Full report

Original page 1

Aerospace Knowledge L___ NASA/DoD Diffusion Research Project NASA Technical Memorandum 109085 Report Number 23 The Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineering Faculty and Students: Results of the Phase 3 Survey Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Rebecca O. Barclay Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York Oq0,qA) NASA/DQD N94-30149 (NASA- TM-t John M. Kennedy A.rRO, SPACE KN3WLEDGE DIFFUSION Indiana University RESE,&CH P'3JECT. _EPQ&T 23: THE C,_MHUNICATIONS Bloomington, India PRACTICES OF US Unclas AEROSPACE r_NGINEERING FACULTY AND STUO__NTS: RESULTS OF THE PHASE 3 SUkVEY (_ASA. April 1994 Center ) S5 p L,n]l oy Rosu_rch G3/82 0004384 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

THE COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF U.S. AEROSPACE ENGINEERING FACULTY AND STUDENTS: RESULTS OF THE PHASE 3 SURVEY Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy ABSTRACT The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge "diffusion vis-h-vis U.S. aerospace engineering faculty and students. INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific and technical information (STI) systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, and transferring the results of governmentperformed and government-sponsored research. Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems, the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is available. The NASA and DoD STI systems are intermediary-based systems that rely on librarians and technical information specialists to complete the knowledge transfer process. To date, empirical findings on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive (Beyer'and Trice, 1982). We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and the role of academia- and industry-affiliated information intermediaries in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community. The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

Original page 4

In this report,we summarizethe literatureon technicalreports,providea model thatdepicts the transferof federally fundedaerospaceR&D throughthe U.S. governmenttechnicalreport, and presentthe resultsof a surveyof U.S. aerospaceengineeringfaculty and students. We summarizethe findings of the surveyandclosewith somethoughtsregardingthe informationseekingbehaviorof aerospaceengineeringfaculty andstudents. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government technical reports may not be utilized because of limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al. (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologicaily, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al. 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within a system for communicating STI (Mathes and Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing trade. • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted.

Original page 5

• Contentmay includestatisticaldata,Catalogs,directions,designcriteria, conferencepapersandproceedings,literaturereviews,or bibliographies. • Publicationmay involve a variety of printing and binding methods. The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics • It is written for an individual or organization reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some reported. of the technical report: that has the right to require such agency that has funded the research being • It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis. • It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches. History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75 percent of the engineers she surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to engineers engineers, more than any other group of engineers, doing applied work; and that aerospace referred to technical reports. However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, it is often unclear whether U.S. government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical reports, or both are included. The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of

Original page 6

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, the [U.S.] government technical report has been there is no real knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure: • The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine the role that the U.S. government technical report plays in transferring the results of federally funded R&D. • Further, most of the available knowledge is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework. • The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to questions regarding U.S. government technical reports. THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE TECHNICAL REPORT Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990). Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model. The Appropriability Model The appropriability model emphasizes ment that would not otherwise be produced sures to promote the use of that knowledge. the production of knowledge by the Federal governby the private sector and competitive market pres- This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according recommendations regarding Federal priorities to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes that the results of federally funded R&D will be acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm. The Dissemination Model The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest 4

Original page 7

use. Linkage mechanisms,such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms are available to link potential users with knowledge users to determine what knowledge is available, producers, then better opportunities exist for acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model The knowledge diffusion model is grounded are seldom known or considered in the design in theory and practice associated with the diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1991; Branscomb, 1992). The Transfer of (U.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D A model depicting the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report appears in figure 1. The model is composed of two parts -- the informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process. When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level.

Original page 8

t Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD • CAB • DROLS • NASA 0 0 •CASl • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees •NTIS • GRA & I • NTIS file Formal Informal (Collegial) m--tin t Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists • Gatekeepers 0 • Aerospace • Linking engineering agents faculty and students • Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. Surrogates serve as "technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space Information (CASI), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates have created a variety of technical report Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific announcement journals-such as CAB (Current and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&I (Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry. Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as "knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act, according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The more "active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes (Goldhor and Lund, 1983). Active intermediaries move information from the producer to the user, often utilizing interpersonal (i.e., face-to-face) communication in the process. Passive information intermediaries, on the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative of the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland, 1987). The overall problem with the total Federal STI system is that "the present system for transferring the results of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused;" effective knowledge transfer is hindered by the fact that the Federal government "has no coherent or systematically designed approach to transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the user" (Ballard, et al., 1986). In their study of issues and options in Federal STI, Bikson and her colleagues (1984) found that many of the interviewees believed "dissemination activities were 6

Original page 9

afterthoughts,undertakenwithout serious commitment by Federal agencieswhose primary concernswerewith [knowledge]productionandnot with knowledgetransfer;" therefore, "much of what has been learned about [STI] and knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into federally supported information transfer activities." Problematic to the informal part of the system is that knowledge users can learn from collegial contacts only what those contacts happen to know. Ample evidence supports the claim that no one researcher can know about or keep up with all the research in his/her area(s) of interest. Like other members of the scientific community, aerospace engineers and scientists are faced with the problem of too much information to know about, to keep up with, and to screen. Further, information is becoming more interdisciplinary in nature and more international in scope. Two problems exist with the formal part of the system. First, the formal part of the system employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem with this kind of transmission is that such formal one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be responsive to the user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to start with an information system into which the users' requirements are retrofit (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the findings from the empirical research is that interactive, two-way information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984). communications are required for effective Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion of technological innovation. They claim that the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact" and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production. THE INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS The information-seeking behavior of engineers information and social scientists, the earliest studies and scientists has been variously studied by having been undertaken in the late 1960s (Pinelli, 1991). The results of these studies have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used to develop a general 7 theory regarding the information-seeking

Original page 10

behaviorof engineersandscientists. The difficulty in applying the resultsof thesestudieshas beenattributedto the lack of a unifying theory, a standardizedmethodology,andthe common definitions(Rohde,1986). Despitethe fact that numerous"information use" studieshavebeen conducted,the information-seekingbehaviorof engineersand information use in engineeringare neither broadly known nor well understood.Thereare a numberof reasons(Berul, et al., 1965): (1)'many of the studieswere conductedfor narrow or specific purposesin unique environmentssuch as experimentallaboratories;(2) many, if not mo_;t,of them focusedon scientistsexclusivelyor engineersworking in a researchenvironment;(3) few studieshaveconcentratedon engineers, especiallyengineersworking in manufacturingand production;(4) from an information use standpoint,someengineeringdisciplineshaveyet to be studied;(5) most of the studieshave concentratedon the users' useof information in termsof a library,and/orspecific information packagessuch as professionaljournals rather than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previouslystated, werenot methodologically sophisticatedand few includedtestablehypothesesor valid proceduresfor testing the study's hypotheses. Further,we know very little aboutthe diffusion of knowledgein specificcommunitiessuch as aerospace.In the past 25 years,few studieshavebeendevotedto understandingthe informationenvironmentin which aerospaceengineersandscientistswork, the information-seeking behaviorof aerospaceengineersandscientists,andthe factorsthatinfluencethe useof federally funded aerospaceSTI. Presumably,the resultsof such studieswould have implications for currentandfutureaerospaceSTI systemsandfor makingdecisionsregardingthetransferanduse of federally fundedaerospaceSTI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 3 SURVEY The U.S. faculty sample was obtained primarily from 4 year institutions participating in the 1990 NASA/USRA (University Space Research Association) capstone design programs in aerospace departments. Also included were some institutions with aerospace programs accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Questionnaires were sent to 501 faculty members, 275 (55%) of whom responded to the survey. The student sample included those students enrolled in a NASA/USRA-funded undergraduate capstone course in the spring of 1990. Telephone calls and telefaxes to course instructors enlisted the participation of 39 instructors who agreed to distribute questionnaires to their students. (Some instructors could not participate because they had taught their capstone course during the fall semester.) Data were collected during April and May 1990. Some 640 students from 29 institutions responded. A group of special librarians worked with the project team to compile the list of survey questions. The questions were pretested before distribution. The faculty and student mail (self- 8

Original page 11

reported)questionnaires,which are AppendixesB andC, were organizedaroundthe following topical objectives: use and importance of selected information sources and products, the use of specific print sources and electronic data b_es, the use of computer and information technology, and instruction in information materials and resources. Data are presented for each of the topical objectives. Demographics The following engineering faculty participant profile was based on Phase 3 survey demographic data which appear in table 1: is male (97.1%), is tenured (64.4%), holds the rank of professor (48.0%), holds a doctorate (80.4%), belongs to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (66.5%), has an average of 14.5 years of academic professional aerospace work experience, is a NASA contractor or grantee (56.3%), and is a U.S. citizen (83.2%). The following engineering student participant graphic data which appear in table 2: is male profile was based on Phase 3 survey demo- (83.6%), is majoring in aero/astronautical engineering (80.4%), is a senior (91.7%), was not a cooperative education student (83.4%), is a student member of a national professional society (78.6%), is not a NASA contractor or grantee, and is a U.S. citizen (95.5%). Use and Importance of Information Sources and Products Faculty and students were asked to indicate their use of and the importance to them of selected information sources to them (table 3). A 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure use and importance with "1" designated frequently\important percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses students (68%) make considerable use of the and "5" designated never/unimportant. The on a 5 point scale. Both faculty (95%) and information that they keep close at hand, presumably information kept in their offices and residences. Faculty (95%) and students (74%) place considerable importance on their personal collections of information. Both groups make considerable use of interpersonal communications in meeting their engineering information needs. University and erigineering libraries are used by both groups and are important to both groups. Librarians are consulted less and are far less important to faculty and students than are other information sources. The same 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure the use and importance that faculty and students place on specific information products in meeting their engineering information needs (table 4). The information products they use most are generally the products both groups rate important. Formal information products, such as journal articles, conference-meeting papers, and textbooks, are used most often and are rated most important. NASA technical reports, as well as all other products, have a higher importance rating than use rate. Faculty and students make little use of foreign technical reports and technical 9 translations and rate them unimportant.

Original page 12

Table 1. DemographicFindings-- U.S. AerospaceFaculty [N = 272] Demographics RankHeld Professor Associate Assistant Adjunct Instructor Other Tenured Yes No Not Applicable Highest Level Of Education No Degree Or Vocational Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Post Doctorate I Citizenship U.S. Other Gender Female Male % (n) 48.0 122 20.9 53 21.3 54 2.8 7 2.8 7 4.3 11 64.4 172 30.0 80 5.6 15 1.5 4 9.2 25 80.4 219 8.4 23 83.2 227 16.8 46 2.9 8 97.1 264 Mean Median Years Of Professional Aerospace Work Experience In Academia Government Industry Total Professional (Society) Membership AIAA ASME IEEE SAE Other None NASA Contractor Or Grantee Yes No 14.5 12.0 5.1 2.0 5.9 3.0 18.7 20.0 66.5 183 36.0 99 12.7 35 6.5 18 57.1 157 3.3 9 56.3 153 43.8 119 10

Original page 13

Table 2. Demographic Findings IN = 640] Demographics Major Aero/Astronautical Engineering Civil Engineering Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Other Engineering Other Major Citizenship U.S. Other Class Junior Senior Graduate Student Other Cooperative Education Student Yes No Student Member of a National Professional Society Yes No Gender Female Male NASA Contractor or Grantee Yes No -- U.S. Aerospace Students % (n) 80.4 499 1.3 8 1.4 9 11.4 71 0.5 3 5.0 31 95.5 595 4.5 28 1.1 7 91.7 574 6.4 40 0.8 5 16.6 101 83.4 506 78.6 462 21.4 126 16.4 102 83.6 519 15.7 97 84.3 519 Use of Specific Print Sources and Electronic Data Bases Libraries house a variety of printed information products that are designed to indicate awareness of the existence and availability of information. Certain of these products, such as NASA Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR), indicate the availability of aerospace technical reports. As shown in table 5, the aerospace faculty and students in this study make little use of these printed sources of information. I1

Original page 14

Table 3. Sources Used to Meet the Engineering Information Needs of U.S. Aerospace Faculty Students Faculty Students Information Sources (%)* Your Personal Collection of Information 94.8 University Library 45.0 Engineering or Departmental Library 37.3 Faculty and Students Use Importance (n) (%)* (n) (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 258 67.7 430 94.8 259 74.2 471 122 44.0 280 65.2 176 54.7 347 101 45.5 289 52.5 143 56.9 361 Librarian 8.7 23 12.1 76 23.3 62 21.9 138 Your Personal Contacts Within Aerospace Companies 24.5 66 12.6 80 33.6 91 27.0 170 Your Personal Contacts at NASA/DoD Labs 25.5 69 9.7 61 40.7 109 22.3 140 Other Students 18.9 51 65.4 416 22.2 60 67.4 427 Faculty Members ........ 54.8 346 ........ 72.2 458 Faculty Members at Your University 41.3 112 ........ 53.8 146 ........ Faculty Members at Other Universities 18.4 49 ........ 31.8 86 ........ *The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. A number of electronic data bases have been created to facilitate access to the literature. Some of these, such as NASA RECON, are specific to aerospace. Faculty and students were asked to indicate the number of times they used certain online databases during the school year. Use of these data bases ranged from a high of 15% (NTIS Online) to a low of 2% (BRS, Wilson Line, and INSPEC) for faculty and a high of 8% (NTIS Online) to a low of 1% (BRS and INSPEC) for students (table 6). Librarians and information intermediaries were asked how searches of these online electronic data bases are provided to engineering students on their campus (Pinelli, Barclay, and Kennedy, 1994). Their responses appear in table 7. About 97% of the libraries offer online search services. In libraries that offer search services, about 37% of the students pay all costs associated with the search, about 34% of the students pay a reduced cost with either the library or engineering department absorbing some of the cost, and about 12% of the students pay no cost with either the library or the engineering department absorbing all the cost. These same library representatives were asked to indicate the library's approach to performing online search services for engineering students (table 8). About 54% indicated that students do all searches through an intermediary; 22% indicated that students do most of their searches 12

Original page 15

Table4. Use and Importanceof InformationProductsin Meet the EngineeringInformation Needsof U.S. AerospaceFaculty andStudents Use Importance Faculty InformationProducts (%)* (n) Conference/MeetingPapers 73.9 201 JournalArticles 80.0 220 Handbooks 28.8 77 Textbooks 65.9 180 ComputerProgramsand Documentation 35.2 95 Bibliographic,Numeric,Factual Data Bases 11.2 30 Theses/Dissertations 16.1 44 NACA TechnicalReports 20.0 55 NASA TechnicalReports 37.1 101 DoD Technical Reports 14.1 38 AGARD TechnicalReports 10.7 29 ForeignTechnicalReports 5.2 14 TechnicalTranslations 3.0 8 Patents 1.1 3 AerospaceCompanyTechnical Reports 11.1 30 University Technical Reports 12.2 33 Informal Information Products (e.g., Vendor/Supply Catalogs, Company Literature, Trade Journals/Magazines) 23.9 65 Students Faculty Students (%)* (n) (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 44.8 285 80.6 217 48.7 306 52.0 331 87.0 234 58.2 366 44.4 280 37.5 99 51.2 320 77.3 491 71.3 191 43.7 279 37.4 98 45.8 288 20.0 127 18.6 49 24.4 152 24.0 64 20.1 125 19.0 119 27.4 73 25.1 156 50.5 322 49.8 134 54.7 344 6.8 43 26.0 69 15.7 97 5.6 35 18.8 50 11.3 69 3.6 23 9.8 26 5.8 36 3.2 20 7.1 19 7.8 49 1.1 7 7.5 20 4.2 26 25.5 162 19.2 51 32.9 207 20.5 129 20.9 56 30.5 191 24.6 156 22.4 59 34.0 214 *The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. through an intermediary, 5% indicated that students do half of their searches themselves and half through an intermediary, and about 8% indicated that students do most of their searches themselves. Faculty and students were asked to indicate how they search online electronic data bases (table 9). About 34% of the faculty and 41% of the students do not use electronic data bases. Of those faculty using them, 82% of the searching is performed completely or in part by a librarian. However, 75% of the students who use data bases do all or most of their own searching. 13

Original page 16

Table 5. Print Sources Used to Meet the Engineering Information Needs of U.S. Aerospace Print Sources Science--General Science Citation Index Engineering--General Applied Science and Technology Index Engineering Index Aerospace Government Reports Announcement and Index (GRA_[) International Aerospace Abstracts (IAA ) NASA SCAN NASA SP-7037 (Aeronautical Engineering: a Continuing Bibliography) NASA STAR Faculty and Students Percent Using One or More Times This School Year Faculty Sttidents (n) (%) (n) 36.5 96 8.3 52 32.1, 86 34.4 215 42.1 112 34.1 214 28.9 76 29.0 181 36.2 96 37.1 232 19.2 50 5.7 35 20.0 52 25.1 156 33.6 90 20.8 130 Table 6. Electronic Data Bases Used to Meet the Engineering Information Needs of U.S. Aerospace Electronic Sources General DIALOG Including Knowledge Index BRS Including After Dark Wilson Line Index Science--General SCISEARCH Engineering--General COMPENDEX INSPEC Aerospace AIAA Aerospace Data Base DTIC DROLS NASA RECON NTIS Online Faculty and Students Percent Using One or More Times This School Year Faculty Students (%) (n) (%) (n) 7.1 18 2.3 14 1.5 4 0.5 3 2.0 5 8.0 50 3.6 9 1.4 9 3.9 10 1.6 10 2.4 6 0.5 3 9.2 23 7.5 46 3.2 8 1.0 6 12.7 32 7.0 44 14.7 37 8.2 51 14

Original page 17

Table 7. Approaches Used By U.S. Academic Libraries In Providing Online (Electronic) Searching For U.S. Aerospace Engineering Students Approach Not Offered Absorbs All Costs 11.8 8 Student Pays Nothing For Service; Library Percentage Number 2.9 2 Student Pays Reduced Cost; Library Absorbs Some of the Costs Student Pays All Costs Other 33.8 23 36.8 25 14.7 10 Table 8. Approaches Used By U.S. Academic Libraries In Performing Online (Electronic) Searching For U.S. Aerospace Engineering Students Approach Not Offered Students Do All Searches Students Do Most Searches Students Do Half of the Searches By Themselves Through an Intermediary Percentage Number 4.5 3 7.5 5 and Half 4.5 3 Intermediary 22.4 15 Students Do Most Searches Through an Students Do All Searches Through an Intermediary Other Table 9. How U.S. Aerospace 53.7 36 7.5 5 Faculty and Students Search On-line (Electronic) Data Bases Search Method I Do Not Use Electronic Data Bases I Do Use Electronic Data Bases I Do All Searches Myself I Do Most Searches Myself I Do Half By Myself and Half Through a Librarian I Do Most Searches Through a Librarian I Do All Searches Through a Librarian 15 Faculty Students (%) (n) (%) (n) 34.1 88 41.4 256 65.9 170 58.6 363 9.3 24 19.7 122 15.5 40 24.1 149 8.5 22 6.9 43 10.5 27 4.7 29 22.1 57 3.2 20

Original page 18

Use of Computer and Information Technology Faculty and students make considerable use of computer and information technology although in different proportions (table 10). Faculty use outstrips student use in all categories except for electronic data bases and laser and video disks/CD-ROM products. Table 10. Use of Computer by U.S. Aerospace Technology Electronic Data Bases Laser and Video Disks/CD-ROM Products Desktop Publishing Electronic Bulletin Boards E-Mail Electronic Networks Fax/Telex and Information Technology Faculty and Students Faculty Students (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 18.4 48 25.7 160 8.5 22 15.5 96 43.0 112 40.9 254 13.9 36 6.1 38 42.4 114 14.0 88 35.6 93 16.0 99 56.5 153 9.2 58 The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. Faculty and students reported substantial use of computer software (table 11). Student use exceeds overall faculty use but most notably in the use of spelling checkers. Table 11. Use of Computer Software Software Word Processors Spelling Checkers Thesaurus Grammar/Style Checkers JOutliners/Prompters Business Graphics Scientific Graphics by U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students Faculty Students (%) (n) (%)* (n) 87.9 240 96.2 608 63.4 170 83.5 526 28.5 76 35.7 224 12.3 33 13.8 86 8.3 22 10.2 63 15.0 40 26.9 167 65.2 178 71.3 446 *The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. 16

Original page 19

Use of NASA Technical Reports About 37%/51% of the faculty and students use NASA technical reports and about 50%/55% of them indicated that NASA technical reports information needs (table 4). Survey participants are important in meeting their engineering were asked a series of questions regarding NASA technical reports (tables 11, 12, 13, and 14). Faculty participants used, on average, NASA technical reports about 10 times during the school year. Student participants used, on average, NASA technical reports about 8 times during the school year (table 11). NASA technical reports were used in paper format by both faculty and students to a far greater extent than were NASA technical reports in microfiche (table 12). Table 11. Use of NASA and AGARD Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students Reports NASA Technical Reports AGARD Technical Reports Table 12. Use of NASA by U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students Mean (Median) Number of Times Used This School Year Faculty Students 9.8 (5.0) 8.4 (5.0) 2.9 (0.0) 0.7 (0.0) Technical Reports in Paper and Microfiche Format Mean (Median) Percentage in Paper or Microfiche Faculty Students Reports Paper Microfiche Paper Microfiche NASA Technical Reports 78.9 (100.0) 10.8 (0.0) 62.5 (80.0) 24.8 (0.0) Survey participants were asked to indicate the problems (if any) they encountered in their attempts to obtain and use NASA technical reports (tables 13 and 14). The problems encountered in obtaining NASA technical reports were the same for both faculty and students. With one exception, however, problems were encountered to a greater extent by students than by faculty. In order of occurrence, the problems were (1) the library didn't own the report, (2) the report had to be obtained from either NTIS or NASA, (3) the library owned the report but it was missing, and (4) the library owned the report but it was stored some place else on campus. About 10% of the faculty reported "illegible microfiche" and "intellectual quality of the research" as problems encountered using NASA technical reports. About 16% of the students reported "illegible 17

Original page 20

graphics"(e.g.,charts,photos,andfigures)andabout 13%reported"intellectualquality of the research"as problemsencounteredin using NASA technicalreports. Table 13. ProblemsEncounteredby U.S. AerospaceFaculty andStudents ObtainingNASA TechnicalReports Problem The Library Didn't Own The Report Faculty Students (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 34.7 93 43.4 271 16.7 45 22.2 139 The Library Owned The Report But It Was Missing The Library Owned The Report But It Stored Some Place Else On Campus 10.8 29 14.0 87 The Library Staff Was Not Cooperative Or Helpful In Getting The Report The Report Was Classified Or Restricted The Report Was Available Only To U.S. Citizens 3.7 10 7.5 47 5.7 15 7.8 48 4.6 12 3.1 19 25.5 67 20.3 126 The Report Had To Be Obtained From NTIS Or NASA Tlae percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. Table 14. Problems Encountered by U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students Using NASA Problem Illegible Microfiche Illegible Text Figures) 8.8 23 15.6 97 [Illegible Graphics (e.g., Charts, Photos, Poor Report Organization/Format/Presentation Intellectual Quality Of The Research Technical Reports Faculty Students (%) (n) (%)* (n) 10.3 27 8.4 52 6.1 16 7.1 44 6.3 16 6.5 40 10.3 24 12.5 75 *The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. Rating NASA Technical Reports. Faculty and student participants were asked to rate NASA technical reports according to 10 factors. A 1 to 5 point scale with "1" being the lowest possible rating and "5" being the highest possible rating was used to rate each factor. The responses appear in table 15. 18

Original page 21

Table 15. RatingNASA TechnicalReports By U.S. AerospaceFaculty andStudents Factors Accessibility Ease of Use Expense Familiarity or Experience Technical Quality or Reliability Comprehensiveness Relevance Physical Proximity Skill in Use Timeliness Overall Mean a (Number) Rating of Each Factor By -- Faculty Students 3.4 (221) 3.5 (274) 3.7 (227) 3.0 (271) 3.7 (193) 2.3 (270) 3.6 (188) 3.1 (274) 3.9 (224) 3.2 (270) 3.6 (226) 3.1 (271) 3.6 (225) 3.5 (269) 3.2 (209) 3.2 (269) 3.5 (199) 2.9 (271) 3.4 (188) 3.0 (268) a A 1 to 5 point scale was used to rate each factor with "1" being the lowest possible rating and "5" being the highest possible rating; hence, the higher the average (mean), the higher the rating of the factor. Aerospace engineering faculty rated NASA technical reports highest in terms of (1) technical quality or reliability ('X = 3.9), (2) ease of use CX = 3.7), (3) expense (X = 3.7), (4) comprehensiveness ('X = 3.6), (5) relevance ('X = 3.6), and (6) familiarity or experience ('X = 3.6). Aerospace engineering students rated NASA technical reports highest in terms of (1) accessibility ('X = 3.5), (2) relevance (X = 3.5), (3) technical quality or reliability ('X = 3.2), (4) physical proximity ('X = 3.2), and (6) familiarity or experience C)( = 3.1). U.S. academic librarians and technical information specialists were asked to rate NASA technical report according to the same 10 factors. Their responses, which appear in table 16, are compared with the aerospace engineering faculty and student data contained in table 15. Academic librarians rated NASA technical reports highest in terms of accessibility (X = 4.2), relevance CX = 4.2), and familiarity or experience (X = 3.9). Although higher overall, the academic librarians' ratings more closely approximate the aerospace engineering students' ratings. Both groups rated NASA technical reports highest for accessibility and relevance, followed by familiarity or experience for the librarians and technical quality or reliability for the students. The three factors rated highest by the librarians are not the same as those rated highest by the aerospace engineering faculty. 19

Original page 22

Table 16. Ratingof NASA TechnicalReportsBy U.S. AerospaceFacultyandStudentsandU.S.AcademicLibrarians Faculty Students Librarians Factors (221) 3.5 (274) 4.2(64) Accessibility 3.4 (227) 3.0 (271) 3.4(61) Ease Of Use 3.7 Overall Mean a (Number) Rating Of Factors By -- Expense (193) 2.3 (270) 3.0 (62) 3.7 Familiarity Or Experience (188) 3.1 (274) 3.9 (62) 3.6 Technical Quality Or Reliability (224) 3.2 (270) 3.8 (55) 3.9 Comprehensiveness (226) 3.1 (271) 3.7 (56) 3.6 (225) 3.5 (269) 4.2 (57) !Relevance 3.6 Physical Proximity (209) 3.2 (269) 3.8 (61) 3.2 Skill In Use 3.5 (199) (188) 3.0 (268) 3.7 (57) Timeliness 3.4 2.9 (271) 3.6 (57) a A 1 to 5 point scale was used to rate each factor with "1" being the lowest possible rating and "5" being the highest possible rating; hence, the higher the average (mean), the higher the rating of the factor. Use of Selected NASA lnfiwmation in Electronic Format Survey participants were asked to indicate how likely they would be to use selected aerospace information in electronic format (table 17). Likely use was measured on a 1 to 5 point scale with "5" being the "most likely" to use and "1" being the "least likely" to use. Aerospace engineering students indicated a greater willingness to use all of the selected aerospace information in electronic format than did their faculty counterparts. Aerospace engineering faculty reported the highest "willingness to use" scores for (1) an online system (full text and graphics) for NASA technical reports (62.9%) followed by full text of NASA technical reports on CD-ROM (61.9%) and STAR on CD-ROM (56.3%). Aerospace engineering students reported the highest "willingness to use" scores for (1) an online system (full text and graphics) for NASA technical reports (79.7%) followed ROM (77.1%) and STAR on CD-ROM (70.5%). Library and Technical Information Instruction by full text of NASA technical reports on CD- Survey participants were asked if they had received instruction in (1) the use of engineering information resources and materials, (2) the use of the library, (3) technical writing, (4) oral presentations, and (5) searching online (electronic) data bases (table 18). Those students receiv- 2O

Original page 23

Table 17. Likely Useof SelectedAerospaceInformationin Electronic Format by U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students Selected Information STAR on CD-ROM Full Text of NASA Reports on CD-ROM Computer Program Listing on CD-ROM Numerical/Factual Data on CD-ROM Images (Photographs)on CD-ROM Online System (Full Text and Graphics) for NASA Technical Reports Faculty Students (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 56.3 98 70.5 246 61.9 125 77.1 353 45.3 87 64.1 283 42.7 81 66.8 292 39.2 76 68.9 320 62.9 131 79.7 385 The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale with "1" being "most likely" to use. ing the instruction were asked to indicate required/elective, or part of an engineering/separate if the instruction was credit/non-credit, course. Table 18. Instruction of U.S. Aerospace Engineering Students Searching Departmental/ Online Engineering Engineering Technical Omi (Electronic) Resources and Materials Library htstruction % (u) %* Instruction Received 42.4 265 51.7 Instruction Was -- A Credit Course 20.0 53 18.4 A Non-Credit Course 3.4 9 5.9 A Required Course 15.1 40 17.1 Aa_ Elective Course 4.2 ll 3.4 Part of all Engineering Course 58.1 154 43.6 Part of Another Course 14.7 39 21.2 A Separate Course 1.9 5 2.5 Use Writing Presentatiolm Data Bases (n) %* (I,) %* (n) %* (n) 321 73.4 461 78.2 491 32.8 204 59 69.8 322 61.3 301 14.7 30 19 1.5 7 4.7 23 7.4 15 55 61.2 282 48.1 230 10.3 21 11 9.1 42 13.0 64 5.9 12 140 41.0 189 50.3 247 25.5 52 68 13.7 63 24.8 122 25.0 51 8 28.2 130 15.3 75 3.4 7 *Percentages do not total 100 because students could select more than one respo/tse. Engineering Information Resources Instruction. Forty-two percent of the student participants indicated that they had received engineering information resources and materials 21

Original page 24

instruction. For mostof them,the instructionwas(1) takenfor credit,(2) required,and(3) taken aspart of an engineeringcourse. Library Instruction. About 52% of the students indicated that they had received, instruction in the use of the departmental/engineering library. For most of them, the instruction was (1) taken for credit, (2) required, and (3) taken as part of an engineering course. Technical Writing. Seventy-three percent of the students indicated that they had received technical writing instruction. For most of them, the instruction was (1) taken for credit, (2) required, and (3) taken as part of an engineering course. Oral Presentations. Seventy-eight percent of the students indicated that they had received instruction in preparing/giving oral presentations. For most of them, the instruction was (1) taken for credit, (2) required, and (3) taken as part of an engineering course. Data Base Searching. About 33% of the students indicated that they had received instruction in searching online (electronic) data bases. For most of them, the instruction was (1) taken for credit, (2) required, and (3) taken as either part of an engineering course or as part of another course. Importance of Capabilities Faculty and student participants were asked to indicate how important they thought (1) the ability to communicate technical information effectively and (2) a knowledge of engineering information resources would be to the professional success of students. Their responses appear in table 19. There is considerable agreement about the importance of the two abilities to professional success in aerospace engineering. It is noteworthy that while both faculty and students agree upon the importance of these abilities, less than half (42.4%) of the student received engineering information resources and materials instruction and about three-quarters (73.4%/78.2%) received technical writing instruction and instruction in preparing/giving oral presentations. Table 19. The Importance of Two Abilities to Professional Success: U.S. Aerospace Engineering Fa cto r Ability to Communicate Technical Information Effectively Knowledge of Engineering Information Resources Faculty and Students Perspectives Faculty Studen_ (%)* (n) (%)* (n) 98.5 266 97.4 596 91.9 249 89.5 541 *The percentages report combined "1" and "2" responses on a 5 point scale. 22

Original page 25

FINDINGS 1. The "average" aerospace engineering faculty participant in this study is male, tenured, and holds the rank of professor; has a doctorate; belongs to the AIAA, has 15 years of professional academic aerospace work experience; is a NASA 2. The "average" aerospace engineering student in either aeronautics or astronautics, is a U.S. professional society, and is/was not a cooperative grantee or contractor, and is a U.S. citizen. participant in this study is male, is majoring citizen, is a student member of a national education student. 3. The sources used to meet the information needs of aerospace engineering faculty include (1) personal collection of information, (2) the university library, (3) other faculty members, (4) the engineering or departmental library, and (5) personal contacts at NASA and DoD labs. 4. The sources used to meet the information needs of aerospace engineering students include (1) personal collections of information, (2) other students, (3) faculty members, (4) the engineering or departmental library, and (5) the university library. 5. The information products used to meet the information needs of aerospace engineering faculty include (1) journal articles, (2) conference-meeting papers, (3) textbooks, (4) NASA technical reports, and (5) computer programs and documentation. 6. The information products used to meet the information needs of aerospace engineering students include (1) textbooks (2) journal articles, meeting papers, and (5) handbooks. (3) NASA technical reports, (4) conference- 7. The print sources used most often to meeting the information needs of aerospace engineering faculty include (1) Engineering Index, (2) Science Citation Index, and (3) International Aerospace Abstracts. 8. The print sources used most often to meeting the information needs of aerospace engineering students include (1) International Aerospace Index, (2) Applied Science and Technology Index, and (3) Engineering Index. 9. In those academic libraries surveyed, aerospace engineering students pay all costs or a reduced cost for searching online (electronic) data bases. 10. In those academic libraries surveyed, all or most searches of online (electronic) data bases performed for aerospace engineering students are done by an information intermediary. 11. About 66%/59% of aerospace engineering faculty and students do not use (search) online (electronic) data bases. About 25%/44% of the aerospace engineering faculty and students indicated that they searched or did most of their own searches of online (electronic) data bases when they used them. 23

Original page 26

1. Aerospace engineering faculty and students made the greatest use of desktop publishing and E-Mail, and desktop publishing and electronic data bases respectively. 13. Aerospace engineering faculty and students made the greatest use of word processors and scientific graphics, and word processors and spelling checkers, respectively. 14. Paper copies of NASA technical reports aerospace engineering faculty and students were used about 10/9 times, respectively, by during the school year. The "library did not own the report" was the problem most frequently encountered by aerospace engineering faculty and students trying to obtain a NASA technical report. 15. The problems most often encountered by aerospace engineering faculty and students using NASA technical reports included illegible microfiche, illegible graphics, and the intellectual quality of the research. 16. Aerospace engineering faculty rated NASA technical reports highest for (1) technical quality or reliability, (2) ease of use, and (3) expense. Aerospace engineering students rated NASA technical reports highest for (1) accessibility, (2) relevance, (3) and technical quality or reliability. Academic librarians rated NASA technical reports highest for (1) accessibility, (2) relevance, and (3) familiarity or experience. 17. Aerospace engineering faculty recorded the highest "willingness to use" scores for (1) an online system (full text and graphics) for NASA technical reports followed by full text of NASA technical reports on CD-ROM and STAR on CD-ROM. 18. Aerospace engineering students scored the highest "willingness to use" scores for an online system (full text and graphics) for NASA technical reports followed by full text of NASA technical reports on CD-ROM and STAR on CD-ROM. 19. A simple majority of aerospace engineering students surveyed had received instruction in using a departmental or engineering library, technical writing, and oral presentations. 20. There was considerable agreement among aerospace engineering faculty and students regarding the importance of the "ability to communicate technical information effectively" and the "knowledge of engineering information resources" to professional (engineering) success. CLOSING The U.S. aerospace industry depends REMARKS on U.S. colleges and universities to provide a technically skilled workforce. The U.S. aerospace industry considers the information use and communications skills of new engineers to be very important; therefore, the ability of aerospace engineers to gather and use STI effectively becomes important both to their personal success and the competitive success of the U.S. aerospace industry. In addition, the continuing competitive 24

Original page 27

success of the U.S. aerospace industry requires a skilled workforce that has access to the best and most current STI. The results reported herein represent an important first step toward understanding the communications practices of U.S. academic engineering faculty and students within the large context of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors express their thanks to the following people for their help in developing the Phase 3 study: Tora Bikson, RAND Corporation; J.D. Eveland, Claremont University Department of Psychology; Steve Gass, Stanford University Engineering Library; Prof. Gerald Gregorek, Ohio State University Aeronautical/Astronautical Research Laboratory; Kate Herzog, University of Buffalo Science and Technology Undergraduate Library; Ruth Smith, NTIS (retired). 25 Library; Lou Malcolm, Indiana University

Original page 28

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3): 519-531. Allen, T. J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the 1977 Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Auger, C. P. Use of Technical 1975 Books. Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Improving lhe Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical 1986 Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- 87-14923.) Berul, L. H., et. al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1." Management Report, 1965 Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; AD-615 501. Beyer, J. M. "The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis and H.M. Trice of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T. K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, 1984 2131.) National Science Foundation. (Available from VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note Branscomb, L. G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 30:3 1992 (August): 317-336. Branscomb, L. G. "Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. 26

Original page 29

David, P. A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial 1986 Competitiveness."In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Eveland,J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Fry, B. M. Library Organization 1953 and Management of Technical Reports Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 Mathes, J. C. and Designing Technical D. W. Stevenson 1976 Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. McClure, C. R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and 1988 Issues." Government McGowan, R. P. and "Economic Theory S. Loveless Sciences 16: 27-43. 1981 Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44. and Government Technology Policy." Policy Mowery, D. C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2): 1979 102-153. 27

Original page 30

NationalAcademy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences- Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T. E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991 Sc&nce and Technology Libraries 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T. E., R. O. U.S. Academic Librarians and Technical Information Specialists as Barclay, and Information Intermediaries: Results of the Phase 3 Survey. NASA J. M. Kennedy TM-109067. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space 1994 Administration. (Available from NTIS_ Springfield, VA; pending.) Pinelli, T. E., "The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research J.M. Kennedy, and Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233. R. O. Barclay 1991 Pinelli, T. E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." Worm Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design R. O. Barclay, and Development and T. F. White 1991 1(1): 31-34. President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford and Technology Report. 1962 Redman, H. F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23:11-17. Roberts, E. B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." Technology and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. Ronco, P. G., et. al. Characteristics NY: Academic Press, 49-73. of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior: 1964 A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological PB-169 409.) Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 28

Original page 31

Shuchman,H. L. Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R. S. "Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science 1981 and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18. Subramanyam, K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel 1981 Dekker. U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 29

Original page 32

APPENDIX A NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (ST1), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to ST! can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STi and the social system of the aerospace knowledge difft, sion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffi_sion process. Phase 3 concerns the academicgovernment interface and emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western Enropean nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct deficiencies; to improve access and use; to plan new aerospace STI systems: and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study. Kennedy Rebecca O. Barclay Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey NASA Langley Research Center Indiana Universily 47405 Troy, NY 12180 Hampton, VA 23681-(K_01 Bloomington, IN (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 .soc.indiana.edu Fax (518) 276-6783 T.E.Pi nelli@la rc.nasa.gov kennedy@isrmail Research Dept. of Language, Lit. & Communication Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (804) 399-5666 (518) 276-8983 30

Original page 33

APPENDIX B Phase 3 Faculty AEROSPACE INFORMATION AND THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY: FACULTY SURVEY Phase 3 of the NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Project Questionnaire Sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense with the cooperation of Indiana University 31

Original page 34

Thesedatawill help us determine the use and importance of information by engineering faculty. 1. How frequently during this past year did you use the following information sources to meet your engineering information needs? (Circle number) Not Frequently Never Available [ Your personal collection of information .......................................................... 1 University library .................................. 1 Engineering or departmental library ................... 1 Librarian .............................................................. 1 Your personal contacts within aerospace companies ........................................... 1 Your lpersonal contacts at NASA/DOD labs ................................................ 1 Faculty members at your university ....................... 1 Faculty members at other universities ................................................. 1 Students ............................................................... 1 I I t I 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 . How frequently during this past year did you use the following information products to meet your engineering information needs? (Circle number) Frequently I Conference/meeting papers ................................. 1 Journal articles .................................................... 1 Handbooks .......................................................... 1 Textbooks ............................................................ 1 Computer programs and documentation ..................................................... 1 Bibliographic, numeric, factual databases .................................................. 1 Theses/dissertations ............................................. 1 NACA reports ..................................................... 1 NASA reports ...................................................... 1 Not Never Available t I I I 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 32

Original page 35

Frequency of use Frequently I DOD reports ........................................................ 1 AGARD reports .................................................. 1 Foreign technical reports ..................................... 1 Technical translations .......................................... 1 Patents ................................................................. 1 Aerospace company technical reports .................................................................. 1 University technical reports ................................ 1 Informal information products (e.g., vendor/supply catalogs, company literature, trade journals/magazines) ............................................. 1 , Not Never Available I I I I 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 How important are the following information sources in meeting your engineering information needs? (Circle number) Very Important I Your personal collection of information .......................................................... 1 University library ................................................ 1 Engineering or departmental library .................................................................. 1 Librarians ............................................................ 1 Your personal contacts within aerospace companies ................................ 1 Your personal contacts at NASA/DOD labs ................................................. 1 Faculty members at your university .................................................... 1 Faculty members at other universities ................................................. 1 Students ............................................................... 1 33 Not at all Not Important Available I [ t I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5

Original page 36

1. How important are the following information products in meeting your engineering information needs? (Circle number) Very Important Important Available Conference/meeting papers ................................. Journal articles .................................................... Handbooks .......................................................... Textbooks ............................................... Computer programs and documentation ...................................... Bibliographic, numeric, factualdataba.ses .................................................. Theses/dissertations ............................................. NACA reports ..................................................... NASA reports ...................................................... DOD reports ........................................................ AGARD reports .................................................. Foreign technical reports ..................................... Technical translations .......................................... Patents ........................... Aerospace company technical reports .................................................. University technical reports ................................ Informal information products (e.g., vendor/ supply catalogs, company literature, trade journals/magazines) ................................... Not at all Not I I l I I 4 5 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 4 5 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 . Approximately how many times during this past year did you use the following print sources in meeting your engineering information needs? Times this Not PRINT SOURCES Past Year Familiar With (,.( Applied Science and Technology Index Engineering Index ( ) ( ) 34

Original page 37

PRINT SOURCES Times this Past Year Goverm-nent Reports Announcement and Index International Aerospace Abstracts NASA SP-7037 (Aeronautical Engineering- A Continuing Bibliography With Indexes) NASA SCAN NASA STAR Science Citation Index These data will help us determine the use of information Not Familiar With (,,'f ) ) technology by engineering faculty. 6. Approximately how many times this past year have you used the following electronic sources in meeting your engineering information needs? ONLINE (ELECTRONIC) Times this DATABASES Year Aerospace Database COMPENDEX DTIC DROLS INSPEC NASA RECON NTIS Online SCISEARCH Wilson Line Index BRS including "After Dark" DIALOG includin_g "Knowledge Index' Not Familiar With (,.,f ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 7. Which of the following best characterizes your use of online electronic databases? (Circle number) 1 I do all searches myself 2 I do most searches myself 35

Original page 38

Online electronic databases 3 I do half by myself and half through a librarian 4 I do most searches through a librarian 5 I do all searches through a librarian 6 I do not use electronic databases 8. How likely would you be to use the following if they were provided in electronic format? (Circle number) Vil_y NotLikelyat all KnowDon't NASA STAR on CD-ROM ................................. Full text of NASA Technical Reports on CD-ROM .......................................... NASA Computer Program Listings on _D-ROM .......................................... NASA Numerical/Factual Data on CD-ROM ........................................................ NASA Photographs (Images) on CD-ROM ........................................................ Online system with full text and graphics for NASA technical reports ...................................... I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 . How frequently during this past year did you use the following computer applications? (Circle number) Frequently Never Available Electronic databases ............................................ Laser/Video Disc/CD-ROM ............................... Desktop/electronic publishing ............................. Electronic bulletin boards ................................... Electronic Mail .................................................... Electronic networks ............................................. FAX/TELEX ....................................................... Not [ I I J I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 36

Original page 39

1. How frequently during this past year did you use the following software? (Circle number) Frequently I Word Processing ................................................. 1 Spelling Checkers ................................................ 1 Thesaurus ............................................................ 1 Grammar and Style Checkers ............................. 1 Outliners and Prompters ...................................... 1 Business Graphics ............................................... 1 Scientific Graphics .............................................. 1 Not Never Available I 1 I I 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 The next few questions will help us gather specific information about NASA and AGARD technical reports. 11. About how many times this past year did you use a NASA technical report? An AGARD technical report? Times used a NASA report __ Times used an AGARD report 12. What percentage of the NASA technical reports you used in the past year were in: paper % microfiche % 13. During this past year, how frequently did you encounter the following problems: (Circle number) OBTAINING NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS Frequently I The library didn't own the report ........................ 1 The library owned the report but it was missing ..................................... 1 The library owned the report but it was stored some place else on campus ................................. 1 The library staff was not cooperative or helpful in getting me the report ........................................... 1 37 Not Never Applicable [ I I I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9

Original page 40

OBTAINING NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS Frequently Never Applicable I l I I I Not 9 The report was classified or restricted ................ 1 2 3 4 5 The report was available only to U.S. citizens ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The report had to be obtained from either NTIS or NASA .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Other (specify). USING NASA Not TECHNICAL REPORTS Frequently Never Applicable Illegible microfiche ............................................. Illegible text ........................................................ Illegible graphics (e.g., charts, photos, figures) ............................... Poor report organization/ format/presentation ...................................... Intellectual quality of the research ...................... Other (specify) I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 14. How would you rate NASA technical reports on each of the following factors? Excellent Poor Know ACCESSIBILITY: the ease of getting to the information source .................................... EASE OF USE: the ease of com_ehendin_ or utilizing the information ...................................... EXPENSE: low cost in comparison to other information sources .................................... FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE: prior knowledge or previous use of the informanon source .............................................. Don't [ I I L I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 38

Original page 41

Rate NASA Technical Reports Excellent TECHNICAL QUALITY OR RELIABILITY: the information [ was expected to be the best in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability ...................... 1 COMPREHENSIVENESS: the expectation the information source would provide broad coverage of the available knowledge .................................. 1 RELEVANCE: the expectation that a high percentage of the information retrieved from the source would be used ...................................................... 1 PHYSICAL PROXIMITY: the distance to the information source ........................................ 1 SKILL IN usE: the level of skill or skill mastery required to use the information source .............................................. 1 TIMELINESS: the time allocated or available to produce a solution ............................ 1 Don't Poor Know I I i I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 The next group of questions asks about the importance of certain skills for professional success. 15. How important do you think it is for the professional success of your engineering students to communicate technical information effectively? (Circle number) Very Important I I I 1 2 3 16. Not at all Don't Important Know I I 4 5 9 How important do you think it is for the professional success of your engineeringstudents to have an understanding and knowledge of engineering information resources and materials? (Circle number) Very Important I I [ 1 2 3 39 Not at all Don't Important Know I I 4 5 9

Original page 42

Finally, we would like to collect some background information that will help us analyze the data. 17. Gender: 1 Female 18. U.S. Citizen: 1 Yes 19. Highest level of education completed: 1 No degree 2 Technical or Vocational degree 3 Bachelor's Degree 4 Master's Degree 20. Were you trained as: 1 An Engineer 2 A Scientist 3 Other (specify) 21. Do you hold a faculty position: 1 Yes Rank held: 1 Professor 2 Associate 3 Assistant 22. Tenured: 1 Yes 2 No 9 Not applicable 2 Male 2 No 5 MBA 6JD 7 PhD or Sc.D. in 8 Post Doctorate 9 Other (specify) 2 No _ [.......Please skip to Q23 _ 4 Adjunct 5 Instructor 6 Other (specify) 40

Original page 43

1. In the past year have you worked on a NASA or DOD grant or contract, other than the USRA "Advanced Engineering Design Program"? (Circle number) 1 Yes 2 No 24. Years of professional work experience in aerospace: __ Academia (or non-profit) Government __ Industry Total years 25. Professional Membership (Circle all that apply) 1 AIAA 2 ASME 3 IEEE 4 SAE 5 Other scientific, engineering or technical society 6 Not.a member of any scientific, engmeermg, or technical society 26. During the past 3 years, have you authored or co-authored any NASA technical reports? 1 Yes J. How many 2 No 27. During the past 3 years, have you attended NASA sponsored or co-sponsored conferences or workshops? I Yes ), How many 2 No 28. In performing your duties as a faculty member during the past year, have you contacted or been contacted by NASA personnel? 1 Yes _, How many 2 No 41 0 VER

Original page 44

OPTIONAL QUESTIONS 1. What, in your opinion, is the biggest problem(s) faculty face in finding out and obtaining the results of NASA research? 2. What suggestions can you offer for improving faculty access to the results of NASA research? 3. Is there anything else you would care to say regarding this research? Mail to: Center for Survey Research 1022 East Third Street Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 42

Original page 45

APPENDIX C Phase 3 Student Questionnaire AEROSPACEI OI MAnON i AND THE ] ACADEMIC COMMUNITY: ! STUDENT SURVEY ] Phase 3 of the NASA/DOD [ Aerospace Knowledge I Diffusio _ I _ _ Sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense with the cooperation of Indiana University 43

Original page 46

These data will help us determine the use and importance of information by engineering students. 1. How frequently during this past year did you use the following information sources to meet your engineering information needs? (Circle numbers) Frequently Never Available I Your personal collection of information ..................................................... 1 University library ................................................ 1 Engineering or departmental library ............................................ 1 Not 1 I I I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Librarian .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Your personal contacts within aerospace companies ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your personal contacts at 1 2 3 4 5 9 NASA/DOD labs ................................................ 9 Faculty members ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9 Other students ..................................................... . How frequently during this school year did you use the following information products to meet your engineering information needs? (Circle numbers) Frequently Never Available Conference/meeting papers ................................. 1 Journal articles .................................................... 1 1 2 3 4 5 9 Handbooks .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 9 Textbooks ............................................................ Computer programs 1 2 3 4 5 9 and documentation .............................................. Bibliographic, numeric, factual databases ................................................. NACA reports ..................................................... Not I i i i I 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44

Original page 47

Frequency of use Frequently I NASA reports ...................................................... 1 DOD reports ........................................................ 1 AGARD reports .................................................. 1 Foreign technical reports ..................................... 1 Technical translations .......................................... 1 Patents ................................................................. 1 Aerospace company technical reports .................................................. 1 University technical reports ................................ 1 Informal information products (e.g., vendor/supply catalogs, company literature, trade journals/magazines) ................... 1 Not Never Available 1 I I I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 . How important are the following information sources in meeting your engineering information needs? (Circle numbers) Very Important I Your personal collection of information ..................................................... 1 University library ................................................ 1 Engineering or departmental library ............................................ 1 Librarians ............................................................ 1 Your personal contacts within aerospace companies ................................ 1 Your personal contacts at NASA/DOD labs ................................................ 1 Faculty members ................................................. 1 Other Students ..................................................... 1 45 Not at all Not Important Available I I 1 I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9

Original page 48

4° How important are the following information products in meeting your engineering information needs? (Circle numbers) Very Not at all Not Important Important Available Conference/meeting papers ................................. Journal articles .................................................... Handbooks .......................................................... Computer programs and documentation ..................................................... Bibliographic, numeric, factual databases .................................................. Theses/dissertations ............................................. NACA reports ..................................................... NASA reports ...................................................... DOD reports ........................................................ AGARD reports .................................................. Foreign technical reports ..................................... Technical translations .......................................... Patents ................................................................. Aerospace company technical reports .................................................. University technical reports ................................ Informal information products (e.g., vendor/supply catalogs, company literature, trade journals/magazines) ................... I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 . Approximately how many.times during this school year have you used the following print sources in meeting your engineenng information needs? Times This Not PRINT SOURCES School Year Familiar With (of Applied Science and Technology/Index Engineering Index ( ) ( ) 46

Original page 49

PRINT SOURCES Times This School Year Government Reports Announcement and Index International Aerospace Abstracts NASA SP-7037 (Aeronautical Engineering A Continuing Bibliography With Indexes) NASA SCAN NASA STAR Science Citation Index Not Familiar With (,,_" () () () () () () These data will help us determine the use of Information technology by engineering students. 6. Approximately how many times during this school year did you use the following electronic sources in meeting your engineering information needs? ONLINE (ELECTRONIC) DATABASES Times this School Year Aerospace Database COMPENDEX DTIC DROLS INSPEC NASA RECON NTIS Online SCISEARCH Wilson Line Index BRS including "After Dark" DIALOG including "Knowledge Index" 47 Not Familiar With (*6' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Original page 50

1. Which of the following best characterizes your use of online electronic databases? (Circle number) 1 I do all searches myself 2 I do most searches myself 3 I do half by myself and half through a librarian 4 1 do most searches through a librarian 5 I do all searches through a librarian 6 I do not use electronic databases . How likely would you be to use the following if they were provided in electronic format? (Circle numbers) Vfl_y NotLikelyat all Don'tKnow NASA STAR on CD-ROM ................................. Full text of NASA Technical Reports on CD-ROM .......................................... NASA Computer Program Listings on CD-ROM .......................................... NASA Numerical/Factual Data on CD-ROM ........................................................ NASA Photographs (Images) on CD-ROM ........................................................ Online system with full text and graphics for NASA technical reports .................. t I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 . How frequently during this school year did you use the following computer applications? (Circle numbers) Frequently Never Available Electronic databases ............................................ Laser/Video Disc/CD-ROM ............................... Desktop/electronic publishing ............................. Electronic bulletin boards ................................... Electronic Mail .................................................... Electronic networks ............................................. FAX/TELEX ...................................................... Not I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 48

Original page 51

1. How frequently during this school year have you used the following software? (Circle numbers) Frequently I Word Processing ................................................. 1 Spelling Checkers ................................................ 1 Thesaurus ............................................................ 1 Grammar and Style Checkers ............................. 1 Outliners and Prompters ...................................... 1 Business Graphics ............................................... 1 Scientific Graphics .............................................. 1 Not Never Available I _ I I 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 The next few questions will help us gather specific information about NASA and AGARD technical reports. 11 About how many times this school year did you use a NASA technical report? An AGARD technical report? Times used a NASA report __ Times used an AGARD report 12. What percentage of the NASA technical reports you used in the school year were in: paper % microfiche % 13. During this school year, how frequently did you encounter the following problems: (Circle numbers) OBTAINING NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS Frequently The-library didn't own the report ........................ 1 The library owned the report but it was missing ..................................... 1 The library owned the report but it was stored some place else on campus ............... 1 The library staff was not cooperative or helpful in getting me the report ...................... 1 The report was classified or restricted ................ 1 The report was available only to U.S. citizens ............................................ 1 The report had to be obtained from either NTIS or NASA ................................. 1 Other (specify) 49 Not Never Applicable 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9

Original page 52

USING NASA Not TECHNICAL REPORTS Frequently Never Applicable I L I 1 I Illegible microfiche ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 9 Illegible text ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 9 Illegible graphics (e.g., charts, photos, figures) ............................... Poor report organization/ format/presentation ............................................. Intellectual quality of the research ...................... Other (specify). 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 14. How would you rate NASA technical reports on each of the following factor_? (Circle numbers) Very At all Know ACCESSIBILITY: the ease of getting to the information source ........................ Easy Difficult Know EASE OF USE: the ease of comprehending or utilizing the information ...................................... Not Very Don't Expensive Expensive Know EXPENSE: low cost in comparison to other information sources .................................... Ve Fam'_iar Familiar Know FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE: prior knowledge or previous use of the information source .................................... Excellent Poor Know TECHNICAL QUALITY OR RELIABILITY: the information was expected to be the best in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability ...................... Excellent Poor Know COMPREHENSIVENESS: the expectation the information source would provide broad coverage of the available knowledge .................................. Not Don' t I I l 1 I 1 2 3 4 5 9 Don't I 1 I I I 1 2 3 4 5 [ I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 Not at all Don't I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 Don't [ I I I i 1 2 3 4 5 9 Don't I [ I i i 1 2 3 4 5 50

Original page 53

Highly RELEVANCE:theexpectationthat ahighpercentageoftheinformation I retrievedfromthesourcewouldbeused............1 Close PHYSICAL PROXIMITY: the distance I to the information source .................................... 1 Easy SKILL IN USE: the level of skill or skill mastery required to use I the information source ........................................ 1 Very TIMELINESS: the time allocated I or available to produce a solution ....................... 1 Not Don't At all Know I I I I 2 3 4 5 9 Don't Far Know I I I I 2 3 4 5 9 Don't Difficult Know I I I I 2 3 4 5 9 Not Don't At all Know I I I I 2 3 4 5 9 The next group of questions asks about courses or instruction you might have received as part of your preparation to become an engineer. 15. Have you received instruction in technical writing? (Circle answer) YES -_ Was the instruction? (Circle all that apply) a." A credit course b. A non-credit course c. A requited course d. An elective course e. As part of an engineering course f. As part of another course g. As a separate course h. Other (specify) No-q Was instruction in technical writing available to you? (Circle number) 1 Yes " What was your primary reason for not taking it? 2 No 3 Don't know 16. Have you received instruction in oral presentations? (Circle answer) YES -- Was the instruction? (Circle all that apply) a. A credit course b. A non-credit course c. A required course d. An elective course e. As part of an engineering course f. As part of another course g. As a separate course h. Other (specify) 51 NO --_ Was instuction in oral presentations available to you? (Circle number) 1 Yes _" What was your primary reason for not taking it? 2 No 3 Don't know

Original page 54

1. Haveyoureceivedinstructionin howtousetheengineering or departmental library ? (Circle answer) YES - Was the instruction? (Circle all that apply) a. A credit course b. A non-credit course c. A required course d. An elective course e. As part of an engineering course f. As part of another course g. As a separate course h. Other (specify) No- Was instruction in how to use the library available to you? (Circle number) 1 Yes What was your imary reason for not taking it? 2 No 3 Don't know 18. Have you received instruction in engineering information resources and materials ? (Circle answer) YEs-3 Was the instruction? (Circle all that apply) a. A credit course b. A non-credit course c. A required course d. An elective course e. As part of an engineering course f. As part of another course g. As a separate comse h. Other (specify). No--¢ Was instruction in engineering information resourcesand materials available to you? (Circle number) 1 Yes What was your primary reason for not taking it? 2 No 3 Don't know 19. Have you received instruction in searching online (electronic) databases? (Circle answer) YES -- Was the imtruction? (Circle all that apply) a. A credit course b. A non-credit course c. A required course d. An elective course e. As part of an engineering course f. As part of another course g. As a separate course h. Other (specify) NO --_ Was instuction in searching online (electronic) databases available to you? (Circle number) 1 Yes What was your primary reason for not taking it? 2 No 3 Don't know 52

Original page 55

1. How important do you think an understanding and knowledge of engineering information resources and materials will be to your success as an engineer? (Circle number) Very Important I 1 I I Not at all Don't Important Know I 1 2 3 4 5 9 21. How important do you think the ability to communicate technical information effectively will be to your success as an engineer? (Circle number) Very Important Not at all Don't Important Know I I 1 I I 1 2 3 4 5 9 Finally, we would like to collect some background information 22. Gender: 1 Female 2 Male 23. U.S. Citizen: 1 Yes 2 No 24.. Year: 1 Junior 2 Senior 3 Graduate Student 4 Other (specify) 25. COOP student: (Past or current) 1 Yes 2 No 53 that will help to analyze the data. OVER --_

Original page 56

1. Major: 1 Aero/Astro Engineering 2 Architecture 3 Civil Engineering 4 Electrical Engineering 5 Mechanical Engineering 6 Ocean Engineering 7 Physics 8 Textile Engineering 9 Other Engineering (specify) 10 Other (specify) 27. In the past school year have you worked on a NASA or DOD grant or contract, other than the USRA "Advanced Engineering Design Program" ? 1 Yes 2 No 28. Professional (national) student membership: 1 AIAA 2 ASME 3 IEEE 4 SAE 5 Other scientific, engineering or technical society 6 Not a student member of any scientific, engineering, or technical society. OPTIONAL QUESTIONS 1. What, in your o_inion, is the biggest problem(s) students face in finding out and obtaining the results of NASA research. 2. What suggestions can you offer for improving students' access to the results of NASA research? 3. Is there anything else you would care to say regarding this research? 54

Original page 57

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average Z hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching e×isting data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this co_lectlon of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, toWashington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Managenlent and Budget. Paperwork Reducti_ll Proiect (0704-0138) Washington. DC 2050] 1. AGENCY USE ONLY(Leave blank) I 2. REPORT DATE April 1994 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE The Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students: Results of the Phase 3 Survey* 6. AUTHOR(S) 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Engineering WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-109085 *Report number 23 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The U.S. government technical report is a primary 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports and provide a model that depict_ the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-£-vis U.S. aerospace engineering faculty and students. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers, faculty libraries and librarians 16. PRICE CODE U.S. government technical reports; Academic 15. NUMBER OF PAGES and students; Information use; 55 A04 CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified "NSN 7540-01-280-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified ,tandard Form 298(Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 298-102

Original page 58