Introduction to the Report The report is split into sections, according to broad themes. Three of these are concerned with the stages of development from undergraduate to tenured professor. The funding issues are drawn together, although some of the ideas will be discussed in other sections. A section specifically discussing research in US chemical engineering departments is included because this is where we believe the greatest, and most important, differences lie between the US and the UK. |
|
Two appendices briefly reporting on our visits to the university departments and agencies are included. Two other appendices (Interdisciplinary Research, and Postdoctoral Positions) draw together special elements of the report which we believe to be crucially important. |
|
Our quest had three distinct stages: what were the seeds of success in the US, how did the system nurture these seeds, and how it the system planning to allow the seeds to continue growing? We were particularly interested in the patterns of research choice, the functions of the funding systems, teaching and teaching approaches at both undergraduate and postgraduate, and the strategies for development of all of the aforementioned. Clearly, we hoped to learn about ideas, approaches, and strategies which were not successful (and why), as this would be just as helpful to us in painting our picture of US chemical engineering research .<top> |
|
We wanted to visit as many of the top performing departments as possible within two weeks. The US has a total of 156 chemical engineering departments, of which 111 graduated at least one Ph.D. in 1997/8. Of these research-active departments, 42 graduate seven or more Ph.D.s per year, we defined these as the strongest departments, and restricted our search to these institutions. In the UK there were 11 departments which graduated seven or more Ph.Ds in the same period, and so the US research sector is about four times the size of the UK sector on that basis. This suggests that the conclusions which result from this report would be applicable to a dozen UK departments. |
|
Statistical analysis showed that traits and department statistics (e.g. proportions of female staff, and the distribution of seniority, etc) were broadly similar in the 42 departments of interest. Therefore, we could be confident that the differences in relative success were due to purely the abilities of the academic staff, and departmental policies and strategies. |
|
The main criteria were: general reputation, peer-reviewed ranking, and 'influence on the system' in terms of their Ph.D. graduates now holding posts at other institutions. In addition to the renowned departments, we were also interested in visiting some which were considered to be 'up and coming', but which perhaps were not yet challenging the very best departments. Selection was based on advice of senior academics in the UK and USA, or special requests made by the group members. Based on the most up-to-date and accurate information we could obtain, and the constraints discussed above, we visited 21 institutions which are set out in table 1. below. |
|
The other important element of the US system is the rôle of the funding agencies, we were very pleased to be able to visit four of the Washington D.C. based organisations (also listed in table 1.) Phillippa Rogers, Science Attaché to the British Embassy in Washington, selected these. All in all, the group visited nine of the top ten, and 20 of the top 25 departments, as defined by the listings of the National Research Council or the US News and World Report (both have the same top ten ranking), or the ranking based on cumulative citation indices for 1992-96 (we visited 12 out of the top 16). |
|
Each department was visited by a sub-group of four or more participants. The subgroups were not consistent in membership at all through the trip. In this way, ideas and observations could be mixed easily, and information passed effectively around the whole group. There were two exceptions to this: the majority of the party visited Minnesota, and everyone visited the funding agencies in Washington. .<top> |
|
Not all staff were available, but we requested that we be able to talk with particular individuals whom we believed were innovative and highly research active. We were most interested to talk to two groups of people: young staff in the early stages of their careers, and senior staff who had already demonstrated considerable influence through their work and leadership of in the chemical engineering community. .<top> |
|
The information we required was about people's perceptions and reasoning such as: progression and career choices, their reasons for taking that path, the reasons why they chose particular research topics, how they found dealing with the US systems, what they felt were the strengths and weaknesses, what it was which allowed them to flourish, what were the ingredients of the system which gave them opportunities and why, what did they feel was hindering them, what was their approach to risk-taking?. All of this type of 'soft' information could only have been successfully obtained by direct personal interview where feedback and new ideas can be explored at the time. Training in interview techniques, for the whole group, was provided by Professor Charles Baden-Fuller and his colleagues at the City University Business School. This training also significantly helped our understanding of the structure of the information which we were trying to elicit. |
|
During the visit, we distilled a number of issues which we were unaware of before our visit. Some of these issues became clear early on in the trip, and our interview structures were dynamically modified to take account of this. We held regular informal meetings and discussions during the trip to ensure that information and the ideas of what we had witnessed were exchanged effectively. All interviews were conducted in pairs, and were recorded (though written notes were made during the interviews). |
|
Two formal meetings of the whole group were constituted during the visit. One half-way through in Minneapolis, and the other in Los Angeles just before returning to the UK. At the first of these we discussed group-wide tactics for the second half of the visit. It was clear that some data were so consistent, that it was no longer essential to gather more, and other ideas became more important to focus on. The final meeting saw us distil all which we had observed, concluded, and drafted what we felt would be our recommendations. .<top> |
|
Work on Return to the UK |
|
In the light of interviewing US staff, we compiled a questionnaire to collate 'hard' data (facts and figures) which were significant regarding the new ideas which we had found. This was in addition to that which we had already gathered prior to the visit. This questionnaire was sent to each department after we returned. The response rate was 49%. |
|
An equivalent UK questionnaire was distributed within the departments which the UK party represented. (response rate of 30%). This allowed us to make a number of comparisons to set certain ideas in context. The UK questionnaire had further sections for comments concerning the UK community, funding arrangements etc. The data from both questionnaires was analysed using appropriate standard statistical techniques. |
|
Whilst in the US, brief notes had been made about the people and places visited. Full and reflective descriptions were written by all members of the group referring to the tapes. At a meeting two months after our return, a meeting was held to reaffirm the views expressed in the 'LA' document, and to iron-out any misunderstandings and misconceptions which we had picked up. This final document, together with the questionnaire data, was worked into the form of the report, which follows the introduction. .<top> |
|
We gratefully acknowledge the support given by the EPSRC for funding the study, and the interest and support which they have shown since our return. |
|
The visits would not have been possible without the wonderful support of the Chairmen, their staff, graduate students, and assistants in all of the departments we visited. You were all so helpful in making the arrangements on the day, providing excellent hospitality, and making us feel so welcomed. Thank you to all those who took the time to complete the questionnaires. |
|
We are deeply indebted to Phillippa Rogers and Roy Forey at the British Embassy in Washington D.C for arranging the visits to the funding agencies in Washington. |
|
We should like to thank Professor Stan Kolaczkowski of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Bath for continuing to support Colin Axon after the end of the grant. We are indebted to Bryan Taylor of University of Bath for providing the HEFCE statistics. We should like to thank Professor Charles Baden-Fuller and his colleagues at City University for the excellent interview training. We are very grateful to all of the UK staff who took the time to complete the questionnaire, and give their views. |
|
Last, but by no means least, Colin and John thank the gang for their good humour, and for making the whole trip fun and interesting..<top> |
|
|
|
|