National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2019)

Chapter: Front Matter

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS EVALUATION OF THE MINERVA RESEARCH INITIATIVE Committee to Assess the Minerva Research Initiative and the Contribution of Social Science to Addressing Security Concerns Allen Schirm, Krisztina Marton, and Jeanne Rivard, Editors Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense (# ). Support for the work of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences is provided primarily by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. BCS- 1729167). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25482 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25482.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS COMMITTEE TO ASSESS THE MINERVA RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE TO ADDRESSING SECURITY CONCERNS ALLEN L. SCHIRM, (Chair), Mathematica Policy Research (retired) BURT S. BARNOW, The George Washington University KAREN S. COOK, Stanford University SUSAN E. COZZENS, Georgia Institute of Technology BARBARA ENTWISLE, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill IVY ESTABROOKE, PolarityTE, Inc. PAUL A. GADE, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (retired) ROBERT M. HAUSER, American Philosophical Society STEVEN G. HEERINGA, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research DANIEL R. ILGEN, Michigan State University VIRGINIA LESSER, Oregon State University ARTHUR LUPIA, University of Michigan* KATHRYN E. NEWCOMER, The George Washington University MARK L. WEISS, National Science Foundation (retired) KRISZTINA MARTON, Study Director JEANNE C. RIVARD, Senior Program Officer ANTHONY MANN, Program Associate ADRIENNE STITH BUTLER, Associate Board Director *Resigned from the committee effective September 1, 2018. v

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS BOARD ON BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, AND SENSORY SCIENCES SUSAN FISKE (Chair), Eugene Higgins Professor, Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University JOHN BAUGH, Margaret Bush Wilson Professor, Linguistics, Washington University, St. Louis LAURA CARTENSEN, Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr Professor, Public Policy, Department of Psychology, Stanford University JUDY DUBNO, Professor, Medical University of South Carolina JENNIFER EBERHARDT, Director and Research Professor, Institute for Social Research, Stanford University WILSON S. GEISLER, David Wechsler Professor of Psychology and Director, Center for Perceptual Systems, The University of Texas MICHELLE GELFAND, Professor of Psychology and Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland NANCY G. KANWISHER, Professor, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JANICE KIECOLT-GLASER, Distinguished University Professor, S. Robert Davis Chair of Medicine, and Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology, Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Ohio State University College of Medicine WILLIAM (BILL) MAUER, Professor of Anthropology, Law and Criminology, and Law and Society; Dean, School of Social Sciences; and Director, Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion, University of California, Irvine TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University ELIZABETH A PHELPS, Pershing Square Professor of Human Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Harvard University STEVEN E. PETERSEN, James S. McDonnell Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience in Neurology, Washington University DANA SMALL, Professor and Deputy Director, Yale University TIMOTHY J. STRAUMAN, Professor, Duke University BARBARA A. WANCHISEN, Board Director vi

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS Acknowledgments On behalf of the Committee to Assess the Minerva Research Initiative and the Contribution of Social Science to Addressing Security Concerns, we thank the many people who contributed their time and expertise to assist in the committee’s work and the preparation of this report. The study was initiated by the Department of Defense (DoD), under the leadership of then–director of the Basic Research Office, Robin Staffin, and Minerva Research Initiative interim director Lisa Troyer, and has greatly benefited from the input and continued support of DoD's senior management. We are particularly grateful to David Montgomery, current deputy director of the Minerva Research Initiative, for facilitating the work of the committee. DoD staff readily assisted the committee through presentations and responses to a large number of requests for background materials about the Minerva Research Initiative. We thank not only David Montgomery and Lisa Troyer, but also Bindu Nair, Kaleb Redden, Benjamin Knott, Gary Kollmorgen, and Martin Kruger. The committee is grateful for the input provided during our public sessions by Minerva grantees, national security experts, representatives of social science organizations, and staff from other government agencies, including (but not limited to) those who are named in Appendix G of the report. Special appreciation is extended to current and former DoD personnel, principal investigators of Minerva grants, and staff of academic offices of sponsored research who shared their valuable time by participating in interviews and surveys conducted by the committee for this evaluation. The committee also thanks Diana Hicks, Georgia Institute of Technology, for expert consultation on methods for evaluating research outputs. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Myron P. Gutmann, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder; Brian Nosek, Center for Open Science, University of Virginia; Sarah M. Nusser, Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University; Joy Rohde, Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; Alyson Wilson, Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University; C. Matthew Snipp, Department of Sociology and Stanford Secure Data Center, Stanford University; Robert J. Ursano, Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by report review coordinator Jonathan D. Moreno, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Health System and report review monitor Anita K. Jones, School of vii

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS Engineering, University of Virginia. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Finally, we thank the National Research Council staff who contributed to this study. We are grateful for the guidance and support received from Barbara Wanchisen, director of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (BBCSS); Adrienne Stith Butler, deputy director of BBCSS; Jeanne Rivard, senior program officer; Constance Citro, senior scholar with the Committee on National Statistics; and Brian Harris-Kojetin, director of the Committee on National Statistics. Kirsten Sampson Snyder expertly coordinated the review process, Rona Briere provided thoughtful editorial help, and Yvonne Wise shepherded the report through production. We thank program associate Anthony Mann for his good humor and many skills in providing logistical support for the committee’s meetings. We also thank the staff of the National Academies’ Research Center Library, Colleen Willis and Christopher Lao-Scott, for research support and assistance with the use of library resources during the evaluation. To conclude these acknowledgments, Allen would like to thank Krisztina for her exceptional contributions as study director. The evaluation would have been far less successful without her hard work and tremendous management and research skills. Collaborating on this study with Krisztina was a pleasure. Allen Schirm, Chair Krisztina Marton, Study Director viii

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS Acronyms AAA American Anthropological Association AFOSR Air Force Office of Scientific Research ARO Army Research Office ASD R&E Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering ASD SPC Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities BAA Broad Agency Announcement (for funding) BRO Basic Research Office DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency DHS Department of Homeland Security DoD Department of Defense FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement IRB Institutional Review Board MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRI Minerva Research Initiative NORC National Opinion Research Center NSF National Science Foundation ONR Office of Naval Research OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense OUSD Office of the Under Secretary of Defense OUSD-Policy Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy OUSD-R&E Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering SJR Scimago Journal Ranking ix

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS Contents Summary 1 Introduction History of the Minerva Research Initiative and Context for the Study Charge to the Committee 2 Overview of the Committee’s Information-Gathering Activities Reviews of Department of Defense and Other Public Records Interviews with Department of Defense Staff Grantee Survey Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research at Academic Institutions Minerva Conference Public Information-Gathering Sessions Limitations of the Committee’s Evaluation 3 Processes of the Minerva Program Overview of Program Processes Discussion of Minerva Program Processes 4 Research Supported by the Minerva Program: Quantity and Quality Review of Outputs of the Minerva Research Initiative Grants Stakeholder and Expert Perceptions of the Quality of Minerva Research Summary and Conclusions 5 Direction and Vision of the Minerva Program Making Better Use of Minerva Research and Researchers Discussion of Minerva’s Vision and Goals Increasing Social Scientists’ Engagement with the Program Developing Benchmarks for Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation References Appendixes A-1 2017 Preliminary Federal Obligations for Basic Research, by Agency and Field of Science and Engineering (dollars in thousands) A-2 2016 Federal Obligations for Basic Research Performed at Universities and Colleges in Social Sciences, by Selected Agency and Detailed Field (dollars in thousands) B Minerva Research Topics in Grant Announcements Issued between 2008 and 2018 C List of Minerva Grant Awards between 2009 and 2017 xi

PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS D Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff E Survey of Minerva Grantees F Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research G Individuals Who Provided Input during the Committee’s Public Meetings H Output Categories and Coding Notes I Publications and Presentations by Year (rounded to nearest whole number) J-1 Impact Metrics of Journals in Which Minerva Principal Investigators Reported Publishing J-2 Journals without Journal-Level Impact Factor Scores in Which Minerva Principal Investigators Published K Field-Weighted Citation Impact of Publications Reported by Principal Investigators L Universities with Minerva Grants: Classification of Research Institution Type Based on Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education M Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff xii

Next: Summary »
Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Minerva Research Initiative is a Department of Defense (DoD) social science grant program that funds unclassified basic research relevant to national security. The goal of the program is to make use of the intellectual capital of university-based social scientists to inform understanding of issues important to DoD and the broader national security community. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative discusses the program's successes and challenges over its first decade of operation, and highlights ways to strengthen the program’s foundations and take advantage of opportunities for broadening its reach and usefulness.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!