These are the final results of the NUMS Research Interest Database Survey. Fifty-eight
surveys have been filled out and returned, with 24 of them filled out electronically. The
preliminary report
is still available, as is a breakdown of the Basic Science responses. The
complete, uncorrected content of each comment submitted is also included in this summary.
I would like to thank each person who submitted a survey.
Sections of the NUMS Researcher Interest Database Survey
- What should be included in the Researcher Interest Database
- How often should the data be updated?
- How would you like to submit new information
- Confidentiality/availability
- What information should not be made publicly available?
- Searching and accessibility of the Researcher Interest Database
- Usefulness of the database
- Making this database part of the annual review process
- Common uses for the database
- Additional comments
SURVEY RESULTS
Individual responses
- anything in progress
personal data
financial data
- It should replace the annaul review and be uniform for all Departments
- Current funding
- grant funding
- Grant funding information
- There should be two or three levels of access. Each investigator should be able to rank his/her
information into one of the three catagories.My ranking of data would be:
1. Worldwide should have biosketch, keywords, and research interests.
2. NU should have research information and inventory.
3. grant and time data should be private.
- Only biographical and publication data should be availableworldwide. The remainder should be available only within NU.
The investigator should also have the option to provide asubstitute for the grant abstract, if this abstract
will be obtained from ORSP.
- funding, collaborators, time and effort - only cv and research interests and recent publications should be available.
- biographical information, breakdown of time and effort
- Data on funding should not be publicized
- grant data, breakdown of time and effort, miscellany, equipment and research reagents
- not all funding information should be available. a list of agencies and times, but not money might be appropriate.
any annnual breakdown of time and effort is nobody's business but the faculty member's
- 1. phone numbers
2. office or home addresses
3. email links o.k.
- I think that only areas of interest and publications should be available externally.
- complete cvs
- Grant support
- % effort on various things; protocols, equipment, reagents; personal information like home phones, addresses;
- time allocation
- Corporate funding, donations, private grants
- Collaborators, reagents, equipment, funding sources
- Breakdown of time and effort
- depends on what it includes
- No opinion. Much of this info is already available if you want to dig through existing sources
(bibliographic data bases, membership directories) but I suppose some folks may
want to keep some current projects under wraps and that's ok.
- Grant info.
- Not sure
- Grant dollar amounts
Names of investigators in animal models research.
- Personal data
- Linking up faculty with overlapping research interests
- Complete CV
- CU's, biosketches
- preliminary results
Is there some other way of accessing this data that you prefer?
Individual responses:
- talking to your colleagues - we're pretty small
- probably ok in future
Individual responses
- Identify local technical expertise and equipment.Assemble information for grant appliations.
- recruitment of students and fellows would be heavily used by salespeople and grant competitors
would be used locally by those with less active research programs or those too lazy to use what is available already.
- It should replace the annual review, and be uniform forall Departments so it only needs to filled out once.
- Equipment or method; personally, I think people usually know who else shares their interests in
some field. If they need a WWW data base to find others with similar interests, something is wrong!
- good for attracting studentsgood for comparing research efforts
- Obtaining info on potential collaborations, equipment, cell lines, etc. Obtaining info for
submission of training grants, center grants, etc.
- 1. Annual reviews.
2. Shared grants: Training, Program projects, centers, etc.
3. Search for special equipment.
4. Search for expertise
- When looking for a collaborator to perform a technique you don't have familiarity with, or when trying to apply
information from your field to another field in which you think it might be useful.
- technique teaching expertisepotential collaboration
- To identify faculty with similar research interests with whichto develop collaborations.
This is especially important in maximizing collaborations in translational research -- bringing
the bench to the bedside.It would be useful in maximizing equipment usage.
- finding others in the university with similar interests
- Most useful for putting together program projects, traininig grants, core grants.
Also useful for searching for expertise in particular areas of research
- Extremely useful for identifying other faculty using a particular protocol or technique,
having cell lines or antibodies. Should definitely encourage collaborations
- Areas of dovetailing interests would be very easy to ascertain and would likely increase collaboration
between departments, i.e., generate new projects from existing models, equipment and techniques.
- It would be particularly helpful in identifying location of specific pieces of equipment and faculty
with a potential common area of interest.
- yes to all the above. Much of my work relies on collaborations with various labs with
particular capabilities. It would be INVALUABLE for me to have access to a database recording what people on the
NU campus do and how well they do it.
- It would help increase collaboration between departments, researchers and provide an opportunity for
residents and medical students to carry out research ideas by finding a mentor who matches their research interest.
- identifying collaborators, funding sources
- SEARCH FOR COLLABORATIONS, COMMON INTERESTS, POSSIBLE EQUIPMENTT OR REACGENTS TO SHARE
- Yes, other faculty using a particular protocol
- Identify possible collaboratorsInformal conosultation
- Grants
- Yes to all examples
- Stimulating collaboration within the University
- protocol, research interest, would be very useful
- For potential grad students, fellows and new faculty trying to learn about the research and equipment available here.
- Identify other faculty with similar interest
- Would use it to i.d. faculty with particular equipmentor ability to perform certain lab analyses, or
who had access to certain patient populations or research databaseas potential collaborators.
- 1. Who is doing similar work in other departments.
2. Different perspectives on same issues.
- Improve linkage between Evanston & Chicago Campuses.
- 1) Students interested in research
2) New faculty searching for collaaborators.
3) Faculty writing grants and searching for potential collaborators.
- Finding new collaborators
- Program project and training grant application
- Outside users identify research/labs that has expertise they need.
- 1. Help faculty find colleagues with common research interests.
2. Provide updated references of colleagues' research.
3. Reduce paperwork for training and program grants.
4. Expedite RO1 grant submissions.
- To seek possible collaborations. To seek appropriate consultants on a project/technique. To select potential contributors for my book. To select potential speakers for the symposium I am organizing.
- Identifying faculty or other researcher with expertise in a particular field.
- I would use it to identify other faculty with overlapping/complementary research to collaborate.
- new faculty or students getting a lay of the land
- Occasionl collaberation particularily when searching for clinical subjects.
Individual responses
- spend more time fixing the problems we have with HVAC, network access,plumbing, etc and the better researchers will do even better.give the money spent on this to an outstanding junior faculty member.
- I think you should separate annual reporting from informational databases. I assume the major purpose is for people to find each other, and find equipment and methodologies. The information on teaching, grant prep hours, etc. really don't belong here but in a separate database.
- Should list animal care and human subjects approvals for grants.
- This survey was well designed and I hope the database is started soon. I suggest the format be heavily nested with hypertext links for detail, e.g., titles of papers linked to abstracts.
- 1. If information from this database is merged to the annualreview, dept. review, etc. processes, it will tend to be inflatedunrealistic and inaccurate in a number of places as investigatorswill feel compelled to put the most favorable spin on their research.
- As director of resident research in the Dept. of PM&R, I would use the database to help find research mentors for residents.
- Let's Do It.
- I think this is a very good idea and hope it is developed/implemented soon.
- Having been her for nearly a decade, I've gotten to know or know of, people working in areas of interest to me. I'm unsure that cyber-searching will ever replace the informal networking, at lease for those of us in Preventive Medicine and the clinical departments.
- Would like to see primary goal paperwork reduction. Eliminate all those annual reports. Keep one decent database outline.
- 1. The database should include templates of standard forms (NIH, ORSP, Animal Care, etc.).
2. The database should include descriptions of NU facilities.
Return to the beginning of the survey
Basic Science Pages
Disclaimer
If you have questions regarding this survey, please contact Warren Kibbe
(x3-3229) or Bob Decker (x3-0338).
Survey results page based on 58 responses. Final tabulation 01/23/97, contact
WAKibbe@nwu.edu for qeustions on methodology.