Introduction to thematic issue: Spatializing sedimentations and erosions of time in urban landscapes

Recognizing the continued human domination of landscapes across the globe, social-ecological systems (SES) research has proliferated, necessitating interdisciplinary collaborations. Although interdisciplinary research started gaining traction in academic settings close to 50 years ago, formal frameworks for SES research did not develop until the late 1990s. The first National Science Foundation (NSF) funding mechanism specifically for interdisciplinary SES research began in 2001 and the SES-specific Coupled Natural Human (CNH) Systems program began in 2007. We used data on funded NSF projects from 2000 to 2015 to examine how SES research was funded, where the research is published, and the scholarly impact of SES research. Despite specific programs for funding SES research within the NSF, this type of research also received funding from non-SES mission programs (e.g., Ecosystem Science constituted 19% of grants in our study, and Hydrology constituted 16% of grants). Although NSF funding for SES research originates from across programs, the majority of products are published in journals with a focus on ecological sciences. Grants funded through the Coupled Natural Human Systems programs were more likely to publish at least one paper that was highly interdisciplinary (Biological Sciences [BE-CNH] constituted 70% of grants in program, and Geosciences [GEO-CNH] constituted 48% of grants) than the traditional disciplinary programs (Ecology [ES], 35% and Hydrology, 27%). This result highlights the utility of these cross-cutting programs in producing and widely disseminating SES research. We found that the number of citations was higher in BE-CNH and ES than other programs, pointing to greater scholarly impact of SES research in these NSF programs. Through our research, we identified the need for institutions to recognize research products and deliverables beyond the “standard” peer-reviewed manuscripts, as SES and interdisciplinary research and unconventional research products (e.g., popular press articles, online StoryMaps, workshops, white papers) continue to grow and are important to the broader societal impact of these types of research programs. This project demonstrates that the outcomes and products of grants awarded through the NSF CNH programs are important to furthering SES research and the programs should be valued and expanded in the future.

Defining and Redefining Midwifery Practice.

PurposeThis concluding paper aims to summarise the main points and outcomes related to the theme issue question what are the challenges and opportunities for sustainable tourism development in Cyprus?Design/methodology/approachThis paper draws on the findings of the theme issue articles summarising key points on how sustainability can be achieved in different tourism and hospitality industry areas in Cyprus.FindingsThe overall findings highlight the challenges the tourism and hospitality industry face in Cyprus to implement sustainable tourism measures while significantly depending on the income industry generates. Articles in this thematic issue also explore the opportunities that stakeholders, support measures, education, advanced technology and rural thematic tourism activities can provide.Originality/valueThe articles in this issue address sustainability challenges and opportunities for a small island state Cyprus that heavily depends on sun and sea tourism activity. The articles in this theme issue provide academic and practical insight through thematic literature reviews, field visits, case studies, interactions and interviews with practitioners, residents and policymakers.

INTRODUCTIONThe number of Black doctoral recipients continues to rise. From 1991 to 2011, the percentage of graduates as a share of all PhDs increased from 4.1 to 6.1 percent (National Science Foundation; NSF, 2012). The increase in the number of Blacks attaining PhDs has been met with growth in scholarly interest and inquiry in them as students. Some authors have investigated their general experiences (Lewis et al., 2004; Nettles, 1990; Nettles & Millett, 2006), while others have focused on more specific topics such as advising and mentoring (Barker, 2011; Felder, 2010; Felder & Barker, 2013), and socialization (Ellis, 2001; Taylor & Antony, 2000).Although the literature is growing, there are still subjects where little is known. One such topic is the research productivity of Black doctoral students. Specifically, scholars do not know the factors that influence the research-related activities of this population. This is an important undertaking; particularly given the potential benefits.Researchers have discovered three instances where greater scholarly output provides advantages to the student. First, early engagement in research with faculty and peers creates opportunities for formal and informal interactions that are vital in doctoral socialization (Baird, 1992; Bragg, 1976; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Second, successful involvement in early research-related activities is also associated with increased research self-efficacy (Kahn & Scott, 1997; Love et al., 2007). Finally, doctoral student productivity has been associated with actual early career productivity of faculty, which is a strong indicator of faculty success (Clemente, 1973; Green & Bauer, 1995; Williamson & Cable, 2003).Nettles and Millett (2006) found that African American doctoral students in education, social sciences, and the sciences and mathematics published less than their peers. While this is only one measure of research productivity, it suggests that Blacks pursuing PhDs may not have the same opportunities to develop into researchers. This could have an influence on their graduate experience, completion rates, and future careers. Research has shown that Black doctoral students often experience low sense of belonging (Ellis, 2001) and high attrition rates (Sowell, 2008). Additionally, the overall percentage of Black faculty remains low, especially at research intensive institutions (Perna et al., 2007). In order to address these dismal statistics, it is important to understand all relevant variables and relationships. This includes the factors related to the research productivity of Black students.This inquiry's focus is to determine what variables are associated with the presentation, publication, and submission output of Black PhD students attending predominantly White institutions (PWIs). Examining research productivity in the context of PWIs is important because most Black students earned their PhDs from PWIs and research suggests that the doctoral experience and development of Black students is influenced by the institution culture in which it takes place (Gay, 2004). The study is guided by Weidman and colleagues' (2001) model of graduate student socialization. The study begins with an overview of the relevant literature.REVIEW OF LITERATURERelevant in this study is the literature on graduate student research productivity and Black doctoral students. Together, these bodies of scholarship provide the requisite information to determine the variables to investigate. This section begins with what is known about the scholarly output of graduate students.Doctoral Student Research ProductivityThe limited doctoral research productivity literature indicates that there is no common approach to determining what factors might the influence scholarly output. Researchers have drawn from the fields in psychology (e.g., Kahn & Schlosser, 2010; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Mallinckrodt & Gelso, 2002), organizational innovation and productivity (e. …

Aim/Purpose: There is ample evidence that team processes matter more than the characteristics of individual team members; unfortunately, very few empirical studies have examined communication process variables closely or tied them to team outcomes. Background: The University of Miami Laboratory for Integrated Knowledge (U-LINK) is a pilot funding mechanism that was developed and implemented based on empirically-established best practices established in the literature on the Science of Team Science (SciTS). In addition to addressing grand societal challenges, teams engaged in processes designed to enhance the process of “teaming”. This study uses the Inputs-Mediator-Outputs-Inputs (IMOI) model as a blueprint for an investigation into how team communication processes (shared communication, shared leadership, formal meetings, informal meetings) influence intermediary team processes (goal clarity, role ambiguity, process clarity, trust) and team outcomes (team satisfaction, team productivity). Methodology: Monte Carlo methodologies were used to explore both longitudinal self-report (survey of communication and team outcome variables) data and objective data on scholarly productivity, collected from seventy-eight members of eleven real-world intact interdisciplinary teams to explore how team communication processes affect team outcomes. Contribution: This study is among the few that centers communication practice and processes in the operationalization and measurement of its constructs and which provides a test of hypotheses centered on key questions identified in the literature. Findings: Communication practices are important to team processes and outcomes. Shared communication and informal meetings were associated with increased team satisfaction and increased research productivity. Shared leadership was associated with increased research productivity, as well as improved process and goal clarity. Formal meetings were associated with increased goal clarity and decreased role ambiguity. Recommendation for Researchers: Studying intact interdisciplinary research teams requires innovative methods and clear specification of variables. Challenges associated with access to limited numbers of teams should not preclude engaging in research as each study contributes to our larger body of knowledge of the factors that influence the success of interdisciplinary research teams. Future Research: Future research should examine different team formation and funding mechanisms and extend observation and data collection for longer periods of time.

PurposeThis concluding article aims to summarize the key points and outcomes from the theme issue question: How could the Republic of Cyprus reduce the impact of seasonal tourism on long-term sustainable development? Which is a follow-up issue to the Cyprus sustainability theme issue published in Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes volume 13 number 6 2021.Design/methodology/approachThe paper summarizes the findings of the theme issue in relation to how stakeholders in the Republic of Cyprus can reduce the impact of severe tourism seasonality on long-term sustainable tourism development.FindingsThe findings of the articles in this theme issue explore the depth of the seasonality problem and its impact on the long-term sustainability of the small island state of Cyprus. Further, the articles in this collection explore potential remedies and ways to mitigate seasonality with the help of alternative, special interest tourism activities, improved air connectivity, established cluster-based activities, and improved accessibility to the island.Originality/valueThe articles in this issue provide perspectives from academics, practitioners, industry professionals, and policymakers on what steps could be taken to tackle increasing tourism seasonality that has profound effects on economic, social, and environmental sustainability in the island of Cyprus.

Notes from the Field: Planting, Nurturing, and Watching Things Grow

It is important for a research community, such as Physics Education Research (PER), to understand how much funding it receives and where this funding comes from. During spring 2011, US-based members of the PER community were asked to respond to a web survey to identify funding that supports their research. Results indicate that the total funding base for PER from 2006-2010 (inclusive) is at least 262 grants worth a total of $72.5M. Most (75%) of the funding for PER comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and most of the NSF funding is through the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources. Very little PER work is funded through the Education and Interdisciplinary Research (EIR) Program that is housed within the NSF Division of Physics, nor is there significant funding from the US Department of Education. Although funding supports work at all levels of physics instruction, by far the largest amount of funding goes to support work at the introductory undergraduate level.

One contribution of 18 to a theme issue 'Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future directions'.

Some states in the U.S. have traditionally received less federal research funding than other states. The National Science Foundation (NSF) created a program in 1979, called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to enhance the research competitiveness in such states. While the geographic disparity in federal research funding is well known, the overall impact of federal funding on the research performance of EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR has not been previously studied. In the current study, we compared the combined research productivity of Ph.D. granting institutions in EPSCoR versus the non-EPSCoR states to better understand the scientific impact of federal investments in sponsored research across all states. The research outputs we measured included journal articles, books, conference papers, patents, and citation count in academic literature. Unsurprisingly, results indicated that the non-EPSCoR states received significantly more federal research funding than their EPSCoR counterparts, which correlated with a higher number of faculty members in the non-EPSCoR versus EPSCoR states. Also, in the overall research productivity expressed on a per capita, the non-EPSCoR states fared better than EPSCoR states. However, when the research output was measured based on per $1M investment of federal research funding, EPSCoR states performed significantly better than the non-EPSCoR states in many research productivity indicators, with the notable exception of patents. Together, this study found preliminary evidence that EPSCoR states achieved a high degree of research productivity despite receiving significantly fewer federal research dollars. The limitations and next steps of this study are also discussed.

Implementing the Results of Material Flow Analysis

Interdisciplinary research is vital to research productivity. However, the existing research has not given a reasonable explanation on how and under what condition facilitating interdisciplinary research cooperation promotes research productivity. This article aims to contribute to the existing literature by examining the link between facilitating interdisciplinary cooperation and research productivity as well as the role of government assistance in this link. Using a sample of 314 members of Chinese university research teams, we show that management, operations, evaluation, team building, and collaborating with industry to facilitate interdisciplinary cooperation all have significantly positive effects on the research productivity of university research teams. Among them, evaluation has the most significant impact on research productivity. Moreover, government assistance weakens the relationship between evaluation and research productivity but strengthens the relationship between management and research productivity. However, the moderating effects of government assistance on the links among team building, operations, collaborating with industry, and team research productivity are not statistically significant. Overall, our study has important implications for governments and universities seeking to facilitate interdisciplinary cooperation.

Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review

The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States, like many other funding agencies all over the globe, has made large investments in interdisciplinary research in the sciences and engineering, arguing that interdisciplinary research is an essential resource for addressing emerging problems, resulting in important social benefits. Using NSF as a case study for problem that might be relevant in other contexts as well, I argue that the NSF itself poses a significant barrier to such research in not sufficiently appreciating the value of the humanities as significant interdisciplinary partners. This essay focuses on the practices of philosophy as a highly valuable but currently under-appreciated partner in achieving the goals of interdisciplinary research. This essay advances a proposal for developing deeper and wider interdisciplinary research in the sciences through coupled ethical-epistemological research. I argue that this more robust model of interdisciplinary practice will lead to better science by providing resources for understanding the types of value decisions that are entrenched in research models and methods, offering resources for identifying the ethical implications of research decisions, and providing a lens for identifying the questions that are ignored, under-examined, and rendered invisible through scientific habit or lack of interest. In this way, we will have better science both in the traditional sense of advancing knowledge by building on and adding to our current knowledge as well as in the broader sense of science for the good of, namely, scientific research that better benefits society.

Editor's note: This month, following agency visits in Washington, DC, Jean Steiner (ASA president), Roch Gaussoin (CSSA president), and Carolyn Olson (SSSA president) are joining forces to emphasize the potential importance of a new program within the National Science Foundation (NSF) that could help focus our science and impact the ability to obtain NSF research funding in the next few years. Representatives of NSF have asked for our input at the beginning of a new five-year funding program that couples food, energy, and water. This is a rare and unique opportunity for the agricultural community to shape research directions. In 2010, NSF established the Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) area to begin a foundation for advancing systems-based approaches to understanding, predicting, and reacting to stress in the natural, social, and built environments. Funding in SEES was awarded across NSF directorates, many of these within the Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC) program. As part the fiscal year 2016 budget request, NSF established a new program to “accelerate fundamental understanding and stimulate basic research on systems” beyond the SEES WSC program. The program couples energy and food systems to water with its five-year, $75 million new Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems program (INFEWS). The National Science Foundation has indicated that a similar request is planned for the 2017 budget. In conjunction with INFEWS, NSF released a dear colleague letter in February 2015 seeking workshop proposals to “facilitate and enable interdisciplinary partnerships among natural science, physical science, social science, computing, and engineering researchers and develop innovative, interdisciplinary research approaches to understanding the FEW system.” At least 16 invitation-only workshops have been approved, and we expect that few participants will come from the agricultural, crop, and soil sciences. In our discussions with NSF during the Executive Agency Meetings, the NSF INFEWS Working Group representatives invited our membership into the conversations to shape topics for research proposals. As members of our three Societies, this is a great opportunity at the grassroots level for all of us to develop research questions for funding solicitations at NSF. This may be the first time that our scientists have had this opportunity to stimulate thinking for the direction of a new NSF program. We are asking you to submit your research questions in the form of white papers, three to five pages long, that could be used to develop proposals for the INFEWS program. The proposals should be written to the framework of FEW, i.e., include a systems piece, data collection and connection, new solutions (how to develop solutions that might be adopted including decision-making and sociology), and education and workforce training. Research opportunities, knowledge, and technology gaps should be identified. The proposals should NOT be for applied research but rather use-inspired fundamental research questions in keeping with the NSF mandate for fundamental research. The National Science Foundation emphasized that these research questions should be directly related to a combination of all three areas: food, energy, and water. The Science Policy Office (SPO) of our Societies has volunteered to organize the white papers from our membership and provide them to NSF. White papers can be submitted and viewed through our online system (www.soils.org/science-policy/get-involved/infews-white-papers) through 27 Nov. 2015. The Societies will continue to provide reminders to you through many of our other communications outlets. As background for your white papers, a 2014 report issued by the NSF Mathematics and Physical Sciences Advisory Committee (MPSAC) Subcommittee on Food Security might be of value (see http://1.usa.gov/1DL9J49). The report highlights key areas of foundational knowledge upon which technological advances could be based.