Last modified 14 July 98. Final Version

Appendix 2. Analysis of Questionnaire Returns

Following discussions with Dr Noel Barton in July 1997, the Review Team prepared five questionnaires for distribution to mathematical users and providers in New Zealand. The groups targeted by these questionnaires were as follows:

  1. User Organisations in public and private sectors: mainly large organisations making use of mathematical techniques as part of their regular activities. The questionnaire focussed on the size of the organisation and qualifications of the mathematical scientists, the work they were doing, its impact on the organisation (especially cost) and then impressions of future development.
  2. Research Organisations (including the CRIs and some independent research organisations) were sent a similar questionnaire with a greater focus on the role of mathematics in their research activities.
  3. A third questionnaire was sent to the major Professional Organisations associated with the mathematical sciences, seeking information about their membership, their activities, and their views on the contribution of the mathematical sciences.
  4. The University Departments of mathematics, statistics, computing science, social and preventive medicine, and econometrics were sent a questionnaire requesting detailed information on student and staff numbers, research activities, funding, etc.
  5. A similar but less detailed questionnaire was sent to the nearest appropriate department in the Polytechnics.

The set of 5 questionnaires is reproduced in abbreviated form for reference at the end of this Appendix.

The frames were constructed from a number of sources including: The Royal Society of New Zealand, Ministry of Research Science and Technology (MoRST), New Zealand Statistical Association, university calendars, telephone books, and publicly available lists of polytechnics, tertiary institutions, and research organisations in New Zealand.

For each of the five groups, a separate sample frame was formed. All potential respondents on the lists were surveyed, so that the design for all five surveys is a census rather than a sample for the groups identified.

The sample frames varied in size. Coverage was not complete or comprehensive for all groups, although in practice it is only the user organisations where any major activity involving mathematics and statistics may have been overlooked at the frame construction stage.

A summary of the responses to each questionnaire is set out in the sections which follow. For each question, a brief summary of the responses is given, accompanied by relevant tables or summary figures, and a selection of comments when these were requested. Information was provided under the guarantee that the names of the responding organisations would remain confidential to the review secretariat. Consequently, comments and other details have been left anonymous.


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.1 Response from User Organisations

Introduction

A comprehensive survey of this group was not possible with available resources, so the survey was designed to measure the range of opinion among users, rather than direct quantitative measures of levels of activity.

The frame for users contained 499 potential users of mathematics and statistics.

There were 101 useable responses, giving a response rate of about 20.2%, although this measure of response rate is conservative because it is unclear how many of the 499 potential respondents were ineligible. i.e. although they were interested enough in science generally to be in contact with the Royal Society or MoRST, whose lists formed the basis for the user group frame, they were not necessarily users of mathematics and statistics.

An additional 16 user questionnaires were returned blank with an indication that the questions did not apply to those users.

The low response rate precludes direct quantitative measures of levels of activity. There was nevertheless very useful case study information within the user group generally, and at analysis stage key variables (such as the distribution of educational attainment for staff in mathematics and statistics) matched those from the Research Organisation questionnaire very well. This may indicate that in general, users returning completed questionnaires were those who had explicitly recognised their need for mathematics and statistics expertise in their staffing policies.

Key activities

Question 3 asked "what are the key activities of your organisation?" There were 99 responses to this question.

A breakdown by sector is given below.

Table A-1 User Organisations by Sector

Sector

Count

Engineering and Electronic

16

Food Manufacturer

14

Manufacturing or importing goods

12

Banking, Finance, Insurance

11

Scientific and environmental services

8

Communications

5

Forestry

5

Information technology

5

Energy

4

Advertising, Market research

3

Health

3

Professional services

3

Transport

3

Defence, Police

2

Local Authority

2

Sales

2

Government policy department

1

Revenue/Budget

Question 4 requested details of the Organisation's annual budget. 86 provided information, which is summarised in Figure A-1 below.

Figure A-1 Distribution of Annual Revenue

As may be expected, the information provided varied considerably in terms of degree of completeness. Some data was clearly approximate, (but note that the survey only requested approximate figures, to encourage a response at all).

Mathematical Science Activities

Questions 5 and 6 asked where mathematical sciences are used in the organisation and what kind of mathematical sciences are most used.

In practice these two questions were not clearly distinguished in the responses so we have combined them in to one classification, which we have designated as `mathematical activity'. To allow comparison, we have derived the classification from the actual responses to the User Organisation questionnaires. While these may not be ideal from a purist mathematical point of view they do generally express the kind of answers given. Some misclassification is inevitable with the information provided, but hopefully this is not serious.

In most cases, organisations were involved in a number of mathematical activities so there is no one-to-one relationship between organisation and activity classification. The numbers of organisations reporting involvement in each activity are given below in Table A-2, sorted in descending order:

Table A-2 Mathematical Activities

Mathematical Activity, User Organisations

Count

% respondents

Statistics, experimental design

60

59

Business mathematics, forecasting

49

49

Process control, quality

34

34

Engineering mathematics

31

31

Operations research, optimisation

22

22

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

16

16

Market research, surveys

14

14

Economics, economic modelling

11

11

Computational mathematics, numerical methods

9

9

Software development

6

6

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

2

2

Opportunities and Savings, Examples

Question 7 asked for information on opportunities/savings (or losses) caused by good (or poor) use of mathematical methods.

We have selected examples of savings/opportunities/costs and have produced summarised versions, below:

External Suppliers

Question 8a asked whether organisations currently contract external suppliers of mathematical sciences.

46 (46%) of User Organisations said they currently contract external suppliers of mathematical science services.

The kinds of mathematical services provided by external suppliers (Question 8b) are summarised in Table A-3 below.

Table A-3 External Mathematical Science Services

Mathematics Activity

Number Using

Process control, quality

3

Operations research, optimisation

7

Market research, surveys

7

Business mathematics (forecasting etc)

7

Engineering maths

4

Statistics, experimental design

14

Economics, economic modelling

5

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

4

Software development

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

1

Question 8c asked about degree of satisfaction with external suppliers, and approximate amount spent per annum. There were insufficient responses to this question for any meaningful conclusion.

Future Developments in Mathematical Sciences

35 User Organisations (35%) said they had need for expertise in mathematical sciences not currently within the organisation (Question 9).

Question 10 asked if additional needs for Mathematical Science expertise were anticipated in the next ten years, and what were these needs.

Out of 101 responses from User Organisations, 59, (58%) answered Q10, ie indicating anticipation of additional needs for mathematical science expertise over the next ten years. 57 respondents cited additional needs, as summarised in Table A-4 below:

Table A-4 Future needs, Mathematical Sciences

Mathematics Activities

Number reporting

Statistics, including experimental design

16 (28%)

Operations research, optimisation

11 (19%)

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

7 (12%)

Process control, quality

6 (11%)

Business mathematics (forecasting etc)

5 (9%)

Economics, economic modelling

5 (9%)

Engineering mathematics

4 (7%)

Market research, surveys

7 (12%)

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

2 (4%)

Software development

29 (4%)

Other

3 (5%)

 

`Other' for Users comprised conjoint analysis, computing technology and stochastic calculus, one mention each.

23 User Organisations (23%) indicated knowledge of emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that may impact on future activities and gave examples, (Question 11).

Of these, 5 User Organisations cited advances in statistics, and 10 cited other areas (control theory (2), fuzzy logic (2), neural networks (3) and chaos theory (3)).

53 User Organisations (53%) said they could identify implications of new technologies in their future use of mathematics (Question 12).

A summary of the examples cited is given below in Table A-5.

Table A-5 Mathematical activities in which users see implications of new technologies

Mathematics Activity

Number Reporting

Process control, quality<

2

Statistics, including experimental design

4

Economics, economic modelling

1

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

1

Computer and software technology

18

Data collection technologies

8

Internet

2

Communication advances

2

Fuzzy logic, artificial intelligence

1

Staffing

Question 13 asked for the number and percentage of staff working at various levels in the mathematical sciences. (See questionnaire for definition of levels.)

Table A-6 shows the results:

Table A-6 Staff working at various levels

Level

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Total

Number

3297

1571

794

61

5723

%

58%

28%

14%

1%

 

Question 14 requested the study levels of the staff working at levels (iii) and (iv). Results summarised in Table A-7 below:

Table A-7 Study levels vs work levels

 

Sub-degree

U/grad papers

U/grad degree

Postgrad papers

Postgrad degree

Total

Level(iii)

13

455

64

50

22

604

%

2%

75%

11%

8%

4%

100%

Level(iv)

3

22

8

15

11

59

%

5%

37%

14%

25%

19%

100%

Totals

16

477

72

65

33

663

%

2%

72%

11%

10%

5%

100%

Dependence of Revenue on Mathematical Sciences

Question 15 asked what percentage of the unit/organisation's resources are expended on mathematical science related activities. Question 16 asked approximately what percentage of revenue is dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences.

45 User Organisations provided answers both to questions 15 and 16 and also gave their annual budget (revenue).

The sum of budget*%Resource overall was calculated for the above 45 User Organisations as $217 Million spent on mathematical science related activities.

We were able to calculate the total revenue dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences over these 45 User Organisations, and, for comparison, the total revenue of these same 45.

The result was that the total revenue dependent on mathematical sciences is $898 Million out of $1860 Million, or 48%.

From Questions 15 and 16 we deduce that 12% of resources are spent on Mathematics-related activities to underpin 48% of revenue.

To assess whether the above sub-group was representative of the 101 User Organisations we have derived the revenue histograms of those organisations included (Figure A-2) and not included (Figure A-3). These may be compared with Figure A-1 above, the revenue distribution of all respondents.

Figure A-2 Revenue distribution of subgroup

Figure A-3 Revenue distribution, all respondents less subgroup

General Points

Question 19 sought other points relevant to the Review of Mathematical Sciences. The following is a selection of these comments:


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.2 Response from Research Organisations

Introduction

The frame consisted of 104 research organisations, of which 28 responded. The apparent response rate of 26.9% is however too low a measure of response. The larger government research organisations were sent multiple questionnaires, and completed questionnaires which had been sent to the Chief Executive Officer covered activity across the whole organisation, even if other questionnaires sent to that organisation were not returned. As an illustration of this effect, only one of the 13 research organisations with sufficient mathematics and statistics activity to warrant sending out more than one questionnaire failed to respond in part or whole.

On this basis, the Research Organisation questionnaire responses were analysed quantitatively.

Responses

Question 3 asked "what are the key activities of your organisation?"

A breakdown by sector is given below.

Table A-8 Research Organisations by Sector

Research Organisations

Sector

Count

Primary Products

14

Industrial

5

Earth Sciences

4

Economics/Statistics

2

Conservation

1

Health

1

Social Science

1

Revenue/Budget

Question 4 requested details of the Organisation's annual budget. 26 provided information, which is summarised in Figure A-4 below.

Figure A-4 Distribution of Annual Revenue

Mathematical Science Activities

Questions 5 and 6 asked where mathematical sciences are used in the organisation and what kind of mathematical sciences are most used.

In practice these two questions were not clearly distinguished in the responses so we have combined them in to one classification, which we have designated as `mathematical activity'. To allow comparison, we have used the same classifications as derived from the actual responses to the User Organisation questionnaire. While these may not be ideal from a purist mathematical point of view they do generally express the kind of answers given. There are one or two that are not clear, eg "computational mathematics". Some misclassification is inevitable with the information provided, but hopefully this is not serious.

In most cases, organisations were involved in a number of mathematical activities so there is no one-to-one relationship between Organisation and Activity classification. The numbers of organisations reporting involvement in each activity are given below in Table A-9, sorted in descending order:

Table A-9 Mathematical Activities

Mathematical Activity, Research Organisations

Count

% Respondents

Statistics, including experimental design

25

89

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

13

46

Computational mathematics, numerical methods

6

21

Operations research, optimisation

6

21

Economics, economic modelling

4

14

Engineering mathematics

3

11

Business mathematics, forecasting.

2

7

Process control, quality

2

7

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

1

4

Market research, surveys

1

4

Software development

0

0

Opportunities and Savings, Examples

Question 7 asked for information on opportunities/savings (or losses) caused by good (or poor) use of mathematical methods.

We have selected examples of savings/opportunities/costs and have produced summarised versions, below:

External Suppliers

Question 8a asked whether organisations currently contract external suppliers of mathematical sciences.

17 (61%) of Research Organisations said they currently contract external suppliers of mathematical science services.

The kinds of mathematical services provided by external suppliers (Question 8b) are summarised in Table A-10 below (the same activities as listed in Table A-3 for Users, plus one new activity).

Table A-10 External Mathematical Science Services

Mathematics Activity

Number Using

Process control, quality

1

Operations research, optimisation

Market research, surveys

2

Business mathematics (forecasting etc)

0

Engineering maths

0

Statistics, including experimental design

7

Economics, economic modelling

1

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

3

Software development

0

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

0

Time series analysis

1

Question 8c asked about degree of satisfaction with external suppliers, and approximate amount spent per annum. There were insufficient responses to the first part of this question for any meaningful conclusion. The response to the second part was also incomplete (11 zero or nil responses), but the results are totalled in Table A-11 below.

Table A-11 Amount spent per annum on external suppliers

Source

Amount spent, $000

Universities (maths and stats depts)

175

Universities (other depts)

605

CRI's

14,384*

Consultant mathematician/statistician

46

Other consultants/market researchers

103

Other

250

* Includes $14 million from one respondent.

Future Developments in Mathematical Sciences

9 Research Organisations (33%) said they had need for expertise in mathematical sciences not currently within the organisation (Question 9).

Question 10 asked if additional needs for Mathematical Science expertise were anticipated in the next ten years, and what were these needs.

Out of 28 responses from Research Organisations, 21, (75%) answered Q10, ie indicating anticipation of additional needs for mathematical science expertise over the next ten years. The additional needs cited are summarised in Table A-12 below (same activities as listed in Table A-4 for Users plus one new one):

Table A-12 Future needs, Mathematical Sciences

Mathematics Activities

Number reporting

Statistics, including experimental design

11 (52%)

Operations research, optimisation

0

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

4 (19%)

Process control, quality

0

Business mathematics (forecasting etc)

0

Economics, economic modelling

1 (5%)

Engineering mathematics

0

Market research, surveys

0

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

1 (5%)

Computational mathematics, numerical methods

1 (5%)

Software development

0

Other*

3 (14%)

*`Other' comprised fractals, nonlinear analysis, GIS, neural networks and fuzzy logic.

15 Research Organisations (62%) indicated knowledge of emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that may impact on future activities and gave examples, (Question 11).

Of these, 4 Research Organisations cited advances in statistics, 2 cited risk management. Others noted fuzzy logic (1), neural networks (2), improved software (2), computer technology (2) and fractal methods (2). Other categories rated one or fewer mention.

One Research Organisation stated: "I'm sure there are (emerging areas), but I'm not keeping abreast of these as I should".

21 Research Organisations (75%) said they could identify implications of new technologies in their future use of mathematics (Question 12).

A summary of the examples cited is given below in Table A-13.

Table A-13 New Technologies Expected to affect Organisations

Mathematics Activity

Number Reporting

Process control, quality

1

Statistics, including experimental design

4

Physical and process modelling, mathematical physics

2

Actuarial mathematics, risk assessment

1

Computer and software technology

10

Data collection technologies

5

Internet

2

Fuzzy logic, artificial intelligence

2

Neural networks

1

Staffing

Question 13 asked for the number and percentage of staff working at various levels in the mathematical sciences. (See questionnaire for definition of levels.)

Table A-14 shows the results:

Table A-14 Staff working at various levels

Level

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Total

Total

1327

671

207

65

2270

%

58%

30%

9%

3%

 

Question 14 requested the study levels of the staff working at levels (iii) and (iv). Results summarised in Table A-15 below:

Table A-15 Study levels vs work levels

 

Sub-degree

U/grad papers

U/grad degree

Postgrad papers

Postgrad degree

Total

Level(iii)

6

45

32

37

50

170

%

4%

26%

19%

22%

29%

100%

Level(iv)

0

2

6

4

37

49

%

0%

4%

12%

8%

76%

100%

Totals

6

47

38

41

87

219

%

3

21

17

19

40

100

Note that there are some drop-offs compared with totals in Q13, presumably due to some missing responses for this question, but the relative frequencies for levels (iii) and (iv) are maintained fairly closely.

Table A-16 shows the total numbers of staff, for the respondent organisations, working at levels (iii) and (iv), and the totals expected in year 2002 (Question 15):

Table A-16 Staff numbers working at levels (iii) and (iv)

 

Men

Women

All

Total reported

209

47

256

Over 55

12

1

13

Maori

1

1

2

Responses with question 15d completed

Total for Q. 15d*

160

36

196

Predicted, 2002*

171

55

226

*Note that to get a meaningful base for the 2002 prediction a new "present" total has been calculated including only those institutions which did provide this forecast.

Organisations were asked to describe which of three age distributions best described staff working at levels (iii) and (iv) in the mathematical sciences, (Question 16). The distributions were:

A: More staff under 45 yrs than above
B: About equal staff above and below 45 yrs.
C: More staff over 45 yrs than below.

The results are tabulated below:

Table A-17 Age Distributions, count by category

Category

Men

Women

A

12

15

B

7

2

C

3

1

There were 4 non-responses for men and 8 for women.

Funding Sources

Dependence of Revenue on Mathematical Sciences

Question 18 asked what percentage of the unit/organisation's resources are expended on mathematical science related activities. Question 19 asked approximately what percentage of revenue is dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences.

Out of 24 respondents, 4 stated approx 100% of their resources were expended on mathematical science related activities ($16M) and a further 6 stated over 20% (out of $59M).

However only 20 Research Organisations provided answers both to questions 18 and 19 and their annual budget (revenue).

The sum of budget*%Resource overall was calculated for the above 20 Research Organisations as $34.1 Million

We were able to calculate the total revenue dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences over these 20 Research Organisations, and, for comparison, the total revenue of these same 20. Total revenue dependent on mathematical sciences is $188.7 Million out of $280.3 Million, or 67%.

From Questions 18 and 19 we deduce that 12% of resources are spent on Mathematics-related activities to underpin 67% of revenue.

General Points

Question 22 sought other points relevant to the Review of Mathematical Sciences. The following is a selection of these comments:


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.3 Responses from Professional Associations

Introduction

The frame consisted of 52 professional associations of which 18 responded, giving a response rate of 34.6%. The professional associations were however very different, and responses received reflected whether the particular professional association had a research focus, and if so whether that focus included mathematics and statistics. Among the eight societies having such a focus, all eight responded.

On this basis, the Professional Association questionnaire was analysed quantitatively.

Responses

There were 18 respondents covering a good range of Professional Associations which have interests, directly or indirectly, in the mathematical sciences. A list of respondents follows:

NZ Association of Science Educators (NZASE)

NZ Institute of Forestry

NZ Institute of Physics

NZ Association for Research in Education

NZ Society of Actuaries

NZ Organisation for Quality Incorporated

NZ Institute of Surveyors

NZ Plant Protection Society

Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists (NZ Section)

Nutrition Society of NZ

NZ Society of Animal Production

NZ Society of Parasitology

NZ Institute of Agricultural Science

NZ Institute of Food Science and Technology

NZ Mathematical Society

New Zealand Statistical Assn

NZ Society of Plant Physiologists

Operational Research Society of NZ

Total membership of the 18 associations is 8551 (Question 2), although there may be some membership overlaps. 93% reside in New Zealand, 29% are female and only 3% Maori. 16% are student members (Question 3).

11 associations expected their membership to increase by 2007 and 7 expected it to stay the same. Anticipated total membership increase by 2002 is 15% after allowing for 3 associations who did not provide 2002 estimates.

The average annual membership fee over the 18 associations is $58, giving a gross total of about $500,000 (Question 4). Total annual budget for the 18 associations is about $1.8 Million (Question 5).

Association Activities

Activities are implied in the Association's name and are further explored below.

Question 6b asked about activity changes over the next 10 years. 9 respondents expected significant change through the use of the Internet. 6 respondents expected little or no change.

Question 6c asked about overseas linkages. 13 Associations have formal overseas linkages and two hold joint conferences with their Australian counterparts.

Services provided for members are summarised in Table A-18 below:

Table A-18 Services to members

 

Yes

No

Newsletter

18

0

Journal

16

3

Conferences

18

0

Approximately 70% of Associations run workshops for specific activities or problems, often in conjunction with their annual conference (Question 6e).

Support for young members is widespread, ranging from reduced subscriptions through support to attend conferences to special training workshops (Question 6f).

Question 6g asked about opportunities for publicising their central discipline. Most Associations have newsletters or brochures, and a few considered their Journal to contribute to this role. Internet websites are maintained by a number.

17 of the 18 respondents respond to calls for submissions from government organisations and committees (Question 6h).

Provision of Mathematical Science Services.

Questions 7a and 7b asked the principal ways by which members provide services that involve the mathematical sciences and how the Association supported this.

As might be expected, each Association does this in close relation to its principal scientific discipline; a number of responses which show the diversity are listed below.

Impediments

Question 7c asked about impediments to provision of mathematical science services to members. A selection of the responses follows:

Policy Initiatives

Question 7d asked for suggestions of policy initiatives that would enhance provision of mathematical science services by members. A selection of the responses follows:

Research Activities

Associations were asked a number of questions (see questions 8, a-e.) concerning the research activities of members: (a) what they are, (b) how they advance the national interest, (c) how the Association supports the research interests of its members, and (d) impediments. They were also asked (e) for suggestions on policy initiatives. Perhaps not surprisingly, many responses paralleled those given above for the provision of mathematical services. A selection of others is given below:

Question 8a

Question 8b

Question 8d

Question 8e

Business and Industry

Question 9 asked for opinions of what areas of mathematical science are most used by business and industry at present and will be in 2007. The results are summarised in Table A-19 below.

Table A-19 Mathematics areas assumed most used in Business and Industry

Mathematical Science area

Now (%)

Year 2007 (%)

Statistics/OR/Quality

44

44

Modelling

19

22

Market research

3

0

Finance/Economics

12

4

Computing

16

13

Algebra/Arithmetic/Calculus

6

4

Game Theory

0

4

Stochastic DE's

0

9

Note that (a) More than one area was usually mentioned by each Association and (b) not all Associations answered, and not all of these answered for both now and 2007.

Emerging Areas

8 Associations reported they had knowledge of emerging areas of the mathematical sciences that may impact on future activities of members (Question 10). Selected responses are given below:


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.4 Responses from University Departments

Introduction

The frame consisted of 55 university departments from all seven New Zealand universities. Of these departments, 12 were Departments of Mathematics and/or Statistics.

There were 22 replies in total. All Departments of Mathematics and/or Statistics responded, but response rate among the remainder (consisting of Departments of Finance, Engineering Science, Information Science, Computer Science, Economics, Community and Public Health, Preventive and Social Medicine, Biological Sciences, Physics, Production Technology, and Marketing) was much lower at 23.3%.

The accuracy of quantitative information for this latter group is unknown. However, the information for Departments of Mathematics and/or Statistics is comprehensive and complete.

Responses

8 of the 22 responses were Mathematics and/or Statistics Departments, and separate figures for these are presented where appropriate.

ing sciences in some instances.

Table A-20

shows the distribution of the Departments by their principal fields. Note however that `mathematics' includes statistics and/or computing sciences in some instances.

Table A-20 Main Fields of Respondents

Principal Field

Number

Mathematics

6

Statistics

4

Business

6

Computing

1

Health

3

Physics and Electronics

1

Production Technology

1

Academic Staff

Question 1 requested details of academic staff by age and sex and predicted numbers for year 2002. The totals (equivalent full-time staff) from the respondents are given in Table A-21 .

Table A-21 Continuing Academic Staff by age and sex

Age

Men

Women

Total 1997

Total 2002

<25

1

1

2

2

26-30

11.8

2

13.8

10.5

31-35

23.8

8

31.8

34.5

36-40

30

7

37

37

41-45

37.4

11.75

49.15

34

46-50

49.3

5

54.3

42

51-55

48

7

55

40.5

56-60

26

3.5

29.5

52.5

>60

16

0

16

26

Total

243.3

45.25

288.55

279

Of the staff in 1997, only 3 FTE male and 1 one female were Maori.

 

Table A-22 Continuing Academic Staff by age and sex, Maths/Stats Depts only

Age

Men

Women

Total 1997

Total 2002

<25

1

1

2

2

26-30

3

1

4

7.5

31-35

13

6

19

19.5

36-40

24

3

27

22

41-45

18

3

21

25

46-50

28

3

31

22

51-55

29

3

32

26.5

56-60

24

2

26

32.5

>60

13

0

13

20.5

Total

153

22

175

177.5

Of the Maths/Stats staff in 1997, only 2 FTE males and no females were Maori.

Table A-23  shows the distribution of levels of appointment for equivalent full-time academic staff members (see Q2).

Table A-23 Levels of Appointment

 

Continuing Term

Fixed Term

 

men

women

men

women

Totals

Assistant lecturer

0

1

18.55

16.65

36.2

Tutor

4

4

4.8

7.3

20.1

Lecturer

51.8

16.5

19.7

13.8

101.8

Senior lecturer

129.2

14.25

4.1

1.1

148.65

Associate professor

24

2

1

0

27

Professor

40

0

0

0.5

40.5

Totals

249

37.75

48.15

39.35

374.25

(Note that there are minor discrepancies beyond our control in the totals between Table A-21 and Table A-23.)

Table A-24 Levels of Appointment, Maths/Stats Depts only

 

Continuing Term

Fixed Term

 

Men

Women

Men

Women

Totals

Assistant lecturer

0

0

15.55

13.15

28.7

Tutor

3

1

1.8

6.3

12.1

Lecturer

34

10.5

9.4

4.3

58.2

Senior lecturer

74

6.5

0

0

80.5

Associate professor

19

1

0

0

20

Professor

24

0

0

0

24

Totals

154

19

26.75

23.75

223.5

(Note that there are minor discrepancies beyond our control in the totals between Table A-22 and Table A-24.)

Support Staff

Question 3 requested the number of FTE support staff in 1997. The total for the 22 respondents was 66.9 (38.8, Maths/Stats Depts)

Overseas Visitors (Question 4)

There were a total of 190 (119, Math/Stats Depts) short-term (< 1 week) and 306 (218, Math/Stats Depts) longer-term academic staff visiting from overseas in the respondent departments during the preceding year.

Postgraduate Students

Question 5 requested information on trends in postgraduate (PhD) students. The totals for all respondents are given in Table A-25  and Table A-26 below.

 

Table A-25 Full-time PhD Students (Maths/Stats Depts)

 

Pure Maths

Applied Maths

Statistics

Operations Research

Other

1992

5 (5)

15 (15)

13 (11)

6 (3)

19 (3)

1997

14 (14)

24 (24)

23 (16)

13 (5)

46 (14)

Expected 2002

8 (8)

24 (24)

33 (21)

16 (6)

52 (5)

Table A-26 Part-time PhD Students

 

Pure Maths

Applied Maths

Statistics

Operations Research

Other

1992

1

5

6 (6)

0 (0)

13 (5)

1997

1

6

6 (4)

1 (0)

20 (6)

Expected 2002

0

10

4 (9)

4 (1)

19 (1)

Approximately 60% (60% Maths/Stats) of PhD students came from the same University, 11% (11% Maths/Stats) from other NZ universities and 30% (29% Maths/Stats) from overseas.

A total of 87 (48 Maths/Stats) PhD degrees were reported to have been awarded by respondent Departments since 1992. However there may be some non-responses as 3 Departments were recorded as 0 and this same coding was recorded for both zero and non-responses. Of these 7% (12% Maths/Stats Depts) were in pure mathematics, 23% ( 40%, Maths/Stats Depts) in applied mathematics, 25% (29% Maths/Stats Depts) in statistics, 13% (10% Maths/Stats Depts) in operations research and 32% (8% Maths/Stats Depts) in other branches of mathematics.

Question 6 requested information on employment for these PhD graduates. Summarised below in Table A-27.

Table A-27 Employment of PhD graduates

 

PhD Topic Area

Employment Sector

Pure Maths

Applied Maths

Statistics

Operations Research

Other

University (NZ)

1

3

5

2

16

Other Teaching (NZ)

1

0

0

0

2

CRI (NZ)

0

4

3

0

1

Other Research (NZ)

0

2

6

0

1

Business/Industry (NZ)

0

3

1

6

1

Other (NZ)

0

0

2

1

1

Overseas

2

4

5

1

5

Totals

4

16

22

10

27

Note that this detail was as available for only 79 graduates of the 87 noted above. There were 5 Departments coded as either zero or not responding.

Honours and Masters Programmes

17 of the 22 respondents (77%) offered Honours programmes and all 22 offered Masters programmes in the Mathematical Sciences. All Maths/Statistics Depts offered both Honours and Masters programmes.

Question 6 asked for details of present and future trends in enrolments for Honours and Masters. The totals for all respondents are given in Table A-28 and Table A-29 below.

Table A-28 Honours Enrolments (Math/Stats Depts)

Honours enrolments

Pure Maths

Applied Maths

Statistics

Operations Research

Other

1992

21 (21)

9 (9)

13.5 (13.5)

26.5 (5.5)

23 (3)

1997

16 (16)

14 (14)

12 (12)

22 (2)

59.5 (1)

Expected 2002

21 (21)

30 (30)

26 (16)

33 (5)

93 (2)

4 Departments were coded as either zero enrolments or not responding to this question.

Table A-29 Masters Enrolments (Math/Stats Depts)

Masters enrolments

Pure Maths

Applied Maths

Statistics

Operations Research

Other

1992

11 (11)

26 (26)

12 (12)

3 (1)

38 (1)

1997

16 (16)

31 (31)

50 (47)

4 (1)

93 (22)

Expected 2002

17 (17)

47 (47)

39 (34)

10.5 (5.5)

118 (17)

2 Departments were coded as either zero enrolments or not responding to this question.

Approximately 70% (64% Maths/Stats Depts) of Masters students came from the same University, 12% (18% Maths/Stats Depts) from other NZ universities and 18% (18% Maths/Stats Depts) from overseas. (5 Departments were coded as either zero or not responding to this question.)

Department's Research Activities

Question 7a asked "what are the Department's current major research strengths in the mathematical sciences?" Responses were provided by all 22 respondent Departments. As might be expected, these varied greatly in detail. A broad summary is given in Table A-30 below.

Table A-30 Major research strengths

Mathematics Research Area

Departments strong in this area

Statistics, Operations Research

11

Applicable Mathematics

8

Mathematics Applications

5

Pure Mathematics

4

Econometrics

2

Note that some Departments are strong in more than one area.

Question 7b asked what collaborative research activities are under way in other disciplines within the same university. All respondents except one had collaborative programmes. Table A-31 broadly summarises these activities.

Table A-31 Internal Collaboration

Collaborative Activities

Departments involved

Mathematics Applications

14

Statistics, Operations Research

5

Computer Science

3

Econometrics

3

Business, Finance

2

Question 7c asked what significant changes are expected in research strengths in the next 5 years. The most frequently-cited changes were in Statistics/OR (5 departments) and consequences of improvements in computers (4). Four Departments predicted a weakening or no change in their research strengths.

Question 7d requested the number of continuing (permanent) academic staff who published at least five refereed mathematics papers in the last five years. For the 22 respondents to this question there was a total of 189.4, 66% (104, 60%, Maths/Stats Depts) of such staff.

Research Funding

Question 8a asked what fraction of academic staff time was allocated to research. This varied between 0 and 50% with a mean of 28% and mode of 40% (6 Departments). For Mathematics/Statistics Departments the mean was 30% with a range of variation between 10 and 15%.

Question 8b asked about competitive grants held in 1997. These are summarised in Table A-32 below.

Table A-32 Competitive Grants in Mathematical Sciences (Maths/Stats Depts)

 

Number of Grants

Total Dollars ($000)

PGSF

8 (5)

584 (414)

Marsden

27 (26)

1929 (1929)

Lottery Science

0 (0)

0 (0)

Lottery Health

4 (0)

32 (0)

Other

56 (6)

3034 (0)

Either zero grants or no response was coded for 7 Departments.

Question 8c asked for percentage splits of departmental research time, summarised below in Table A-33 .

Table A-33 Departmental Research Time Allocation (Maths/Stats Depts)

 

Vote Education Funded

Competitive grants

Other

Fundamental Research

20% (33%)

4% (9%)

0% (0%)

Applied Research

48% (44%)

18% (12%)

10% (2%)

3 of the Departments were coded either as doing no research or having no response to this question.

11 (3, Math/Stats Depts) Departments said that funding availability affected the choice of their research topics and 9 (3, Math/Stats Depts) said that it did not (Question 8d). Predominantly, those affected noted that funding was available only for certain classes of projects and they could not support the other classes. Two Departments commented that projects requiring expensive equipment were not possible. Two of the 22 Departments did not respond to this question.

Question 8e asked about significant constraints on research plans for the next 5 years. The main constraints, by a clear majority, were funding/budgetary (7 respondents) and high teaching load (7 respondents).

Question 9 requested the amount spent in the last 12 months in various categories to support the Department's research needs. The totals over all 22 respondents are given in Table A-34 below.

Table A-34 Expenditure on Research Needs ($000) (Maths/Stats Depts)

Computing Hardware

761 (486)

Computing system support, programming

361 (224)

Training (eg software) and conferences

148 (57)

Travel by staff members

393 (248)

Research assistants (excl PhD or PostDoc)

524 (182)

Visitors

332 (226)

Other financial support

695 (40)

Total

3,214 (1,463)

In elaborating on the above, respondents noted that limitations of computing equipment was by far the most predominant factor constraining research activities. Space, travel funds and lack of research assistants were also each mentioned by more than one Department.

Academic Activities

10 (5 Maths/Stats Depts) Departments reported knowledge of emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that will impact on their future activities. 7 (0 Maths/Stats Depts) had no such knowledge (Question 10a. Four abstentions). Most commonly cited was the impact of much more powerful computers and the new research hence made accessible including the development of new mathematical methods to exploit these computers, also advances in statistics, simulation and modelling.

9 (4 Maths/Stats Depts) respondents reported they had academic staff with sufficient expertise to become conversant and knowledgeable in these emerging areas, 3 (2, Maths/Stats Depts) said they did not and 1 (1) said `yes and no' (Question 10b. Nine abstentions,). However 12 (5, Maths/Stats Depts) respondents said that they would need additional academic staff to ensure appropriate future capabilities in emerging areas compared with 6 (2, Maths/Stats Depts) who would not (Question 10c. Four abstentions). Of those who would not, 3 said it was because there was "no chance", presumably rather than that there was not a need for more staff!

Question 10d asked if Departments sought external input or critique for all or part of their academic activities. All 22 respondents answered. 27% (25%, Maths/Stats Depts) had external critique for all activities, 41% (25%, Maths/Stats Depts) for part of their activities and 32% (50%, Maths/Stats Depts) for none. Few provided further comment, but of those that did, half cited significant benefit while the other half thought there was little benefit.

Consulting

Internal

9, 41% (4, 50%, Maths/Stats Depts) of the respondents provided a mathematical/statistical consulting service within their University, 13, 59% (4, 50%, Maths/Stats Depts) did not. Among the nine there were a total of 24.6 FTE (10.5, Maths/Stats Depts) academic staff providing the internal consulting services. In 1992 there was a total of 460 projects, and in 1997 there were 616. The projected number of projects in 2002 was 573. Although requested, only two Departments could provide estimates of the revenue from internal consulting (each of the order of $10,000)

External

Question 13 asked about external consulting, ie outside the Department's own university. 12 of the 22 respondents (55%) provided figures (6 of 8, 75%, Maths/Stats Depts), implying such activity. The results are totalled in Table A-35 below.

Table A-35 External Consulting Projects (Maths/Stats Depts)

 

Number of Projects

Revenue ($000)

1992

96 (42)

596 (481)

1997

100 (64)

352 (186)

2002

124 (124)

500 (440)

External consulting was reported in a wide range of sectors with no particular group evident.

Use of Packages.

Question 12 asked if the incorrect use of mathematical/statistical packages was a problem in the Department. 8 (4, Maths/Stats Depts) said "yes", 10 (3) "no" and one (0) "yes and no". (Three abstentions.) There was little additional comment on this.

General Comments

Question 14 invited Departments to make any other points relevant to the Review of Mathematical Sciences. The following are extracted without change:

The MOE funding cost category for Mathematics must be improved. Collaborative research: The mathematical component of group research projects needs to be fully recognised and fully funded.

We are concerned about the ability or rather the lack thereof, of typical medical graduates to understand basic mathematical notation and writing. Since these people are meant to be the intellectual elite, we fear for the situation in other areas. It seems difficult for research in infra-structure subjects like mathematics and statistics to be recognised as "real" research.

Many subject-matter-researchers (at least in health research) appear to view statistics as a static subject about which all that can be known is already known. Consequently applied statistics and data analysis is viewed as an exercise in selecting "appropriate" options from a set of canned routines. This attitude is responsible for the extraordinarily slow uptake of new statistical technology, and contributes to the slow rate of progress in health research.


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.5 Responses from Polytechnics

Introduction

This group consisted of 38 polytechnics and tertiary institutions throughout New Zealand. It did not include Industry Training Organisations. There were 9 responses, giving a response rate of 23.7%, which is insufficient for an accurate assessment of all such New Zealand institutions, especially given N=38 is a small population size. The response rate is also too small for any accurate quantitative information, other than on a case study basis.

Responses

Only nine responses were obtained from Departments of Polytechnics. However these covered a range of fields utilising the mathematical sciences.

Academic Staff

Table A-36 shows a breakdown of the academic staff by age and sex.

Table A-36 Academic Staff by age and sex

Age

Men

Women

Total 1997

Total 2002

<25

1

0

1

3

26-30

1

1

2

3

31-35

3.15

3

6.15

6

36-40

2.7

0.5

3.2

6.7

41-45

7

5.6

12.6

9.7

46-50

7

1

8

11

51-55

6.3

1

7.3

10

56-60

2

1

3

5

>60

0.6

0

0.6

0

Totals

30.75

13.1

43.85

54.4

There were no Maori reported on Academic staff.

Support Staff

A total of 7.3 FTE support staff were reported (Question 2), although there were four coded either as zero or abstentions to this question.

Overseas Visitors (Question 3)

18 short-term (< 1 week) and 5 longer-term visitors were reported for the preceding year.

Degree Programmes

5 respondents said they had degree programmes and 4 that they did not. The mathematics units of these varied from elementary in support of less-mathematical disciplines to requirements for engineering and science.

Research

Question 5a requested the Department's major research strengths. These included statistics, engineering, and physics and use of mathematics in teaching and business. There were no explicit reports of collaborative research (Question 5b).

Question 5c asked about changes in research strengths over the next five years. Two respondents said research would decrease but others expected more development of research capability.

From the 9 respondents, 11 FTE academic staff have published at least five papers in the last five years.

Research Funding

Only two respondents reported academic staff time allocated to research (10% and 20% response) (Question 6a).

No competitive grants were reported for 1997 (Question 6b).

It was not possible to calculate a meaningful answer to Question 6c, the percentage split of research time vs fundamental and applied research and vote Education vs Competitive grants due to lack of participation.

Two respondents said funding availability affected choice of research topics while 5 said it did not (perhaps because they do not have research programmes?) (Question 6d).

Three respondents cited teaching workloads as the constraints on research activities (Question 6e).

Question 7 asked about money spent on supporting research needs. 6 respondents provided information under this heading (which suggests a bit more research than implied by the responses above!). The totals are given below in Table A-37.

Table A-37 Expenditure on Research Needs ($000)

Computing Hardware

14

Computing system support, programming

4

Training (eg software) and conferences

5

Travel by staff members

5

Research assistants (excl PhD or PostDoc)

0

Visitors

0.5

Other financial support

1.6

Total

17.5

Question 8d asked if there was external input for all or part of the group's academic activities. None reported external input to all activities but 4 had external input for part of their activities. 3 respondents had no external input at all. The external inputs were mainly formal programme reviews and exam moderation. Two respondents mentioned cooperation with other polytechnics and a University.

Consulting

4 of the respondents provide mathematical/statistical consulting within their institutions, 5 do not (Question 9). This involves a total of 4.1 FTE academic staff (but one of the providers, code 18, was coded as a zero, and of the 4.1, 3 FTE's were attributed to one respondent).

Institutions were also asked to provide details of numbers of projects, revenue, and anticipated data for 2002 but there were insufficient responses for any useful summary.

There was only one response to the same question (11) for external consulting. This respondent had 13 external projects in 1997 and expected 20 in 2002 with revenue of $100,000. This organisation has formal arrangements for work in industry as part of courses.

General Comments

Institutions were invited to make any other points relevant to the Review of Mathematical Sciences. The following is extracted without change:


The Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2


A2.6 Abbreviated questionnaires

Each questionnaire started with an introduction explaining the purpose of the survey, giving some clarification of the intended meaning of mathematical sciences for the purposes of the survey, and any other explanatory material judged to be necessary for the purpose at hand. For the sake of brevity this introductory material has been cut out of the individual documents except for that used for User Organisations which is reproduced verbatim. In addition, questions relating only to the administration of the survey have been omitted, together with detailed instructions concerning the format of the responses to individual questions. Many questions contained frames for tabular entries; these also have not been reproduced below.


Review of Mathematical Sciences in New Zealand

Chair Professor Jeffrey J Hunter
Dean, Faculty of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North
Tel (06) 350 5082
fax (06) 350 2258
email j.hunter@massey.ac.nz

BACKGROUND

The Ministry of Research, Science and Technology as the main policy advisory agency to the government for research, science and technology wants to know the nature and extent of the current and future anticipated uses of mathematics in New Zealand. The Ministry have contracted me, as Chair of the Mathematical and Information Sciences Standing Committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand, to carry out a review of mathematical sciences in New Zealand.

Part of the review process involves a survey. Different questionnaires are being sent to various sectors (universities, polytechnics, research organisations, professional associations and user groups in industry, business and government) to determine the current situation and to predict future requirements in manpower, resources, activity and developments in the mathematical sciences in each of these different sectors. We would greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide this information to ensure we get a clear picture of these needs in New Zealand. Overleaf we have clarified the range of "mathematical Sciences" covered by this review.

Where necessary, it would be appreciated that this questionnaire be redirected to the appropriate groups within your organisation involved with the "mathematical sciences" (e.g. mathematics/statistics/operations research/quality assurance sections). If there are no such groups within your organisation, we would appreciate a response on behalf of your organisation as a whole.

This questionnaire generally seeks both qualitative and quantitative information about your views on mathematics based activities. We would like to identify areas of need an insight into opportunities and emerging trends. Please feel free to elaborate on our answers. A copy of the overall terms of reference of the review is attached as an appendix to the questionnaire.

Your responses will be held confidential. Respondents are invited to maintain contact through the review process. A copy of the final report will be provided to respondents.

Regional half day presentations will be held in Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin in November when initial survey results will be discussed., We hope that you would be able to attend to present additional input and to assist with formulation of recommendations and findings. These will be submitted to the Ministry in the final report.

Thank you for taking the time to read this information. It would be appreciated if the completed questionnaires could be returned by mid-October at the latest.

Please return your response using, FREEPOST Number 9949, to:

Professor Jeffrey J Hunter
Chair, Review of Mathematical Sciences
Dean, Faculty of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Massey University
Private Bag 11 222
Palmerston North


INFORMATION TO HELP YOU RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Throughout the questionnaire, "mathematical sciences" is interpreted broadly: it relates to

At its simplest level mathematics related activity makes use of mathematical functions in spreadsheets, or summarising information in the form of statistics such as means, totals, rations, percentages.

Mathematics is sometimes not obviously visible in many day to day activities, but nevertheless it is often present in an underpinning role.

At higher levels, mathematical activities include such practical examples as:

Secretariat

Prof JJ Hunter (Chair), (Massey University)
Dr MS Bebbington (Massey University)
Dr MR Carter (Massey University)
Assoc Prof SJ Haslett (Massey University)
Mrs J Thompson (JAD Associates)
Prof D Vere-Jones (Victoria University of Wellington)


A2.6.1 User Organisations

3. What are the key activities of your unit/organisation (eg engineering, software design, marketing, etc)?

4. Approximately how large is your unit/organisation, in number of staff, and turnover ($ of sales/revenue per annum).

5. Where are mathematical sciences used in your unit/organisation?

6. In your opinion, what kind of mathematical sciences are most used in your unit/organisation.

7. We are trying to collect information about opportunities/savings (or costs) caused by good (or poor) use of quantitative methods, including cases where losses were caused by not using quantitative methods. Please provide information on any specific instances of this kind that you are aware of or that could be followed up by the Review. A rough quantification in dollar terms would be useful.

External Suppliers

8a. Does your unit/organisation currently contract external suppliers of mathematical science services?

8b. If you have external suppliers of mathematical sciences, please describe what services they provide.

8c. If you use external suppliers of mathematical and statistical expertise are you satisfied that you are getting value for money?

8d. Give examples of other types of mathematical science services you would use if available?

8e. Please suggest ways to improve your linkages to external suppliers of mathematical science services.

Developments in Mathematical Sciences

9. Do you have a need for expertise in the mathematical sciences which is not currently available within your unit/organisation? If YES, give examples.

10. Does your unit/organisation anticipate additional needs for mathematical science expertise over the next ten years? If YES, what?

11. Do you have any knowledge of emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that may impact on the future activities of your unit/organisation? If YES, please give details.

12. Can you identify any implications of new technologies, for example, in computing, information and communications in your use of mathematics? If YES, please elaborate.

Staffing (only in relation to those staff in your unit/organisation that are engaged in mathematical science activity)

13. Approximately how many staff in your unit/organisation provide expertise in the following levels of mathematical sciences as part of their work? (Please state the number of staff involved at the highest level that they make their contribution: (i) to produce summary information through computer packages, spreadsheets or similar; (ii) at a level that requires detailed interpretation of information in (i) above; (iii) at a level that requires a strong tertiary background in mathematical sciences; (iv) at a level that requires development of new mathematical science techniques.

14. For staff involved with mathematical science activities at levels (iii) and (iv), what are their highest level of study in the mathematical sciences? Please give numbers.

15. Approximately, what percentage of your unit/organisation resources are expended on mathematical science related activities?

16. Approximately, what percentage of your unit/organisation’s revenue is dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences?


A2.6.2 Research Organisations

3. What are the key activities of your unit/organisation?

4. Approximately how large is your unit/organisation. Number of staff? Annual budget?

5. Where are mathematical sciences used in your unit/organisation?

6. In your opinion, what kind of mathematical sciences are most used in your unit/organisation?

7. We are trying to collect information about opportunities/savings (or costs) caused by good (or poor) use of quantitative methods, including cases where losses were caused by not using quantitative methods. Please provide information on any specific instances of this kind that you are aware of or that could be followed up by the Review. A rough quantification in dollar terms would be useful.

External Suppliers

8a. Does your unit/organisation currently contract external suppliers of mathematical sciences?

8b. If you have external suppliers of mathematical sciences, please describe what mathematical science services they provide?

8c. If you use outside suppliers of mathematical science expertise are you satisfied that you are getting value for money?

8d. Give examples of other types of mathematical science services you would use from external suppliers if available?

8e. Please suggest ways to improve your linkages to external suppliers of mathematical services.

Developments in Mathematical Sciences

9. Do you have a need for expertise in the mathematical sciences which is not currently available within your unit/organisation? If YES, what?

10. Does your unit/organisation anticipate additional needs for mathematical science expertise over the next ten years? If YES, what?

11. Do you have any knowledge of emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that may impact on the future activities of your unit/organisation? If YES, please give details.

12. Can you identify any implications of new technologies, for example, in computing, information and communications in your use of mathematics? If YES, please elaborate.

Staffing (only in relation to those staff in your unit/organisation that are engaged in mathematical science activity)

13. Approximately how many staff in your unit/organisation provide expertise in the following levels of mathematical sciences as part of their work? (Please state the number of staff involved at the highest level that they make their contribution (i) to produce summary information through computer packages, spreadsheets or similar, (ii) at a level that requires detailed interpretation of information in (i) above, (iii) at a level that requires a strong tertiary background in mathematical sciences, (iv) at a level that requires development of new mathematical science techniques.)

14. For staff involved with mathematical science activities at levels (iii) and (iv), what are their highest level of study in the mathematical sciences? Please give numbers.

15. The following question, and its parts, refer to the staff who work at levels (iii) and (iv) as described in question 13. Please give, divided into men and women: (a) total number of staff; (b) total number of staff over the age of 55; (c) total number of Maori staff; (d) total number of staff expected in 2002. Can you provide some reasons for your prediction in (d)?

16. We are interested in the typical pattern of the distribution of ages of the numbers of your staff who work at levels (iii) and (iv), as described in question 13.

A: More staff are under age 45 than are over 45.

B: About half the staff are under age 45 and half are over 45.

C: More staff are over age 45 than are under 45.

(a) The distribution of men in 1997 is best described by A, B or C?

(b) The distribution of women in 1997 is best described by A, B or C?

Funding Sources

17a. What are the sources of research funding for your unit/organisation?

17b. Please state approximate percentage of total funding derived from the following funding sources for your unit/organisation: base internal support (overheads etc); internal consulting activity (within the organisation); external consulting activity (outside the organisation); research grants; other.

18. Approximately, what percentage of your unit/organisation resources are expended on mathematical science related activities?

19. Approximately, what percentage of your unit/organisation's revenue is dependent on the input from the mathematical sciences?


A2.6.3 Professional Associations

3. If possible, provide the following details about your membership: percentage residing in New Zealand; percentage of student members (up to and including PhD students); percentage of female members; percentage of Maori members; anticipated number of members in 2002.

I expect this association's membership between now and 2007 to increase/decrease/stay same.

4. What are your annual membership fees?

5. What is the approximate annual budget for the association?

Association Activities

6a. Describe the main activities of your association.

6b. How do you see that these activities will change over the next ten years, particularly in the light of developments in computing and information technology?

6c. Describe overseas linkages (such as reciprocal arrangements, participation in international bodies, etc) of your association.

6d. What services does your association provide for your members? For example, newsletter, journal, conferences, training opportunities (please describe).

6e. Workshops for specific sections (please describe).

6f. Support for young members (please describe).

6g. Opportunities for publicising the central discipline of your association (please describe).

6h. Responding to calls for submissions from government organisation and committees.

6i. Other (please describe).

6j. Do you have an established code of ethics?

6k. Do you have accreditation?

6l. If so, what % of your members are accredited?

6m. Do you have paid staff?

Provision of Mathematical Science Services

7a. Describe the principal ways, if any, by which members of your association provide services that involve the mathematical sciences.

7b. Describe how your association supports provision of mathematical science services by your members.

7c. What do you see as the principal impediments in New Zealand to provision of mathematical science services by your members?

7d. If possible, suggest policy initiatives that would enhance provision of mathematical science services by your members.

Research Activities

8a. Describe the main research activities of your members which use mathematical sciences. Include in your response collaborative research activities with other disciplines.

8b. How does such research undertaken by your members advance the national interest? Please be as specific as possible in your answer, including case studies if appropriate.

8c. Describe how your association supports these research interests of members?

8d. What do you see as the principal impediments to such research interests of your members?

8e. If possible, suggest policy initiatives that would advance these mathematical sciences related research interests of your members.

Use of Mathematical Sciences in Business and Industry

9a. In your opinion, what areas of the mathematical sciences are most used by business and industry at present?

9b. In your opinion, what areas of the mathematical sciences will be most used by business and industry in 2007?

Future Developments in the Mathematical Sciences

10. Do you have any knowledge of emerging areas of the mathematical sciences that may impact on the future activities of members of your association? If yes, please elaborate.


A2.6.4 Universities

Academic staff details

1. Please provide details as requested estimating changes expected between 1997 and 2002.

Age distribution of continuing (i.e. permanent) academic staff members in your department, expressed as full time equivalents, the number of men and women, and the number of Maori staff.

2. Distribution of levels of appointment for equivalent full-time academic staff members, continuing and fixed term broken down by sex.

3. Number of equivalent full-time support staff in 1997 (secretarial, administration, computer support, technical support, etc).

4a. Number of short term overseas visitors (< 1 week) during the last year?

4b. Number of longer term overseas visitors (= 1 week) during the last five years?

5. Postgraduate Students (PhD)

Number of full-time and part-time PhD students in pure maths, applied maths, statistics, operations research and other in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual), and 2002 (expected).

Explain the reasons for your projections.

Please give the source of PhD candidates within your department in the mathematical sciences.

How many PhD degrees have been awarded through your department since 1992 in pure mathematics, applied mathematics, statistics, operations research and other.

Where possible, provide details of the initial employment of these PhD graduates. (Indicate with numbers in the employment sectors: university (NZ), other teaching (NZ), CRI (NZ), other research organisations (NZ), business/industry (NZ), other (NZ), and overseas according to PhD topic area.

What efforts, if any, does your department make to encourage graduates into post-graduate programmes.

6. Postgraduate Students

Does your department offer Honours programmes?

Does your department offer Masters programmes?

Number of honours enrolments in pure maths, applied maths, statistics, operations research and other in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual) and 2002 (expected).

Number of masters enrolments in pure maths, applied maths, statistics, operations research and other in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual) and 2002 (expected).

Explain the reasons for your projections.

Please give the source of your masters candidates in the mathematical sciences.

Research in your department

7a. What are your department's current major research strengths in the mathematical sciences?

7b. What collaborative research activities are under way with other disciplines within your university?

7c. What significant changes do you expect to the research strengths of your department over the next five years?

7d. Please indicate the number of continuing full-time, i.e. permanent, academic staff in your group who have published at least five papers in the last five years (refereed journal articles, chapters in books, etc) that have mathematical content. (Please pro-rate for staff with fewer than five years tenure.)

Research Funding

8a. What fraction of academic staff time in your department is nominally allocated to research?

8b. What competitive grants are held by your department in 1997. Please itemise.

8c. Provide the percentage splits of total departmental research time according to fundamental/applied research and funding source.

8d. Is funding availability affecting the choice of research topics in your department? If YES, please give details.

8e. Describe any possible significant constraints to your department's research plans for the next five years.

9. State the amount in dollars that was spent in the last 12 months supporting the research needs of your department in the categories: computing hardware, computing system support and programming, training (eg advanced software courses) and conference registrations, travel by your staff members, research assistants (other than PhD or post-doctoral), visitors, other financial support (for what purpose?).

Which if any of the above expenditure categories are currently constraining your research activities?

Does your department's future research needs have resource requirements that are currently not available (e.g. computing)? Please give details.

Academic Activities

10a. Does your department have knowledge of any emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that will impact on its future activities? If YES, please elaborate.

10b. Does your department have academic staff with sufficient expertise to become conversant and knowledgeable in these emerging areas? If NO, please elaborate.

10c. Will your department require the appointment of additional academic staff to ensure that it has appropriate future capabilities in emerging areas? If YES, please give details.

10d. Do you seek some form of external input or critique for all or part of the academic activities of your department? Please give details (origin, frequency of contact, etc). What impact has this had?

Internal Consulting

11. Does your department provide a mathematical/statistical consulting service within the University? If so, how many equivalent full-time academic staff provide this service? Give the number of internal projects, and the total internal consulting revenue receivable in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual), and 2002 (expected).

12. Is the incorrect use of mathematical/statistical computing packages a problem in your institution? Please elaborate, if possible.

External Consulting

13. Quantify the external mathematical/statistical consulting from within your department according to the number of external projects, and the total consulting revenue receivable, in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual) and 2002 (expected).

Name the sector(s) in which current projects are mainly focussed (eg health, agriculture, etc).

Name the sector(s) in which expected future projects will be focussed.

Do you have any potentially useful technical expertise in your department which is not being used or expected to be used in the future, that could be directed to consulting activities in the future? Please give details.

What do you see as the disadvantages/benefits to your department of external consulting?

Cite any success stories in mathematical/statistical links your department has made.

If possible, provide specific cost-benefit information about implementation in individual instances.

What specific measures have you introduced, if any, to train graduates in developing and maintaining external consulting links?

14. Do you have any other points you wish to make in response to this review of mathematical sciences in New Zealand?

16. Could you provide a list of journal titles, and the number of papers published in each, by members of your department for 1995 and 1996? (Alternatively, a photocopy of the research publication list of staff in your department over the past two years would suffice.)


A2.6.5 Polytechnics

1. Academic staff details

Please provide details as requested estimating changes expected between 1997 and 2002.

Age distribution of continuing (i.e. permanent) academic staff members in your group, expressed as full time equivalents, and the number of Maori staff.

2. Number of equivalent full-time support staff in 1997 (secretarial, administration, computer support, technical support, etc).

3a. Number of short term overseas visitors (< 1 week) during the last year.

3b. Number of longer term overseas visitors (= 1 week) during the last five years.

4. Do you have degree programmes? Please describe.

Research in your group

5a. What are your group's current major research strengths?

5b. What collaborative research activities are under way with other disciplines within your institution?

5c. What significant changes do you expect to the research strengths of your group over the next five years?

5d. Please indicate the number of continuing full-time, i.e. permanent, academic staff in your group who have published at least five papers in the last five years (refereed journal articles, chapters in books, etc) that have mathematical content. (Please pro-rate for staff with fewer than five years tenure.)

Research Funding

6a. What fraction of academic staff time in your group is nominally allocated to research?

6b. What competitive grants are held by your group in 1997? Please itemise.

6c. Provide the percentage splits of total group research time across fundamental/applied research, and by funding source.

6d. Is funding availability affecting the choice of research topics in your group? If YES, please give details.

6e. Describe any possible significant constraints to your group's research plans for the next five years.

7. State the amount in dollars that was spent in the last 12 months supporting the research needs of your group in the following categories: computing hardware; computing system support and programming; training (eg advanced software courses) and conference registrations; travel by your staff members; research assistants; visitors; other financial support (for what purpose?).

Which if any of the above expenditure categories are currently constraining your research activities?

Does the future research needs of your group have resource requirements that are currently not available (e.g. computing requirements)? Please give details.

Academic Activities

8a. Does your group have knowledge of any emerging areas in the mathematical sciences that will impact on its future activities? If YES, please elaborate.

8b. Does your group have academic staff with sufficient expertise to become conversant and knowledgeable in these emerging areas? If NO, please elaborate.

8c. Will your group require the appointment of additional academic staff to ensure that it has appropriate future capabilities in emerging areas? If YES, please give details.

8d. Do you seek some form of external input or critique for all or part of the academic activities of your group? Please give details (origin, frequency of contact, etc). What impact has this had?

Internal Consulting

9. Does your group provide a mathematical/statistical consulting service within your institution?

If so, how many equivalent full-time academic staff provide this service? What is the number of internal projects, and the total consulting revenue receivable, in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual) and 2002 (expected).

10. Is the incorrect use of mathematical/statistical computing packages a problem in your institution?

Please elaborate, if possible.

External Consulting

11. Quantify the external mathematical/statistical consulting from within your group as to the number of external projects, and the total consulting revenue receivable, in 1992 (actual), 1997 (actual) and 2002 (expected).

Name the sector(s) in which expected future projects will be focussed.

Do you have any potentially useful technical expertise in your group which is not being used or expected to be used in the future, that could be directed to consulting activities in the future? Please give details.

What do you see as the disadvantages/benefits to your group of external consulting?

Cite any success stories in mathematical/statistical links your group has made.

If possible, provide specific cost-benefit information about implementation in individual instances.

What specific measures have you introduced to train graduates in developing and maintaining external consulting links?

12. Do you have any other points you wish to make in response to this review of mathematical sciences in New Zealand?


Last modified 14 July 1998. Final Version
Edith.Hodgen@vuw.ac.nz