HR: 0830h
AN: C41C-0998    [PDF]
TI: Poles Apart? An Analysis of Research Practices in the Arctic and Antarctica
AU: * Averyt, K
EM: kaveryt@pangea.stanford.edu
AF: The National Academies, Polar Research Board, Washington, DC 20001 United States
AU: * Averyt, K
EM: kaveryt@pangea.stanford.edu
AF: Stanford University, GES Department 320 Braun Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 United States
AU: Drobot, S
EM: sdrobot@nas.edu
AF: The National Academies, Polar Research Board, Washington, DC 20001 United States
AU: Elfring, C
EM: celfring@nas.edu
AF: The National Academies, Polar Research Board, Washington, DC 20001 United States
AB: The International Polar Years (IPY1, IPY2) and the International Geophysical Year (IGY) saw the evolution of individual research projects into decadal-scale programs involving large numbers of physical scientists. The upcoming IPY 2007-08 initiative progresses one step further by expanding research objectives to include economics, history, sociology, and other social sciences. To maximize the significance of IPY 2007-08, and follow historical precedent, progress toward a more holistic polar research program is required. This necessitates a transition from large-scale, collaborative efforts to interdisciplinary science plans. Here, we analyze survey data compiled from research projects funded in FY1999 by the Office of Polar Programs at the National Science Foundation to examine collaborative and interdisciplinary research at the poles. Our survey return rate was better than 40 %. Comparison of funded proposals from both Antarctic and Arctic regions shows that Arctic researchers tend to work in larger groups than their Antarctic counterparts; however, these coalitions are generally comprised of colleagues from the same institution or colleagues from institutions in proximity to the Arctic Circle. Antarctic teams, although smaller, are more geographically diverse. This implies that large-scale programs for research at southern high-latitudes may facilitate communication and scientific interactions to a greater extent than similar programs in the Arctic. Results from both Polar Regions indicate a decreasing trend in the quality of communication among research teams as the process evolves from an idea to publication. It is also clear that a majority of researchers do not differentiate between the terms "collaborative" and "interdisciplinary." Based on these and other data interpretations, we draw conclusions about the dynamics of research conducted within the framework of NSF. These results imply that the IPY should endeavor to (1) educate scientists about how to conduct interdisciplinary research independently or in teams; (2) interest and engage workers outside the geophysical community actively involved in polar research; and (3) actively facilitate and encourage communication among scientists.
DE: 1700 HISTORY OF GEOPHYSICS
DE: 6300 POLICY SCIENCES
DE: 6605 Education
DE: 9310 Antarctica
DE: 9315 Arctic region
SC: Cryosphere [C]
MN: 2003 Fall Meeting