Multidisciplinary Graduate Programs in Materials
- PDF / 384,895 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 604.8 x 806.4 pts Page_size
- 25 Downloads / 183 Views
Multidisciplinary Graduate Programs in Materials Herbert H. Johnson What constitutes a strong multidisciplinary p r o g r a m in materials? Does a strong multidisciplinary program require strong disciplines? What are the differences (if any) between interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary programs? Are thrust areas essential components of a good multidisciplinary program? What is the role of central facilities in multidisciplinary research and education? Are there intrinsic differences between the activities of graduate students in multidisciplinary and single-investigator programs? Is peer review appropriate and, equally important, feasible for large multidisciplinary programs? This family of questions is of increasing interest and some concern in both the academic and funding segments of the national materials community. It does not appear to be a major issue in either the industrial or national laboratory arenas, where the funding practices, organizational patterns, and in some respects the research and development goals, are different from those in the research universit i e s . An e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n is t h e presence of a formal education component in the graduate materials programs in the universities. However, in discussions of academic materials research programs, both funder and (regrettably) fundee occasionally relegate purely educational aspects to the background. Growth of Multidisciplinary Programs Multidisciplinary and block-funded programs are a steadily increasing fraction of the total research s u p p o r t in materials available to universities. Some 30 years ago virtually all university research in materials-related subjects was supported through single-investigator grants. In a landmark initiative, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in about 1960 launched the Interdisciplinary Laboratory (IDL) program in three universities as an imaginative response to carefully analyzed and deeply felt national needs for improved materials systems in the energy, national security, transportation, communications, etc., arenas. The Department of Energy recognized similar opportunities and needs in its areas of mission responsibility, and also initiated university blockfunded materials programs. These early programs emphasized quality research, central facilities, seed money funding, and an increase in the number of graduate students in materials-related disciplines.
Through the 1960s the IDL program grew to encompass about a dozen universities. In 1972, as a result of the attitudes expressed by the Mansfield amendment, the IDL program was transferred to the National Science Foundation. It became a key program in the newly constituted Division of Materials Research (DMR).
The scientific interactions and broadening of research horizons that occur in thrust groups are important to both graduate students and faculty. The creation of DMR was a second landmark event, for it constituted formal recognition that formerly separate disciplines
Data Loading...
