- Beth Holcombe, STIP Project Coordinator

December 5, 2007

Fox Lecture

Geoffrey Fox addressed our group last Friday.  His topic was eScience, which he defined as collaborative science over great distances.  He is inclined toward the philosophy that one should work with the top people in a given field, regardless of their physical location.  It's nearly impossible to get the top people all at once institution at the same time.  Competition in the workplace drives them to greener pastures, but physical distance is not necessarily a barrier to effective collaboration.

Fox named data as the key component in eScience.  Data is emerging in mass quantities and must be processed for progress to be made.  Data in its raw form is nearly useless and it takes a lot of people to deal with all the new information coming in.  International collaborations seem to be the answer, but they are tricky.  Some countries are unwilling to share their data, others are more than willing.  Nationalistic tendencies are not the other barrier.  Scientists within certain disciplines shy away from collaboration.  For instance, chemists do not like to share information, but biologists do.  This is due in part to the culture of a given discipline but also when it was developed or made great advances.  Biology as a field began to expand when the internet was pervasive.  Thus, biologists are more likely to engage in collaboration.  One example I found particularly compelling related to particle physics.  Almost all research in particle physics takes place in Switzerland at CERN.  The data all emerges from the same place and then goes global.  Particle physicist must collaborate or their field will not advance.

Fox offered some powerful insight on these collaborations as he has a lot of firsthand experience with them.  He mentioned physics collaboration with Japan and joint research in earthquake science with the Chinese.  These collaborations largely take place via the web and computer networks.  Fox mentioned the TeraGrid specifically.  The TeraGrid is a group of computers linked across the United States to enable scientific and technological cooperation.  China has a similar project within its borders.  Extending networks such as these would pave the way for international collaboration.

Fox offered several benefits of sharing an open system.  Many are wary of such a thing.  Surely the US military does not want to share its technology with those it deems to be a threat to the United States.  However, an open system may have predicted the tsunami that devastated so many people and nations in December 2004.  The institution in charge of monitoring activity in that region was not funded to operate twenty four hours a day.  No one was watching when the tell tales signs of tsunami began to manifest themselves.  If we had an open, global network, someone in Europe or North America may have predicted the tsunami.

This emphasis on information sharing led some in the audience to question Fox about distance learning and its future.  He commented that ten years ago he had predicted distance learning's inevitable success, but it did not turn out that way.  Universities do not want advancements made in distance learning because of what it does to the university "product".  It makes a university education more accessible, less expensive, and would draw students (customers) away from the traditional university setting.  Someone argued that cost alone would drive future students to seek distance learning as a means of achieving degrees.  Fox admitted that was his initial hypothesis, but time has proven him wrong.

Fox's firsthand knowledge and experience in this area was invaluable to the STIP audience.  I, for one, had no idea that certain scientific disciplines were unwilling to share information.  Countries withholding information was a little more predictable/understandable.  Also, learning about some of the current collaborations was helpful.  Our group has something to observe and model when proceeding with our efforts.

November 19, 2007

Summary of Altbach Lecture

Phillip Altbach, Monan Professor of International Education, at Boston College, addressed a large group of students and faculty last Friday.  He spoke about the nature of research universities as a whole and then specifically about challenges East Asian institutions face.  He started off by stating his goal of providing the audience with a broad portrait of the role of research universities.

The role of a research university varies depending on its location, but regardless of geography mistakes can and are being made around the globe.  The research university is a central entity of the 20^th century as it builds and nurtures academic links around the globe and these links are essential to the growth and development of a nation.  In the case of developing middle income nations, it is an issue of importance for policy and national success.

The research university is a relatively new invention, having its origins in early 19^th century Berlin, where the model evolved into what we currently understand it to be.  In Altbach’s view, all but one university in the world is based on this model.  They all stem from this Western model of higher education, which makes it difficult to embed local culture into its operations.

The Germans were the first to view advancement in science as being for the sake of national development.  Previously, the notion had been “science for science’s sake”.  After Germany changed focus, in the early 1800s, the US and Japan were quick to follow.  Now, research universities are not the only source of research, but they are the most important, and they can only exist in countries with a differentiated academic paradigm.  Margaret Thatcher inadvertently created such an environment in the UK by forcing universities there to compete for funding.  This developed deep inequalities in the system, but those schools that emerged at the top began the nation’s front-running research centers.

Altbach asserted that research universities share at least four common characteristics.

1)      They are public institutions, supported by the state, and receive sustained attention.

2)      Research is a priority over teaching.

3)      They are host to a large number of graduate programs and professional schools.  They offer a broad range of fields.

4)      They are resource intensive and need consistent funding.

Likewise, research universities share challenges.

1)      They are at a disadvantage in the public vs. private debate as they provide no immediate payback, but privatization dilutes the energy and focus of a university and its faculty.

2)      The commercialization of research

3)      The cost of operating a research university

4)      The lack of autonomy in an age of accountability

5)      The globalization of science

6)      They are not challenged by for-profit providers.

7)      They must be meritocratic in every way.  They cannot be corrupt or biased.

Altbach also listed requirements for academic professionals in a research university. 

1)      They must be full-time, research focused, qualified, competitive, and fluent in English.

2)      They must be well paid so they don’t leave or moonlight at other universities.

3)      They must have academic freedom

4)      They must have small enough teaching loads (two a semester) so they have time and energy for research.

5)      They must have a career ladder that is evaluated not associated with term length.

Specific challenges to East Asian research universities.

1)      The high cost of entry

2)      The cost of sustaining research

3)      A culture or research must be created and cultivated.

4)      The use of English

5)      Keeping talent in the university or, even, the country

6)      They need a competitive local academic culture.

7)      They must be free of corruption.

Altbach’s lecture concluded shortly after he provided the audience with this last list of East Asia specific challenges.  The moderator opened up the floor for questions, but most audience members provided their own insight rather than inquiry.  All in all, a very enlightening talk.

November 5, 2007

Reactions to Ross/Gieryn Presentation

This lecture really cleared up the questions I had after the reading, particularly the ones regarding the measurement of innovation.  Innovation and creativity mean different things to different people.  The presenters asserted that in their reading of NSF (National Science Foundation) materials, creativity is measured by publication.  Within the "Innovation System", innovation was measured by the number of commodities created and marketed successfully.  In a university context, the profitability of an idea is measured in the grant money it generates.  A need for a new metrics of innovation has arisen.

Also, a "universal" view of innovation is not useful.  In addition, creating a national innovation system will be of little use.  The presenters claim that viewing exchange networks is much more valuable.  And in that viewing, a few things need to be abserved in particular. 

1) What language is used in university to university partnerships?

2) What counts as a successful partnership by the participating members? How well do these views correspond?

3) Who benefits from the exchange and how?

4) How much does culture matter?

The presenters also proposed that researchers approach this problem from an ethnographic standpoint first, and then construct indicators of success and innovation.

I found the talk to be incredibly elucidating.  The presenters seem to have considered a variety of approaches.  Their paper was insightful and provocative.  If researchers heed their advice/approach, I'll be very interested to see the results.

October 24, 2007

Reactions to Ross/Hakken/Gieryn Reading

Cross-Cultural Challenges in Thinking about Innovation and Creativity:

The Case of Asian/US University Partnerships in Science and Technology

I found this paper to be highly informative and elucidating, but after reading through this paper several times, I am left with a few questions, most of them involving a simple clarification of terms.  For instance, what is meant by "contemporary social formations"?  Can you provide an example of an "unarticulated national system of standards"?

The authors do an excellent job of explaining why current indicators of innovation and creativity are no longer adequate.  I found their example of the breakdown in corporate research and development to be particularly helpful.  We all understand that corporations are in business to turn a profit.  Funding research labs locally is a drain on capital, and as with production, research and development are being outsourced.  Does this outsourcing increase the amount of innovation taking place or does it merely maximize profit margins?  How does one quantify the output of innovation?  From a corporate standpoint, would it be measured in a science to dollar ratio?

The authors were also right to stress the potential role of universities in innovation.  Universities are not in the business of making money, but rather of producing new knowledge and original research.  One could say that the university goal is "purer" in a sense.  In that respect, university-to-university relationships would be invaluable to the production of new knowledge, and observing the interaction in order to establish what both partners deem as success would be incredibly revealing.  Measuring this so-called success presents a difficulty, but the idea is compelling.  However there is the argument that a streamlined, corporate, organizational approach to the production of science and technology is more effective.  I'll be extremely interested to hear from the authors during their presentation this Friday.

October 22, 2007

Reactions to Bartholomew Lecture

East Asian Scientists and the Challenge of Professional Marginality

Bartholomew's lecture was by and large a presentation of the advanced reading he sent to our group with a few notable exceptions.  He reiterated Japan's geographic isolation, the difficulty of travel to and from East Asia, and the inherent problems of the Nobel nomination system.  He clarified a few misconceptions about the educational background of Japanese Nobelists and stressed the correlation between political stability and quality of scientific output.

One thing I found worth mentioning here is that the Swedes are currently trying to help Japan win Nobel prizes by focusing a lot of energy on young Japanese scientists.  Bartholomew didn't sufficiently clarify what form that help is taking, whether it is educational investment or merely paying closer attention to the work of East Asian scientists.  He mentioned an "opening up" of the nomination field to include more nominators of different cultural backgrounds.

One challenge that Bartholomew addressed in his lecture but not so much in his article is that of language.  Most scientists are forced to publish in English in order to receive international recognition for their work.  That presents a problem for scientists from non-English speaking countries.  They are burdened by the need to learn another language and to express themselves and their ideas cogently.  For some Nobel nominators or peer reviews, cogency is not enough.  Some scientists have been passed over for publication or recognition due to "language of insufficient elegance".

Professor Bartholomew was a font of knowledge and offered many concrete, illustrative examples throughout his talk.  All in all, a very enlightening lecture.

October 3, 2007

Reactions to Bartholomew Reading

East Asian Scientists and the Challenge of Professional Marginality

I’m going to be honest.  The professional marginality of East Asian scientists is not something that concerns me on a day to day basis.  I suppose that if I were an East Asian scientist, it would bother me quite a bit, and I would attempt to overcome professional marginalization in any way I could.  But where would I start?  Dr. James Bartholomew offers several insights into the origins, effects, and possible solutions of the problem.

When discussing marginalization, Bartholomew specifically addresses the issue of Nobel Prize recipients in East Asia, specifically Japan.  He uses that “lack” of this particular professional recognition as a measure for marginalization.  Now, it was easy for me to leap to conclusions about why scientists from the East may have been “ignored” by past generations of their peers.  Having read the title of Bartholomew’s article, “Overcoming Marginality in Japan’s Scientific Community”, I immediately assumed that prejudice and the supposed “superiority” of the Western scientific community resulted in limited acceptance of Eastern scientific discoveries.  And, while East and West certainly played a role, it was more geographic in nature than prejudicial. 

In the late 1800s and early 1900s the global scientific community was centered in Europe.  The major laboratories, schools, and scientific foundations were found on the Continent, and many scientists flocked to Europe for those very reasons.  It was relatively easy for scientists from Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc., to gather in Europe, and it seems obvious to point out that Japan was on the other side of the world.  A one-way journey from Japan to Europe took at least three weeks.  There was no real opportunity for meaningful interaction between Eastern scientists and their European peers.  Methods of communication were also limiting as sending letters also involved someone traversing halfway around the world.  This geographic problem not only limited interaction but professional recognition and exchange as well.  History also had its role to play in marginalization.  Japan’s participation in the Nobel program was interrupted by WWII.  As a result, Bartholomew divides scientific interaction into two eras: pre-war and post-war.  The events of the past have an indelible effect on the present and future. 

Bartholomew cites the Nobel Prize nomination process as being a problem as well.  One has to be nominated in order to receive the award.  If your peers remain uninformed of your work because of distance or politics, then you will not be nominated.  Also, most prize-winning scientists received multiple nominations over the course of years.  If getting nominated even once is a struggle, then it follows that winning is an unlikely outcome.

September 21, 2007

Reactions to Livingstone Lecture (see lecture summary)

Last Friday, September 21, 2007, Dr. David N. Livingstone gave a lecture on campus about the geography of science.  Having never considered that science is impacted by its physical and geographic location, I was intrigued by several of Dr. Livingstone’s assertions.

            Livingstone spoke about four geographical influencers in science: landscape agency, political ecology, print culture, and speech space.  All of these influencers were compelling in their own ways, but the roles of landscape agency and print culture were most interesting to me.

            Landscape agency has had a dramatic impact on the development of fundamental scientific theory.  Livingstone offered Darwin as an example.  It was the abundance of the tropical landscape that shaped Darwin’s scientific inquiry.  Seeing such variety, such extreme diversity in an insular locale greatly influenced Darwin’s theories about evolution, variation, and survival.  But what if the terrain hadn’t been so plentiful?  Livingstone contrasted Darwin’s environment with that of Arctic explorers.  The Arctic’s landscape does not display a variety of plant or animal life.  It is almost entirely barren.  Scientists working in these types of climates did not see struggle between species but rather cooperation, symbiotic relationships hinged on joint survival.

            Livingstone’s comments on print culture were especially compelling.  As an avid reader and one who studies foreign languages and cultures, the physical transfer of knowledge via printed material is an interesting topic.  Livingstone mentioned the geographies of reading.  Meaning changes and evolves just as a venue does.  His most tangible illustration involved pre-Civil War America, the Bible, and slavery.  How interesting that someone in the North reading the Bible sees only abolition whereas a Southern reader finds Biblical precedents and justifications for slavery! 

Livingstone also raised the issue of translation.  He specifically mentioned Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  At the time he was presenting such findings and his work was traveling internationally, Arabic had no words for species, race, or evolution. How can knowledge travel when its vocabulary is so limited cross-culturally?

All in all, the lecture was very illuminating.  It left me with several points to ponder.  Any other reactions?

September 5, 2007

Reactions to Livingstone Reading

David N. Livingstone, Putting Science in Its Place (Chicago, 2003)

Having read through a portion of Livingstone's book, I was struck by a number of his assertions.

First, the idea that the physical space in which science "takes place" creates limits.  With my more modern experience of science, it never occurred to me that a laboratory could be limiting.  Certainly, the physical environment can be quite restrictive.  Simply put, if you don't have the space to erect your telescope or store your chemical vials, you'll be limited in the degree of your experimentation.

Second, Livingstone illustrates how science moved from the laboratory to the public.  The architecture of the lab space, namely with steps leading to the street rather than into a private home, was conducive to this.  The notion was conceived that scientific knowledge was for the public.  Livingstone also cites several examples of public scientific displays and demonstrations.

Third, Livingstone's assertion that the geographical location of science affects its development also struck me as interesting.  He mentions "political disarray, demographic devastation, and economic recession" as factors as well as morality issues.  The social mores from region to region would impact what was deemed acceptable in experimentation.  (It reminded me a little of Michelangelo dissecting corpses by candlelight in order to better understand human anatomy for his sculpting.  He was forced to hide his investigations lest he be routed by the Church.) The author also submits that a general sense of moral disunity contributed to the spread of science.  Without a common moral compass, societies looked increasingly to science for answers to everyday problems.

Finally, Livingstone discusses where science is located.  He explores the physical presence as well as the abstract.  Science is located within physical space (a laboratory), is shaped by regional factors though it spans the globe, and exists in the general body of knowledge within the human mind and within research.

Other thoughts or reactions?  Please let me know.

Science and Technology in the Pacific Century

A joint research initiative of the University of Illinois and Indiana University

Coordinating offices:

Center for East Asian and Pacific Studies, University of Illinois

East Asian Studies Center, Indiana University

The STIP project explores shifts in the location of leading scientific research towards East Asian institutions, which is likely in this century to affect scientific practice and have significant impact on East Asia and the West.  the project objective is to build intellectual capacity and academic coordination on these topics.