived to be world class
• Build long term partners; today’s research colleague is tomorrow’s program manager at Darpa or Lilly
• Not important to be Principal Investigator
• It is important to pursue an agenda identified with you in a collaboration
– Once I developed an innovative technology; nobody took it seriously as I was collaborating with a really great researcher in that technology area; key people assumed he did work and there was nothing he could do to change this perception
– Obvious lessons for students of well known faculty
Know your Funding Agencies and their
review strategy/peer review community
•
NSF:
The research and education community
•
NIH:
In between NSF and NASA in style of successful
proposals
•
NASA:
Work with laboratories (Goddard, JPL etc.)
•
DoE:
Work with laboratories (Argonne, Oak Ridge
etc.)
•
DoD/Darpa:
Must know the real intent of solicitation
and program manager who often has strong technical
impact on program
•
Industry:
Very erratic in USA; stronger in Europe
Know your Reviewers
• Reviewing involves “peer” review by mail from funding agency, panels and agency program managers
– Different agencies have different balances here – Varies from NSF peer reviewers and panels
– to DoD program managers
– Other USA agencies are in between
• Many reviews are incorrect as the reviewers do not understand your proposal and if it is too innovative, cannot understand it
– Example: My “best” proposals in 1995 for web-based computing and web-based education were soundly rejected even though in retrospect “right-on”
– Make your proposals exciting but not too far out
• NSF OCI and CISE are computer/computational scientists; NSF EHR are Cognitive Science/School of Education
– Neither unit will easily fund researchers from the other
– All my EHR proposals turned down except for a small $50,000 grant
Interdisciplinary work
• Many people extol the value of
interdisciplinary work and much of my
research is of this type
• However some dangers as hard to get
respect from people of a different field
• Publish papers in arenas natural for
component disciplines
• Only do interdisciplinary work where each
involved field is high class
Glittering Diamonds
• Often reviewers judge proposals on people involved and not the content (which they don’t in fact understand because it is “too far out” or an area outside their expertise)
• Thus good to put “glittering diamonds” on proposals;
researchers who are and are perceived to be world class
• However reviewers note “fake collaborations”; only put those really involved on proposal and best to have pre-existing
collaborations documented with joint papers etc.
– Write papers with your collaborators before submitting proposal
• Take important fields at IUPUI (media, biomedical …..) and identify the needed distinguished collaborators
– If there are no obvious ones, ask your chair to hire or help find!
The Institutional Advantage
• Although institutions important, remember for federal proposals Indiana is not usually perceived to be a leader so
• for example, do not write an IU proposal; write an national/regional proposal
• Often artifacts – hardware, software, power – are very important and can be leveraged for success
• I leverage “power” of “Alliance for Equity in Higher Education” which represents 335 Minority serving institutions
– NSF funding and indeed project successes partnering with AIHEC, HACU and NAFEO
– In outreach look for systemic not point solutions • UITS has excellent infrastructure
• The medical school must have useful artifacts
Further Principles and Issues I
•
Don’t waste time on hopeless idealistic proposals
•
Safe strategy is to get started as a partner with one or
more “Glittering Diamonds”
– Best to be funded as a servant in heaven rather than be rejected as a ruler in hell …..
– The Glittering Diamond is a perfect tenure reference
•
Do not tabulate a lot of wishful thinking i.e. possible
but not real activities
•
Publications and papers benefit from results with good
graphics
•
Have clearly stated ideas and activities in your
proposal;
make it clear you know competing work
•
Focus
– do not be too broad; quality better than
quantity
Further Principles and Issues II
• Not important to be PI; co-PI role in many ways best
• If you put together a joint proposal, the PI must expect to do 95% of work; organize brainstorming sessions as they create links between collaborators and this shows in proposal quality • Organizing specialized workshops is a good way to become
known
• Letters of support of dubious value; all escalated so not useful for reviewer; letter writers are restricted from being NSF
reviewers for your proposal
• Now you should be exploiting your current knowledge but
thinking of the new thrusts that you will exploit 5 years from now
– I have made many mistakes here; early on I dismissed Grids as
obviously wrong but it was me that was wrong as it evolved to tackle different problems where it is a good idea.
• Budgets take a lot of effort but remember even if proposal approved, agency will change budget – so budget should
