D
Summary of Responses to
Web-Based Questionnaire1
Please select one of the following options that best describes you:
Research performer, educator, extension leader, or grant seeker (researcher from academic, government, non-profit, or other institutions) |
524 | 90.8% |
Research user from government or industry |
34 | 5.9% |
Agricultural or forest producer and related professional society |
19 | 3.3% |
Total Responses |
577 | |
Research Performers - Type of Institution: |
||
1862 Land Grant University |
387 | 75.2% |
1890 Land Grant University |
39 | 7.6% |
1994 Land Grant University |
4 | 0.8% |
Public Non-Land Grant |
30 | 5.8% |
Private University/College |
12 | 2.3% |
Private Research |
7 | 1.4% |
Federal |
30 | 5.8% |
2.3% | ||
Other |
12 | |
Australian Government |
(1) | |
Botanic Garden |
(1) | |
M&O for NSF’s FFRDC |
(1) |
_______________
1Responses from all respondents are available upon request through the National Academies Public Access Records Office for this study.
Multiple of above |
(1) | |
Non-profit |
(2) | |
Public University |
(2) | |
Scientific Professional Society |
(1) | |
State Experiment Station |
(1) | |
Total Responses |
521 | |
Area of Research |
||
Agronomy |
41 | 7.9% |
Animal science |
87 | 16.8% |
Crop science |
52 | 10.1% |
Economics |
26 | 5.0% |
Food science |
48 | 9.3% |
Nutrition |
40 | 7.7% |
Plant science |
106 | 20.5% |
Renewable energy, natural resources and environment |
75 | 14.5% |
Sociology |
26 | 5.0% |
Soil science |
29 | 5.6% |
Veterinary science |
41 | 7.9% |
Weed science |
32 | 6.2% |
Other |
158 | |
Agricultural Law |
(1) | |
Agricultural Literacy |
(1) | |
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources Research |
(1) | |
Anthropology |
(1) | |
Aquaculture |
(1) | |
Atmospheric Sciences |
(1) | |
Biochemistry and Cell Biology |
(1) | |
Biologicals |
(1) | |
Biology |
(1) | |
Carbohydrate |
(1) | |
Communication |
(1) | |
Community/Economic Development |
(1) | |
Family Science |
(1) | |
Cropping Systems |
(1) | |
Demography |
(1) | |
Ecology |
(1) | |
Education |
(6) | |
Adult/Extension Education |
(3) | |
4-H and Youth Development |
(4) | 30.6% |
Engineering |
(3) | |
Agricultural |
(5) | |
Biological |
(1) | |
Food |
(2) | |
Food Processing |
(1) | |
Entomology |
(25) | |
Pest Management |
(3) | |
IPM |
(2) |
Environmental Risk Assessment |
(1) | |
Environmental Science |
(1) | |
Feed Extrusion |
(1) | |
Food Safety |
(4) | |
Food System |
(1) | |
Natural Resources |
(2) | |
Forestry |
(5) | |
Policy |
(1) | |
Products |
(1) | |
Wildlife Management |
(5) | |
Genetics |
(2) | |
GIS |
(1) | |
Immunology |
(1) | |
Health and Wellness |
(1) | |
Public Health |
(1) | |
Horticulture |
(19) | |
Hospitality Management |
(1) | |
Infectious Diseases |
(1) | |
Meat Science |
(1) | |
Microbiology |
(3) | |
Food Microbiology |
(1) | |
Molecular Biology |
(1) | |
Pathology |
(1) | |
Plant |
(11) | |
Poultry Science |
(2) | |
Public Administration |
(1) | |
Remote Sensing |
(1) | |
Research Administrator |
(1) | |
Supply Chain Management |
(1) | |
University Engagement |
(1) | |
Vector Biology |
(1) | |
Virology |
(1) | |
Water |
(1) | |
Quality |
(1) | |
Wood Science |
(1) | |
Fundamental Animal Science |
0 | 0.0% |
Fundamental Plant Science |
0 | 0.0% |
Total Responses |
517 |
Principal agencies/organizations (including federal and state agencies, charitable or nonprofit organizations, and private corporations) that have supported your research
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
74 | 14.9% |
National Science Foundation (NSF) |
120 | 24.1% |
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) |
421 | 84.5% |
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) |
77 | 15.5% |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |
58 | 11.7% |
Charitable Foundation |
92 | 18.5% |
Private Sector |
265 | 53.2% |
Other |
130 | 26.1% |
All of the above |
(1) | |
Federal Agencies |
||
APHIS |
(1) | |
ARS |
(1) | |
BARD |
(2) | |
BLM |
(1) | |
CAPES (Brazil) |
(1) | |
CDC |
(1) | |
Commerce |
(1) | |
CSREES |
(1) | |
DAFF (Australia) |
(1) | |
DHS |
(2) | |
DOD |
(10) | |
DOI |
(1) | |
Education |
(1) | |
ESTCP |
(1) | |
DOL |
(1) | |
DOT |
(2) | |
FDA |
(2) | |
FHWA |
(1) | |
FWS |
(2) | |
HHS |
(1) | |
HUD |
(1) | |
HRSA |
(1) | |
NASA |
(3) | |
NOAA |
(2) | |
OSM |
(1) | |
SERDP |
(1) | |
USAID |
(1) | |
USBR |
(1) | |
USGS |
(1) | |
State Agencies |
(17) | |
Department of Agriculture |
(10) | |
Natural Resources |
(6) | |
Military Branches |
||
U.S. Navy |
(1) | |
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
(1) | |
Check Off Funds |
(4) | |
Commodity Organizations |
(15) | |
Industry |
(10) | |
International Governments |
(2) | |
Land-Grant Universities |
(3) | |
National Academy of Sciences |
(1) | |
None of the above |
(1) | |
Nonprofit |
(1) | |
Private Foundation |
(2) | |
Public/Private Agency |
(1) | |
SeaGrant |
(1) | |
Total Responses |
498 |
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE RESPONSES
For researchers that feel the AFRI process is unfair to some institutions, they believe so because:
• Larger institutions have access to more resources and administrative support, which alleviates the burden of managing paperwork and application materials for the researcher.
• The process favors land-grant institutions.
• Scope of RFPs and short turn-around time make it difficult for researchers to fit their proposal into the mold.
• Effort required for application is too burdensome for the amount of money awarded, when comparing to comparable process, such as NSF.
Researchers that thought the AFRI application process was difficult:
• Too lengthy and involved.
• Timing: Solicitation window is too small, and often given around the holidays, when people are busy.
• “Collaborative” requirement/preference makes it difficult to coordinate among team members.
Researchers that thought the pre-award and post-award periods were not handled well:
• Substantial delay between notification of award and disbursement.
• Communication issues between institutions and even among groups within the awarding institution.
Researchers that thought the panel review process was not helpful:
• Very little extension focus.
• Panelists do not always have appropriate expertise to review proposals.
• Panels are composed of experts in and tend to favor basic research instead of applied research.
• Panels can be derailed by strong personalities or researchers with specific agendas.