National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2020)

Chapter: Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research

« Previous: Appendix E: Survey of Minerva Grantees
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 F

Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The survey of administrators of sponsored research was a census of 222 administrators at academic institutions with “highest research activity” and “higher research activity” based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The person asked to complete the survey was the director of the office of sponsored programs (or equivalent) at universities where a position of this type existed. In cases where this position did not exist, the vice president for research or dean of research was contacted. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago between August 17 and October 1, 2018. Individuals selected to participate received an email invitation to complete the survey via web. Reminders were also sent by email. Of the 222 cases, 88 completed the survey, and an additional 18 submitted partially completed surveys. The completion rate was 48 percent. For further discussion of the survey of administrators of sponsored research, 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 F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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. How familiar are you with the Minerva Research Initiative, the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) grant program for unclassified basic social science research?

Extremely familiar 1
Very familiar 3
Moderately familiar 22
Not too familiar 34
Not familiar at all 40
SKP -

N=88

If Q1 = Extremely, Very, Moderately, or Not too familiar

Q2. Have you or your colleagues had any experience working with Minerva grants at this institution?

Yes 21
No 79
SKP -

N=53

Q3. Have you or your colleagues at this institution had experience working with any of the following other unclassified federal social, psychological, and economic sciences grant programs:

Yes No SKP
National Science Foundation grants 99 - 1
Department of Homeland Security grants 65 34 1
Grants, other than Minerva, from the DoD service branches (e.g., Air Force, Army, or Navy) 90 9 1
Other DoD grants, please specify 56 43 1
Other federal grants, please specify 73 26 1

N=88

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 Q2 = Yes AND Q3a = Yes

Q4. How do the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compare to National Science Foundation grants?
[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Much/Somewhat more challenging Much more challenging Somewhat more challenging About the same Somewhat less challenging Much less challenging Much/Somewhat less challenging Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Proposal submission process and requirements 64 18 45 18 - - - 9 9
Communication during the proposal stage 36 9 27 36 - - - 27 -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 64 18 45 27 9 - 9 - -
Financial and narrative reporting requirements 45 - 45 36 9 9 18 - -
Post-award communication 27 - 27 55 9 9 18 - -
Other award characteristics (e.g., indirect costs, etc.) 27 - 27 64 - 9 9 - -

N=11

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 Q2 = Yes AND Q3b = Yes

Q5. How do the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compare to Department of Homeland Security grants?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Much/Somewhat more challenging Much more challenging Somewhat more challenging About the same Somewhat less challenging Much less challenging Much/Somewhat less challenging Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Proposal submission process and requirements 14 - 14 43 14 14 29 14 -
Communication during the proposal stage 14 14 - 43 14 14 29 14 -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 29 14 14 29 29 14 43 - -
Financial and narrative reporting requirements 29 14 14 29 29 14 43 - -
Post-award communication 14 14 - 43 29 14 43 - -
Other award characteristics (e.g., indirect costs, etc.) 29 14 14 29 29 14 43 - -

N=7

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 Q2 = Yes AND Q3c = Yes

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

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Much/Somewhat more challenging Much more challenging Somewhat more challenging About the same Somewhat less challenging Much less challenging Much/Somewhat less challenging Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Proposal submission process and requirements 18 9 9 64 9 - 9 9 -
Communication during the proposal stage 9 9 - 64 9 - 9 9 9
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 9 9 - 64 27 - 27 - -
Financial and narrative reporting requirements 9 9 0 73 18 - 18 - -
Post-award communication 18 9 9 64 18 - 18 - -
Other award characteristics (e.g., indirect costs, etc.) 18 9 9 64 18 - 18 - -

N=11

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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. Describe any changes you would like to see to the Minerva grant program.

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

For discussion of the results, see report text.

If Q3a = Yes AND (Q3c = Yes or Q3d = Yes)

Q8. How do the following aspects of DoD grant programs in general compare to NSF grants?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Much/Somewhat more challenging Much more challenging Somewhat more challenging About the same Somewhat less challenging Much less challenging Much/Somewhat less challenging Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Proposal submission process and requirements 75 29 46 14 3 3 5 6 -
Communication during the proposal stage 51 14 37 32 6 1 8 10 -
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 72 32 41 16 3 3 5 6 -
Financial and narrative reporting requirements 58 23 35 28 3 3 5 9 -
Post-award communication 56 16 39 30 3 1 4 9 1
Other award characteristics (e.g., indirect costs, etc.) 47 14 33 46 1 - 1 5 1

N=79

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 Q3b = Yes AND (Q3c = Yes or Q3d = Yes)

Q9. How do the following aspects of DoD grant programs in general compare to Department of Homeland Security grants?

[HALF SAMPLE ASKED RESPONSE OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

Much/Somewhat more challenging Much more challenging Somewhat more challenging About the same Somewhat less challenging Much less challenging Much/Somewhat less challenging Unable to compare this aspect SKP
Proposal submission process and requirements 15 7 7 48 17 2 19 17 2
Communication during the proposal stage 11 6 6 56 7 4 11 20 2
Post-award grant management (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions, etc.) 15 6 9 54 13 - 13 17 2
Financial and narrative reporting requirements 13 6 7 52 9 4 13 20 2
Post-award communication 11 2 9 56 7 4 11 20 2
Other award characteristics (e.g., indirect costs, etc.) 9 2 7 59 7 4 11 19 2

N=54

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

Q10. Describe any changes you would like to see to DoD grant programs in general.

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Summary Coding Scheme
Standardization of reporting/administrative requirements across DoD grant programs 14
Better IT systems for grant management 14
Other 13
Simpler/better guidance for application, invoicing, and reporting 10
More transparency around expectations 8
Less burdensome post-award management 4
Fewer restrictions on the use of funding 3
Better publication of funding opportunities 1
SKP 59

N=79

Q11. Aside from DoD, are you aware of agencies or organizations that provide grants for unclassified research in the social, psychological and economic sciences on topics relevant to national security (regardless of whether your institution has received such grants)?

Yes 35
No 63
SKP 2

N=88

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 Q11 = Yes

Q12. What other agencies or organizations are you aware of that provide grants for unclassified research in the social, psychological and economic sciences on topics relevant to national security?

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Summary Coding Scheme
Department of Homeland Security 26
Other 26
National Science Foundation 19
Department of Justice 16
National Institute of Health 10
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity 6
National Security Agency 6
SKP 35

N=31

Q13. Which statement best describes your opinion, even if neither is exactly right.

Most people at my institution have favorable views of conducting unclassified national security research in general. 66
Most people at my institution have unfavorable views of conducting unclassified national security research in general. 11
Don’t know. 23
SKP -

N=88

Q14. Which statement best describes your opinion, even if neither is exactly right.

Most social, psychological, and economic sciences faculty members at my institution have favorable views of conducting unclassified national security research in general. 49
Most social, psychological, and economic sciences faculty members at my institution have unfavorable views of conducting unclassified national security research in general. 11
Don’t know. 40
SKP -

N=88

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

Q14a. Please provide any additional details about the views of social, psychological, and economic sciences faculty on conducting unclassified national security research.

For discussion of the results, see report text.

Q15. How could DoD cultivate greater interest among young scholars in working with DoD on unclassified social, psychological, and economic sciences research relevant to national security?

[OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Detailed Coding Scheme
Greater visibility/awareness 15
Other 14
Opportunities for junior faculty and doctoral awards 10
Campus visits 9
More support for proposals/simpler proposal process 7
More resources to promote DoD opportunities 6
More webinars 5
Increase presence at conferences 3
Broaden type of research accepted 2
SKP 53

N=88

Coded Open-Ended Responses, Summary Coding Scheme
Outreach 20
Other 20
Opportunities for junior scholars 10
SKP 53

N=88

If Q1 = Extremely, Very, Moderately, or Not too familiar

Q16. Do you have any other comments for consideration by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee tasked with evaluating the Minerva Research Initiative?

For discussion of the results, see report text.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research." 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 144
Next: Appendix G: Individuals Who Provided Input during the Committee's Public Meetings »
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!