Research Issues and IUPUI Informatics

Geoffrey Fox

August 15 2008

Why worry about Research?• Maybe your institution or chair demands that you do

research?• I do research as I want to discover interesting useful

ideas e.g. curiosity• Research is needed to allow faculty to keep up with the

field– I would view much of CS curricula misguided as the teachers

of it have not kept up with the field

• PS I don’t believe there are many “fundamental ideas” in CS/Informatics – Unlike Physics where Mother Nature made fundamental

decisions– Informatics/CS is a field largely created and shaped by what

computers/networks/data systems we can engineer

What is Research?• In Physics (where I started research in 1964) the

difference between research (new ideas) and development (skilful building of things based on known ideas) is relatively clear– But an experimental physicist spends 95% of their time on

development (“engineering”)– A theoretical physicist spends 95% of their time on

research?

• In computing/Informatics, it is not so obvious– The field changes faster than physics but much of it is

advanced development– Developing Google maps, XML, Flash etc are advanced

development but they are transformational in impact

• I would aim at advanced development OR research

Research Strategy I• Always aim to do best possible work and

structure research strategy and proposals to reflect this

• It is very unlikely that your nifty idea is new unless you are really familiar with field– Don’t start serious work unless you know current

state of the art• It usually takes a long time to develop a

fundable proposal– Need to nurture future areas while “living off”

current areas– Currently I am developing multi-core research and I

suspect it will repalce my “Grid research” 3-5 years from now

Research Strategy II• It took me 4 years from co-organizing a computational

earthquake science meeting in 1997 to obtaining NASA funding– Several NASA projects funded since 2001 but all NSF

proposals in this area turned down.– NSF proposals were technically as strong as NASA ones but

different reviewer base– Note communities are surprisingly distinct; NSF does not

acknowledge our work even though NASA gave it accolades• Sometimes it doesn’t work out: in 1997 I developed pretty

innovative web-based Crisis Management Collaboration system; all follow up NSF/NASA/DoD proposals turned down; finally got a DoD grant in 2005 in a different area but based on contacts I made from previous work– The rejected proposals were very good like accepted ones

but not in areas reviewers related to as most work in this area from industry;

– Some areas are hard to fund!

Collaborate• US Funding agencies love collaborative multi-institution

proposals– Often easier to get 20% of a $1M proposal with 5 institutions than one

$200K solo proposal– 20 years ago I got a Caltech only proposal for $1.8M/year (mainly

people) – such days have past for me• Note very unlikely (statistically) that best work in any area

done locally so expect to need (inter)national collaboration– Only prepare proposals with only people from your institution if all

components are world class and perceived to be world class• Build long term partners; today’s research colleague is

tomorrow’s program manager at Darpa or Lilly• Not important to be Principal Investigator • It is important to pursue an agenda identified with you in a

collaboration– Once I developed an innovative technology; nobody took it seriously

as I was collaborating with a really great researcher in that technology area; key people assumed he did work and there was nothing he could do to change this perception

– Obvious lessons for students of well known faculty`

Know your Funding Agencies and their review strategy/peer review community• NSF: The research and education community• NIH: In between NSF and NASA in style of successful

proposals• NASA: Work with laboratories (Goddard, JPL etc.)• DoE: Work with laboratories (Argonne, Oak Ridge

etc.)• DoD/Darpa: Must know the real intent of solicitation

and program manager who often has strong technical impact on program

• Industry: Very erratic in USA; stronger in Europe• Local (your own university or State): Obviously pursue

but won’t clearly add to national reputation

Know your Reviewers• Reviewing involves “peer” review by mail from funding agency,

panels and agency program managers– Different agencies have different balances here– Varies from NSF peer reviewers and panels– to DoD program managers– Other USA agencies are in between

• Many reviews are incorrect as the reviewers do not understand your proposal and if it is too innovative, cannot understand it– Example: My “best” proposals in 1995 for web-based computing

and web-based education were soundly rejected even though in retrospect “right-on”

– Make your proposals exciting but not too far out• NSF OCI and CISE are computer/computational scientists; NSF

EHR are Cognitive Science/School of Education– Neither unit will easily fund researchers from the other– All my EHR proposals turned down except for a small $50,000

grant– Implies education technology very weak in USA

Interdisciplinary work• Many people extol the value of interdisciplinary

work and much of my research is of this type• However some dangers as hard to get respect

from people of a different field• Publish papers in arenas natural for component

disciplines• Only do interdisciplinary work where each

involved field is high class• Collaboration (even in a discipline) more

important than “mindless interdisciplinary” work

Glittering Diamonds• Often reviewers judge proposals on people involved and not

the content (which they don’t in fact understand because it is “too far out” or an area outside their expertise)

• Thus good to put “glittering diamonds” on proposals; researchers who are and are perceived to be world class

• However reviewers note “fake collaborations”; only put those really involved on proposal and best to have pre-existing collaborations documented with joint papers etc.– Write papers with your collaborators before submitting

proposal• Take important fields at IUPUI (media, biomedical …..) and

identify the needed distinguished collaborators – If there are no obvious ones, ask your chair to hire or help

find!• Collaborators MORE important than mentors

The Institutional Advantage• Although institutions important, remember for federal proposals

Indiana is not usually perceived to be a leader so • for example, do not write an IU proposal; write an

national/regional proposal• Often artifacts – hardware, software, power – are very

important and can be leveraged for success• I leverage “power” of “Alliance for Equity in Higher Education”

which represents 335 Minority serving institutions– NSF funding and indeed project successes partnering with

AIHEC, HACU and NAFEO– In outreach look for systemic not point solutions• UITS has excellent infrastructure• The medical school must have useful artifacts• Create and nurture your artifacts and glittering diamonds

Further Principles and Issues I• Don’t waste time on hopeless idealistic proposals• Safe strategy is to get started as a partner with one or

more “Glittering Diamonds”– Best to be funded as a servant in heaven rather than be

rejected as a ruler in hell …..– The Glittering Diamond is a perfect tenure reference

• Do not tabulate a lot of wishful thinking i.e. possible but not real activities

• Publications and papers benefit from results with good graphics

• Have clearly stated ideas and activities in your proposal; make it clear you know competing work

• Focus – do not be too broad; quality better than quantity

• Involve PhD not Masters students!

Further Principles and Issues II• Not important to be PI; co-PI role in many ways best• If you put together a joint proposal, the PI must expect to do

95% of work; organize brainstorming sessions as they create links between collaborators and this shows in proposal quality

• Organizing specialized workshops is a good way to become known

• Letters of support of dubious value; all escalated so not useful for reviewer; letter writers are restricted from being NSF reviewers for your proposal

• Now you should be exploiting your current knowledge but thinking of the new thrusts that you will exploit 5 years from now– I have made many mistakes here; early on I dismissed Grids as

obviously wrong but it was me that was wrong as it evolved to tackle different problems where it is a good idea.

• Budgets take a lot of effort but remember even if proposal approved, agency will change budget – so budget should “compile correctly” and clearly match proposal but details not important; do justify what you put in!