NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 19960027015: NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 56: Technical Communications in Engineering and Science: The Practices Within a Government Defense Laboratory

26 Pages·1.3 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

NASA-CR-201460
-'NASAIDoD Aerospace Knowledge
Diffusi0n Research Project
. T r
7_._.
- PapeFFift_Six
_. "-_" _ -Technical c,_mrfiunications in Engineering and Science: The Practices
" _ :Within a-Goverj'_ent Defense Laboratory
- -. ""
v.
\ . '; RePrinted_fror_S, pecial Libraries
_ Vol_'ne87;N_nber 2 (Spring 1996): 98-119.
Marilyn Von Seggern
;,L__
,Washin_On _State University
Pulimari_ WAShington
-z-:_net M. JoLirdain
_Kirtland AFB \, _
- ,"giffland AFB: NOw Mexico
" . , Lk-- . , .. .,._,
q '_..
r
?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Defense
INDIANA UNIVERSITY

TechnicaClommunicatioinnsEngineering
andScienceT:hePracticews ithina
GovernmenDt efenseLaboratory
by Marilyn Von Seggern and Janet M. Jourdain
• Cesdemi#monnl_ees_sh,erchesontident_ Researchinrecentdecadeshasidentified thevaried
(cid:0)asd'_f_rebnecssotmd"lnfomza_doens_g#nburcsontre information needsof engineers versus scientists.
ceuxdessden_queAs.larsquebpbsgmndpea_ de
While most of that research looked at the
celrerecheKhoepar_surlesd'tf_ncesmireles
differences among organizations, we surveyed
ocponSotJnoonusos,vonisnlerm_g_ing_nieeut_/es
sc_tChqudeosnslecadredunseulbbota_mde engineers and scientistswithin a single Air Force
teche¢cheetd_veloppemdeentI'otm_edePoit research and development laboratory about their
o_¢Joamsuerlaman_rdeonJtbrassembluetniJt,sent
information gathering, usage, and production
etptoduise(cid:0)ansitnformotionLse.ts_ultol_dusondage
practices.The resultsof the PhillipsLaboratory
dePhil_pLsoboralocqonfitmIenssupposi_ns
onl_eureMsotiveosuxdis_l_ entrIe'_g_ierieet surveyconfirmpriorassumptionsaboutdistinctions
kssciencePso.rtqeuetenombdeet_oonspersovenontbetween engineeringandscience.Becausemilitary
dupe_onnnd_im dtoitsup_t dcebidupersonnel
employees respondedat a muchhigher rate than
c_,/esondogeest_tementdevenuuneoccos_
avilian staff, thesurveyalsobecameanopportunity
d'_tab/i/teprohld'unsegmenpteucoonudela
populatiJolng_ieull/$c_fflTueOsu.irIe'effeqfuela to profile alittle-known segmentof the engineer/
missio_nx_epotPhii'ptsoboraloprayu_ ovositur scientistpopulationI.nadditiontotheeffectPhillips
_ng_n_r5ellessaonffq_eqsuiensootmembres,
Laboratory's staled missionmay have on member
I'_ludekJen_ed'outresfacteurqsuicousendtes
engineers and scientists, other factors causing
var_o_sdonslescornmuni_ritoenchsn_eset
oct_t_Is'ees_}I'_forma_. variations in technical communication and
information-related activities are identified.
• _ inves_oci6enn/asd_codo_sientesho
"den_Molosneces_de#seren_delosingeo_s
enconpatacic6onnloscienn_coMs_.tlasquekl
moyoprortede/a investJgocei6xnominob/aas Introduction
difetendosentTelosorgonizocJonneoss,otros
encuestamoloossingenieymdsentil}cdoes_irdoeon
The technical communication and information-related
Onicloabomtod®emvesliTacd_elaFuemA_reo
activities of engineers and scienUsts have been a topic of
sobrwespc_atcdoesocumu/ac_u,soy,pmduccd_e
infotmoci6Lno.stesu/Caddoeslaencuestdoel study and discussion for more than 40 years. There is little
Laboroto_ri_l_o con£_m_osnsupas_nepsw_s to challenge the notion that both groups rely heavily on
sabelosdiemnciasentrebmgem_ytoranch. information, and engineers and scientists themselves
Portebsempleodmns_'rlamle_ondieroconnuno generally acknowledge that information is their most
tasornuchmoasaliaqueetpe_onadlvil,estoeo(uesl_
significant product. Aside from these fundamental con-
eomb_pnresen_unoopaaunkJpoardedesc_rtin
clusions, there has been scant progress in studying the
se_entopoccoonoc_delapo_o deingon_ems/
varied role of information for engineers in comparison
denttrosM.emOdsdefectqouepuedtoeneltamb_
decbaddae/LobomtoPnho'_sobrebs_ieros y with its role for scientists. Research into the functions of
cien_nsmernbrodselmbmos,eidenl_coon_ information for these groups has lagged behind other user
fac'_ _ _soo b d'_enms e_/acomunicoc_nstudies largely because the majority of research on infor-
_co_aylasoc_doder_ebc_s con11_fom_. mation needs and use has focused onscientists alone oron
spring 1996 98
heterogeneous groups of engineers and scien- While acknowledging that scientific litera-
tists working together. Such studies have not tureisunique from engineering literature, both
contributed significantly todifferentiating the are recognized as equal cornerstones of inno-
information behaviors of tile two groups. This vation. The two branches of knowledge are
unique study compares engineers and scien- thus permanently linked together as scientific
tists at the same laboratory. and technical information or STI. Questions
Additionally, there is little known about the about the use of STI have increased recently as
technical communication and information-re- a result of the "rising interest and concerns
lated activities of engineers and scientists work- regarding industrial competitiveness and tech-
ing for the Department of Defense as military nological innovation. ''aThese studies confirm
employees. Surveys and other studies have what many have suspected--that communica-
included this group with engineers and scien- tion of STI by engineers and scientists plays a
Lists working for industry, academic institu- critical role in the innovation process. The
tions, or other government organizations. Inthe studies have also increased curiosity about
few studies concerning defense engineers and how that information is gathered and used by
scientists, the majority of respondents were engineers versus scientists. Several extensive
civilian) "2Because two-thirds of the respon- reviews of the literature provide background
dents in the present survey are military engi- and state-of-the-art research on communica-
neers and scientists, preliminary conclusions tion by engineers. 9'1°
can also be drawn concerning the technical
communication and information-related activi- Differentiating Engineers from Scientists
ties of this segment of theresearch community. Engineering isdefined as"the application of
scientific knowledge to the creation or im-
Literature Summary provement of technology for human use. ''tl
Previous studies have assumed that scien- This explains the notion of engineering/tech-
tific discovery progressed smoothly and natu- nology as an applied science. In this process,
rally to technological advancement and that engineers may engage in many diverse activi-
the literature of both science and technology ties including the generation of new ideas,
was similarly used and produced) Kline writes problem definition, problem solving, informa-
that even the name given to the innovation tion seeking, experimentation, calculations,
process, R&D, "implies the linear model: the management of personnel and teams, and pro-
phrase itself suggests adirect and unique path duction of reports. 12The work environment of
from research to development and product. ''t the engineer is likely to be in industry or
This thinking links engineering and science, at government where 1) project choice is deter-
times nearly equating the two. Engineers and mined not by the individual but by manage-
scientists are seen as interacting, complemen- ment, 2) teamwork may be required at many
tary forces driving the innovation process. stages, and 3) goals focus on company or
Engineers and scientists arethus seen ascom- organizational success. The engineer tends to
parable in their goals, work orientation, and find professional success within the organiza-
communication practices--an assumption tion through increasingly responsible, chal-
which became the foundation of current U.S. lenging assignments ormanagement positions.
science and technology policies and practices. Science is the search for knowledge through
Closer examination, however, supports the observing, thinking, experimenting, and vali-
position that the two fields of engineering and dating. 13Discovery is conducted for its own
science and technology advance independendy sake and is documented through the univer-
of each other, with the literature of each cumu- sally accepted published record, the literature
lating independently as well. 5"6More signifi- of science. Scientists are likely to work in an
cantly, it became apparent that engineers and independent environment where they 1)select
scientists do not have the same information
questions for investigation based largely on
gathering and usage pattemsfl personal interest, 2) publish results to claim
99 speciallibraries
tion of the technical communications in aero-
discovery and gain personal recognition and
status in the profession, and 3) participate in space among aerospace engineers and scien-
the broad exchange of ideas onscientific ques- Lists.16 While similar studies have been
tions for the sake of knowledge itself, la conducted at two NASA Research Centers, the
Studies show that, ingeneral, engineers tend National Aerospace Laboratory in the Nether-
lands, J7and Russia's Central Aero-Hydrody-
to rely on in-house information such as per-
sonal or colleagues' collections, informal namic Institute, _s this particular study was
sources, internal technical reports, technical designed toobtain data from one specific sub-
handbooks, standards and specifications, and population of Defense Department engineers
trade publications. Engineers rarely use the and scientists inaerospace research, those ofthe
library to acquire information. Personal con- Phillips Laboratory.
tacts and sources are likely to be inside the
organization due to the proprietary or classi- Location
fied nature of the projects at hand. Easy access The Phillips Laboratory ispart of the United
to sources of information, rather than quality States Air Force's Materiel Command, the Air
of the information gathered, is a prime reason Force agency responsible for research, design,
for their selection. testing, production, and procurement of all
Important sources of information for scien- equipment and systems entering Air Force
tists are the more traditionally "academic" service, from uniforms to aircraft. Phillips
information-gathering methods such as the Laboratory is responsible for designing and
use of references and bibliographies in key testing allspace- and missile-related technolo-
articles, tables of contents services, and ab- gies of Air Force interest.
stracting/indexing systems. However, infor- Phillips was established in late 1990 during
mal communication isalso a critical source of the Department ofDefense's resizing and mis-
information. Among scientists, information sion realignment program as one of the Air
exchanges tend to take place with people out- Force's "super" laboratories. Phillips was cre-
side their organization--the "invisible col- ated by merging the Air Force Space Technol-
lege" concept] _Accessing formal scientific ogy Center and it's three subordinate
literature through libraries plays amuch larger laboratories: Astronautics, Geophysics, and
role for scientists than for engineers. Scientists Weapons. In 1994, Phillips had aworkforce of
also spend more time reading and document- just over 1,900 members (1,263 civilians and
ing research results for publication. The dis- 638 military) with the engineer/scientist popu-
tinction between the information use patterns lation numbering 994. Of these engineers and
of scientists and engineers might most simply scientists, 631 were civilians and 363 were
be stated: while scientists tend to focus on military. The annual laboratory operating bud-
primary source information for generation of get for 1994 was $600 million.
additional primary source conclusions, engi- Merging the older organizations to create
neers tend to utilize and produce information Phillips resulted in a geographic dispersal of
which isfarther removed from the basic scien- laboratory directorates which has a bearing
tific process. not only on the day-to-day administration of
the organization, but also on the types of
Study Location, Design, and Methodology research being done at each site. Headquar-
The research reported here was conducted as tered at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquer-
aPhase Iactivity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace que, NM, other major facilities of the laboratory
Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This are located at Hanscom Air Force Base, 20
project was attempted inorder tounderstand the miles northwest of Boston, MA and at Edwards
flow of scientific and technical information at Air Force Base in the Mojave Valley, CA.
the individual, organizational, national, and in- Other subsidiary facilities are as far-flung as
ternational levels inthe aerospace industry. The on Maui, HI, and in the Florida panhandle.
goal of Phase Iactivities has been the investiga- The primary research areas of Phillips are
spring1996 I00
a•ligned geographically with the parent organi- three sites: 350 at Hanscom, 250 at Edwards,
zations from which the laboratory descended. and 400 at Kirtland. A total of 305 surveys
At the Kirdand Phillips site. where 1097 em- were distributed with 228 received for an over-
ployees--approximately 60percent ofthe labo- ,allresponse rate of 75 percent. The response
ratory-are located, work is conducted on rates of Hanscom, Edwards, and Kirtland were,
high energy plasma and microwave technolo- respectively, 71 percent, 66 percent, and 79
gies, electromagnetic pulse hardening, space percent. The survey was conducted during
systems survivability, aircraft-based technolo- May, June, and July, 1994. Selected results
gies for acquiring and tracking ballistic mis- from the survey are presented here.
siles during their boost phase, applications for
lasers and imaging systems, spacecraft struc- Assumptions
tures and their power systems, space experi- Based on an analysis of the literature of
ments, and space/launch environmental testing. technical communication and information-re-
The site at Hanscom, which has some 414 lated activities of engineers and scientists, as
employees (making upnearly 25percent of the well as what is known about the research
laboratory), conducts research on the environ- environment of Phillips Laboratory, the fol-
merit between the Earth and the Sun and the lowing assumptions were made:
effects of that environment on space systems 1. researchers at Edwards and Kirtland
and operations. The final 15 pcrcem of the prefer working in groups more than
laboratory are located at the Edwards site. The researchers at Hanscom;
368 employees located at Edwards conduct 2. the library/TIC is more important (in
research and testing on advanced motors and terms of performing professional du-
propellants for space and launch vehicles. ties) to researchers at Hanscom than
Of the entire Phillips workforce, 53percent those at Edwards or Kirtland;
of employees are identified as "engineers and 3. a higher percentage of researchers at
scientists." A breakdown of engineers and Hanscom use the library/TIC than at
scientists at each site is not available because Edwards or Kirtland; and
the Air Force does not distinguish engineers 4. the primary research literature is relied
from scientists when citing the number of on more by researchers at Hanscom
employees assigned to an organization. Sur- than by those at Edwards and Kirtland.
vey response, however, provides some infor-
mation: the engineer/scientist ratio was 15/85 FindingasndDiscussion
at Hanscom, 77/23 at Edwards, and 58/42 at
Kirtland. The proportion of engineers and sci- Demographics
entists to administrative, support, and man- To provide arespondent profile, survey par-
agement employees is fairly consistent at all ticipants were asked questions about educa-
three Phillips sites, with just over half of the tional training, present duties, educational level,
workers at each location officially classified years of professional work experience, em-
as engineers and scientists.
ployment affiliation, membership in profes-
sional/technical societies, and gender. These
Research Design and Methodology findings are in Table 1.
The study described here was conducted at When asked to characterize their educa-
Hanscom, Edwards, and Kirtland Air Force
tional training bydiscipline, nearly 85 percent
Bases using self-administered (self-reported) of Hanscom respondents consider themselves
mail surveys. The instrument used to collect scientists. By contrast. 77 percent of Edwards
the data was tested and used previously in respondents refer to themselves as engineers
several other NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowl- by training. At the Kirtland headquarters of
edge Diffusion Research studies. Itwas slightly Phillips, the response is more evenly divided,
adapted for useatPhillips. The survey popula-
with 58 percent of respondents referring to
tion included engineers and scientists at the
themselves as engineers and 42 percent con-
I01
speciallibraries
Table I
.Hanscom Edwards Kirtland
Factors % (n) % (n) % (n)
EducationParleparation
Engineer 15.2 (S) 77.2 (44) $8.0 (80)
Scientisl 84.8 (28) 22.8 (13) 42.0 (58)
CurrenDtuties
Engineer 12.1 (4) 64.9 (37) 49.3 (68)
Scientist 84.8 (28) 21.1 (12) 4O.6 (56)
Management 3.0 (1) 14.0 (8) 10.1 (14)
ProfessionaDluties
Research 84.8 (28) 43.9 (25) 52.9 (73)
Aclministmlion/Manog1e2m.1ent (4) 40.4 (23) 31.2 (43)
Oesign/Development 3.0 (1) 15.8 (9) 13.8 (19)
Other 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (3)
Education
Bachelodre'sgreoe¢less 9.1 (3) 45.6 (26) 23.9 (33)
Masterd'segree 39.4 (13) 38.6 (22) 39.9 ($5)
Ph.D/PoPsht.D 51.S (17) 15.8 (9) 36.2 (50)
Professionwalorkexperience
1-5years 3.0 (1) 35.0 (20) 13.1 (18)
6-10years 27.3 (9) 17.S (10) 21.0 (29)
11-20years 21.1 (7) 22.8 (13) 33.3 (46)
21-40years 45.S (1S) 24.6 (14) 32.6 (45)
41ormoryeeats 3.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Meanyearsworekxperience 21.3 13.1 16.7
EmploymeAntffiliation
DOMl)ilil_ 69.7 (23) 73.7 (42) 62.3 (86)
U.SG. ovt(.DoEandOlher) 15.2 (S) 15.8 (9) 23.9 (33)
DoOCivilian 15.2 (5) 8.8 (5) 12.3 (27)
Other 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 1.4 (2)
Gender
Female 6.1 (2) 7+0 (4) 8.0 (11)
Male 93.9 (31) 93.0 (53) 92.0 (127)
MemberofaProfessional/
TechnicaSlatiety 87.9 (29) 64.9 (37) 63.0 (87)
spring1996 102
sidering themselves scientists. When asked to researchers overwhelmingly consider them-
describe their present duties as either "engi- selves scientists when describing their aca-
neer" or "scientist," the answers were nearly demic preparation. By contrast, the vast
identical to those regarding their academic majority of the Edwards researchers, close to
preparation. themore production-oriented, aerospace manu-
Responses differed among the three sites facturing mecca of southern California, refer
when participants were asked to designate to themselves as engineers by training. At the
their principal role within Phillips. AtHanscom, Kirtland headquarters of Phillips, the academic
85 percent stated that their primary duty was orientation of the workforce is more evenly
research, with 12 percent responding that it divided between engineers and scientists. This
was administration/managemen t.At Edwards, split at Kirtland seems appropriate with
44 percent stated their primary duty was re- Kirtland's close proximity to two of the De-
search, while 40 percent said their duties were partment of Energy's national laboratories,
primarily administrative/management (the re- Los Alamos and Sandia--the former basic
mainder said their focus was on design/devel- research-oriented and the latter (actually lo-
opment). At Kirfland, the duties were divided cated onKirtland Air Force Base) an advanced
into 53 percent research, 31 percent adminis- engineering facility. The primary orientation
trative/management, and 14 percent design/ of the research population at each of the
development. While the overall Phillips Phillips' sites is reflected in file libraries at
workforce is fairly evenly divided into three each of the sites: aresearch library at Hanscom,
segments with regard toeducational level, the and technical libraries at both Kirtland and
distribution of master's degree and Ph.D. em- Edwards.
ployees varies significantly from base tobase. The educational background of the Phillips
Differences in professional work experi- workforce illustrates the fact that more scien-
ence among the bases were varied, with 35 tists seek degrees to the Ph.D. level than do
percent of Edwards respondents having only engineers. The educational level also seems to
1-5 years of experience asopposed to3percent relate to the civilian/military mix at each site.
atHanscom and 13percent atKirtland. Edwards Hanscommwhere more than half of tile re-
and Kirtland otherwise show similar years of spondents are holders of doctorates/post doc-
work experience, but vary considerably from toratesmis the Phillips site with the highest
Hanscom where 45 percent of engineers/sci- proportion of civilian employees. At bo0t
entists have 21-40 years of experience. In Edwards and Kirtland--which have younger,
other respects, there is little todistinguish the more predominantly military workforces_
populations at Hanscom, Edwards, and respondents most frequently reported
Kirtland from each other, with the exception bachelor's or master's degrees as theirhighest
of Hanscom, where there is a slightly higher educational achievement. The most likely ex-
number of memberships in professional soci- planation for this difference is the historically
eties. Also noteworthy is the DoD military validated tradition of the military as a youthful
employment affiliation of 70 percent of re- profession. On average, the military research-
spondents at Hanscom, 74percent at Edwards, ers of Phillips are younger than their civilian
and 62 percent at Kirtland. Overall, only 37 colleagues, and have not yet had the opportu-
percent of engineers and scientists at Phillips nity toreach the highest academic level of their
Laboratory are military employees. chosen fields. The military education system's
Regarding the professional alignment of tile emphasis on engineering over other academic
Phillips workforce, there appears to be a dis- disciplines may also account for the higher
tinct relationship between the disciplinary fo- percentage of self-identified engineers at
cus and research behavior at each of Phillips' Edwards and Kirdand than at Hanscom.
principal facilities and the geographic setting How education level relates to longevity
inwhich they are located. Situated inthe richly within the Phillips workforce is unclear. How-
academic area of New England, the Hanscom ever, it isclear that the Hanscom respondents
103 speciallibraries
have substantially more professional experi- 12percent at Hanscom thought the amount of
ence than their colleagues ateither Edwards or time had decreased, while about a quarter of
Kiftland with nearly half reporting 21 or more respondents at the other two bases thought it
years of professional experience: This may be had decreased. More than 50 percent of re-
a reflection of the history of the communities spondents overall said that as thcy adv,'mced
near which the bases are located. The north- professionally, theamountof time spent work-
eastern United States isa long-stabilized area, ing with technical information received from
while the southwest is still a region of rapid others has increased as well.
and radical growth. In this survey, technical communication was
It isnot surprising that the greatest percent- defined as both the time spent producing oral
age of the Phillips workforce at each site is and written communication, as well as time
civilian, rather than military. There has been a spent working with written and oral cornmuni-
trend within the DepartmentofDefense for the cation received from others. Phillips respon-
past 25-30 years to centralize and stabilize dents noted that overall, this communication
research and development activities. Part of occupies approximately 32 hours, or 83 per-
this stabilization effort has been to reduce the cent of a 40-hour work week. These findings
numbers of military workers in such settings appear in Table 2b. Results show a mean of
since the military personnel are likely to be 16.3 hours per week at Edwards and 18.3 hours
more transient members of the workforce. per week at Kirtland being spent producing
These engineers and scientists did not reply to technical information. Hanscom respondents
the survey inproportion totheir presence intile spend a mean of 14.9 hours per week working
laboratory, however. While more than two- with technical information received from oth-
thirds of the Phillips workforce are civilians, ers compared to the high at Edwards of 16.I
70 percent of survey respondents were mill- hours per week.
taP/members of the laboratory. This response Responses on collaborative writing prac-
result was completely unanticipated and can tices atPhillips (Table 2c)indicate that Edwards
best be explained by several factors. Among engineers and scientists prefcr writing alone
these factors are that the military members of more than the engineers and scientists at
Phillips tend, on average, to be younger than Hanscom or Kirtland. A mean of 69 percent of
the civilian workers. Therefore, they may have written technical communications at Edwards
fewer purely research responsibilities to take involve writing alone, and 33 percent of re-
them away from the laboratory premises, af- spondents write alone only. Hanscom partici-
fording more time to complete the survey. pants write alone amean of 57percent of their
Also, the military training and mindset of written technical communications and prefer
these respondents may make them more likely writing with a group of 2-5. Group writing is
to complete any surveys as they would look seen as more productive by those at Hanscom
upon it as more a requirement than an option. (45.5 percent) than at Kirtland (36 percent) or
at Edwards (26 percent).
Communicating and Little distinguishes the engineers and scien-
Producing Technical Information tists from each base in terms of the respon-
Phillips respondents are largely in agree- dents' assessment of the importance of
ment about the importance of effective com- technical information to their research or the
munication of technical information. As amount of time spent preparing or working
indicated in Table 2a, about 94 percent of with technical information. The significant
participants atHanscom, 93percent atEdwards, amount of time spent ispossibly areflection of
and 9! percent at Kirtland responded that it is the Phillips administration's emphasis on gen-
important. About half of the respondents at all erating technical information, particularly in
bases report that there had been an increase in the form of technical reports, conference pa-
the amount of time spent producing technical pers, and journal articles.
information compared to five years ago. Only Although the characterizations of engineers
spring1996 104
and scientists previously noted would suggest conducive tocollaboration. Thisis inmarked
tl_atscientists are more likely towork indepen- contrastto both Edwards and Kirtlandwhere
dently than are engineers, the results of the theelements ofPhillipsateach base are widely
Phillips survey donot support thisassumption. dispersed, withsome relatedfacilities as much
Itisclear that the Hanscom respondentsgreatly as40 miles fromeach other.
prefer to work in groups when producing any Another possible explanation for the ten-
type of technical information,compared tothe dencyof the Hanscomrespondents toproduce
more engineering-oriented populations atboth technical information in groups more often
Edwards and KirUand. Apossible explanation relates again tothe longevity of the Hanscom
for this unexpected finding might be that workforce. As noted earlier, nearly half of
Hanscom hasamore collegial atmosphere than Hanscom' srespondents have 21ormore years
the settings at the other two Phillipssites. Not ofexperience intheir given field. Based onthis
onlyisHanscomlocated inthepreviouslynoted and their advanced academic credentials, itis
highlyacademic region, huttheentire Hanscom possible toassume the Hanscom respondents
contingent isalsohoused injustafewbuildings feel more comfortable in their professional
which are withineasy walking distanceofeach status, having spent earlier working years es-
other.Thephysical settingatHanscomishighly tablishing their credentials and niche in the
Table 2a
Hanst_n/I Edwmds Kirtland
Factors % (n) % (n) % (n)
Inyourworkc,ommunicattiencghnical
infozmaleioffnectiveisl:y
Imparlunt 93.9 (31) 93.0 (53) 91.3 (126)
Neitheimrporlannotrunimporlont 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.2 (0)
Unimportant 6.1 (2) 7.0 (4) 5.8 (8)
Mean* 4.6 4.6 4.5
ComparIoeSdyearasgot,heamouonfttime
youspenpdroductiencghnicidaolrmotihoans:
Increased 485 (16) 43.9 (25) 44.2 (61)
Sloyetdhesame 36.4 (12) 21.1 (12) 29.0 (4O)
Decreased -12.1 (4) 26.3 (1S) 23.9 (33)
Notapplicable 3.0 (1) 8.8- 6) 2.9 (4)
Asyouhaveadvancperdofessionally,
amouonltlimeyouspenwdalkinwgilh
lechnicinofJormalrieocneivehdamolherhsas:
Increased $4.5 (18) 57.9 (33) 58.7 (81)
SloyeIdhesame 36.4 (12) 24.6 (14) 29.7 (41)
Decreased 9.1 (3) 17.S (10) 10.9 (15)
Iqoatpplicable 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1)
"A1toSpainstcalweithl=unimparlaanndtS=verimyparlonl.
I
105
speciallibraries