National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2020)

Chapter: Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees

« Previous: Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Individual Interviews with Current and Former Minerva Research Initiative Staff
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 E

Survey of Minerva Grantees

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The grantee survey was a census of principal investigators (PIs) for the 102 Minerva Research Initiative grants awarded between 2008 and 2017. In the case of grants with co-PIs, one PI was selected to participate in the survey per grant. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago between August 17 and October 1, 2018. Grantees received an email invitation to complete the survey via web. Reminders were sent by email and FedEx. Of the 102 grantees, 76 answered the survey questions, and an additional 3 answered them partially, which resulted in a 77 percent completion rate. As part of the same request, grantees were also asked to submit lists of their research outputs based on the Minerva grant. Of the 79 grantees who answered survey questions, 67 (85%) provided a list of outputs. For further discussion of the grantee survey, see Chapter 2.

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

All results reported here show percentages among all respondents, unless otherwise noted. SKP refers to items skipped by the respondent. The survey was designed to allow respondents to skip any item they did not wish to answer. In the case of questions with a series of “Yes/No” items, missing responses were recoded as “No” in cases in which the respondent selected at least one “Yes” response (see Chapter 2 for additional detail).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q1. Prior to applying for a Minerva grant, did you learn about the Minerva grant program in any of the following ways?

Yes No SKP
University research office 29 71 -
Department of Defense (DoD) website 37 63 -
National Science Foundation 22 78 -
At a conference 34 66 -
From a colleague 79 21 -
Mailing List 21 79 -
Other, please specify 11 89 -

N=76

Q2. Do you have any experience as an investigator with federal social science grant programs other than Minerva?

Yes 71
No 29
SKP -

N=76

If Yes to Q2

Q3. Do you have experience as an investigator with any of the following federal social science grant programs?

Yes No SKP
National Science Foundation grants 76 24 -
Department of Homeland Security grants 17 83 -
Grants, other than Minerva, from the DoD service branches (e.g., Air Force, Army, or Navy) 35 65 -
Other federal social science grants, please specify 46 54 -

N=54

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

If Yes in Q3a

Q4. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compared to National Science Foundation grants?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER; “MUCH/SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS COMBINE RESPONSES FROM THE SEPARATE “MUCH” AND “SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS]

Much/Somewhat less satisfied Much less satisfied Somewhat less satisfied About the same Somewhat more satisfied Much more satisfied Much/Somewhat more satisfied Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Selection of important topics for research 10 2 7 37 24 29 54 - -
White paper process 12 2 10 32 17 20 37 20 -
Full Proposal submission process and requirements 12 2 10 56 15 15 29 2 -
Communication during the proposal stage 12 2 10 51 12 22 34 2 -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 15 5 10 54 12 12 24 7 -
Institutional Review Board requirements 22 10 12 56 10 2 12 10 -
Financial and narrative grant reporting requirements 15 2 12 68 10 7 17 2 -
Post-award communication 15 5 10 37 22 22 44 5 -
Assistance with dissemination or translation of research findings 7 5 2 56 7 15 22 15 -

N=41

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

If Yes in Q3b

Q5. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compared to Department of Homeland Security grants?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER; “MUCH/SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS COMBINE RESPONSES FROM THE SEPARATE “MUCH” AND “SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS]

Much/Somewhat less satisfied Much less satisfied Somewhat less satisfied About the same Somewhat more satisfied Much more satisfied Much/Somewhat more satisfied Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Selection of important topics for research 11 - 11 22 44 11 56 11 -
White paper process 11 - 11 11 33 22 56 22 -
Full Proposal submission process and requirements 22 - 22 22 33 11 44 11 -
Communication during the proposal stage 22 11 11 33 22 11 33 11 -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) - - - 33 33 11 44 22 -
Institutional Review Board requirements 33 11 22 33 11 - 11 22 -
Financial and narrative grant reporting requirements 11 - 11 44 22 - 22 22 -
Post-award communication 11 - 11 22 44 - 44 22 -
Assistance with dissemination or translation of research findings 11 - 11 33 11 - 11 44 -

N=9

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

If Yes in Q3c

Q6. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compared to grants from other DoD service branches (e.g., Air Force, Army, or Navy)?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER; “MUCH/SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS COMBINE RESPONSES FROM THE SEPARATE “MUCH” AND “SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS]

Much/Somewhat less satisfied Much less satisfied Somewhat less satisfied About the same Somewhat more satisfied Much more satisfied Much/Somewhat more satisfied Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Selection of important topics for research 5 - 5 58 11 26 37 - -
White paper process 11 - 11 58 11 21 32 - -
Full Proposal submission process and requirements 16 - 11 58 11 16 26 - -
Communication during the proposal stage 11 - 11 74 5 11 16 - -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 11 - 11 53 16 5 21 16 -
Institutional Review Board requirements 11 - 11 68 11 5 16 5 -
Financial and narrative grant reporting requirements 11 - 11 53 16 16 32 5 -
Post-award communication 16 5 11 68 5 5 11 5 -
Assistance with dissemination or translation of research findings 5 - 5 58 11 5 16 21 -

N=19

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q7. For each of the following activities, did the Minerva program greatly increase, somewhat increase, or not increase at all your opportunities?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER; “MUCH/SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS COMBINE RESPONSES FROM THE SEPARATE “MUCH” AND “SOMEWHAT” COLUMNS]

Greatly increased opportunities Somewhat increased opportunities Did not increase at all opportunities Not applicable SKP
Pursuing research in new directions related to the national security topics funded by the Minerva program 76 20 1 3 -
Expanding networks with other researchers interested in national security research 49 46 4 1 -
Participating in interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research 46 37 16 1 -
Providing training opportunities for students and postdoctoral scholars/fellows 53 36 5 7 -
Interacting with service branch staff (e.g., Air Force, Army, or Navy) interested in integrating basic research insights into their work 26 42 28 4 -
Interacting with other DoD staff 26 38 30 5 -
Interacting with national security policy staff in other federal agencies 22 37 34 7 -
Interacting with policymakers in the legislative branch (e.g., through congressional testimony, meetings with staff or members) 13 29 50 8 -

N=76

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q8. How many students or fellows were actively involved in your Minerva grant(s) for at least one academic quarter or semester? Please enter a number.

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Median SKP
Undergraduate students 3 9
Graduate students 4 4
Postdoctoral fellows/scholars 1 14

N=76

Q9a. Did your Minerva grant(s) result in any products such as publicly available software, websites, databases, patents, licenses, or training materials? Please do not include publications or presentations as we will ask about those later.

For discussion of the results, see report text.

If Yes on Q9a

Q9b. Please list any products such as publicly available software, websites, databases, patents, licenses, or training materials that resulted from your Minerva grant(s).

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

For discussion of the results, see report text.

Q10. Has your support from the Minerva proçgram led to additional funding for research that builds on your Minerva funded work from any of the following sources?

Yes No SKP
Received additional funding from the Minerva program 38 61 1
Received additional non-Minerva funding from DoD 17 82 1
Received additional funding from another source 41 58 1

N=76

If Yes on Q10c

Q11. Did you receive additional funding for research that builds on your Minerva funded work from any of the following sources?

Yes No SKP
National Science Foundation 23 77 -
Department of Homeland Security - 100 -
Other, please specify 65 35 -

N=31

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q12. Would you say the Minerva grant program has had a positive impact, no impact, or a negative impact on each of the following. . .

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Positive impact No impact Negative impact Unable to say SKP
The amount of dialogue between DoD and the social science research community as a whole? 87 5 - 8 -
The number of social science researchers with interest in national security research? 82 8 - 11 -
The amount of collaboration among researchers working on different national security research topics? 76 11 - 13 -

N=76

Q13. What challenges do you face in conducting unclassified research relevant to national security that are different from the challenges you face in conducting research in other areas?

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses
No challenges 22
Other 17
Onerous IRB/human subject review process 12
Criticism from academic colleagues due to DoD funding 12
Access to data/ability to collect data 8
Lack of interest/understanding among other scholars 7
Reluctance of research subjects to work with American researcher or DoD grantee 7
Lack of access to classified materials 5
Lack of adoption of findings by military leaders and national security stakeholders 5
Lack of interest/understanding of social science by military leaders and national security stakeholders 4
Lack of dissemination opportunities 4
Politicization of work 1
Lack of time to conduct research 1
SKP 21

N=76

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q14. Describe any changes you would like to see to the Minerva program. [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses
Other 21
Increased funding/longer grant cycles 14
Better visibility of work/dissemination opportunities 14
More cross-project collaboration 12
None 9
Opportunities for applied research 9
Better funding allocation/timing 8
Lower administrative burden 5
Feedback on initial concepts, white papers 5
More notice for call for papers 4
Funding of ongoing projects post-award 4
Less intensive human subject and IRB requirements 4
Dedicated Minerva office staff in DoD 4
Standardization of reporting requirements across program officers 1
More demographically diverse awardees 1
SKP 22

N=76

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q15. How could DoD cultivate greater interest among young scholars in working with DoD on unclassified social science research relevant to national security?

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Detailed Coding Scheme
Other 21
General outreach 18
Already cultivates enough interest 14
Category specifically for junior scholars 13
Visibility at conferences 13
Increase funding for junior scholars 9
General increase of funding 9
Award more smaller grants 5
Advertise outputs/products 5
Establish grants that pair senior and junior PI’s 5
Help with translating research into policy 4
Additional funding for things like websites 3
SKP 20

N=76

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Summary Coding Scheme
Other 46
Outreach 32
Opportunities for junior scholars 21
SKP 20

N=76

OUTPUTS. Learning about the outputs that resulted from your Minerva funded research is an important aspect of this evaluation. These outputs include peer-reviewed publications, any other publications (e.g., papers, manuscripts, reports, op-ed pieces), and presentations (e.g., conference presentations, briefings, or testimony). Although you may have been asked to provide similar information to DoD, we would like to ask you to assist our evaluation by providing up-to-date information.

To make this as convenient for you as possible, this information can be provided in three different ways. In which way would you like to submit this information?

For discussion of the results, see report text.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

Q16. Did you have outputs of the following type that resulted from your Minerva grant(s)?

For discussion of the results, see report text.

If Yes in Q16a

Q17. Please list your peer-reviewed publications that resulted from a Minerva grant.

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

For discussion of the results, see report text.

If Yes in Q16b

Q18. Please list any other publications (e.g., papers, manuscripts, reports, op-ed pieces) that resulted from a Minerva grant?

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

For discussion of the results, see report text.

If Yes in Q16c

Q19. Please list any presentations (e.g., conference presentations, briefings, or testimony) that resulted from a Minerva grant.

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

For discussion of the results, see report text.

UPLOAD. Please highlight peer-reviewed publications, any other publications (e.g., papers, manuscripts, reports, op-ed pieces), and any presentations (e.g., conference presentations, briefings, or testimony) that resulted from your Minerva grant(s) on your CV and upload below.

For discussion of the results, see report text.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25482.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees." 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 134
Next: Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research »
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!