Document Sample
					                                      University of Michigan

                      Self-Study Report for Institutional Reaccreditation

                         New Openings for the Research University:
       Advancing Collaborative, Integrative, and Interdisciplinary Research and Learning

                           Report of the Working Group on Research

Chaired by Max S. Wicha, Geneva M. Kellman Distinguished Professor of Oncology,
Professor of Internal Medicine, and Director of the University of Michigan Cancer
Center, the Working Group on Research, the Working Group on Research convened to
examine the role of collaborative, integrative, and interdisciplinary research in the
University.1 In the course of its proceedings, the Working Group was often reminded
how the key to the remarkable success of the American research university lies in the
diversity of its faculty and their interests and the premium that is placed on innovative
building of knowledge. As an institution, the research university has succeeded
because it has enabled ever-deeper development of disciplines and specializations, it
has opened fertile cross-linkages among fields, and it has encouraged faculty to push
into new areas of inquiry. The Working Group recognizes that the University of
Michigan‟s research leadership comes from the excellence and great diversity of its
faculty, and a campus culture that prizes scholarly exploration and experimentation.

As a great public research university, Michigan has long encouraged its faculty to
stretch disciplines and to seek new combinations of expertise to tackle complex
problems. Michigan values intellectual entrepreneurship that brings fields and
disciplines into collaboration. Faculty engagement across disciplinary and
organizational borders is a long-standing Michigan tradition, and has built an
exceptionally heterogeneous institution. Faculty pursue independent collaborations.
Institutes, centers, and programs number in the dozens. The Working Group
recognizes that in many instances, the cutting edge of research lies across the
boundaries of disciplines, and that collaborative, integrative, and interdisciplinary
academic work is part of a long-term restructuring of scholarly activity. In this context,
the ability of faculty to cross both scholarly and institutional grounds is a fundamental

1Members of the Working Group included Max Wicha, chair; Julia Adams, Sociology; Philip Bucksbaum,
Physics; David Burke, Medical School; Thomas Gladwin, Natural Resources and Environment and
Business School; Deborah Gumucio, Medical School; Paul Hays, Engineering; Maurita Holland, School of
Information; Bobbi Low, Natural Resources and Environment; Betsy Lozoff, Medical School and Center
for Human Growth and Development; Andrew Mead, Music; Henry Mosberg, Pharmacy and Biophysics;
Marvin Parnes, Office of the Vice President for Research; Nola Pender, Nursing; Carl Schneider, Law; and
Thomas Trautmann, History, Anthropology, and Institute for the Humanities.

barometer of institutional well-being. Such activity enables Michigan to sustain its
leadership in many research fields, and to provide innovative graduate programs and
fresh undergraduate teaching that brings new knowledge directly into the classroom.

The University faces challenges, however, in maintaining this fertile environment.
Some of these challenges are intellectual. In an era of rapidly expanding knowledge,
some faculty may see disciplines as impediments to advancement, while others see
interdisciplinarity as attenuating the achievements of specialization. Some challenges
are administrative. Changes in management of budgets can risk fragmentation of a
diverse and intellectually open environment. Opening new research initiatives can be
extremely costly, requiring new configurations. In these circumstances, the University
is looking for ways to sustain and advance an intellectual culture of exploration and
border-crossing that has produced a lively and diverse research enterprise.

Borrowings and adaptations of theory and method have long taken place between
disciplines. These exchanges are assuming new importance, as complex questions
challenge established borders. Ambitious faculty open new research areas that require
collaborations across the disciplines, specializations, and institutional borders of
departments, schools, and colleges. Developing comparative research on childhood
and violence may require bringing together area studies expertise with specialists in
anthropology, sociology, public health, social work, law, cultural studies, political
science, survey research, and other fields. Rita Rossi Colwell, director of the National
Science Foundation, has pointed out how challenges of understanding biocomplexity
require new forms of collaboration and communication across disciplines that include
mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, materials science, engineering, and social
behavioral science.2 The NSF has established its Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Training (IGERT) awards in recognition of the national need for developing a
high level of cross-disciplinary knowledge and expertise in scientists and engineers in
preparation for careers in industry, government, or the academy. The stimulus for
border-crossing is felt from other directions as well. The National Institutes of Health is
encouraging new interdisciplinary research and training programs, and is asking for
centers that span broad areas of the University in order to give broad focus to areas that
integrate both research and clinical practice. Especially in the biomedical sciences,
many faculty recognize that research imperatives have transcended departmental and
disciplinary borders.

The Working Group recognizes that in the arts and humanities collaboration often takes
a different form. For the most part, scholarship and other forms of creative work
remain solitary activities. Increasingly, however, scholars and artists seek critique and
comment at different points of incubation and development, and turn more frequently

2This theme is also emphasized in her talk “An Alchemy of Disciplines," made at the Materials Research
Society Annual Meeting, December 2, 1998.

to specialists in other fields for fresh interventions. As well, new sorts of collaborations
link different areas of disciplinary scholarship and the arts. Intense interdisciplinary
discussions propel work in new directions.

Collaboration co-exists with contention and disagreement. Border-crossing invites
vigorous intellectual disagreements that air out, test, and advance theory, method, and
practice. The Working Group is persuaded that during the past decade much
collaborative and interdisciplinary research has achieved new depth and productivity,
and that the importance of the contributions of this research will continue to grow
within the University. Indeed, it is imperative for the advancement of scholarship in a
number of critical areas. The Working Group recognizes, however, the many critical
contributions disciplinary-based research has made and will continue to make toward
enabling this success. The Working Group is concerned that invidious distinctions and
tensions about the boundaries of disciplinary and interdisciplinary work weaken the
research enterprise. Many of these tensions stem from incentives embedded in
institutional arrangements and practices. Achieving more effective arrangements for
collaboration and integration of research poses complex issues for managing and
adapting the decentralized organization of the University, and evolving a matrix that
recognizes the central value of cross-cutting research and learning. The Working Group
has looked for key issues affecting changing ways in which research is organized and
conducted. This report identifies areas of concern and suggests some ways these might
be addressed.

This report is organized in several sections that address the University‟s environment,
resources, and organizational structures for collaborative and interdisciplinary research.
Following a discussion of the charge and process and an introduction to Michigan‟s
heritage of interdisciplinary research, the report offers an overview of key initiatives
that took place during the 1990s. This is followed by a summary of present
arrangements for leading and managing the research enterprise, including the budget
system and its impact on collaborative work. The next session discusses how research
networks and communities evolve in Michigan‟s complex and decentralized
environment. An analysis of the structure of the University‟s interdisciplinary research
units and their relationship with the traditional academic units is followed by the
Working Group‟s suggestions about how barriers can be relaxed and what steps should
be taken to achieve better coordination and sustained cooperation for this important

1. Michigan’s heritage of interdisciplinary research

The past decade has confirmed Michigan‟s position as the leading public research
university. Michigan placed fifth in the nation overall and first among public
universities in Science Watch‟s survey of “Highest Impact” rankings of universities for

1993-97, which measures the frequency in which academic papers are cited by other
researchers.3 This success came as, from the early 1990s, Michigan began placing first in
the nation in total annual research expenditures.4 As scholarly and creative activity of
individual faculty, as collaborative projects among researchers, or as activity organized
through research units, the outpouring of scholarly and creative work is prodigious as
to volume and diversity. Recent notable instances abound, including William Bolcom‟s
preparation of his newest opera, an adaptation of Arthur Miller‟s “A View From the
Bridge,” Thomas Hales‟ solution of Kepler‟s conjecture in mathematics, and the
University‟s participation in the Magellan Project, a consortium under the Carnegie
Institution to build in Chile the largest private astronomy facility in the southern

The intellectual vitality and diversity of Michigan‟s faculty, the excellence of research
facilities and resources, and the freedom of faculty to seek new connections in other
disciplines and fields has enabled an extraordinary range of investigation and creative
work. Michigan enjoys a long-standing national reputation for the quality of its
interdisciplinary research. Over many decades, Michigan‟s Executive Officers and
Deans have supported faculty border-crossings and collaborations. A few instances of
this heritage can be noted.

   The Institute of Social Research, established in the late 1940‟s, is the nation's longest-
    standing laboratory for interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. At its
    inception, Michigan‟s survey researchers sought to extend their methods, developed
    during the war, to important broad areas of social concern. They were joined by
    laboratory social scientists who were eager to study group dynamics and to examine
    the social bases for behavior and attitudes. At a time when disciplinary boundaries
    were powerful, these pioneers saw that complex social problems could be addressed
    only through interdisciplinary collaboration.

   For 35 years, the Biophysics Research Division has been the center for University of
    Michigan researchers interested in applying ideas, concepts, and techniques from
    the physical sciences to problems in molecular and cell biology. BRD has a strong
    focus on interdisciplinary and integrative research. Its research and faculty
    represent a conjuncture of the College of Engineering, the College of Literature,
    Science, and the Arts (LS&A), the Medical School, and the College of Pharmacy, who
    share exploration of an extremely wide range of areas including structural biology,
    computational biology and biophysics, bioinformatics, and spectroscopy and its

3 Rankings were prepared by the Institute for Scientific Information and published in Science Watch,
September/October, 1998, Vol. 9 No. 5. See Appendix 4.
4 As measured by the National Science Foundations rankings of research expenditures, exclusive of

expenditures at university-associated federally-funded research and development centers. See Appendix

   The Center for Japanese Studies was one of the first area studies programs in the
    United States. In 1946, Robert B. Hall of the Department of Geography and a
    distinguished scholar of Japan, prepared a recommendation for the Social Science
    Research Council that would establish area studies as an interdisciplinary site for
    bringing together the humanities and social sciences. The following year Michigan
    launched its new center to develop an integrated and culturally-informed
    examination of Japanese society, culture, and politics.

This heritage of interdisciplinarity presses into the present day. At a time of rapid
development and growth in biomedical science throughout the University, and in
recognition of steps being taken by other leading research universities, in May 1998
President Lee Bollinger appointed a Life Sciences Commission to assess the University‟s
strengths and weaknesses in research and education, and to identify strategic goals for
the University to become one of the leading academic centers for the study and
application of the life sciences.5 The Commission submitted its report and
recommendations for new initiatives in February 1999, noting that the most important
aspect of the proposals was that they cut across the schools and colleges of the
University and require new levels of institutional collaboration.6 The Commission
noted that in the ten years between the 1982 and 1993 National Research Council
surveys, the disciplinary structures within the life sciences had changed so markedly
that direct comparisons between the reports is often impossible. The report calls for
initiatives in select areas, all of them interdisciplinary: biocomplexity; biotechnology
and translational research; genomics and complex genetics; chemical and structural
biology; and cognitive neuroscience. The Commission recommended the creation of an
institute to carry our many of its recommendations, as this structure would weave a
cross-cutting network among the schools, colleges, and departments. Its report
recognized that success will hinge upon the extent to which the University is able to
develop an even stronger interdisciplinary culture and to establish more effective
collaboration among the schools and colleges.7

This report includes a discussion of measures of activity of interdisciplinary and
collaborative research in the University, a presentation of the administrative structures
and processes that support this work, and an overview of the many research units. In
the second part of the report, the Working Group addresses key issues of

5 The Commission was co-chaired by Huda Akil, Gardner C. Quarton Professor of Neurosciences and Co-
Director, Mental Health Research Institute, and William R. Roush, Warner-Lambert/Parke-Davis
Professor of Chemistry.
6 Challenges and Opportunities in Understanding the Complexity of Living Systems, February 1999.
7 Following approval by the Regents in May, in July 1999, the President appointed a ten member Faculty

Advisory Committee for the Life Sciences Institute and Initiative to advise and assist President Bollinger,
Provost Nancy Cantor, and Gilbert Omenn, Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs.

communication, coordination, and resources and offers some recommendations for

Many faculty do interdisciplinary research or take part in research collaborations, either
in the form of loose confederations or through an organized unit, at some point in their
careers. The Working Group is persuaded that such work is becoming more frequent in
more parts of the University and, indeed, is perhaps becoming a central characteristic of
most advanced research. This trend challenges the University‟s institutional
arrangements and practices. Departments provide reliable evaluations of the quality of
disciplinary work. Identifying, measuring, and evaluating work at the interstices of the
disciplinary and professional homes is more difficult. Gauging the scale and diversity
of interdisciplinary and collaborative work is impossible. The activity of research units
can be reported, and data on collaborative sponsored research can be gathered. This
measuring does not capture many other kinds of border-crossing collaborations that
take place outside organized units. Nor will it reflect the volume and variety of such
research that takes place without support from external dollars. More collaborative and
interdisciplinary work takes place in this University, and in more forms, than can be
encompassed by this report.

2. New scholarly collaborations: a decade of openings within the University

During the past decade, the University has launched a number of new initiatives in
support of interdisciplinary and collaborative research, of which the work of the Life
Sciences Commission is the latest instance. Another notable effort included the
foundation of the International Institute in 1993. Launched with the mission of
advancing the University‟s international leadership in research, learning, teaching,
service and training in respect to the world and its regions, the Institute was provided
with funding to support joint faculty appointments and research grants that would
open new collaborations across the schools and colleges. As well, the colleges and
schools have launched many new collaborative centers and programs, more than in any
previous decade.8 Faculty have opened up many new research collaborations as well.
External sponsors provided an important stimulus for new collaborative research.
Motivated in part by concerns over contraction in Federal support for research, as well
as by interest in fostering intellectually creative partnerships, the NSF in particular
began to develop programs and guidelines that encouraged new cross-disciplinary
cooperation in research. Cumulatively, these activities have enhanced Michigan‟s
position as the nation‟s leading public research university during this decade, measured
by the volume of its annual expenditures from all sources in support of research and
scholarly activity. Sponsored research data underreports both the scale and scope of the

8Over half of the University‟s present interdisciplinary research units were founded within the past ten

University‟s research activity and offers no measure as to quality. In many national
competitions for research funding in many fields, Michigan proposals come in at or
near the top.

The growing importance of this activity over the past decade is reflected in data for
sponsored research undertaken by principal investigators from different academic
units.9 Significantly, this success came as the University began to think strategically
about how it might better foster interdisciplinary and collaborative research. Beginning
in the late 1980s, the Provost, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR), and
Deans and Directors recognized the need to identify barriers to collaborative activity
and to find ways to facilitate interactions. Investment in interdisciplinary and
collaborative research increased. In 1986 the Kellogg Foundation made a five year grant
of $5 million to the University to enable the President to launch a series of initiatives
capable of influencing the intellectual evolution of the institution. With support of this
grant, the Presidential Initiative Fund was established to provide substantial grants to
encourage research in new, less established areas of scholarship and creative activities,
especially in emergent areas where there may be high risk but potential for high gain.
The University agreed that after the initial five years, it would take on responsibility for
funding the initiative with internal resources, and in 1992 sustained funding for the next
five years. From 1987 through 1997, the PIF program made thirty-five awards, totaling
nearly $9,500,000. The purpose was to promote scholarship and creative activities
through various kinds of cross-disciplinary interaction, alliances, and collaboration.

The launching of the PIF program triggered a wave of faculty ideas and initiatives.
Many of these proposals were directed as well to other sources of discretionary funding
across campus and to external sponsors. In the first round of competition over seventy
applications were submitted of which six were funded. The process was
extraordinarily labor-intensive, however, both for faculty as well as administrators who
organized and managed the selection process. The second year saw a decline in the
number of proposals and by the third year it was seen that many ideas, while
worthwhile, were no longer very different from those received by other discretionary
grants programs on campus. Importantly, a process of open competition was
producing ideas for activities that were not coordinated and yielded little strategic focus
for the institution.

In light of this, by the fourth round the PIF program was modified to provide one-time
seed funding to provide the critical impetus for carefully and strategically selected
activities, and to do so through the usual channels of faculty interactions with Deans
and Executive Officers of the University to call attention to possible projects.10 A

9 Appendix 5 contains more detail on the volume, funding sources, and locations of sponsored research
10 Strategic allocations of this type were made to support International Studies and the Global Change


stronger planning process was needed to identify strategic research goals and priorities.
By 1994 OVPR had developed a new set of programmatic priorities that recognized the
difficulties in fostering and sustaining research across the traditional academic
boundaries.11 OVPR reallocated a portion of its budget and, with additional funds from
the Provost, developed a new phase of seed funding for a Strategic Research Initiatives
program. This is designed to enable high risk/high gain research that will help the
schools and colleges move toward more sustained patterns of collaboration. Complex
cross-linking research needs campus-wide leadership, and the Deans were asked to
identify important areas of research in coming years and where the University should
be active. These responses helped guide both funding decisions for both the PIF and a
Strategic Research Initiatives program intended to foster sustained and focussed
collaborations among the academic units. This funding has supported new faculty
lines, infrastructure and equipment, graduate student research assistantships, and
postdoctoral fellows. In turn, these activities have stimulated new levels of sponsored
research activity. Investments under PIF and the Strategic Research Initiatives
program, together with important contributions from the Provost and Deans, has
helped stake new research ventures across the University, including:

    supporting the Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work, a site for innovative
     cross-disciplinary research on information technologies and how they enable new
     forms of collaborative work in business and the academy;
    continuing support for the Center for Performing Arts and Technology, a
     breakthrough collaboration between the School of Music and Engineering;12
    nurturing the development of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender, an
     institutional umbrella for ongoing disciplinary and interdisciplinary research efforts
     focusing on women and gender at the University;
    supporting the foundation of the Center for Organogenesis, an interdisciplinary
     program in genetics and developmental biology that brings strategic focus to an
     important emerging area of biomedical research;
    sustaining the Committee on International Studies, which laid the groundwork for
     the International Institute, founded in 1995; and
    launching a Cellular Bioengineering Group that opened the way for
     interdisciplinary research and training of a new generation of cellular bioengineers.

As an outgrowth of this activity during the past decade, OVPR also oversees a number
of incubator units that have been created to initiate novel approaches to research and
scholarship. These incubators are funded through a combination of support from
OVPR, the Provost and Deans, and externally sponsored research grants. OVPR‟s
contribution is for a defined period of declining support. The incubators are not

11“Revised OVPR Programmatic Priorities,” January 17, 1994.
12The Center for Performing Arts and Technology was launched in 1987 with funding provided by the
Provost‟s Office from the Thurnau Trust.

intended to be free-standing units permanently: some are spun-off to schools and
colleges while others may be terminated after they have fulfilled their purpose. Units
founded since 1993 include:

    Arts of Citizenship Program,
    Cognitive Neuroscience Program,
    Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work,13
    Culture and Cognition Program,
    Initiative in Biomolecular Recognition,
    Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Center of Excellence,
    Program for the Study of Complex Systems,
    Project for the Integrated Study of Global Change,14 and the
    UM Substance Abuse Research Center.

Another notable OVPR program is the Distinguished Faculty and Graduate Student
Seminars Program, established in 1996 as a competitive opportunity to support areas of
innovative and emerging interdisciplinary scholarship and to complement the
development of new research centers and training programs. These grants support
seminars and colloquia, and help bring distinguished visitors to campus.

The Rackham School of Graduate Studies also catalyzes new connections of faculty and
graduate students across campus. The Rackham Summer Interdisciplinary Institute
was established in 1998 to enhance graduate interdisciplinary teaching and research, to
provide a place for exploring the integration of interdisciplinary research and teaching,
to link research questions and problems to the teaching of new or revamped
interdisciplinary courses, and seed interdisciplinary ventures.15

3. Leading and managing the collaborative and interdisciplinary research enterprise

At many different organizational and administrative levels, the University encourages and
supports innovative research, scholarship, and creative activity. The Working Group was
interested to learn how these levels operate and articulate with one another in order to
advance the research mission of the University and to support cross-cutting

13 Oversight has been transferred to the School of Information.
14 Integrated Study of Global Change achieved its purpose and was dissolved; its work is being carried on
through other initiatives it helped animate.
15 The 1999 Rackham Summer Interdisciplinary Institute met in May around the theme, "Disciplinary and

Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Body: From Cell to Self."

A. University leadership

The President and Provost have articulated the central value of collaborative, integrative, and
interdisciplinary scholarship within the University. They have underlined this commitment
through support for the Life Sciences Commission and other strategic cross-cutting

As chief academic officer, the Provost encourages and helps support important creative projects
that reach across and connect the academic units. The Provost and the Deans meet regularly
in the Academic Program Group (APG) to talk through central intellectual and
organizational issues for the University. In 1998-99, the APG organized a retreat to
discuss the future of the professoriate. From this emerged several subcommittees that
produced reports addressing issues of collaboration and interdisciplinarity and the
integration of teaching, research, and practice. The Provost also articulates the values of
collaborative research during the budget process when she asks the academic units to
develop and refresh long-range academic and budget planning. In order to help the
Provost and Deans understand, promote, and sustain high quality collaborative
activities, and to recognize where important barriers lie, the Associate Provosts have
been examining what kind of indicators might be developed to measure the quality of
collaborative and interdisciplinary activities.

B. The University Budget System

During the past decade, proposed changes in the University’s budget system created a cloud of
uncertainty for faculty, provoking much concern about consequences for interaction. Faculty
perceived a change in atmosphere, marked by greater claims to autonomy by academic units, new
barriers to collaboration, and a greater sense of fragmentation of the campus.

In 1995 the University began consideration of a new budget model, a variant of the
Responsibility Center Management budget system.16 The intent was to create a system in
which changes in activity in schools and colleges are reflected in the budget, while
maintaining the ability of the Provost and President to support the changing needs of
the units and to meet University priorities. The central advantage of the RCM model
(Michigan‟s variant was Value-Centered Management, or VCM) is that it enables Deans,
Directors, and other administrators who are closest to the substantive issues of faculty
and teaching to make informed and cost-effective choices among a range of
possibilities. In anticipation of this change the Vice President for Research asked a
faculty committee for advice on the proposed system, and to anticipate its impact on
how research is initiated and funded. The report cautioned against a budget system
that would inhibit the University‟s environment for collaboration.17 In practice, an

16 Plans to implement a Value-Centered Management model (VCM) were prepared under Gilbert R.
Whitaker, Jr., who served as Provost from 1991 through October 1995.
17 “Report from the OVPR Faculty Committee on VCM and Research Excellence,” May 1996.

unintended consequence of the new system was that too much of the budget was
allocated automatically. It fostered a “bottom-line” mentality—decisions were being
driven by incentives to direct resources and support to local needs rather than to
consider the University‟s well-being as a whole. Another problem the new system
posed was the fate of highly valued units and activities that cannot expect to be self-
supporting. A third difficulty was that VCM weakened incentives for units to
collaborate, both in developing externally-funded research and in providing teaching
that was attractive to students from other units. At risk was Michigan‟s distinctive
culture of cooperation, where units worked together to seed worthy cross-cutting

A new territoriality ensued, and its aftermath is still felt in behaviors and beliefs.18 As the
system was first implemented, Deans saw incentives to keep faculty teaching and
research in the appointment unit. Some faculty voiced frustration at new obstacles and
pressures to stay in their appointment homes. They recognized, in the words of the
Faculty Committee on VCM and Research Excellence, that Michigan is a great
university more than it is a collection of great colleges. Prior to the new system
academic units competed for credit and prestige, but now many faculty and
administrators saw conflict and competition increase among the schools and colleges,
and between the schools and colleges and cross-cutting interdisciplinary research units.
It was believed that under the new system automatic flows between the central
administration and the units would foster a spirit of mercantilism and inhibit
collaborative and border-crossing work. Risk-taking was inhibited both because
behaviors changed in response to perceptions, and because implementation put scant
emphasis on the discretionary part of the system. In some instances, the priorities of
units made them less willing to contribute cost-sharing to collaborative ventures.
Interdisciplinary programs found themselves poorly positioned to quantify their value
in comparison to the academic units.

Steps have been taken to alleviate this disruptive atmosphere. The current University Budget
System (UB) is a tax-based system that allows some significant variation on the themes of its
predecessor by emphasizing the importance of coordinated planning and discretionary decision-
making in support of these plans.19 The current system provides a balance between
automatic flows back and forth between the center and the units and strategic
interventions by the central administration. Greater emphasis has been placed on the
role of discretionary decision-making among University leadership in making funding
decisions to support the highest University priorities. The Provost has latitude in both
how units are budgeted through the General Fund Supplement and how discretionary

18 This observation was made by LS&A faculty, “Faculty Lives, Institutional Flexibility, and the
Revitalization of Intellectual Community: Faculty Discussions on the Future Direction of the College of
Literature, Science and the Arts,” (April, 1999), p. 10.
19 Provost Nancy Cantor presented a talk to the Senate Assembly outlining the Budget System. This was

published in the University Record, v. 53, n. 12, Nov. 19, 1997.

funds available to the Provost are used. The latter is a substantial fund which is used to
support the University‟s highest priorities and to support important activities and
initiatives not tied up in the base budget of a unit. The system allows both differential
base budget allocations to units as well as one-time or multi-year commitments to move
in strategic directions and to seed new projects.

The UB system has made an important change in the way the University connects
budgetary and academic planning. Annual budget conferences require close
communication between the Provost and each Dean, and start with specific and
directed discussions about what each school or college is doing and what it needs to
meet its goals. Although UB is organized around the academic units and does not in
itself structure incentives for collaborative and interdisciplinary activity, the Provost has
focussed academic planning and budget discussions on prime mission responsibilities,
especially the importance of cross-cutting research and training for the future of the
University. As incentives for collaboration are not built into the system in an automatic
way, vigorous leadership by the President, Provost, and Deans is essential.

The Provost provides discretionary funding and cost-sharing for many projects and
initiatives. Some recent instances include:

    support to the Department of Astronomy for the construction of the Magellan
     telescope in Chile, a consortial partnership with the Carnegie Institution and other
     leading research universities;
    underwriting for “Communism's Negotiated Collapse: The Polish Round Table of
     1989, Ten Years Later,” organized by the Center for Russian and East European
     Studies, which brought together many of the key participants in the 1989
     “Roundtable Talks,” the collapse of which led to the first multi-party elections in
     postwar Poland;
    seeding the School of Public Health‟s new Center for Research on Ethnicity, Culture,
     and Health; and
    funding the startup of the new Center for the Study of Complex Systems.

Allocating indirect cost returns

Policies concerning indirect cost recovery (ICR) are a specific area of concern, particularly for
the increasing number of research collaborations straddling schools and colleges and large
research units. At present, ICR follows assignment of direct costs. Before the move to
responsibility-centered management took place, the University recouped directly most
indirect costs from grants and used these resources as opportunity funds for general
University purposes. Units had little incentive to seek external support for research
activities. While disputes over credit remain a fundamental part of the competitive
spirit of the research university, indirect cost returns were not a source of contention
among schools and colleges and between academic and research units.

VCM changed this system, assigning ICR to the units where the research is done:
recovered indirect costs are returned to the unit that incurred the costs in support of the
research and where faculty from more than one unit collaborate, subaccounts are used
to reflect the different levels of contributing effort.20 While who gets credit was always
important, there now are consequences for both revenue as well as standing.
Accordingly, Deans have new incentives to ask faculty to keep research within their
home unit. The result is felt most directly on research that takes place across units.
Faculty may well feel that the costs of negotiating these arrangements are prohibitive
and that, in terms of time and effort, the simplest solution is to keep their research at
home. At risk are the research units that are animated by faculty appointed elsewhere.
While guidelines allow for a negotiated transfer of indirect costs where a research unit‟s
contribution to a sponsored project is not reflected in the establishment of the
subaccounts, as a practical matter the research unit has little leverage in these
negotiations.21 The latter can find themselves left without recognition for their
contributions or monetary compensation. Negotiating with academic units for cost-
sharing interdisciplinary projects has been made more difficult, as units seek returns on
investments and work to align cost-sharing and indirect cost recovery.22 Discussion
about joint appointments are made more complicated by the need to reach agreements
about where research activity is to be located. Without knowing the kinds of work that
have been redesigned or simply not pursued, there is no direct way to gauge the
consequences of this change in policy. How many junior faculty, for instance, are
attracted to Michigan because of its great collaborative and interdisciplinary
environment for research, but arrive to find themselves advised against taking part in
interdisciplinary research units? In these conditions, increased competition for
receiving and managing grants can fragment cross-unit cooperation needed for strategic
research planning

These changes in managing ICR come at a time when many research areas are requiring
more collaborations across fields. While the level of this activity is difficult to measure,
during the past decade in some parts of the University the number of projects with co-
Principle Investigators from different units has tripled. Faculty can find themselves
caught in the middle over attribution of credit for research and assignment of revenue
returns from grants.

20 “Allocation of Indirect Cost Recoveries under Value Centered Management," OVPR, November 1995.
21 Over the past several years, for instance, faculty associated with UMSARC have received over $50
million in grants, running these through other units.
22 This point was also made in the report of the Subcommittee on Interdisciplinarity, part of the Future of

the Professoriate effort organized by the APG (May 1999), p. 3. That such negotiation can produce delays
in submission of an interdisciplinary proposal was noted in the 1998 Report of the Rackham Summer
Interdisciplinary Institute, p. 5.

This issue has consequences in many different directions. It is especially important for
schools and colleges that depend on revenue from indirect cost returns. It is important
for the Institute for Social Research (ISR), for instance, which funds its large overhead
costs and supports its specialized services through recovery of all indirect costs. It
affects as well other research units that are looking for ways to pay overhead and to
undertake other activities that cannot be covered by direct costs.23 This issue is also
important for Medical School departments whose national rankings are affected by
credit awarded for research their faculty generate. This issue also has consequences for
LS&A, where many social science faculty run grants through ISR. It poses questions
about the integration of the academic mission, where faculty do teaching in one home
but locate their research in another.

In recent months, the Office of the Vice President for Research has given thought to how
tracking of intellectual and financial credit for interdisciplinary projects can be improved and
how attributions of ICR may be better managed. OVPR is exploring ways to establish more
uniform and equitable mechanisms for tracking contributions through subaccounts that
reflect where the sponsored activity is conducted as well as by the faculty members‟
units of academic appointment.

C. The Office of the Vice President for Research

In close consultation with the Provost, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR)
provides leadership for the varied and comprehensive research enterprise of the University.24
The Vice President for Research is an Executive Officer of the University. OVPR is
charged to exercise general executive responsibility for the research programs of the
University, for review of research proposals and budgets, and for maintaining
appropriate liaisons between the University and foundations, government agencies,
and other organizations providing financial support for University research. OVPR
oversees research project administration through the Division of Research Development
and Administration (DRDA), establishes the University‟s research policies, administers
a number of freestanding units, assists in the incubation of new initiatives, and provides
a voice for the University in communicating with the public, private industry, and the
government. OVPR plays a leadership role in the facilitation of new collaborative and
interdisciplinary research opportunities on campus. Recognizing the value of closer

23 Such as the Center for Organogenesis, the Center for Human Growth and Development, the Mental
Health Research Institute, the Institute of Gerontology, the Reproductive Sciences Program, the Substance
Abuse Research Center, and the Biophysics Research Division.
24 In March 1999 Fawwaz T. Ulaby, R. Jamison and Betty Williams Professor of Electrical Engineering and

Computer Science, was named Vice President for Research. He had served as interim from January,
succeeding Frederick C. Niedhardt, Frederick C. Novy Distinguished University Professor of
Microbiology and Immunology, who served as Vice President for Research, July 1, 1996-January 1, 1999.
Homer Neal served as Vice President for Research from 1993 through 1996, when he was named interim
President of the University.

coordination of research with other aspects of the University‟s academic mission, as of
last year the Vice President for Research reports to the Provost.25

OVPR convenes a number of University committees and advisory groups on research. Two of
these help coordinate research initiatives and planning across the University.

        The Research Council was established in 1995, with representatives from
         departments, institutes, centers, museums, libraries and other units of the
         University. The Council meets as needed, usually once or twice a year. Its
         purpose is to facilitate communication concerning national, regional, or local
         issues of concern to researchers; to receive updates on services, strategies, and
         policies; and to provide a place for sharing concerns and issues on research-
         related topics. At the moment, OVPR is considering how this group could be
         used more effectively and how it should be constituted. The Working Groups
         recommendations include suggestions for reconstituting and strengthening this
        The Research Associate Deans Group is the principal means for conveying
         information to the schools and colleges, meeting bimonthly to share information
         about research-related policies and initiatives.26

OVPR receives an annual allocation from the University’s General Fund to support the research
mission and infrastructure of the University. Table 1 shows a summary of OVPR funds
allocated by unit for the past ten years.27 Until FY 1996, this allocation included an
equipment and rehabilitation fund that was pro-rated and passed through to the units.
As of FY 1997, all formula allocations went directly into the budgets of the units.
OVPR‟s discretionary funding programs are competitive and include grants to
individual faculty, awards for preliminary and small-scale projects, grants for
equipment and facilities, bridging support for sponsored projects, subventions for
publication and artistic production, and grants for conferences.28 An appended table
shows OVPR discretionary fund activity for 1989, 1994, and 1998 by academic division.
Together with the Provost, OVPR is also a major source of cost-sharing for sponsored
research and contributes to other areas of importance to the University such as faculty

25 A discussion of efforts to link research and undergraduate learning can be found in the OVPR
document, “A Michigan Tradition: Research and Undergraduate Education,” Report to the Regents, July
26 As well, faculty and administrators of the Research Policies Committee meets monthly to discuss issues

regarding specific Federal and University policies regarding research practices.
27 OVPR also provides some research funding for the Dearborn and Flint campuses, which are not

reflected in this table as they are accredited separately by the NCA.
28 OVPR‟s publication “Funding for Scholarly Activities” outlines these programs and others offered by

the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic and Multicultural Affairs, the International Institute,
and the Rackham School of Graduate Study.

Table 1. Summary of OVPR funds allocated for research, scholarship, and creative activity, FY 1989-1998

                                                                                         AMOUNT OF SUPPORT

SCHOOL/COLLEGE/UNIT              FY 1998      FY 1997*     FY 1996       FY 1995       FY 1994      FY 1993      FY 1992      FY 1991      FY 1990      FY 1989
Architecture & Urban Planning        $4,825       $3,500       $25,131       $28,064      $19,642      $24,716      $75,479     $132,122     $129,435      106,955
Art & Design                         37,538       23,822         3,824        26,067       29,296        1,318       19,600       15,228       90,203       21,655
Business Administration              13,684        5,442        34,830        69,466       77,077       80,728       77,665       99,468       89,798       74,015
Dentistry                            51,650       37,862       103,840       203,751      115,363      143,086      132,887      257,427      267,382      166,478
Education                            36,590       20,614       193,000        56,766      102,609      101,933      121,545       72,933      142,761       77,132
Engineering                       1,485,481    2,058,778     2,776,833     2,754,824    2,848,975    2,314,875    2,270,789    2,218,739    2,062,528    1,582,233
Information                           1,000      142,643       155,687           911        3,176        7,042       28,765          905        5,631       11,422
Kinesiology                               -       10,500        15,929         1,737       24,649        4,521       30,147        7,538       46,183       43,339
Law                                       -            -         4,456           287          473          101        1,680        1,853        1,432          827
Literature, Science & the Arts    1,400,570    1,472,428     2,231,890     1,821,901    2,064,097    1,767,208    1,913,886    2,054,987    1,773,440    1,702,363
Medical School                      696,735      643,348     2,771,097     2,606,847    2,743,134    2,511,556    2,388,391    2,337,592    2,356,796    2,049,509
Music                               273,453       59,644        89,343        56,051      106,381       78,094      127,141       23,463      105,493       21,468
Natural Resources & Environ.          2,252       35,936        82,528        28,234       86,534       63,271       83,242      121,455      101,224       86,889
Nursing                              19,117       58,968        87,454        42,245       74,420       51,145       67,042      100,725       54,564       43,685
Pharmacy                             81,555      102,375        75,510       286,439       76,391       96,566       78,166      132,752      224,740       89,536
Public Health                       133,685       42,220       353,455       416,145      402,749      358,588      321,443      252,160      391,557      357,532
Public Policy                             -            -        27,912         5,786       12,419        7,813       30,479       36,297
Rackham Graduate School                   -       10,000       126,868       218,966       78,900      150,254      519,515      350,288      193,816      156,743
Social Work                          69,500      120,101       256,593       133,097      116,894      194,329      158,963      123,907      252,380      145,388
TOTAL SCHOOLS & COLLEGES         $4,307,635   $4,848,181    $9,416,180    $8,757,584   $8,983,179   $7,957,144   $8,446,825   $8,339,839   $8,289,363   $6,737,169
TOTAL PROVOST/VPAA                   $5,000      $26,000        $9,315       $16,728       $5,336       $3,959      $19,089      $20,755      $27,743      $14,325
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL                      $0           $0            $0        $6,066           $0           $0           $0
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY                       $0           $0       $22,360        $6,835         $862       $2,015           $0      $3,862       $9,600       $1,160
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE                  $17,000           $0            $0            $0           $0       $1,163           $0
VICE PROVOST - ARTS                 $13,500     $118,719       $15,350       $44,035       $8,500           $0           $0      $1,500                   $10,000
VICE PROVOST INFO TECH                   $0           $0      $210,246      $224,560     $239,830     $254,241     $124,146     $76,680      $99,375      $18,890
VICE PROVOST HEALTH AFFAIRS              $0           $0        $2,420        $2,440       $9,324      $78,557      $19,312     $98,844      $14,954      $55,834
VP STUDENT AFFAIRS                  $15,000      $15,000       $17,124          $749          $96       $2,047         $258
VP UNIVERSITY RELATIONS                  $0           $0            $0            $0           $0           $0       $1,422       $1,422
TOTAL OVPR UNITS                   $664,549     $954,254    $1,213,752    $1,037,691     $492,651     $451,634     $460,332    $461,912     $671,161     $772,957
GRAND TOTAL                      $5,022,684   $5,962,154   $10,906,747   $10,096,688   $9,739,778   $8,750,760   $9,071,384   $9,004,814   $9,112,196   $7,610,335

* Effective July 1, 1996 all Formula Allocation funds were transferred to units' budgets .

OVPR provides oversight to seven freestanding research units where study crosses
disciplinary or school and college boundaries. While some of these units make
important contributions to graduate training, all have a focus on research. These

    University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, a focus of
     automobile, truck, and ship transportation and safety research;
    Institute of Gerontology, which brings together natural, social, and clinical
     scientists to study aging;
    Reproductive Sciences Program, where biomedical disciplines meet to study
     the complexities of human reproduction;
    Center for Human Growth and Development, which involves natural and
     social scientists;
    Biophysics Research Division, a collaboration of biochemical and physical
    Middle English Compendium, a project to produce a definitive tool for
     language and history scholars; and
    the Institute for Research on Women and Gender, an umbrella for
     interdisciplinary projects that span liberal arts disciplines, the professions,
     and policy areas.

The Working Group agrees that, in addition to managing discretionary grant
programs and facilitating sponsored research activity, OVPR should play a
stronger leadership role in planning fresh interdisciplinary and collaborative
research opportunities and in reducing barriers to this activity. This must be
done, however, in close coordination with the Office of the Provost, the Rackham
School of Graduate Studies, as well as with the Deans of the other schools and

D. Research support within the schools and colleges

Working together with OVPR, the schools and colleges are partners in the management
and support of research. Every academic unit has an administrator, often an
Associate Dean, responsible for research issues. Responsibilities typically may
include making sure faculty are informed about grant opportunities and
assisting in the development of proposals, overseeing compliance with the
research policies of the school or college, contributing cost-sharing for external
research proposals, processing proposals and coordinating approvals with

29As of this year, the Director of the Institute for Social Research reports to the Provost. OVPR
also shares oversight with Engineering for the Center for Ultrafast Optical Science and the
Michigan Sea Grant program.

DRDA, putting together startup funds for new faculty, negotiating with other
academic units about terms of research collaborations, coordinating with OVPR,
and providing strategic advice to the Dean on research matters. Units with
higher levels of sponsored research activity are able to use funds from indirect
cost recovery and other sources to help provide cost-sharing.

The Rackham School of Graduate Studies is especially active in animating connective
research and training for both faculty and graduate students. Discretionary award
targets include initiatives to enhance the quality and liveliness of intellectual
exchange, especially through symposia or lectures that map new academic
territories and encourage interdisciplinary exploration, or other integrative
projects that promote cooperation within a unit or department and are of interest
more broadly across disciplines. Rackham also provides grants for research and
other creative activities, with the emphasis of assisting junior faculty activities
that cross disciplinary boundaries or involve collaborations with colleagues in
several disciplines. In addition, Rackham also sponsors the Michigan Society of
Fellows, a program of residential postdoctoral fellowships that gives the Fellows
an opportunity to interact across disciplines.

Schools and colleges provide cost-sharing and other support for research located within
their units. LS&A provides a research grant program as well, including salary
supplements to encourage faculty to apply for distinguished national

The Medical School’s Biomedical Research Council helps identify important target areas
for new research and makes funding decisions that helps catalyze this activity, provides
bridging funding for sponsored research, and supports collaborations. Founded in 1972
as an interschool council devoted to advocacy of biomedical research, it is a key
advisory group on scientific policy, strategic planning, and funding for research.
The Council allocates funds on a competitive peer-reviewed basis for interim
support between externally funded grant periods, for novel pilot/feasibility
initiatives, for shared equipment purchases involving a broad scope of
interdepartmental users, and for collaborative scientific partnerships.

4. Faculty networks and research communities

The research university provides a unique special environment. Michigan‟s
faculty are distributed across an intellectually and organizationally complex and
diverse scholarly environment. Through both the excellence of its faculty and
their freedom to seek out new scholarly combinations and connections, Michigan
has become a research leader in the United States.

Many faculty interactions take place with no or little formal infrastructural
support. Increasingly, however, critical response and advice comes less from
colleagues down the hall and more through participation in dispersed networks
of collaborating specialists. In all fields, information technology enables highly
specialized and dispersed research communities. Ideas and work are exchanged,
tested, and critiqued on-line. Such networks can include scholars in a range of
fields and from around the world. Networks mediated by new technology may
also distribute research materials as well as results. Access to specialized
information is quickly becoming available as textual, visual, and acoustic
archives are digitized. Tools in turn shape their users. Expectations for research
are affected. In some fields, for instance, graduate students have quick access to
research resources that until recently required many months or years of costly
and time-consuming trips to distant archives or museums.30 While the blurring
of disciplinary boundaries has been underway in the humanities for some time,
networks not only help create new scholarly audiences for work but also open
possibilities for new forms of collaborative intellectual production.

Faculty initiative produced the new research openings of the past decade. The
Working Group was concerned with understanding how these initiatives
emerge, develop, and accomplish their purpose. Successful strategic planning of
future research directions depends on the percolation of fresh ideas among the
faculty. The Working Group has sought to explore some of the key issues that
affect, and inhibit, the vitality of the fermentation of ideas within this diverse and
decentralized community. In its examination, the Working Group has been
struck by a paradox. Faculty see themselves as being stretched very thin by
multiple demands. Although many faculty recognize the increasing importance
of border-crossing work, the intellectual complexities and institutional hurdles
place additional, and in some cases insurmountable demands, and work to
preclude border-crossing collaborations.31 Faculty who take part in
interdisciplinary scholarship juggle fragmented schedules and intellectual lives.
Faculty holding joint appointments often do not have much impact in their
departmental homes. Interdisciplinary work also imposes its own constraints:
faculty can be burdened with the need to maintain grounding in their home
department as well as a research unit, and have even less time for opening fresh
connections or developing new research areas.

30 The information revolution may have unintended consequences, “raising the bar” as to the
amount of material junior faculty must consider as they develop their research.
31 That this point is long-standing was recognized in the “Report from the OVPR Faculty

Committee on VCM and Research Excellence,” May 1996, and reinforced by other recent reports,
notably LS&A‟s “Faculty Lives, Institutional Flexibility, and the Revitalization of the Intellectual
Community” (April 1999), and the reports on the “Future of the Professoriate”(May 1999)
prepared for the Provost and Deans.

As well, the Working Group recognized how tensions over loyalty to department
and discipline can deter junior faculty from pursuing border-crossing research.32
Junior faculty can become risk averse at a decisive and productive stage of career
development. Without guidelines for interdisciplinary evaluation, departments
can claim exclusive responsibility for review, weakening incentives for border-
crossing work.

The inception of collaborations and the emergence of ad hoc faculty gatherings
often take place below the horizon of University organization. Informal
network-building among colleagues can lead to reading groups, lunch-time
seminars, regular gatherings in coffee shops, or other kinds of flexible intellectual
spaces. In these settings, ideas for new work are germinated, shared, and tested
free from disciplinary constraints. These gatherings are informal and take place
below the horizon of University organization. While many work best as informal
and transitory affiliations, faculty may seek to move others to a formal level of

The Working Group was convinced that this level of informal intellectual
interchange plays a vital role in inciting creativity that can produce wholly new
combinations of expertise and stimulate new research openings. Faculty seeking
these creative engagements face significant inhibitions. The academic and
research units offer a torrent of “brown bags” and seminars. Constrained by
time and habit, faculty choices tend to fall into familiar routines. While many are
eager to take part in interchanges, informal border-crossing opportunities are not
seen as being high priorities for many Chairs and Deans. Yet it is through these
opportunities that new combinations of intellectual affinities can be discovered.

Faculty find both barriers and opportunities in creating new research openings.
The following observations and examples highlight some of the issues that can
emerge for faculty who seek to build new networks.

Informal, faculty-driven interest groups can be powerful engines for developing wholly
new fields of research.

    Since the 1980s the BACH group has organized a faculty seminar to discuss
     work on complex systems.33 Over time, BACH participants have come from
     many different fields of the sciences and social sciences. Meeting about twice
     a month to share their work and to discuss that of others, members explore

32This point is developed in the report on the Working Group on Faculty.
33The name derives from the initials of its founding members: Arthur Burks (Electrical
Engineering & Computer Science), Robert Axelrod (Political Science and School of Public Policy),
Michael Cohen (School of Information and School of Public Policy) and John Holland, (College of
Engineering and Psychology).

     interdisciplinary approaches to the general area of nonlinear, dynamic, and
     adaptive systems and the deep structural similarities that these systems
     share. Discussions have shaped a half dozen important books and many
     articles. Many of BACH‟s members have developed affiliations with the
     Santa Fe Institute.

Faculty in different fields who have important common or adjacent research interests are
often unaware of one another’s work. Thought needs to be given as to how best to
fill this communication void. As well, modest support is needed to enable these

    As part of a colloquium on the environment and sustainable development,
     OVPR provided organizers with a budget of $8,000 to support six to eight
     lunches for faculty working on the environment. Organizers put together an
     email list of over 200 faculty from different disciplines, schools, and colleges.
     More than forty faculty attended the lunches. Outcomes included plans for
     collaboration on a plan to “re-invent” Detroit through an environmental
     examination of urban space; ideas to establish a virtual web-based institute to
     coordinate resources and planning for environmental research initiatives; a
     proposal to examine environmental impact on reproductive endocrinology;
     and a substantial proposal to NASA for development of a major cross-
     disciplinary research project.

The scale and diversity of the University are irreplaceable assets for advanced research,
but the very complexity of the institution poses barriers and deters collaboration. It can
be hard to find time for informal intellectual communication outside pathways in
the department. While payoffs might be high, threading new collaborations
outside an appointment home can be a daunting task. Faculty often are unaware
of others elsewhere in the University with similar research interests. This is
particularly difficult for junior faculty who may be advised against
interdisciplinary work before tenure. The payoffs can be large, however, for
someone who walks a new path.

    An assistant professor in the Medical School interested in mammalian aging,
     looking for a way to analyze DNA samples more quickly, took his work into
     wholly new terrain and presents his genetics research to a group of faculty at
     the College of Engineering.34 Intrigued by his research, some Engineering
     faculty agreed to collaborate on a project. This multidisciplinary team won

34David T. Burke, now Associate Professor in Human Genetics and Associate Research Scientist
in the Institute of Gerontology, undertook this work. His principal collaborators included Mark
A. Burns, Chemical Engineering, and Carlos Mastrangelo, Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science. Their research is detailed in “An Integrated Nanoliter DNA Analysis Device,” Science,
October 16, 1998.

     grants that supported the creation of a glass-and-silicon chip that analyzes
     DNA samples and reports results electronically, the first step in developing
     low-cost, portable, quick, and accurate equipment for genetic testing.

Time and space can be serious limiting factors for faculty seeking to open new
connections and to develop new communities. Distance and demands on faculty time
constrain these opportunities. In these circumstances, short-term, closely
targeted gatherings have a better chance of accomplishing their purpose.

    Some faculty in literature, film, and architecture organized a reading group
     that met off-campus to share disciplinary perspectives in exploring the work
     of the Situationists, European artists, urbanists, and filmmakers who in the
     „50s and „60s developed critiques of society while proposing a new model of
     the city. Outside the confines of their disciplines, participants refined work
     and shared the development of new models for teaching that encourage
     students to bring practical work into the subject of study. The reading group
     disbanded, however, as members were unable to free a common time for
     faculty from both North Campus (Architecture and Urban Planning) and
     Central Campus.
    Informal reading groups are easier to maintain when home departments are
     nearby. Such is the case with a long-standing weekly lunch that brings
     together faculty and doctoral students in Business, Law, Economics and the
     Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who are interested in public finance:
     these units are clustered in the same area of Central Campus.

While many research units are organized around specific purposes, few sites provide less
structured opportunities for faculty to learn about work underway in different parts of
the University. The University maintains a vast array of research units, most of
them supporting collaborative work that has specific focus and routines. Venues
for open-ended intellectual exploration are less abundant. A notable exception is
the Institute for the Humanities, which annually selects a cohort Fellows from
the faculty who are released from other obligations and given time to write, do
creative work, and share with other Fellows.

    While at the Institute for a theme year organized around “Utopian Visions,” a
     faculty member from the School of Art and Design encountered the work on
     brainmaps by another Fellow, a distinguished Research Scientist at the Center
     for Human Growth and Development.35 An artistic director and
     choreographer from the Dance Department formed a collaboration that

 James Cogswell, Art & Design; Peter Sparling, Dance; and Fred Bookstein, Center for Human

Growth and Development.

     yielded Seven Enigmas, a set of dance pieces interacting with a multimedia
     sculptural installation of objects and surfaces in motion with human bodies.

University support can play a critical role in advancing exploratory work that bridges
different fields.

    The Program in Comparative Study of Social Transformations (CSST), began
     as an interdisciplinary group of faculty in the social sciences and humanities
     who came together to examine new intellectual frameworks for
     understanding changes around the world underway with the ending of the
     Cold War. Support from a PIF grant enabled faculty to earn national
     recognition for their influential work. Junior faculty tested their work in an
     exciting intellectual laboratory.
    In 1997-98, the University‟s Year of Humanities and the Arts supported
     symposia, workshops, performances, exhibitions, and courses that promoted
     interdisciplinary research and teaching and gave campus-wide attention for
     connective projects. Finding ways to institutionalize these collaborative
     practices is an important next step.

Transition to new stages of organization is challenging. Faculty pursuing a “normal
path” to move from informal working relations to formal organization find
obstacles of a new order of magnitude. Start-up funding and formal creation of a
center outside a school or college opens new negotiations with OVPR and the
schools and colleges. Faculty expectations run up against new, and often
divergent, sets of criteria for decision-making. Moving to a new stage of
institutionalization requires approvals and commitments from other parts of the
University. Developing a strategic plan and business plan takes time, as do
negotiations to produce a budget, space, and agreements over allocation of
indirect costs. A different sort of collaboration is required among Deans,
University administrators, and chairs who must consider costs and benefits to
their own units.36 Negotiations needed to formalize a program can create a loss
of momentum. At the same time, faculty constituencies can change.

    In 1993 BACH members helped establish the Program for the Study of
     Complex Systems (PSCS), an ambitious interdisciplinary program that would
     ensure Michigan‟s leadership in the field by encouraging and facilitating

36The complexities of such discussions can be illustrated in those supporting PSCS, which is
been funded in part by the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) and a consortium of
schools and colleges, including Business, Engineering, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts
(LS&A), and Medicine.

     research and education.37 This process has taken several years. At the outset
     Michigan was one of the few universities in the United States to have such a
     program, but this is no longer true. Michigan‟s research in this area remains
     distinctive in its breadth, but competition has intensified. Organizers are
     seeking to incorporate other areas of University research strength that did not
     participate in the initial network, including Engineering faculty in fluid
     mechanics and aerospace.
    In 1995 CSST was located under the administrative umbrella of the
     International Institute, which took over funding responsibilities. A number
     of faculty who played key foundational roles in CSST have left the University.
     In relative terms, participation has dropped off in some social science fields,
     while humanities faculty play a more active role.

Different models exist for transition in a cross-disciplinary organization. The Working
Group realized that more structure is not necessarily a way to build more
effective communities. In breaking down barriers, care must be taken to avoid
creating a new set of inflexible walls that can inhibit intellectual connections.
While the “normal path” may provide solutions to finding funding to meet real
costs of collaboration, other more flexible models impose fewer overhead costs,
including costs on faculty time.

    ICOS, or the Interdisciplinary Committee on Organizational Studies, is a
     long-standing group of faculty in social science academic departments and
     professional schools who work together to develop interdisciplinary research
     and scholarship on organizations. Initially supported by a PIF grant, and
     with some additional help from OVPR, ICOS now reports through Rackham.
     Its core activity is a weekly seminar series. This strategy allows ICOS to stay
     minimalist and flexible, serving as a bridging point for about 250 faculty and
     graduate students from around campus.

5. Research units: hubs for collaborative work

Excellence in interdisciplinary research depends on collaboration at all levels. To a
remarkable extent, Michigan interweaves a traditional administrative structure
of schools, colleges, and departments, with centers, programs, and institutes.38
Devising structures that can make this interweaving successful has always been
difficult. The University is challenged to identify and address the organizational
tensions and peculiarities, some long-standing and other more recent, that are

37 PSCS supports a research variety of projects and research interest groups as well as
undergraduate research and a graduate certificate program through the Rackham School of
Graduate Studies.
38 See list of these interdisciplinary research units in Appendix 3.

features of this interwoven structure. Faculty interests germinate new connective
research and creative projects. Deans and other administrators are eager to hear
good ideas. Many of the best ideas bridge schools and colleges, and the vitality
of the University‟s research enterprise depends not only on the initiative of the
faculty but on the ability of Deans, Chairs, and Directors to collaborate. The
germination of these bridging ideas often take place in, or give rise to, an
interdisciplinary research unit. Features such as lines of authority and reporting,
the structures of incentives, and gaps in communication can plague these
initiatives. Some general observations may be made about the institutional
setting within which these cross-cutting structures take shape.

General features and institutional settings of interdisciplinary research units

   1. Disciplines and the departments that maintain them necessarily have different
      values, goals, and purposes from the interdisciplinary centers that link fields,
      disciplines, schools, and departments. It is the role of multi-disciplinary
      centers to catalyze initiatives that are not likely to take place within a
      department or school. At the disciplinary and institutional edges, these
      hubs bring together unusual combinations of faculty. No common set of
      reasons motivates faculty to affiliate with centers. Many faculty value
      centers as sites of intellectual convergence that are free from the confines
      of a single department, discipline, or field. Others may, for a variety of
      reasons, feel estrangement from their home discipline. Grounds for
      tension are abundant. Centers can feel exposed to narrow disciplinary
      critique, subject to institutional neglect, and unable to find the level of
      general support they need to maintain their special environments.
      Faculty, especially junior faculty, can feel pressure to focus on problems
      seen as central to the home discipline. Departments and schools can feel
      that centers benefit from special arrangements, divert the energy of
      faculty, take away graduate students, and in other ways overlap and cut
      into mission turf that the academic unit sees as its own.

   2. The diversity of the University’s interdisciplinary and collaborative research
      units is evidence of lively intellectual and creative activity. Given the fecundity
      and pace of change of Michigan‟s research environment, a definitive list of
      these centers is unachievable. Nearly 150 institutes, centers, programs,
      laboratories, and projects have been identified for this self-study; this
      report refers collectively to these institutional arrangements as research
      units. In general terms, these cross-cutting units bring organized focus to
      important areas of investigation not constituted within existing
      departments or that bridge departments and schools. They provide
      faculty with scholarly opportunities outside the boundaries of disciplines
      and professional school environments. Every research unit in the

        appended table straddles multiple fields, specialties, and disciplines.
        Otherwise, however, it is hard to see that the University‟s centers share a
        common set of features or interests.

     3. Research units are established in a variety of ways. The Institute of
        Gerontology and the Michigan Mental Health Research Institute, were
        founded by state legislative statute and supported for many years by a
        line item in the state budget.39 In general, however, Regental bylaws
        govern the establishment of institutes and centers, which takes place on
        recommendation of the President who appoints both directors and
        executive committees.40 Units designated as a “program” or by another
        title do not need Regental approval. Practice has evolved in recent years,
        however, as centers that were funded by grants for a specific purpose and
        for a stipulated time were exempted from such approvals. Over time,
        other research units have been established as centers within a school or
        college without formal approval from a higher level. A number of centers
        of the Medical School, for instance, were instituted and are funded as NIH
        Center Grants.41

     Table 2. Regentally approved research units for collaborative/interdisciplinary
     research and teaching

            Comprehensive Cancer Center
            Center for Chinese Studies
            Center for Ergonomics

39 With origins in the 1930s, and founded with a primary service function, in recent decades the
Institute has taken on an active research focus and, since the late 1980s, has been administered
within OVPR.
40 Regents By-Laws. Sec. 6.03. Institutes and Centers (revised April 1995):

        “Institutes may be established on recommendation by the president as subordinate units
        of the University, for the purpose of conducting teaching, research, or service activities
        administratively organized as separate units ordinarily responsible to a major unit of the
        University. The executive functions of an institute shall be performed by a director and
        executive committee, appointed by the president, and responsible to the appropriate
        University officer.

         Centers may be established on recommendation by the president for the support of
         interdisciplinary research, publication, and training in several departments within a
         school or college. The executive functions of the center shall be performed by a director
         and executive committee, appointed by the president, and responsible to the dean and
         executive committee of the college.”
41 These include the Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Geriatrics Center.

      Center for European Studies
      Center for Human Growth & Development
      Center for Japanese Studies
      Center for Middle Eastern & North African Studies
      Center for Political Studies
      Center for Research on Social Organization
      Center for Russian & East European Studies
      Center for South & Southeast Asian Studies
      Center for the Education of Women
      Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
      Geriatrics Center
      Macromolecular Science & Engineering Center
      Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center
      Population Studies Center
      Research Center for Group Dynamics
      Survey Research Center

        Institute for Research on Women & Gender
        Institute for Social Research
        Institute for the Humanities
        Institute of Gerontology
        Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
        International Institute
        Joel D. Tauber Manufacturing Institute
        Kresge Hearing Research Institute
        Mental Health Research Institute
        University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
        William Davidson Institute

4. Reporting lines and appointment arrangements for Directors vary across the
   University. As noted above, Directors may be appointed by the President
   and report to a designated Dean, or may be appointed by Deans, the Vice
   President for Research, or the Provost. Directors of larger research units
   often hold fractional administrative appointments, while other Directors
   may or may not receive some form of compensation, and may report to
   the Dean only in their capacity as faculty members. While no coherent
   pattern of appointment exists, most Directors report to the Dean of the
   school or college where the unit is located while free-standing units report
   to the Provost or the Vice President for Research. The accompanying table
   of interdisciplinary centers and programs indicates these reporting

     5. Interdisciplinary research units may be partners with schools, colleges, and
        departments in defining and funding positions, making appointments, and
        tenuring faculty. This can be both a source of tension and opportunity.
        Departments want centers to help recruit outstanding faculty with
        interdisciplinary research interests. Research units may approach
        departments with ideas for a joint appointment to fill a strategic need in a
        multidisciplinary area. Engineering and the Medical School, for instance,
        may approve appointments of Primary Research Scientists to be located in
        research units, while appointments of instructional faculty take place in
        the departments. The Institute for Social Research, the Biophysics
        Research Division, and LS&A‟s interdepartmental programs may make
        joint faculty appointments with academic units. In a different
        arrangement, the International Institute, while not an appointment home,
        funds a number of joint appointments, most of which bridge the
        professional schools and the academic departments of LS&A. Tenure is
        located within these appointment homes, but the Institute contributes to
        promotion and tenure reviews. In addition, the Institute oversees a
        number of faculty lines in LS&A designated to assure the conservation
        and development of strength in area and international scholarship. When
        one of these lines becomes open, the Institute invites departments and
        area centers to align needs and to identify opportunities for how the slot
        might be filled.42

     6. Research units may also have teaching and/or service missions that complement
        those of departments and schools and colleges. Most support interdisciplinary
        graduate training by providing research assistantships, seminars and
        workshops, and other opportunities. In addition to LS&A‟s
        interdisciplinary programs mentioned below, other units also contribute
        to teaching. These include for instance, the undergraduate majors and
        M.A. and joint M.A. degree programs offered by the International
        Institute‟s five area studies and the Ph.D. program of the Biophysics
        Research Division. Units develop other opportunities for teaching:

           The College of Engineering‟s Global Change Laboratory supports an
            interdisciplinary research-based undergraduate course that is part of
            an effort to establish a new interdisciplinary minor in Global

42The International Institute funds all or a portion of about 15 joint appointments. It also
oversees 27 area and international (FASAC) positions located in the College.

           Students who take part in the Undergraduate Research Opportunity
            Program enter research partnerships with faculty associates of
            interdisciplinary research units.43
           The Center for Human Growth and Development offers
            undergraduate training awards to encourage minority students to
            pursue careers in biomedical or behavioral research related to child
            health and development.

        As well, many interdisciplinary research units in the life sciences have
        important clinical functions. External sponsors often expect grants to
        translate advanced knowledge into meaningful applications. In addition
        to conducting basic molecular and cellular research on diabetes and
        related disorders, for instance, the Michigan Diabetes Research and
        Training Center trains health care providers in the states of the
        surrounding region and disseminates information to specialists and the
        public. The Comprehensive Cancer Center brings together basic
        biomedical research with a number of clinics located in the Center.

Structures of interdisciplinary research. Different sets of structural features and
paths of growth characterize the University‟s interdisciplinary research units.
These structures stem from where the unit is located and how it reports. Each is
intended to meet different circumstances and to enable different sorts of
connected work. Each also has limitations that generate recurring problems and
barriers. Elements of these structures can take many combinations; research
units may follow have aspects of several general types presented here.

     1. Research units may bring together faculty primarily from within a single school
        or college in order to focus strategically on a specific area. Many of the centers
        that have been founded in the past decade primarily serve the needs of a
        single academic unit. In Education, Engineering, the Medical School,
        Nursing, Public Health, and Social Work, for instance, interdisciplinary
        research units of this kind have been established to advance new research
        of importance to the school or college. Most of these are externally
        funded. While in part this may be because schools and colleges recognize
        incentives to keep faculty research within the unit, faculty also see that
        formal organization of research activity provides visibility both within
        and outside the University. These centers are niches for directed
        collaborations among faculty from different fields who share a common
        research interest. They organize research in a defined area rather than

43The Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) creates research partnerships
between first and second year students and faculty researchers. Begun in 1989 with 14
student/faculty partnerships ,the program offers about 1,000 first and second year students the
opportunity to engage in research partnerships with over 500 faculty researchers.

   germinating and catalyzing new projects that spill over borders. Most
   (but not necessarily all) faculty associates are appointed in the sponsoring
   school or college. In general, these multidisciplinary niche centers have a
   specific research program that meets local needs while affording less
   connectivity to opportunities and interests across the University. They
   enjoy the comparative advantages of solid institutional anchorage and
   avoid the sorts of recurring structural problems that may afflict more
   complexly structured research units which bridge schools and colleges.
   The achievements of these units can be measured against clear purposes
   and goals with which they were established, and may prove to be very
   efficient and flexible instruments that can be closed or redefined once the
   sponsoring grant has ended and the defining purpose has been

2. Interdisciplinary units may be linking points for research interests of two or more
   schools or colleges. Defined around specific common ground and governed
   by specific agreements, a number of these bi- or multi-lateral
   arrangements bring joint address to an important area of research and
   teaching that the academic units share. These include the Tauber
   Manufacturing Institute, between Business and Engineering, the
   Corporate Environmental Management Program, between Business and
   the School for Natural Resources and Environment, and the Institute of
   Labor and Industrial Relations (ILIR), between the School of Social Work
   and Business. These are enterprising partnerships between academic
   units that respond to new opportunities, often by bringing about highly
   directed and productive combinations among disciplines and professions.
   The interest-based alliances of these units provide them with a sharp
   focus. This structure produces economies for partnering units; it provides
   added value and capabilities without needing to build up faculty in a
   given area. Over time, problems may arise in the partnership. One party,
   for instance, may determine that the unit has become less innovative or
   that its work is redundant with that being done in departments, or that the
   demand that stimulated the foundation of the unit has waned or lost.
   ILIR shows how closer bilateral sponsorship can strengthen and renew a
   unit. Established in the early 1950s and reporting to OVPR, by the late
   1970s the Institute had lost its focus brought on by the decline in the labor
   movement and shifting interest in Political Science, which had provided
   much of the initial stimulus and leadership. Recognizing its importance to
   the State, however, Social Work and Business assumed oversight of ILIR
   and pushed the development of a new research program that included
   urban entrepreneurship and the city. ILIR maintains ties with faculty
   from other units as well, including the Gerald R. Ford School of Public

     3. Research units may be hubs of greater breadth and connectivity, straddling two or
        more schools and colleges and reaching across more disciplines and departments.
        They provide fertile openings that cannot be achieved within a single
        school or college or as a unit sponsored by a combination of academic
        units. Such breadth was characteristic of many of the “first generation” of
        post-war centers, including ISR, the Institute of Gerontology, the
        Biophysics Research Division, and the foreign area studies centers. In
        more recent years, OVPR has sponsored a number of “free-standing”
        research units that report to it rather than to an academic unit. The
        Substance Abuse Research Center (UMSARC), for instance, brings
        together over eighty associates from LS&A, the Medical School, Nursing,
        Public Health, and other academic units, and the Institute for Research on
        Women and Gender draws faculty from the humanities, social and
        behavioral sciences, and the professional schools. During the 1990s, the
        International Institute was founded to assemble the area studies centers
        and to provide a more effective bridge to the academic units for support
        of internationalization of research and learning.

     4.   Sponsored funding opportunities are scarce for certain kinds of research,
          especially in the arts and humanities. Research and creative activity in the
          arts and humanities takes place in the School of Art and Design, the
          College of Architecture and Urban Planning, the School of Music, as well
          as LS&A. The Working Group is concerned that the University find ways
          to better support, integrate, and link this scholarship and creative work to
          other academic effort generally and in specific areas such as visual
          studies, performance studies, and information technology and the creative

     5. Some interdisciplinary units share features with academic departments. While
        these interdisciplinary units allow kinds of work that departments cannot,
        overlapping responsibilities create structural tensions that resist solutions.
        LS&A‟s teaching programs—the Center for Afroamerican and African
        Studies (CAAS), the Program in American Culture, the Program in
        Comparative Literature, the Program in Film and Video Studies, and the
        Women‟s Studies Program—are both research units and teaching units.44
        These long-standing programs interconnect faculty across the disciplines
        and open new bridges for advancing theory and debate. They provide
        exciting meeting points for faculty from across the college, as well as for
        affiliates from other academic units. As teaching units, they also offer

44The Program in Religious Studies was dissolved in June 1999, its activities merged into the
departments of Asian Languages and Cultures and Near Eastern Studies.

          both undergraduate majors and graduate degree and certificate programs.
          As well, these programs make joint tenure-track faculty appointments,
          and also have faculty associates who do not have budgeted appointments
          and may teach courses that are cross-listed with their home departments.45
          These programs contribute in many important ways to the College and
          the University, offering a diversity of research and teaching that
          departments are not able to provide. Organizational peculiarities of these
          units, including unclear division of responsibilities and asymmetries with
          departments, produce recurring tensions. Programs recognize that they
          are junior partners in defining positions and in recruiting and promoting
          joint faculty. Negotiating these arrangements is often difficult, and the
          programs have discussed the desirability to have greater autonomy in
          these matters.46 Conflicts with departments arise over teaching and
          competition for students. Departments also complain that they lose
          service when faculty move an appointment fraction to a program.

      6. Measured by staff, budget, and volume of research activity, research units may
         operate at a substantial scale matching most departments and many schools and
         colleges. These units can be highly productive hubs of convergence:
         participating faculty locate work and grant activity here, and often locate
         an appointment fraction in these units as well. These research units bring
         together combinations of specialized resources, equipment, and analytic
         capabilities that provide powerful advances to research. In both its scale
         and contribution to scholarship the Institute for Social Research is nearly
         unique in this regard. A free-standing research unit with an annual
         budget of about $33 million, ISR has facilities in three adjoining buildings
         that accommodate a professional and administrative staff of 350,
         including over fifty primary researchers jointly appointed with
         departments. ISR seeks to operate as a national laboratory in the social
         sciences, conducting basic and applied research, and making accessible to
         faculty a large range of services and facilities for accessing and analyzing
         vast amounts of data. It supports graduate student training and is

45   Current joint faculty appointments in LS&A programs:

                    Program              Jointly-appointed   Estimated non-budgeted
                                           faculty/FTEs            associates
           CAAS                               13/5.75                  37
           American Culture                   15/5.92                  60
           Comparative Literature              13/5.5                  25
           Film & Video Studies                 8/4.5                   8
           Women‟s Studies                    13/4.75                  28

46These points are developed in a memo to the Dean from the LS&A Program Directors, August
1999 .

        exploring a new graduate degree program in survey methodology. ISR
        has attracted many outstanding social scientists to the faculty and has
        contributed to the leadership of the University in many fields. Its very
        achievements have made it a powerful advocate within the social science
        disciplines of quantitative paradigms for research.

        This model of organization is not restricted to free-standing units,
        however, and is characteristic, for instance, of many of the units of the
        Medical School, including the Cancer Center and the Mental Health
        Research Institute that bring specializations together in a unified research
        environment.47 The power of these units lies in their ability to forge
        alliances. Large interdisciplinary research units that operate as “hubs of
        convergence” can also be somewhat more orthogonal to the interests of
        University mission.

        The Transportation Research Institute is a free-standing unit with a staff of
        about 130 that operates a $13,000,000 per-year research program
        sponsored by government agencies, motor vehicle manufacturers and
        suppliers, and other organizations. Structural problems of this model of
        organization include substantial investment and maintenance costs and
        the need to maintain a reliable revenue stream. While a unit such as the
        Cancer Center has multiple revenue sources, other units of similar scale
        that are dependent on a few key income to fund the bulk of their activities
        can lose the ability to innovate. It may well be in many areas that “smaller
        is better,” and that large scale targeted investments in research may
        channel attention and inhibit independent creativity.

     7. Some interdisciplinary research units may catalyze work that takes place
        elsewhere. As hubs for initiation and diffusion of new research, such units
        have minimal staff and overhead. They serve as flexible bridging points
        for faculty from around the University, or as light-on-the-feet “virtual”
        research units that provide a lattice of faculty connections around a
        common set of interdisciplinary interests that are developed elsewhere.
        Examples of this type of organization include the Health Services
        Research Initiative, which was established in 1998 to provide support to
        health services researcher throughout the University. HSRI seeks to
        provide practical assistance by connecting researchers into networks of
        information and expertise as quickly as possible, and to facilitate

47The Comprehensive Cancer Center, for instance is an interdisciplinary unit of the Medical
School, where “translational research” brings together 235 clinicians and researchers, appointed
in home departments, who work together in multidisciplinary teams. Supported by nearly $50
million in federal research funding, the Center maintains twenty-three clinical, basic science and
prevention research programs in a new nine-story research and clinical facility.

   collaborative research and activities. The Program in Comparative Study
   of Social Transformations (CSST), connects faculty in the social sciences
   and humanities, as well as the Interdisciplinary Committee on
   Organizational Studies (ICOS). The Substance Abuse Research Center
   also operates as a loose confederation of researchers who take part in well-
   established research projects elsewhere. As a hub for the development
   and diffusion of new work, UMSARC brings together these investigators
   and their programs in order that research can be shared and new
   questions exposed. A minimalist strategy helps these consortia to be
   responsive to changing faculty interests. It avoids real costs and costs to
   faculty time associated with equipping and maintaining a larger operation
   in which research takes place. By creating frameworks for cross-
   disciplinary work, these diffusionist hubs open spaces for new work that
   transcends borders. Rather than developing an independent research
   program, such a catalyzing site supports idea structures that nourish
   activities that take place outside its boundaries. These are prototypes for a
   model of “virtual” organization. Despite lightness of foot, however, such
   important programs incur real costs and require sustaining commitments
   from the University. Schools and colleges easily overlook their value to
   the institution. Unlike hubs of convergence that forge alliances with
   programs, these units attract individual faculty and may have a difficult
   time proving their institutional importance by such standard indices as
   the volume of research they generate even indirectly.

8. Some interdisciplinary research units serve as administrative umbrellas for
   constituent centers. ISR, for instance, includes the Survey Research Center,
   the Research Center for Group Dynamics, the Center for Political Studies,
   and the Population Studies Center (relocated from LS&A to ISR in 1997).
   ISR also is administrative home to the Inter-university Consortium for
   Political and Social Research, a membership organization created in 1962
   from within ISR but now serving over 400 colleges and universities
   globally as the world's largest data acquisition, archiving and distribution
   center. ISR (via the ICPSR and SRC) also offers instructional courses each
   summer in survey design and the analysis of survey data. It also sponsors
   an annual campus-wide competition and seed monies for innovative
   projects in the social and behavioral sciences or that link them to other
   fields of inquiry. In 1993 the International Institute, with a reporting
   relationship with LS&A, was founded with part of its mission being to
   provide administrative oversight to more than fifteen area studies centers,
   programs, and other initiatives. This organizational model can produce
   considerable tensions between interests of the institute and those of
   constituent units. While constituent centers have less autonomy than
   those not enfolded in such an administrative arrangement, they

         collectively have access to more resources and achieve much greater
         visibility within the University. Through a confederated structure the
         International Institute has enabled its constituent centers to receive more
         ample central support services, and to enter into collaborations with each
         other in a manner that has reinvigorated research agendas. The new
         Director of the International Institute, reporting to the Dean of LS&A, has
         also been named the University‟s first Vice Provost for International
         Affairs, reporting to the Provost.48

Areas of general concern

Issues of concern vary greatly and depend on local circumstances. Directors of
interdisciplinary research units and other faculty raised the following general
points about funding, faculty, and structural issues of location and leadership.
While by no means common to all research units, this inventory reflects some
key areas of concern among faculty who provide leadership for these units.


        While the present Budget System provides important mechanisms for
         discretionary allocations, many perceive that the a consequence of VCM
         was to erode a spirit of collaboration across units that supported
         interdisciplinary and collaborative work generally.
        Belief and behavior have not yet been overcome by the current Budget
         System. While interdisciplinary research units receive varying amounts of
         General Fund support, some struggle to cover costs of important activities
         that cannot be covered by grants. This is less of a concern for units that
         are located in departments and whose activities are closely articulated
         with that of the academic unit.
        Direct costs from grants usually do not cover general sorts of activities
         that are not specific to a research project. A center must maintain these
         sorts of connective activities—colloquia, seminars, etc.—in order to
         provide a lively intellectual environment that generates fresh ideas.
        Space is a scarce commodity within the University. Interdisciplinary units
         feel that they face exceptional struggles to find space and funding for
         administrative staff and facilities.
        Interdisciplinary research units find themselves discouraged from
         exploring certain funding sources. Foundations often are interested in
         funding creative risk-taking initiatives or collaborative projects that
         connect directly with important areas of public interest outside the

48Michael Kennedy (Sociology), was recently named Director of the International Institute and
Vice Provost for International Affairs.

       University. Academic units may be reluctant to contribute support for
       these opportunities that require cost-sharing but provide little or no
       indirect costs.
      Not sustained by a permanent base of revenue, units can face pressure to
       secure and service research contracts; this can stifle innovation. Large
       units, seeking to maintain infrastructure, wrestle with this problem.
       Initiative can shift to outside funders. “Job shopping” inhibits creativity
       and freedom to set research agendas. Units may seek to maintain large
       recurring contracts in order to sustain activity and revenue.
      Interdisciplinary research units make substantial contributions to
       sponsored research in the University; most of the indirect costs go to the
       academic units. Many faculty associated with free-standing
       interdisciplinary research units run grants through their home academic
       unit. The research unit can seek to negotiate for a portion of the indirect
       costs. Those that seek to catalyze work that takes place elsewhere are less
       likely to receive any return or to get recognition in non-monetary ways for
       their contribution. For research units located in a department, school, or
       college, indirect cost returns generally come to the academic unit, and a
       portion may be returned to the research unit that generated the project.


      Faculty have a difficult time maintaining high levels of involvement
       when home units are increasing demands on time.
      Centers need faculty to rotate through as partial short-term
      Interdisciplinary research units may need a cluster of lead faculty
       appointments in order to catalyze new research and to establish national
       leadership in a field of importance the University. Centers have little to
       bring to the table in complex multisided negotiations with Chairs and
      Programmatic recruiting that meets needs of a research unit and a
       departments is difficult. Centers may look for leadership for initiatives,
       but new faculty are usually hired at the junior level and often not in the
       field that a research unit needs. Partnering with departments means that
       any appointment must be thoroughly validated within the discipline.
       Departmental partners measure candidates against disciplinary interests,
       while non-departmental programs want to move across borders that
       define disciplines.
      Departments often ask interdisciplinary research units for help in
       recruiting new faculty, but there is little reciprocity. Units often do not
       have resources to contribute to start-up packages that would strengthen a
       recruiting partnership.

       Departments do not ask Directors of research units to evaluate faculty
        associates for promotion and tenure.
       One of the important issues in the deployment of junior faculty is the
        encouragement they receive to develop fresh ideas and new insight, some
        of which may be interdisciplinary.

Research unit location and leadership

       Moving free-standing interdisciplinary research units within academic
        units would inhibit their role as hubs for collaborative work. Deans can
        view that the way budgets are managed makes independent research
        units less viable, and that these should serve primarily as a facilitating
       Leadership turnover, lack of training, and poor lines of communication
        can make a directorship very burdensome.
       Faculty experience many barriers to participating in interdisciplinary
        units, including expectations that research and service should be located
        in their academic unit.
       Especially for some freestanding units, the Director‟s fractional
        appointment may be too small to support the level of attention the
        program requires.
       Research units must work hard to stay fresh. They need encouragement
        to develop plans, map directions and strategies, and to seek alliances that
        focus on specific research programs.
       Academic units control almost all space, and interdisciplinary research
        units are not well positioned to advocate effectively for their needs.

6. Findings and recommendations

The recommendations that follow represent an effort to identify strategic areas in
which the University could better enable the kinds of scholarly interconnections
that have contributed so much to its national distinction. These ideas recognize
the value of Michigan‟s decentralized heritage, and at the same time offer ways
in which more effective coordination, organizational creativity, and smart use of
resources can stimulate advance in key areas of research that are critical for
sustaining the University‟s excellence. Intellectual collaboration can thrive only
to the extent to which the University‟s organizational structures and leadership
at all levels encourage and value such interaction.

A. General findings

   1. Alternative models for interdisciplinary research units could be explored and
      piloted, including “virtual” centers mediated by information technology. Given
      distances on campus and pressure on faculty time, a testbed project might
      be developed to assess the workability of this approach.

   2. The Working Group suggests that the evolution of interests and the growth of
      research units can be managed in a way that does not necessarily perpetuate
      them. Connective research projects often have a life span. These need not
      always gestate into units that self-perpetuate. Intermediate and transient
      forms of organizing work should be examined, with specific waypoints
      and ending.

   3. An analysis could be undertaken to see if greater efficiencies and economies might
      be achieved by centralizing certain administrative and business functions for
      some research units, perhaps by establishing “umbrellas” that could perform these
      functions. Such arrangements might be especially helpful in supporting
      flexible and outward-looking “low overhead” operations.

   4. As a matter of considerable importance, the Working Group recommends that
      flexible space, administered centrally, should be made available on Central and
      North Campus to allow faculty to organize collaborative activities or to use
      informally for projects.

   5. The Working Group believes that established interdisciplinary research units
      could contribute more to University citizenship. These contributions might
      include identifying faculty able to contribute to the evaluation of
      interdisciplinary work for promotion and tenure, providing mentoring for
      junior faculty, and providing opportunities for faculty to retool and
      pursue new areas of interest.

   6. Research units need to be evaluated on a regular cycle in order to learn more
      about their contributions and to encourage ongoing planning. Research units
      need encouragement to develop plans and strategies, and to develop
      vision beyond those framed by external grants.

B. Networks and communication

   1. Discretionary grants could be made available to support faculty and graduate
      student interest groups that bridge disciplines and academic units. While OVPR
      has funded this activity from time to time, faculty need more direct
      encouragement to develop these informal, flexible, interest-driven “gray”
      mechanisms. Funding would help support costs associated with these

      interest groups. This could be incorporated as one of the duties of a
      reconstituted Research Council (see below).

   2. Deans could find ways to bring together faculty informally on a more regular
      basis. New faculty receive many invitations to events that give them the
      opportunity to meet other faculty, but these opportunities fall off after the
      first year. Enabling “connecting time” could be an important contribution
      to faculty development.

   3. Faculty new to the University, especially junior faculty, need more timely and
      effective orientation to resources and opportunities for interdisciplinary research.
      As well, research funding opportunities remain poorly understood among
      many faculty. While some understand the receptiveness of OVPR to good
      ideas, others are not conditioned to connect their work with internal
      funding opportunities.

   4. Linkages of interdisciplinary research with graduate training and undergraduate
      learning could be strengthened.

      a. The University has many interdisciplinary graduate student training
         grants. To complement these, and in support of the work of the
         Rackham Summer Interdisciplinary Institute, Rackham might invite
         faculty to propose collaborative seminars or workshops on multi-
         disciplinary and interdisciplinary research methodologies.
      b. Undergraduate opportunities for interdisciplinary learning need to be
         strengthened. Schools and departments could contribute upper-level
         seminars on interdisciplinary themes, open to students from across the
      c. Interdisciplinary research units could become more prominent
         stakeholders in the continued success of the Undergraduate Research
         Opportunity Program.

C. Information-gathering and reporting

   1. To guide planning and decision-making, better tools are needed to evaluate
      interdisciplinary work. This includes indicators to measure the level and
      quality of this work, and data systems that can more readily track the
      location and level. Currently, for instance, University financial systems do
      not allow easy identification of collaborative projects with investigators
      from different academic units.

   2. Research units could be asked to report more effectively and regularly on their
      contributions to the University. On a regular basis, and for distribution to

      the Provost and the Deans, interdisciplinary research units could critically
      evaluate activities and contributions, including research programs,
      teaching and training activities, and levels of research activity carried out
      or initiated in the center. Guidelines and schedules could be devised for
      this reporting, which could be made available through a central source
      such as DRDA‟s Research Resources.

   3. In addition to reporting successful initiatives, Deans could report to the Provost
      on interdisciplinary initiatives that do not go forward.

   4. The Working Group recommends that chairs report annually to Deans about
      efforts to build crosscutting activity both within and external to the academic
      unit. Departments and faculty could be awarded for contributions to this

D. Planning and coordination

   1. The Working Group recommends that OVPR give a stronger voice to faculty and
      connect with the academic mission of the University through re-invigoration and
      reconstitution of the Research Council. Rather than being a place for
      exchange of information, the Council could be given an oversight role,
      receive reports from and provide advice to the Vice President for
      Research, including long-term and strategic thinking, and have some
      decision-making responsibility for specific funding programs. This would
      strengthen faculty participation in OVPR, and connect it more closely with
      the rest of the University. Directors of interdisciplinary research units
      might rotate through this Council.

   2. OVPR could take a stronger role in developing broader understanding of future
      directions of research and the sorts of adaptations that might be needed to manage
      this change effectively.

   3. Directors of interdisciplinary research units need better support.
      a. The University could provide training for faculty taking up
         administrative responsibilities, including Directorships.
      b. Directors‟ fractional administrative appointments need to be at an
         appropriate level for their responsibilities.
      c. Directors of interdisciplinary research units could have an annual
         retreat to share notes and find common ground and discover
         opportunities for collaboration to better inform themselves new
         activities underway across the University, to discover new resources,
         and to learn about administrative “best practices” models.

     4. A visible (and perhaps “virtual”) hub to encourage and support linkages among
        the arts and humanities would help interconnect this important scholarly and
        creative activity across the University. With little external sponsorship,
        activity in the arts and humanities can stay localized. Faculty are located
        in a number of schools and colleges, some quite small.49 A center might be
        designed, and funding made available that could support interlinkings
        among these teaching, research, and creative activities.

E. Faculty hiring and development. Recommendations below amplify, and in some
   cases re-iterate, those of the Working Group on Faculty.

     1. Chairs and mentors could encourage junior faculty to explore linkages between
        their work and other fields. Interdisciplinary work should receive a positive
        reckoning, and mentors may appropriately include faculty appointed
        elsewhere in the University.

     2. Schools and colleges could work with departments and research units to allow
        junior faculty a pretenure term sabbatical, specifically to enable them to open new
        connections with their research interests.50 An opportunity such as this
        would send a strong signal of institutional interest about the importance
        of this type of work.

     3. The Working Group recommends that promotion and tenure committees be
        expanded to include members in different fields. At present, these committees
        are too narrowly constituted and deter junior faculty from opening their
        work to different fields.

     4. Directors of research units can offer informative input in promotion and tenure
        evaluation of junior faculty affiliated with their units.

     5. Departments are urged to consider what journals count for tenure decisions. The
        Working Group noted that departments holding narrow views on this
        matter discourage junior faculty from interdisciplinary work at one of the
        most intellectually productive times of their lives.

49 The University has a Vice Provost for the Arts, Paul Boylan, who is also Dean of the School of
Music, but the arts and humanities are fragmented across campus. The School of Art and Design
and the Architecture Program are located on North Campus. While most Music faculty are on
North Campus, musicologists are located on Central Campus as are the departments of Dance
and Theatre and Drama. LS&A‟s language and literature departments, Art History, Film &
Video, Institute for the Humanities, and other departments with faculty interested in arts and
humanities are located on Central Campus.
50 The Center for Human Growth and Development, for instance, supports one pre-tenure scholar

in the behavioral sciences and one in the bio-medical sciences, providing half-time salary.
Schools and colleges nominate faculty.

6. Candidates who submit multi-authored works as part of promotion and tenure
   materials could be allowed to describe the substance of their contribution to the
   project. At present, junior faculty can find themselves negotiating over the
   position of their name at the top of the page as some committees pay
   attention only to the order in which names appear.

7. The Working Group recommends that the Deans consider steps and incentives to
   enable research units and academic units to collaborate more effectively in
   thinking about new appointments and how they might address key areas of need.
   Centers need to have voices in shaping searches, and Deans can see these
   units, including those located elsewhere in the University, as partners
   who can make important contributions to the academic unit. Without
   this, development of initiatives or efforts to refresh research directions can
   be stymied. To support this,

   a. Interdisciplinary research units could be invited to submit proposals for .25 or
      .5 FTEs to be used jointly with academic units to make appointments of
      interdisciplinary faculty. This provides units with some assets to
      contribute. These fractions would return to the overseeing body (the
      Provost or OVPR‟s Research Council, for example) after three to five
      years for reuse, and full funding responsibility would be taken over by
      the academic unit. Consideration might be given to seeking
      endowment for these positions.

8. In the interests of balance, the Working Group believes that faculty with
   fractional appointments in a research unit should be responsible only for service
   that is proportional to their appointment. The research unit should receive a
   proportional amount of ICR for the work generated by that person during
   the time of the appointment.

9. Activity reports could contain a line for interdisciplinary and collaborative
   activities and contributions. Chairs could use this information to learn
   about work their faculty may undertake elsewhere, to recognize and
   reward outstanding accomplishment, and to report these contributions to
   the Dean.

10. A program of short-term internal sabbaticals would allow faculty renewal. Mid-
    career faculty lack opportunities for refreshing their work and exploring
    new directions, particularly at a moment of rapid cross-disciplinary
    change. This would also allow faculty to develop new teaching

        collaborations. Course relief would allow faculty to move into new

     11. As a way to circulate faculty throughout the University in a visible way,
         Distinguished University Professorships could be established for senior faculty.
         Appointed for a fixed time, these persons would promote excellence and
         connectivity in research and teaching and provide leadership in thinking
         about new paradigms for scholarship.

     12. The Working Group recommends that faculty be allowed to locate a fraction of
         their appointment in an interdisciplinary research unit for a prescribed time.
         Such opportunities could be widely available and not limited to
         recruitment and retention efforts. This would help alleviate faculty
         exhaustion and provide mid-career renewal, and foster collaboration
         between the academic and research units. Deans and Directors can
         contribute to buyouts to replace teaching, or OVPR might invite research
         units to develop proposals for replacement funding that would allow
         internal “visitorships” of two or three years.

     13. Another model for supporting interdisciplinary work across schools and colleges,
         would be the creation of new distinguished Provostial joint faculty positions that
         would provide leadership in specific areas of interdisciplinary importance.52

F. Resources

     1. A workable system is needed for allocating indirect cost returns in a manner that
        provides incentives for collaboration and recognizes the contributions of research
        units. The Working Group recommends that this system recognize the
        importance of where new research is imagined and launched, as much as
        where it actually takes place. In this way, it can acknowledge the role of
        research units in providing activities, services, and facilities that enable
        this work, and that this contribution has real costs that must be met. A
        procedure might be established that would provide a variable portion of
        indirect cost credit for initiating or coordinating a research grant or
        program or for providing core resources and expertise. This would be
        charged against unit ICR revenues.

51 The Cancer Center commits .5 FTE support to faculty in order to allow them to take part in
collaborative/interdisciplinary projects that complement their area of research emphasis.
Support from OVPR allowed faculty to learn about the emerging field of neuroscience and to
launch important new program for research and graduate training.
52 These might operate along the lines of the joint appointments funded by the International

Institute, with the position returning to the Provost for reassignment when the position is

2. The Working Group is concerned that changes to ICR distribution mechanisms
   might produce unintended consequences and further weaken the environment for
   cross-unit collaboration. Any new system must be tested for impact on both
   academic units and research units before being implemented.

3. Apart from any changes to the current system for calculating ICR distribution,
   the Working Group suggests that consideration be given to establishing a tax on
   all ICR, which would be used to meet the general costs of interdisciplinary
   research units. A portion of this pool could be used to support new
   interdisciplinary projects.

4. The Working Group recognizes that interdisciplinary research can be attractive
   targets for donors, and recommends that consideration be given to making
   interdisciplinary work a prominent priority for University fund-raising. Targets
   would include specific projects such as funding for cluster searches in key
   areas of interdisciplinary excellence, but also include support for
   prestigious University Professorships.

Appendix 1

                      Charge of the Working Group on Research

Much exciting work and substantial advances in knowledge emerge from
academic work that takes place at the intersections of the disciplines.
Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research has become a cornerstone of
science policy. Collaborative research in the social sciences is opening new and
complex agendas of investigation. In the arts and humanities, disciplinary
border-crossings are opening through sharings of theory and method and the
examination of common domains of research. The organization of
interdisciplinary research raises a host of important issues for the University.
While these ventures can yield extraordinary success, processes for stimulating,
organizing and evaluating collaborative and interdisciplinary research are
evolving and can be complex, unwieldy, uncertain, and disheartening. To assist
with their discussions, the Research Working Group will be provided with
briefing materials on current practices and indicators of collaborative and
interdisciplinary research activity, practices, and structures. As well, The Office
of the Vice President of Research has been giving attention to a range of issues
that may be of interest to this Working Group, and will share thinking on these


       Examine the variety of internal and external funding arrangements that
        support collaborative and interdisciplinary research units. Evaluate how
        well the budget model supports collaborative or interdisciplinary units
        and projects that operate across the boundaries of the academic units.
        Consider connections between investments in research support and
        returns derived from it, including mechanisms for sharing indirect cost

       Evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to encourage, identify, and support
        important emergent interdisciplinary and collaborative research.

       Examine planning and support for interdisciplinary and collaborative
        research in areas for which there is little or no present (and possibly
        anticipated) external support.

       Evaluate how well the University articulates its views on collaborative
        and interdisciplinary research and participates in national discussions that
        frame these research policies and agendas.

   Examine how well collaborative and interdisciplinary research programs
    provide opportunities for graduate training.

   Consider how junior faculty can play an active role in collaborative and
    interdisciplinary research.

   Evaluate issues relating to the role of post-doctoral fellows in collaborative
    and interdisciplinary research.

   Examine the relationship between disciplinary research and collaborative
    and interdisciplinary research programs.

   Consider how collaborative and interdisciplinary research might be more
    effectively linked to other aspects of the academic mission of the

   Consider the implications of extra-institutional collaborations (through,
    for example, electronically linked research networks and consortially
    organized initiatives). Examine future options for planning the
    University‟s collaborative and interdisciplinary research environment.

   Make specific recommendations for action, change, or further study.

Appendix 2

                              Working Group Process

The Working Group on Research, chaired by Professor Max Wicha, met in April
and May 1999 to take up a charge issued by the Provost to consider a set of
themes that were part of the University of Michigan special focus self-study for
reaccreditation. The charge of this Working Group was to examine broadly the
arrangements, supports, and coordination of collaborative and interdisciplinary
research in the University, and to consider how this commitment might be linked
more closely with other parts of the academic mission of the University. In its
work, the Working Group gave emphasis to a set of issues that included
leadership, coordination, and communication; relations between crosscutting
research units and the schools and colleges; incentives for junior faculty to take
part in collaborative and interdisciplinary research; opportunities for mid-career
faculty to explore new fields; connections that might be made between research
and teaching; and issues of resources and faculty development.

The Working Group had seventeen members drawn from a broad range of
schools and colleges of the University. Many serve, or have served as Directors
of research units in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Several are
jointly appointed in different departments and schools. The meeting schedule
included several planning discussions during April, followed by seven intensive
working sessions during May. The Self-Study Coordinator and staff of the Office
of Budget and Planning prepared a briefing book for these discussions. This
included a variety of recent reports of the Office of Vice President for Research
(OVPR), data on sponsored research provided by the Division of Research
Development and Administration (DRDA), data on joint faculty appointments,
relevant key University reports prepared during the past several years, including
the report on the Life Sciences Commission, and other readings to contextualize
the work at hand. In addition, this report draws on interviews with a number of
Directors of research units, self-study reports from a number of these units, and
conversations and contributions from many individual faculty.

Several senior faculty and administrators were invited to present their views
during sessions of the Working Group, including David Featherman, Director of
the Institute for Social Research; Michael Kennedy, Director of the International
Institute and Vice Provost for International Affairs; Marilyn Knepp, Assistant
Provost for University Budget and Planning. Marvin Parnes, Associate Vice
President for Research and Executive Director of the Division of Research
Development Administration, who was a member of the Working Group, also
made a presentation.

This report includes an overview of the arrangements and practices of key
elements of the University‟s research enterprise. It provides an evaluation of
how well these elements are supporting the rapidly changing ground of
interdisciplinary and collaborative work, and makes a number of findings with
recommendations for improvement.

Appendix 3

         Institutes, Centers, Programs, and other Units that Sponsor or Facilitate
                      Interdisciplinary Research , by Reporting Home

UNIT AND REPORTING HOME                                                  Year established

   Michigan Integrated Design Initiative (MIDI)

   International Business Education, Ctr. for (CIBE)                          1989
   Office of Private and Public Institutions
   William Davidson Institute                                                 1992

   Center for Biomaterials                                                    1989
   Center for Biorestoration of Oral Health                                   1996

   Center for Highly Interactive Computing in Education                       1998
   Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute                                  1999
   National Center for Post-Secondary Improvement                             1997
   Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement                    1997
   Center on Teaching Policy                                                  1997
   Center for Policy Research in Education                                    1996

 Reporting to the College
   Advanced Polymer Engineering Research, Ctr. For
   Cooperative Institute for Limnology & Ecosystems Research                  1989
   Engineering Research Ctr. for Reconfigurable Machining Systems             1996
   Ergonomics, Ctr. For                                                       1980
   Great Lakes & Mid-Atlantic Ctr. for Hazardous Substance Research           1989
   Institute for Environmental Sci., Engin., and Technology (IESET)           1997
   Integrated Microsystems, Ctr. For                                          1987
   Laboratory for Scientific Computation                                      1989
   Michigan Ion Beam Lab                                                      1986
   Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project                                          1948
   Simulation of Human Motion, Ctr. For
   Space Physics Research Lab                                                 1946
   U-M Controls Group
   Virtual Reality Laboratory (VRL)                                           1993

  Reporting to departments
    Aerospace Engineering
      Keck Computational Fluid Dynamics Lab                         1989
      Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences
      Global Change Laboratory                                      1995
      Laboratory for Atmospheric Science & Environmental Research   1993
    Biomedical Engineering
      Biomedical Ultrasonics Laboratory                             1989
    Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
      Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AIL)                      1989
      Neural Communication Technology, Ctr. For                     1994
      Optical Sciences Laboratory
      Solid-State Electronics Laboratory                            1946
    Industrial and Operations Engineering
      Japan Technology Management Program                           1991
      Mechanical Engineering & Applied Mechanics
      Biomechanics Research Laboratory (BRL)                        1983
      Laser-Aided Integrated Manufacturing, Ctr. for                1999
      Mobile Robotics Laboratory                                    1987

   Michigan Society of Fellows
   Rackham Interdisciplinary Committee on Org. Studies (ICOS)
   Rackham Summer Interdisciplinary Institute                       1998

   Alliance for Community Technology                                1997
   Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work (CREW)             1993

   Health Management Research Center
   Human Motor Research, Ctr. for                                   1977
   Motor Behavior in Down Syndrome, Ctr. on                         1999

   International and Comparative Law, Ctr. for                      1998

 Centers and programs
   Afroamerican & African Studies (CAAS), Ctr. for                  1970
   American Culture, Program in                                     1952
   Film & Video, Program in                                         1972
   Frankel Ctr. for Judaic Studies                                  1971
   Institute for the Humanities                                     1987
   International Institute (II)                                     1993
   Advanced Study Center                                            1994
   Am. Secretariat Intern. Ctre. for African Music & Dance          1997
   China Data Ctr.                                                  1997
   Chinese Studies, Ctr. for                                        1961
   Comparative Study in Social Transformations, Pgm. in the         1987
   European Studies, Ctr. for                                       1996
   Japanese Studies, Ctr. for                                       1947
   Korean Studies Pgm                                               1995
   Latin American & Caribbean Studies Pgm                           1984

   Middle Eastern & North African Studies, Ctr. for                                 1961
   Russian & East European Studies, Ctr. for                                        1959
   South & Southeast Asian Studies, Ctr. for                                        1961
   Medieval & Early Modern Studies (MEMS)                                           1997
   Research on Social Organization, Ctr. for (CRSO)                                 1960
   Women's Studies Pgm                                                              1973
  Museums and research units
   Anthropology, Museum of                                                          1922
   Biological Station                                                               1909
   Great Lakes & Aquatic Sciences, Ctr. for                                         1945
   Herbarium                                                                        1921
   Kelsey Museum of Archaeology                                                     1928
   Maathei Botanical Gardens                                                        1907
   Paleontology, Museum of                                                          1837
   Zoology, Museum of                                                               1922

 Advancing Child Health Through Cell & Molecular Biology
 Alcohol and Aging, Ctr. for
 Biologic Nanotechnology, Ctr. for                                                  1998
 Cardiovascular Research Center
 Clinical Scholars Pgm                                                              1994
 Comprehensive Cancer Center                                                        1986
 Center for Clinical Investigation and Therapeutics                                 1998
 Core Grant for Vision Research
 Developmental Physiology of the Kidney and Urinary Tract
 Gastrointestinal Hormone Research Center
 Gene Therapy, Ctr. For                                                             1997
 General Clinical Research Ctr.                                                     1963
 Geriatrics Center                                                                  1987
 Historical Center for the Health Sciences
 Kresge Hearing Research Institute                                                  1962
 Mechanisms of Glomerular & Tubular Injury
 Mental Health Research Institute (MHRI)                                            1955
 Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Ctr.                                         1989
 Michigan Diabetes Research & Training Ctr. (MDRT)                                  1977
 Multipurpose Arthritis & Musculoskeletal Diseases Ctr.                             1977
 Narcotic Drug & Opiate Peptide Basic Research Project
 PET Study of Biochemistry & Metabolism of the CNS
 Pgm in Society and Medicine                                                        1991
 SCOR in Occupational & Immunologic Diseases
 SCOR in Pathobiology of Fibrotic Lung Disease
 SCOR in Rheumatoid Arthritis
 SPORE in Prostate Cancer

  Sustainable Systems, Ctr. For                                                     1991

  Center for Nursing Research
  Child & Adolescent Health Behavior Research Ctr. (CAHBRC)                         1991
  Collaborating Ctr. for Research & Clinical Training in Health Promotion Nursing   1998
  Enhancement & Restoration of Cogn. Function (CERCF), Ctr. for                     1996

  Prevention Research Center for Community Collaboration in Public Health   1998
  Health Services Research Initiative (USRI)                                1998
  Intervention to Improve Asthma Management and Prevention                  1995
  Michigan Center for the Environment and Children's Health                 1998
  Michigan Interdisciplinary Center on Social Inequalities, Mind and Body   1999
  Michigan Initiative on Inequalities in Health                             1998
  Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases, Ctr. for      1999
  Population Planning, Ctr. for                                             1965
  Research on Ethnicity, Culture, & Health, Ctr. for                        1998
  Scholars in Health Policy Research Program                                1992
  Statistical Genetics, Ctr. for                                            1999
  Tobacco Research Network                                                  1998

  Family Assessment Clinic                                                  1985
  Interdisciplinary Child Welfare Training Project                          1997
  Project for Research on Welfare, Work, and Domestic Violence              1997
  Research Development Center on Poverty, Risk & Mental Health              1995

    Joel D. Tauber Manufacturing Institute                                  1993
    Erb Environmental Management Institute                                  1996
    Corporate Environmental Management Pgm (CEMP)                           1992
    Public and Nonprofit Management Center (NPM)
    Biomedical Engineering, Ctr. For
    Michigan Sea Grant Pgm                                                  1969
    Ultrafast Optical Science (CUOS), Ctr. For                              1991
    Research on the Information Economy, Program for
    Macromolecular Science & Engineering Center                             1968
    Performing Arts and Technology, Ctr. For                                1986
    Labor and Industrial Relations, Institute of (ILIR)                     1957
    Michigan Pgm on Poverty & Social Welfare Policy                         1996

   Institute for the Study of Biological Complexity & Human Values          1999
   Center for the Education of Women                                        1964
   Nichols Arboretum                                                        1907
   Social Research, Institute for (ISR)                                     1948
     Political Studies, Ctr. For                                            1948
     Population Studies Ctr.                                                1961

    Research Ctr. for Group Dynamics                      1947
    Survey Research Ctr.                                  1946
  Arts of Citizenship Pgm                                 1998
  Biomolecular Recognition Pgm                            1993
  Biophysics Research Division                            1963
  Cognitive Neuroscience Pgm                              1994
  Culture & Cognition Pgm                                 1994
  Gerontology, Institute of                               1965
  Human Growth & Development, Ctr. for (CHGD)             1964
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Lab (ITS)   1993
  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Facility                     1999
  Michigan Initiative for Women's Health (MIWH)           1993
  Middle English Compendium                               1930
  Organogenesis, Ctr. For                                 1995
  Reproductive Sciences Pgm                               1968
  Research on Women & Gender, Institute for (IRWG)        1995
  South Africa Initiative Office (SAIO)                   1993
  Study of Complex Systems, Ctr. For                      1993
  Substance Abuse Research Ctr. (UMSARC)                  1987
  Transportation Research Unit (UMTRI)                    1965

Appendix 4

           Institute for Scientific Information: Research and Scholarship Impact

Top Ten Institutions*

1. Harvard University
2. Stanford University
3. California Institute of Technology
4. Yale University
5. University of Michigan
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7. University of California, Berkeley
8. University of Washington
9. University of California, Santa Barbara
10. Cornell University

* The rankings are determined by Institute for Scientific Information on the basis of the
frequency of appearances for each school in the top ten Index rankings in 21 scientific
fields (below). The University of Michigan is ranked fifth overall based on appearances
in the top ten in 9 of 21 fields of study.

Fields of study (as defined by ISI) used to rank "Highest Impact" universities
based on formula calculated from total citations by an institution‟s scientists and
scholars and the frequency of citation by all scientists and scholars

(Michigan‟s rank in field of study; ISI identified only top ten institutions in each field of study)

Clinical Medicine                                  Engineering
Neuroscience                                       Materials Science (10th)
Agricultural Sciences                              Computer Science (7th)
Plant and Animal Science                           Physics
Immunology (7th)                                   Geosciences
Ecology/Environment                                Astrophysics (5th)
Molecular Biology and Genetics                     Mathematics
Pharmacology (8th)                                 Psychology/Psychiatry (5th)
Biology and Biochemistry                           Economics/Business (9th)
Chemistry                                          Law (9th)
                                                   Education (1st)

Shared By: