National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2020)

Chapter: Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff

« Previous: Appendix C: List of Minerva Grant Awards Between 20092017
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Appendix D

Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Interviews with Department of Defense staff and former staff associated with the Minerva Research Initiative were conducted using the semistructured interview guide below. Fourteen interviews were conducted by National Academies staff between September 4 and October 8, 2018. Interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 2 hours. For further discussion of the interviews, see Chapter 2.

INTERVIEW GUIDE

  1. In a few words, how would you describe your involvement with the Minerva program?
  2. Minerva has been around for about 10 years and supported a lot of research. First, we want to get your quick reactions to a couple of questions. In just a few words . . .
    1. What does Minerva do especially well?
    2. What would be your highest priorities for improving the performance of Minerva? Why?
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
  1. In which of the following areas would you describe the Minerva program as successful and which areas would benefit from improvement.
    1. contributing to the development of policy-relevant insights and tools for the national security community
    2. expanding networks of researchers interested in national security research
    3. expanding interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research
    4. connecting academic researchers to policymakers (for example, within the service branches, other parts of DoD, outside of DoD, as well as the executive and legislative branches)
    5. [ASK CURRENT PROGRAM DIRECTORS ONLY] creating organizational structures and processes to advance social science research around national security
  2. How would you describe the quality of the research funded by the Minerva program? What are the strengths and weaknesses?
  3. How has Minerva research been used by the service branches or DoD more broadly? Please provide some examples.
    • How have the service branches or DoD used the expertise of grantees (as opposed to the specific products of their research)? Examples?
    • Should and how could the service branches and DoD make better use of Minerva research products and the expertise of Minerva grantees?
  4. Now let’s discuss whether the right projects are being prioritized for national security needs broadly and for each service branch or whether improvements are needed.
    • How and why do priorities differ across the Office of the Secretary, other parts of DoD, and the services branches in selecting research topics and projects for funding? How are these priorities balanced?
    • When selecting projects, do you take a portfolio perspective, considering the other projects that will be awarded in the current year and the projects that were awarded in prior years? Or, is each project considered entirely on its own strengths and weaknesses?
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
    • What is the balance between scientific merit on the one hand, and on the other hand, potential for use and alignment with the research topics in selecting individual projects to fund and the full portfolio of projects?
      • What if you get a scientifically outstanding proposal that doesn’t align well with any topic?
      • Should the balance between scientific merit and potential for use be changed in selecting individual projects or building the portfolio of projects?
    • How could priority setting and project selection be improved?
  1. Is the Minerva program facing any challenges in generating interest among social science researchers, particularly young scholars? [IF YES]
    • What is the nature of these challenges? For example, is there a need for more quantity—more research or researchers—focused on topics of national security, or a need for better quality research or researchers, or something else?
    • What has been done so far to address these challenges and what else could be done?
  2. Considering the challenges and opportunities that we have been discussing, what would you say are the one, two, or three highest priorities in terms of changes that are needed to: 1) the vision of Minerva; 2) the process for setting priorities and selecting research topics; and 3) the selection of projects that are funded considering the specific purposes of more effectively meeting contemporary, changing national security challenges as well as the needs of each service branch?

    [PROGRAM MANAGERS ONLY]

    1. Please describe the processes that [ARO/ONR/AFOSR] is involved with in the current Minerva grant cycle. For each process, please describe the activities involved, the key participants and their roles,
  3. Besides those changes in vision, priorities, and project selection, are there one or two high priorities for changes in the structure and management of the program? If so, what are they?
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

and the timeline. If relevant, we would also like to learn about how and why the process operates differently across service branches, how and why it operates differently from what is intended, and how and why the process has changed over time.

  1. How do you choose research topics?
  2. How do you solicit submissions?
  3. What is the process for reviewing the submissions (of white papers and full proposals)?
  4. What is the process for selecting awardees?
  5. What is the process for awarding the grants?
  6. How do you manage the grants and monitor grant progress and performance?
  7. How do you support dissemination activities?
  8. How do you support translation activities?
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×
Page 122
Next: Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees »
Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00 Buy Ebook | $44.99
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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!