Water Policy Group Discussion Notes, 4/5/07, 1-2pm
Attendees:
Caitlyn Dyckman
Dave Hargett
Jeff Allen
Catherine Mobley
John Smink
Susan Benson
David Hughes
Jeff Gallagher
Robert Becker
Jim London
1) Are there interdisciplinary research teams already in place for this topic?
A Water Center exists within Strom Thurmond Institute. There is not a formal
interdisciplinary water policy team established on campus other than the Water Center.
Almost every program has interdisciplinary teams in place, but they may not be formal
groups, they can be ad hoc. These ad hoc groups are driven by funding groups that we
pursue, and if they require interdisciplinary groups, but there are some, such as the
biocomplexity group that we put together without the demand of a funding source. NSF
and others are saying that future grant proposals are going to be required to be
interdisciplinary. The Jim Self Center on the Future and the School of the Environment
have other focuses, but can address policy.
What assistance do your teams need to move forward?
Money & Resources! The water center gets a small portion of money from USGS and it
is not funded as a lot of states, like western states fund water centers. Water centers are
becoming more important in the state and more resources should begin getting allocated
there. The relationship to EPA Centers for Watershed Excellence should be examined
more closely.
2) What administrative or communications support is needed to establish and
sustain a successful IRT?
Some groups have gone for the same grants, and didn’t even know it. Right now, the
Restoration Institute and Water Center are working together to become a Center for
Watershed Excellence. Steve Klaine has been the entrepreneur for the CLUE project, but
other people got pulled in as it developed. There is often an initiator, and other parties
become involved as needed. There isn’t really a formal mechanism of communication.
The more formal the communication system for a group, the less effective it is, a small
group often works best.
The external relationships are more of a struggle than the internal relationships. Working
with state agencies (like DHEC) is more important to facilitate. If Clemson is serious
about off campus research facilities like those on the coast or in the sandhills, it is
important to focus on internal relationships. The university needs to recognize important
liaisons and facilitate these relationships for those who are not on the campus, internal to
the university and external.
It is recognized that the sociology faculty, political science, and the economics faculty
have really been working well across disciplines to assist the Water Center and others.
To find faculty resources when needed, it is a networking issue. The networks exist, but
they aren’t necessarily formal groups.
If needs or a group of needs are identified to facilitate our research, it seems that the
university is willing to find those resources. Resources don’t have to be cash, if a
research program crosses disciplines and you want to be involved, the university needs to
allow people to allocate their time to the project.
Anything that can be added to make groups more cohesive?
An email workgroup or list serve to facilitate sharing of information. It is done
informally now, but a more formal listing would facilitate passing along grant or project
opportunities. A clearinghouse of who is involved would be helpful. Once a month
“cocktail parties” or “brown bag lunches” would be helpful to discuss projects and
interdisciplinary opportunities could be extended to a water policy group to facilitate
interactions.
3) Where are the group’s shared research interests and commonalities?
It depends on the context what people are working on. Everyone does a little bit in lots
of different relevant areas, and maybe focuses on a few of them. All of them relate to
each other, it is hard to narrow your research interest to one topic. There are some large
overriding themes (i.e., water, natural resource policy, land use policy) and those get
narrowed down to specific areas (i.e., GIS and remote sensing technology to look at
policy issues, environmental attitudes and behaviors). This could be an endless list. The
shared research interest is water policy with a million little pieces below it.
4) From these shared interests, can you identify one opportunity to form an
IRT focused on water issues such as those presented at this forum?
Human and social implications of physical water quality data drive the water policy
research area. A way to communicate and get resources (knowledge, communication,
and monetary that is small enough to manage, but large enough to be effective. Then,
you can find an institutional framework of who needs to be involved and how it should be
structured. It is best to establish the communication network so that we can get together
when problems come up, rather than try to tackle an individual project all together right
now.
Some individuals are overwhelmed by the opportunities to do research, and it would help
to have a network to share these opportunities and help facilitate gathering competitive
interdisciplinary groups. Those individuals who have ample opportunities for funding
and research projects won’t look for interdisciplinary collaboration, but sharing those
opportunities over a list serve will help gather groups together. An economic benefit of
interdisciplinary groups, like there is on the CLUE project (Changing Land Use and the
Environment), brought together an interdisciplinary group and will bring together more if
they are structured in a similar manner.
The science is there to show how policy needs to be shaped better, but policy hasn’t been
changed and our problems with water continue. There is an information gap between
good science and what policymakers need. Communicating the science to the general
public and the policymakers is essential to move water policy forward. The community
value set plays a large part in this, and the values can change if they are educated about
the problems.
What level of seed funding is required to initiate a team?
Email list serve for communication
Monthly meetings for casual interactions to discuss collaborative opportunities
If the university gives a portion of time for faculty members to work on an initiative for
these interdisciplinary teams and projects. There has to be some kind of incentive, and
time for faculty members (especially for junior faculty). The university has to show that
they value that work from faculty for it to become successful. People should be made
accountable for working on interdisciplinary teams, like being part of an evaluation for an
individual. If it is rewarded, it will get done. Right now, the incentive is external (i.e.,
funding), but the university is not giving incentives (internal) for faculty to form more
interdisciplinary groups.