APPENDIX A
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The sections that follow describe the research methodology used for the National Science Foundation Principal Investigator FY 2001 Grant Award Survey and for the National Science Foundation Institutional FY 2001 Grant Award Survey.
A. QUESTIONNAIRE
DEVELOPMENT
The initial phase of questionnaire development included two focus groups with NSF representatives who could identify key issues to be included in the two questionnaires. A third focus group with institutional representatives was scheduled for September 2001, however the events of September 11 resulted in a cancellation. Instead institutional representatives were contacted by telephone to discuss key issues to be included in the survey. After draft questionnaires were developed, they were cognitively pretested with PIs and institutional representative, and revisions were made based on the findings from the pretests. The following provides details about the steps that were followed:
Date Type of Group Number of Participants
August 8, 2001 NSF Focus Group 12
August 9, 2001 NSF Focus Group 11
October 2001 Institutional Representatives 4
(Telephone interviews)*
December 4, 2001 Principal Investigators
Cognitive pretest/group discussion 8
January/February Institutional Representatives 4
2002 Cognitive pretest/individual
interviews
*Re-scheduled from the Federal Demonstration Project Group discussion because of September 11,2001.
B. PROCEDURES FOR
PRETEST WITH PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Eight PIs of a sample of 30 potential respondents participated in the pretest for the Principal Investigator FY 2001 Grant Award Survey. The sample was randomly selected from a total of 156 PIs throughout New Jersey representing a variety of grant types and award sizes. We decided to limit the sample selection to New Jersey because we assumed that MPR’s Princeton office in New Jersey would make it easier for the respondents to participate.
Respondents were asked to complete the draft questionnaire and comment on the questions. When respondents had difficulty understanding a question, MPR reworded the question or divided it into parts to make it more understandable. MPR also added some probes to better focus respondents on questions. Because participants voiced concerns about the amount of time it took to complete the questionnaire, the length of the questionnaire was reduced. Also, feedback about the focus of questions was implemented into a revised questionnaire. In particular, the concept “fully enabled” was discussed and rejected by the group. A preferred concept to describe the goals was “ongoing research and educational activities.”
The final questionnaire was programmed into a Web format to be conducted as a Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ). Extensive testing was conducted on the Web questionnaire to insure compatibility with a wide range of different computers and servers that would be accessing the questionnaire.
The universe for the PI survey comprises all 6,180 FY 2001 NSF award grantees. NSF decided to collect data from the universe of PIs instead of a sample to ensure that the most robust information. Since the primary mode of data collection is the World Wide Web, the additional costs associated with using the universe, instead of a sample, were minimal. In addition, examining the universe eliminates both the additional costs needed to develop a sampling plan and the potential sampling bias associated with sampling plans.
The universe for the institutional survey comprises all 582 institutions where at least one PI received an NSF award in FY 2001. Each institution in the universe was mailed a questionnaire and afforded the opportunity to participate. However, a sample of 100 institutions was drawn from the universe, based on institutional size and type (for example, private research institution, academic institution), the number of grants received, the type of grants received, and the institution’s geographic region.
The sampling design is based on the purpose and analytical objectives of the study. The purpose of this study is to determine the burden of the grant awards on institutions receiving grants from NSF. The analytic objective is to investigate the burden of the grant awards using both institution-level and grant-level measures. Therefore, there is an interest in both the estimate of the proportion of institutions that have a level of burden and the estimate of the average burden per grant for specific types of grants or type of institutions. The sampling design accounts for these two analytical objectives, which indicate somewhat different designs. A stratified random sample of institutions was selected that included an over sampling of institutions with a larger number of grants.
The number grant awards per institution is highly skewed with 40 percent of institutions (233) receiving one award and 16 institutions receiving in aggregate more than 1,500 awards. To account for both analytical objectives, sampling strata were developed that permit an over sample of the institutions with the greatest number of awards, and allocate a sufficient number of sampled institutions to the strata of the institutions with one or only a few awards. Within each stratum, a sample of institutions with equal probability and without replacement were selected. A larger initial sample was selected and then partitioned into random sub samples called waves. Some waves were released for data collection at the start of the fielding period and others were held in reserve. Three reserve waves were released because of institutions on the original data base that NSF determined to be ineligible. At the end of the data collection, sampling weights were applied to the final data file based on the inverse of the selection probabilities and computed adjustment to compensate for non-response among sampled institutions.
The following provides a description of the universe and the sampling frame, the sampling design, sample allocation, and expected precision from the sample.
a. Description of
the Universe
The target population and the universe for this study is a listing of current recipients of grant awards by NSF. The population includes 582 institutions receiving a total of 6,180 grants, an average of 10.6 grants per institution. In total, 440 institutions (75 percent) received 9 or fewer grants with 233 (40 percent) institutions receiving one award and 85 (15 percent) institutions receiving two awards. On the other hand, 16 institutions (2.7 percent) accounted for 1,523 (25 percent) of the grant awards.
3. Sampling Design
and Allocation
The analytical objectives indicate two variations on a stratified sampling design. For institution-level survey estimates, the sampling design that can offer smallest sampling variance is an equal probability sample of all institutions. For grant-level measures of the burden of the grant awards, the sampling design offering smallest sampling variance has the institutions selected with probability proportional to the number of grant awards. The sampling approach that offered a reasonable comprise between these two designs.
A classical process to develop sampling strata that account for the “size” (in this case, the number of awards at the institution) of a sampling unit is to use the square root of the size factor and partition a list of sampling units into strata so that the aggregate value of the square root of the size factor for institutions in each strata is equal (see Cochran 1997 for the “cumulative square root of f rule”).[1] Using the cumulative square root of f rule, estimates of totals (in this situation grant awards) is improved over an equal probability sample of institutions. For example, if 5 sampling strata are desired, the cumulative square root is summed over all units and then divided by 5. This value is used to identify the units that are assigned to each stratum. In developing the strata, there was a slight modification of this procedure to achieve better precision for institution-level estimates.
The proposed sample size is 100 institutions. The precision available from a sample of 100 units is assessed by using an estimate of an institution-level proportion around 0.50. The estimated half-width of a 95 percent confidence interval is 0.098, that is an interval of .402 to .598 (see Table B.1). Using the cumulative square root of the frequency (f) rule, we looked not only at the square root but also the cube root. When the finite population correction is accounted for, using the cumulative square root of f rule, resulted in a half-width of a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.115, whereas using the cumulative cube root of the frequency, resulted in a half-width of a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.100. That is, the use of the cube root can achieve nearly the precision of a simple random sampling of all institutions, but includes over sampling of the institutions with the largest number of grants. Increasing the number of strata beyond 3 had only a slight effect on the precision, and the plan was to use 5 strata for operational ease. For grant-level estimates, the level of precision is based on the correlation between the number of grant awards at an institution and the outcome measures. The anticipated precision will be as good and most likely better than will be available for the institution-level estimates.
In summary, for the institution survey there was a stratified random sample of institutions using 5 strata for respondent sample of 100 institutions. The sampling strata were developed to achieve good precision for both institution-level estimates and grant-level estimates.
TABLE B.1
SAMPLE ALLOCATION AND STRATA FOR INSTITUTION SAMPLE
|
Number of Institutions |
|||
Strata |
Sample Size |
Equal Size Strata |
Square Root Algorithm |
Cube Root Algorithm |
1 |
20 |
116 |
269 |
197 |
2 |
20 |
116 |
154 |
159 |
3 |
20 |
116 |
79 |
106 |
4 |
20 |
117 |
47 |
70 |
5 |
20 |
117 |
33 |
50 |
Half-Width of 95% Confidence Interval |
|
0.098 |
0.115 |
0.100 |
Source: Mathematica computations.
Note: Half-width of 95% confidence interval = 1.96 * %variance for a stratified random sample where the variance within a stratum is computed from p * (1 – p) with p =0.50.
D. DATA COLLECTION
The PI survey was conducted using a mixed-mode format of Web and mail methods and the institution survey was a mail survey. A database containing contact information (telephone numbers and e-mail addresses) for potential respondents was provided to MPR by NSF.
The following provides additional detail of the data collection steps that were taken:
January 2001 | NSF Director Dr. Rita R. Colwell sends PIs e-mail message announcing the survey. |
January 30, 2002 | MPR begins sending PI e-mail invitations with Web site access username and password on a rolling schedule. |
February 4-19, 2002 | MPR sends e-mail remiders to non-responders on a 3 day schedule. |
February 15, 2002 | MPR sends questionnaire mail packets to 778 PIs who have responded to the Web questionnaire. |
March 8, 2002 | Deadline for data collection |
Original PI grants in NSF data file |
6,180 |
PIs with multiple grants randomly selected a single grant for the survey (375) or questionable grant information (12) |
5,793 |
Total completes and partials |
5,221 |
Cases screened out during quality assurance process for criteria such as inconsistent grant award or duration information |
232 |
Total cases used for analysis |
4,989 |
A tracking system was developed to monitor participation. Figure A-1 illustrates the PI participation in the Web mode of the questionnaire. A total of 778 mail packets were sent to insure participation from PIs who may not have had Web access or would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper.
The institutional survey was a mail only survey that used an e-mail approach to identify the most appropriate institutional participant. The data collection process was as follows:
January 2001 | NSF Director Dr. Rita R. Colwell sends institution presidents an e-mail message announcing the two surveys. |
January 24, 2002 | MPR sends e-mail messages to institution contact people identified on the NSF data file to identify the appropriate person to participate in the survey. |
February 15-March 6, 2002 | Questionnaire mail packets are sent as institutional representatives contact information is identified. |
March 8-30, 2002 | MPR contacts non-responders in the institution sample by phone and e-mail. |
March 30, 2002 | All data collection is completed. |
Total institutions with 2001 NSF grant recipients |
582 |
No contact information |
60 |
Total number with contact information |
471(total); 105 (sample) |
Total questionnaires returned |
369 (total); 95 (sample) |
Questionnaires not acceptable after quality assurance |
359 (total); 95 (sample) |
E. INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY ESTIMATES OF STANDARD ERROR
As described in Section D, the results from the institution survey are based on a sample, not a census of all institutions. Therefore, the results discussed in the report have standard errors. The estimates of the standard error for the key items included in the analysis are on Table A-1.
F. PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR SURVEY MEAN CALCULATIONS
The report includes information about means that are calculated in two different ways. There are means that are calculated for a single question in the PI questionnaire or for a single item of information from the NSF FY 2001 grant data files. In addition, there are means that have been calculated using measures constructed from either two items in the survey data or using a combination of questionnaire items and items from the NSF FY 2001 grant data file. The means for these constructed variables are calculated by taking the individual PI information for the included items, doing the calculation for each individual PI, and then getting an average. The following describes the information that is based on means calculated from multiple items. Appendix G has the central tendency distributions for these constructed variables.
CONSTRUCTED VARIABLES |
CALCULATION AND DATA SOURCE |
Option 1: Award Efficiency and Effectiveness Deviation from Requested Award Amount |
(FY 2001 Award Request – FY 2001 Award Amount)/Number of FY2001 Grant Award Years (Information from NSF data file) |
Option 2: Award Efficient and Effectiveness Percent of Research Being Funded |
(FY 2001 Award Amount/(Q3.2¸100)-FY2001 Award Amount) Divided by 5 Years to annualize (NSF information and survey question) |
Option 4: Award Efficient and Effectiveness NFS’s Contribution |
Q3.3 X Q3.4 Divided by 5 Years to Annualize (Survey questions) |
Difference in FY 2001 Award Amount Request and Amount Awarded |
FY 2001 Amount Request-FY 2001 Amount Award (NSF data file) |
Difference in FY 2001 Duration Request and Duration Award |
FY 2001 Duration Request-FY 2001 Duration Award (NSF data file) |
Additional Duration Needed |
FY 2001 Duration Award + Q3.1 (NSF data file and survey question) |
G. SURVEY
MEASUREMENT ERROR
It should be noted that in any survey there are sources of both sampling and non-sampling error. Some examples of sources of survey measurement error are non-response to the survey, skipped questions, context effects, data collection methodology, and question wording. In conducting this study, all efforts possible were taken to minimize survey measurement error.
APPENDIX B
ANNOTATED QUESTIONNAIRES
APPENDIX B CONTENTS
A. NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR 2001 GRANT AWARD SURVEY
B. NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY
OMB Approval Number: 3145-0185 Welcome to the National
Science Foundation Principal
Investigator 2001 Grant Award Survey
|
2001 NSF GRANT INFORMATION
#1 |
Grant Title |
__________________________________ |
#2 |
Grant Effective Date |
__________________________________ |
#3 |
Requested Amount |
__________________________________ |
#4 |
Awarded Amount |
__________________________________ |
#5 |
Amount Change 5% or
Greater |
__________________________________ |
#6 |
Requested Duration |
__________________________________ |
#7 |
Awarded Duration |
__________________________________ |
#8 |
Duration Change 1 Year
or Greater |
__________________________________ |
· You will be asked to
reference the information listed above throughout this questionnaire. This information is from our database and is
specific to the NSF grant you were awarded funding in 2001.
· When a question asks you
to think about any of the above information, a notation will be made
in the questionnaire. Therefore,
it is important to keep this information attached to the rest of the
questionnaire.
· If this is your grant, please
check the box and begin the questionnaire.
· If any of this grant information
is incorrect, please contact Matt Mishkind at 877-236-4185 or
nsfgrantsweb@mathematica-mpr.com before you complete the questionnaire.
· You may also complete this
questionnaire on the Web:
http://nsfgrants.mathematica-mpr.com and enter
the following USERNAME: xxxxxx PASSWORD: xxxxxx |
PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR
2001
GRANT AWARD SURVEY
SECTION 1
REMINDER: Please check grant information provided on
back of cover page. |
1.1 Was your 2001 NSF grant [#1 GRANT TITLE]
awarded on [#2 GRANT EFFECTIVE DATE] a first‑time submission or a
revision of a previously declined NSF proposal?
· A revised proposal does not refer to changes
made in your 2001 NSF grant proposal after the initial review
mark
one
71% a first time submission
29% a revision of a previously declined NSF proposal
1.2 NSF research grants can be classified along a
number of different dimensions. Which ONE
of the following definitions best describes the research that is funded by this
grant?
· If your work involves several of these
categories please choose the one that is most appropriate
THEORETICAL research can be accomplished with
minimal physical resources beyond the investigator’s institutional research
library, computing capability and office space.
LABORATORY research requires an
equipped laboratory, for example, research often found in chemistry, biology or
engineering university laboratories requiring research and/or testing
equipment, plumbing.
FIELD research requires fieldwork,
specimen collection, sample survey, location of sensors, etc. away from the
principal investigator’s institution, for example, some science activities in
geosciences, biology, social sciences.
mark
one
37% Theoretical Research
44% Laboratory Research
18% Field Research
1.3 Does your 2001 NSF project require the use of
a national or international research facility such as access to an accelerator,
a light source, a ship, major telescope or supercomputer center?
16% Yes
83% No
1.4 In general, would you say
that this 2001 NSF grant is funding:
mark one
7% A
specific product or deliverable
89% A project that is part of your ongoing body
of research and educational activities
4% Other (Please Describe)
1.5 For each of the following,
how much advice did you get from NSF staff when you were preparing your grant
proposal:
|
|
MARK ONE
FOR EACH |
||||
|
|
A Great
Deal |
Some |
Not Much |
|
None At
All |
a.
|
The amount of funding............. |
12% |
27% |
17% |
|
43% |
b.
|
The duration of the grant
proposal................................. |
11% |
21% |
16% |
|
51% |
c.
|
The substance or focus of
the grant...................................... |
7% |
25% |
19% |
|
49% |
1.6 Based on the advice provided
by NSF staff, did you increase, not change, or decrease:
|
|
Increase |
Not
Change |
Decrease |
Not Asked |
|
a. |
The amount of the award
you proposed....................................... |
4% |
36% |
27% |
31% |
|
b. |
The award duration you
proposed.... |
3% |
58% |
6% |
31% |
|
SECTION 2
As part of the review process, NSF may ask principal investigators to
revise their proposal before they are awarded funding. The following questions are about your
revised budget and award duration.
ONLY ANSWER Q2.1 IF #5 AMOUNT CHANGE >5% IS
LABELED “YES.” See inside
cover.
2.1 In your proposal, you
requested [#3 REQUESTED AMOUNT] and in your award you received [#4 AWARDED
AMOUNT].
Overall, how much will
this change in the award amount impact your ability to do what you expected to
accomplish with this 2001 NSF grant?
mark one
1% Can
do a great deal more than expected
2% Can
do somewhat more than expected
7% Can
do about the same as expected
28% Can do somewhat less than expected
15% Can do a great deal less than expected
1% Don’t
know
47% Not asked
ONLY ANSWER Q2.2 IF #8 DURATION CHANGE >1 YEAR
IS LABELED “YES.” See inside
cover.
(IF BOTH #5 AMOUNT CHANGE >5% AND #8 DURATION
CHANGE >1 YEAR ARE LABELED “NO,” PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 3).
2.2 In your proposal, you
requested [#6 REQUESTED DURATION] and in your award you received
[#7 AWARDED DURATION].
Overall, how much will
this change in award duration impact your ability to do what you expected to
accomplish with this 2001 NSF grant?
mark one
1% Can
do a great deal more than expected
1% Can
do somewhat more than expected
1% Can
do about the same as expected
4% Can
do somewhat less than expected
5% Can
do a great deal less than expected
88% Not asked
IF YOU RESPONDED AS 6 “CAN’T ANSWER” OR -1 “DON’T KNOW” TO
BOTH Q2.1 AND Q2.2, PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 3.
ONLY ANSWER Q2.3 IF YOU PROVIDED A
RESPONSE OF 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5 TO EITHER Q2.1 OR Q2.2.
2.3 The
following are some possible consequences of the changes in your NSF award
funding and/or duration. Will this
change have a positive impact, no impact, or negative impact on your ability
to ...
|
|
Positive Impact |
No Impact |
Negative Impact |
Not Applicable |
Not Asked |
|
|||||
A. Goals and
Objectives |
|
|||||||||||
a.
|
Pursue innovative ideas............................................................. |
4% |
25% |
23% |
1% |
47% |
|
|||||
b.
|
Pursue high-risk ideas.............................................................. |
3% |
20% |
26% |
4% |
47% |
|
|||||
c.
|
Obtain other funding................................................................. |
6% |
35% |
6% |
5% |
47% |
|
|||||
B. Applications
and Outcomes |
|
|||||||||||
d.
|
Disseminate research
findings................................................... |
4% |
32% |
17% |
1% |
47% |
|
|||||
e.
|
Develop instrumentation or
other enhancements for the research and education infrastructure...................................................... |
2% |
17% |
20% |
13% |
47% |
|
|||||
f.
|
Develop partnerships
with industry, other educational institutions, or national laboratories.............................................................. |
3% |
26% |
13% |
11% |
47% |
|
|||||
g.
|
Integrate research activity
into your teaching and training............. |
4% |
27% |
18% |
4% |
47% |
|
|||||
h.
|
Nurture connections
between research activity and its potential for: health benefits, economic benefits, and national security
benefits................................................................................... |
2% |
24% |
10% |
16% |
47% |
|
|||||
i.
|
Develop programs with K‑12
teachers and/or students................. |
1% |
23% |
7% |
22% |
47% |
|
|||||
j.
|
Improve public
understanding of the project................................. |
3% |
31% |
11% |
9% |
47% |
|
|||||
C. Process and
Team Building |
|
|||||||||||
k.
|
Collaborate with
researchers in your area of research.................. |
5% |
21% |
26% |
1% |
47% |
|
|||||
l.
|
Broaden participation of
under-represented groups in the research activity.................................................................................... |
3% |
27% |
18% |
6% |
47% |
|
|||||
m. |
Collaborate with
researchers in different areas of research............ |
4% |
25% |
21% |
3% |
47% |
|
|||||
n.
|
Achieve the research
objectives within the specified time............. |
4% |
14% |
34% |
1% |
47% |
|
|||||
o.
|
Obtain quality personnel........................................................... |
3% |
17% |
28% |
4% |
47% |
|
|||||
p.
|
Establish mentoring or
other research-based education activities.. |
3% |
23% |
21% |
5% |
47% |
|
|||||
D. Research Tools |
|
4% |
|
|
|
47% |
||||||
q.
|
Access state-of-the-art
equipment............................................. |
2% |
28% |
17% |
6% |
47% |
|
|||||
r.
|
Access facilities....................................................................... |
2% |
34% |
10% |
6% |
47% |
|
SKIP Q2.4a IF NO POSITIVE
ITEMS IN Q2.3
2.4a Among the items you marked
“Positive Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three,
those that had the most positive impact.
#1 |
|
#2 |
|
#3 |
SKIP Q2.4b IF NO NEGATIVE
ITEMS IN Q2.3
2.4b Among the items you marked
“Negative Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three,
those that had the most negative impact.
#1 |
|
#2 |
|
#3 |
2.5 Please describe any other
impact(s) that resulted from the change in your 2001 NSF award or give more
details on any in the list that need further explanation.
SECTION 3
The next group of questions is your assessment of how
this grant fits into your ongoing body of research and educational activities.
· Our records indicate that your 2001 NSF
grant is for $[#4 AWARDED AMOUNT] over a
period of [#7 AWARDED DURATION]
Years. See inside
cover.
3.1 Thinking about the timeframe
for your ongoing body of research and educational activities, about how many additional
years do you think you would need to accomplish your key goals?
· DO NOT include the years for the 2001 NSF
grant
· Enter “0” for “Do not need any additional
years”
Median=2 |
Mean=3 |
Mode=2 |
Range: 0 to 40 |
3.2 If you
think about your ongoing body of research and educational activities as 100
percent of what you’d like to accomplish in the next five years,
about what percent of what you’d like to do will be achieved with your
2001 NSF research grant?
Median=30 |
Mean=37 |
Mode=20 |
Range: 0 to 100 |
Now,
speculate on what changes, if any, you would need to accomplish all you would
like to in the next five years.
3.3 In the
next five years, how much additional funding from all sources, if any,
would you need to achieve what you would like to with your ongoing body of
research and educational activities?
· Exclude funding you currently have for
this NSF grant and from any other funding sources
· Enter “0” for “Do not need any additional
funding”
Median=$500,000 |
Mean=$1,149,000 |
Mode=$500,000 |
Range: $0 to $300,000,000 |
IF YOU DO
NOT NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR DON’T KNOW, SKIP TO Q3.6.
3.4 What
percent of this additional amount do you think is appropriate for NSF to fund?
Median=70% |
Mean=67% |
Mode=100% |
Range: 0% to 100% |
3.5 About how many additional
grants do you think you would need to get this funding?
Median=2 |
Mean=2.39 |
Mode=2 |
Range: 0 to 32 |
ONLY ANSWER Q3.6 IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL YEARS (Q3.1)
AND/OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING (Q3.3).
IF YOU RESPONDED “0” OR “DON’T KNOW” TO Q3.1 AND
Q3.3, SKIP TO SECTION 4.
3.6 If NSF provided this
additional funding and/or duration to support your ongoing research and
educational activities, would there be a positive impact, no impact, or a
negative impact on each of the following:
|
|
Positive Impact |
No Impact |
Negative Impact |
Not Applicable |
Not Asked |
A. Goals and
Objectives |
||||||
1. |
Pursue innovative ideas............................................................. |
87% |
2% |
<1% |
<1% |
10% |
2. |
Pursue high-risk ideas.............................................................. |
76% |
9% |
<1% |
4% |
10% |
3. |
Obtain other funding................................................................. |
54% |
26% |
5% |
3% |
10% |
B. Applications
and Outcomes |
||||||
4. |
Disseminate research
findings................................................... |
74% |
14% |
<1% |
1% |
10% |
5. |
Develop instrumentation or
other enhancements for the research and education infrastructure...................................................... |
61% |
16% |
<1% |
13% |
10% |
6. |
Develop partnerships
with industry, other educational institutions, or national laboratories.............................................................. |
62% |
19% |
<1% |
8% |
10% |
7. |
Integrate research
activity into your teaching and training............. |
73% |
13% |
<1% |
2% |
10% |
8. |
Nurture connections
between research activity and its potential for: health benefits, economic benefits, and national security
benefits................................................................................... |
48% |
24% |
<1% |
16% |
10% |
9. |
Develop programs with K‑12
teachers and/or students................. |
32% |
36% |
<1% |
20% |
10% |
10.
|
Improve public
understanding of the project................................. |
58% |
25% |
<1% |
5% |
10% |
C. Process and
Team Building |
||||||
11.
|
Collaborate with
researchers in your area of research.................. |
83% |
6% |
<1% |
<1% |
10% |
12.
|
Broaden participation of
under-represented groups in the research activity.................................................................................... |
62% |
23% |
<1% |
3% |
10% |
13.
|
Collaborate with
researchers in different areas of research............ |
76% |
12% |
<1% |
2% |
10% |
14.
|
Achieve the research
objectives within the specified time............. |
83% |
6% |
<1% |
1% |
10% |
15.
|
Obtain quality personnel........................................................... |
76% |
9% |
<1% |
3% |
10% |
16.
|
Establish mentoring or
other research-based education activities.. |
71% |
14% |
<1% |
3% |
10% |
D. Research Tools |
||||||
17.
|
Access state-of-the-art
equipment............................................. |
60% |
22% |
<1% |
7% |
10% |
18.
|
Access facilities....................................................................... |
49% |
32% |
<1% |
8% |
10% |
SKIP Q3.7a IF NO POSITIVE
ITEMS IN Q3.6
3.7a Among the items you marked
“Positive Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three,
those that had the most positive impact.
#1 |
|
#2 |
|
#3 |
SKIP Q3.7b IF NO NEGATIVE
ITEMS IN Q3.6
3.7b Among the items you marked
“Negative Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three,
those that had the most negative impact.
#1 |
|
#2 |
|
#3 |
3.8 Please describe any other
impact(s) that would result if NSF provided you what you need for what you want
to accomplish, or give more details on any in the list that needs further explanation:
3.9 If you received this additional
funding and/or duration from NSF that you need for your ongoing body of
research and educational activities, how likely would you increase each of
the following?
|
|
MARK ONE
FOR EACH |
||||||||
|
|
Very Likely |
Somewhat Likely |
Neither Likely Nor Unlikely |
Somewhat Unlikely |
Very Unlikely |
Not Applicable |
Not Asked |
||
Personnel |
||||||||||
1.
|
The number and/or months
of senior personnel..................................... |
29% |
21% |
13% |
7% |
13% |
4% |
10% |
||
2.
|
The number and/or months
of post doctoral associates........................ |
43% |
22% |
7% |
4% |
5% |
7% |
10% |
||
3.
|
The number and/or months
of technicians.............................................. |
15% |
14% |
14% |
7% |
16% |
19% |
10% |
||
4.
|
The number and/or months
of programmers.......................................... |
7% |
11% |
14% |
6% |
19% |
24% |
10% |
||
5.
|
The number and/or months
of graduate students................................... |
70% |
11% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
10% |
||
6.
|
The number and/or months
of undergraduate students.......................... |
45% |
26% |
7% |
3% |
3% |
4% |
10% |
||
Equipments |
||||||||||
7.
|
The number of equipment
purchases..................................................... |
33% |
31% |
11% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
10% |
||
8.
|
The quality of equipment
purchases........................................................ |
28% |
22% |
20% |
5% |
7% |
7% |
10% |
||
Travel |
||||||||||
9.
|
The number of trips.................................................................................. |
29% |
32% |
18% |
5% |
4% |
1% |
10% |
||
10.
|
The cost per trip....................................................................................... |
3% |
8% |
36% |
11% |
29% |
2% |
10% |
||
Experiments |
||||||||||
11.
|
The number of experiments,
tests, subjects........................................... |
49% |
14% |
5% |
1% |
1% |
20% |
10% |
||
12.
|
The size of the
experiments or tests....................................................... |
30% |
17% |
14% |
3% |
3% |
22% |
10% |
||
13.
|
The quality of the
experiments or tests.................................................... |
36% |
13% |
13% |
2% |
4% |
20% |
10% |
||
Other Direct Costs |
||||||||||
14.
|
Participant support................................................................................... |
21% |
18% |
19% |
4% |
10% |
16% |
10% |
||
15.
|
Consultant services................................................................................. |
6% |
10% |
19% |
7% |
23% |
22% |
10% |
||
16.
|
Computer/Publication costs.................................................................... |
16% |
28% |
21% |
7% |
11% |
5% |
10% |
||
17.
|
Other (Please Specify)............................................................................ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
27% gave a response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.10 Among the items you are
“Very Likely” to increase, rank order (write in the numbers), up to three,
those that would have the most impact on what you want to accomplish.
#1 |
|
#2 |
|
#3 |
3.11 And, if you received this
additional funding and/or duration from NSF that you need for your ongoing
research and educational activities, would your ability to do each of the
following be:
|
|
MARK ONE
FOR EACH |
||||||
|
|
Increased A Great Deal |
Increased Somewhat |
About the Same |
Decreased Somewhat |
Decreased A Great Deal |
Not Applicable |
Not Asked |
a.
|
Recruit post doctoral
associates....................................... |
47% |
23% |
8% |
<1% |
<1% |
9% |
10% |
b.
|
Recruit graduate students................................................. |
56% |
23% |
6% |
<1% |
<1% |
4% |
10% |
c.
|
Recruit undergraduate
students........................................ |
27% |
31% |
24% |
<1% |
<1% |
6% |
10% |
d.
|
Provide adequate support
for a graduate student to shorten time to degree................................................................. |
29% |
26% |
25% |
<1% |
<1% |
8% |
10% |
e.
|
Provide stability for
technicians........................................ |
17% |
15% |
13% |
<1% |
<1% |
42% |
10% |
f.
|
Provide stability for
programmers...................................... |
8% |
9% |
14% |
<1% |
<1% |
57% |
10% |
g.
|
Conduct more experiments,
tests or subjects..................... |
42% |
22% |
5% |
<1% |
<1% |
19% |
10% |
h.
|
Have higher-quality experiments
or tests............................ |
31% |
22% |
16% |
<1% |
<1% |
20% |
10% |
i.
|
Duration of experiments................................................... |
17% |
19% |
24% |
1% |
1% |
26% |
10% |
j.
|
Other (Please Specify).................................................... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29% gave a response
3.12 Thinking about all the
different aspects of what you would like to accomplish, which of the following
would have the greatest impact on your ongoing body of research and educational
activities:
mark one
54% More funding
35% Longer duration
10% Not asked
SECTION 4
The
following are questions about NSF funding and your general field of research.
4.1 In your opinion, if NSF
increased the funding and the duration of the awards in your field of research,
how likely would these changes …?
|
|
MARK ONE
FOR EACH |
|||||
|
|
Very Likely |
Somewhat Likely |
Neither Likely
Nor Unlikely |
Somewhat Unlikely |
Very Unlikely |
Not Applicable |
a.
|
Widen the focus of the
research in your field...... |
63% |
28% |
7% |
1% |
1% |
<1% |
b.
|
Increase the number
of proposals to NSF with innovative
ideas................................................. |
46% |
35% |
13% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
c.
|
Increase the number of
proposals to NSF with high-risk ideas.................................................. |
37% |
38% |
17% |
4% |
2% |
2% |
d.
|
Attract more established
researchers to apply for NSF funding...................................................... |
37% |
31% |
23% |
4% |
2% |
2% |
e.
|
Decrease the amount of
time to answer research questions.......................................................... |
31% |
32% |
20% |
6% |
6% |
4% |
f.
|
Attract more graduate
students........................... |
65% |
26% |
6% |
<1% |
<1% |
2% |
g.
|
Attract better graduate
students.......................... |
62% |
25% |
8% |
1% |
<1% |
2% |
h.
|
Improve access to
facilities and databases.......... |
36% |
34% |
20% |
1% |
1% |
7% |
i.
|
Decrease interruptions in
funding....................... |
70% |
23% |
4% |
<1% |
<1% |
1% |
4.2 If NSF had more money to
award each year, please rank in descending order of importance from (1) most
important to (3) least important, the following possible actions for awards in
your area of research:
rank
order 1st 2nd 3rd
Increase
only the amount of funding per award................................... 40% 36% 23%
Increase
only the length of time per award.......................................... 24% 37% 38%
Increase
only the total number of awards per year.............................. 36% 26% 37%
SECTION 5
This section asks about your experience preparing
this NSF grant and about some other research experiences.
5.1 Thinking about the proposal
you submitted to NSF for this grant, what is your best estimate of the total
hours of preparation for submitting this proposal?
In determining your
estimate, please make sure you:
· consider all of your own time
for writing the proposal, preparing the budget, completing forms, and consulting
with others about your proposal
· consider the time other people
such as graduate assistants, secretaries, and budget administrators put into
the preparation of this proposal
· DO NOT include any
institutional personnel who might review or internally process your proposal
such as staff from the sponsored research office
Median=100 |
Mean=157 |
Mode=100 |
Range: 1 to 9,000 |
5.2 What’s your best estimate of
the percent of hours that were devoted to the intellectual content of the
proposal and the percent devoted to the mechanics of proposal preparation?
· Your total must equal 100%
Preparation of intellectual
content.......................... Median=75% Mean=68% Mode=80% Range: 5% - 100% |
|
Mechanics of proposal preparation........................ Median=25% Mean=32% Mode=20% Range: 0% - 100% |
5.3 How helpful is having an NSF
research grant in obtaining funding from other sources?
mark one
39% Very helpful
33% Somewhat helpful
25% Neither helpful nor unhelpful
2% Somewhat
unhelpful
<1% Very unhelpful
Now, think about any other funding
you may be getting for your ongoing body of research and educational
activities.
5.4 Right now, are you getting
NSF funding for any other projects for your ongoing body of research and
educational activities?
· This includes funding from grants on which
you are a collaborator or subcontractor
· DO NOT include the 2001 NSF grant
identified for this survey
44% Yes
55% No
1% Don’t
know
5.5 Not including the
2001 NSF grant identified for this survey, what is the total number of current
NSF grants funding your ongoing body of research and educational activities?
Median=1 |
Mean=2 |
Mode=1 |
Range: 0 to 236 |
5.6 What is the total amount of annual
funding you currently have from these other NSF grants?
· DO NOT include the 2001 NSF grant
identified for this survey
Median=$100,000 |
Mean=$207,000 |
Mode=$100,000 |
Range: $0 to $30,000,000 |
5.7 Did you divide your ongoing
body of research and educational activities into several proposals and submit
them to NSF?
38% Yes
62% No
Now, think about any non-NSF funding you are getting for your
ongoing body of research and educational activities.
5.8 In addition to your NSF
funding, do you currently have other funding for your ongoing body of
research and educational activities?
· This may be
funding from sources such as your institution, another federal agency, a state
agency, a non-profit foundation, or a for-profit company or organization
72% Yes
27% No
<1% Don’t know
5.9 What is the total number of current
non-NSF funding sources for your ongoing body of research and educational
activities?
Median=2 |
Mean=2 |
Mode=1 |
Range: 0 to 420 |
5.10 And, what is the total
amount of annual funding you have from non-NSF sources?
Median=$100,000 |
Mean=$199,000 |
Mode=$100,000 |
Range: $0 to $10,000,000 |
The next set of questions are about your research activities and
professional duties.
5.11 What’s your
best estimate of the percent of your time spent conducting research in each of
the following ways:
· Your total must equal 100%
Work as part of a team with researchers from other disciplines.......... Median=10% Mean=14% Mode=0%
Range: 0% - 100% |
Work as part of a team including other senior investigators in the same discipline............................................................................... Median=20% Mean=25% Mode=20% Range: 0% - 100% |
Work individually with students and post doctoral assistants................ Median=55% Mean=54% Mode=50% Range: 0% - 100% |
Other (Please Specify).................................................................... Median=0% Mean=6% Mode=0%
Range: 0% - 100% |
|
5.12 How many peer-reviewed articles have you
published during the past 5 years where you have been the primary author?
Median=9 |
Mean=13 |
Mode=5 |
Range: 0 to 500 |
For the following
question, please think about your current experience.
5.13 How many people in the following categories
work with you on your current research projects?
|
|
Undergraduate Students Median=2
Mean=2 Mode=1 Range:
0 – 50 |
4% Non-Academic 5% Non-PhD 18% Other PhD 25% NSF Funding Top 20 26% NSF Funding Top 21-50 22% NSF Funding Top 51-100 |
Graduate Students Median=3
Mean=4 Mode=2 Range:
0 – 300 |
|
Post-doctoral fellows Median=1
Mean=1 Mode=0 Range:
0 – 100 |
5.14 Questionnaires by their nature are limited. Please write in any other comments you have
about your experiences with the NSF grant process that you think are important.
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire! Please return in the postage-paid envelope. |
Sample Institution National
Science Foundation Institutional Survey
|
Thank you for
participating in this study of institutional representatives who are
responsible for applying for and administering National Science Foundation
(NSF) grants. We know that your time
is valuable and we greatly appreciate your assistance. Dr. Colwell,
Director of the National Science Foundation, sent a letter informing your
institution about this study. Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) is conducting this study for the National Science
Foundation (NSF). To assist in their
future planning, NSF is very interested in learning more about NSF grants
from the perspective of the institutional representatives responsible for NSF
grants. Your participation is critical to the success of the
study and to the quality of the information we get about NSF
grants. If you have any questions
about the background of the study you can contact Bob Abel at NSF (nsf-survey@nsf.gov). If you have any questions or require any assistance
while you are completing the questionnaire, you may contact Matt Mishkind at
MPR (877‑236‑4185/nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com). CONFIDENTIALITY All of your responses to the
questionnaire are strictly confidential.
We will not use your name or email for any other purposes than this
study. All information from the study
will be kept in a secure place. Only
the MPR researchers directly working on the study will have access to this
information. Any reports of the
results of this study will be presented in the aggregate. INSTRUCTIONS As you answer some of these
questions, you will focus on the NSF FY 2001 grant(s) awarded to your
institution. It will include
questions about the NSF proposals submitted by your institution and the NSF
grants administered by your institution.
For your convenience, a list of these grants is enclosed. The process of
applying for and administering NSF grants may vary from institution to
institution.
The
purpose of this questionnaire is to get a general assessment of the resources
your institution uses for this process.
Please make sure the most informed person at your institution
completes each section of the questionnaire. For some institutions, multiple people may need to respond. |
Number of 2001 NSF grant awards Median=3 Mean=12 Mode=1
Number of 2001 NSF grant declines Median=7 Mean=32 Mode=1
The following questions focus on the proposal process at
your institution.
1.1 Does your
institution have a formal, standardized process that is followed to submit
grant proposals?
· This is only your
institution’s process for grant proposals, it does not refer to others such as NSF
FastLane
98% Yes
2% No
1.2 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to work with grant proposals?
· Do not include
principal investigators
99% Yes
1% No
SKIP TO Q1.4a
1.3 What is the
total number of each of the following assigned to grant proposals:
| | | individuals
Median=4
Mean=6 Mode=3
| | | administrative offices Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
1.4a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at
your institution involved in the proposal process for grants.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
1.4b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours individuals
in that office spent on a typical FY 2001 NSF grant proposal.
Administrative
Office |
Average Number
of Hours
Per NSF Grant Proposal |
|
Median=4 Mean=6 Mode=1 |
|
Median=2 Mean=4 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1 |
|
Median=3 Mean=10 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1 |
The following questions are about the process of negotiating
grant proposal revisions.
2.1 Does your
institution have a formal, standardized process that is followed to negotiate
grant proposal revisions?
72% Yes
28% No
2.2 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to work with grant proposal
revisions?
· Do not include
principal investigators
87% Yes
14% No
SKIP TO Q2.4a
2.3 What is the total number of each of the
following assigned to grant proposal revisions:
| | | individuals Median=3 Mean=5 Mode=3
| | | administrative offices Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
2.4a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at
your institution involved in the proposal revision process for grants.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
2.4b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours
individuals in that office spent on a typical FY 2001 NSF grant
proposal revision.
Administrative
Office |
Average
Number of Hours
Per NSF Grant
Proposal Revision |
|
Median=2 Mean=3 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=1 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1 |
|
Median=0 Mean=<1 Mode=1 |
2.5 For a
typical NSF grant that your institution is awarded, approximately
how many hours are spent communicating directly with NSF on revisions to the
original proposal?
· Do not include
principal investigator hours
| | | | average number
of hours per nsf grant
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
After a grant is awarded,
institutions are responsible for administering the grant and providing
additional oversight. For the following
questions, please think about grant administration.
3.1 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to administer grant awards?
97% Yes
3% No SKIP TO Q3.3a
3.2 What is the
total number of each of the following assigned to administer grants:
· Do not include
principal investigators
| | | individuals Median=4 Mean=8 Mode=3
| | | administrative offices Median=2
Mean=2 Mode=2
3.3a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at your
institution involved in administering grant awards.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
3.3b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours
individuals in that office spent to administer a typical FY 2001 NSF grant
award.
Administrative
Office |
Average
Number of Hours Per NSF
Grant Administration |
|
Median=8 Mean=21 Mode=5 |
|
Median=5 Mean=10 Mode=1 |
|
Median=4 Mean=11 Mode=1 |
|
Median=2 Mean=5 Mode=1 |
|
Median=10 Mean=7 Mode=<1 |
3.4 Approximately
how many hours are spent to complete and submit NSF required reports for
a typical FY 2001 NSF grant?
| | | | average
number of hours per nsf grant
Median=3 Mean=6 Mode=2
NSF is considering increasing the amount
and duration available for grants.
Think about how these potential changes would impact how your
institution applies for and administers NSF grants.
4.1 If NSF had
more money to award each year, please rank from most important (1) to least
important (3), the following possible actions for awards to your institution.
mark one |
|
||
Ranking |
|
||
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
44% |
38% |
13% |
Increase only the amount of
funding per award |
9% |
23% |
62% |
Increase only the duration per
award |
50% |
30% |
17% |
Increase only the total number of awards
per year |
4.2 Overall, if
NSF made each of the following changes, would it increase, decrease, or not
make any difference in the administrative time your institution uses to
mange all aspects of NSF awards?
|
|
Increase Time Needed |
Decrease Time Needed |
No Difference
in Time
Needed |
|
a.
|
Increasing the amount of funding
for NSF awards................................................................ |
12% |
7% |
81% |
|
b.
|
Increasing the duration of NSF
awards........... |
42% |
24% |
33% |
|
c.
|
Increasing the total number of
NSF awards.... |
86% |
--% |
14% |
|
4.3 In your
opinion, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your
institution if NSF increased the average dollar amount for each grant award?
4.4 Now, what, if
any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF
increased the average duration for each grant award?
4.5 Please outline
any suggestions you have for NSF changes that would result in a reduction of
the amount of time and resources used by your institution to manage NSF grants.
The following questions will provide
an overview of the grants managed by your institution.
5.1 Thinking about
all the grant awards managed by your office in FY 2001, approximately
what percent is for NSF grants?
| | | |
percent Median=10%
Mean=16% Mode=10%
5.2 And,
approximately what percent of the total dollar amount of all grant
awards managed by your office in FY 2001, is for NSF grants?
| | | |
percent Median=12% Mean=18% Mode=1%
Questionnaires
by their nature are sometimes limited.
Please write in any other comments you have about your institution’s
experiences with the NSF grant process.
Thank you very much for completing this
questionnaire. Please use the
enclosed postage-paid envelope to return it to: Matt Mishkind, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., P.O. Box
2393, Princeton, NJ 08543. |
Type of Institution |
11% Non-Academic |
28% Non-PhD |
44% Other
PhD |
5% NSF Funding Top 20 |
3% NSF Funding Top
21-50 |
9% NSF Funding Top
51-100 |
APPENDIX C
NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION
APPENDIX C
NONSAMPLE INSTITUTION SURVEY RESULTS
This section of the appendix provides a general overview of the results on the completed questionnaires from the 264 institutional representatives who were not selected as part of the scientific sample of institutions described in Appendix A. These results can be categorized as a convenience sample rather than a scientific sample. The results of the scientific institution sample discussed in the report text can be projected on the population of all FY 2001 institutions who had PIs that received NSF grants; the results from this convenience sample describes the responses from these 264 institutional representatives.
The results from these nonsample institutions follows in two forms: (1) an annotated questionnaire with the responses and (2) tables that have the percentages of responses from the open-ended questions. It should be noted that in Appendix G there is a table with the central tendency distributions for the nonsample institutions.
Nonsample Institution OMB Approval Number: 3145-0185 National
Science Foundation Institutional Survey
|
Thank
you for participating in this study of institutional representatives who are responsible
for applying for and administering National Science Foundation (NSF)
grants. We know that your time is
valuable and we greatly appreciate your assistance. Dr.
Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, sent a letter informing
your institution about this study.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) is conducting this study for
the National Science Foundation (NSF).
To assist in their future planning, NSF is very interested in learning
more about NSF grants from the perspective of the institutional
representatives responsible for NSF grants. Your participation is critical to the success
of the study and to the quality of the information we get about NSF
grants. If you have any questions
about the background of the study you can contact Bob Abel at NSF (nsf-survey@nsf.gov). If you have any questions or require any
assistance while you are completing the questionnaire, you may contact Matt
Mishkind at MPR (877‑236‑4185/nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com). CONFIDENTIALITY All of your responses to the
questionnaire are strictly confidential.
We will not use your name or email for any other purposes than this
study. All information from the study
will be kept in a secure place. Only
the MPR researchers directly working on the study will have access to this
information. Any reports of the
results of this study will be presented in the aggregate. INSTRUCTIONS As you answer some of these
questions, you will focus on the NSF FY 2001 grant(s) awarded to your
institution. It will include
questions about the NSF proposals submitted by your institution and the NSF
grants administered by your institution.
For your convenience, a list of these grants is enclosed. The process of
applying for and administering NSF grants may vary from institution to
institution.
The
purpose of this questionnaire is to get a general assessment of the resources
your institution uses for this process.
Please make sure the most informed person at your institution
completes each section of the questionnaire. For some institutions, multiple people may need to respond. |
Number of 2001 NSF grant awards Median=2 Mean=10 Mode=1
Number of 2001 NSF grant declines Median=9 Mean=27 Mode=1
The following questions focus on the proposal process at
your institution.
1.1 Does your
institution have a formal, standardized process that is followed to submit
grant proposals?
· This is only your
institution’s process for grant proposals, it does not refer to others such as
NSF FastLane
94% Yes
5% No
1.2 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to work with grant proposals?
· Do not include
principal investigators
96% Yes
3% No
SKIP TO Q1.4a
1.3 What is the
total number of each of the following assigned to grant proposals:
| | | individuals
Median=3
Mean=5 Mode=2
| | | administrative offices Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
1.4a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at
your institution involved in the proposal process for grants.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
1.4b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours
individuals in that office spent on a typical FY 2001 NSF grant
proposal.
Administrative
Office |
Average Number
of Hours
Per NSF Grant Proposal |
|
Median=4 Mean=8 Mode=2 |
|
Median=2 Mean=4 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1 |
|
Median=1 Mean=4 Mode=1 |
|
Median=2 Mean=7 Mode=1 |
The following questions are about the process of negotiating
grant proposal revisions.
2.1 Does your
institution have a formal, standardized process that is followed to negotiate
grant proposal revisions?
65% Yes
34% No
2.2 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to work with grant proposal
revisions?
· Do not include
principal investigators
85% Yes
14% No
SKIP TO Q2.4a
2.3 What is the total number of each of the following
assigned to grant proposal revisions:
| | | individuals Median=3 Mean=4 Mode=2
| | | administrative offices Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
2.4a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at
your institution involved in the proposal revision process for grants.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
2.4b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours individuals
in that office spent on a typical FY 2001 NSF grant proposal revision.
Administrative
Office |
Average
Number of Hours
Per NSF Grant
Proposal Revision |
|
|
Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=2 Mean=5 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=7 Mean=7 Mode=* |
*No value
calculated |
2.5 For a
typical NSF grant that your institution is awarded, approximately
how many hours are spent communicating directly with NSF on revisions to the
original proposal?
· Do not include
principal investigator hours
| | | | average
number of hours per nsf grant
Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
After a
grant is awarded, institutions are responsible for administering the grant and
providing additional oversight. For the
following questions, please think about grant administration.
3.1 Are there specific
individuals or administrative offices assigned to administer grant awards?
96% Yes
3% No SKIP TO Q3.3a
3.2 What is the
total number of each of the following assigned to administer grants:
· Do not include
principal investigators
| | | individuals Median=3 Mean=6 Mode=2
| | | administrative offices Median=2
Mean=2 Mode=2
3.3a In the grid
below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at
your institution involved in administering grant awards.
· Do not include
individual academic departments or research centers
3.3b For each
office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours
individuals in that office spent to administer a typical FY 2001 NSF grant
award.
Administrative
Office |
Average
Number of Hours Per NSF
Grant Administration |
|
|
Median=8 Mean=18 Mode=2 |
|
|
Median=5 Mean=16 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=6 Mean=14 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=6 Mean=10 Mode=1 |
|
|
Median=9 Mean=13 Mode=* |
*No value
calculated |
3.4 Approximately
how many hours are spent to complete and submit NSF required reports for
a typical FY 2001 NSF grant?
| | | | average
number of hours per nsf grant
Median=4 Mean=8 Mode=2
NSF is considering increasing the
amount and duration available for grants.
Think about how these potential changes would impact how your
institution applies for and administers NSF grants.
4.1 If NSF had more
money to award each year, please rank from most important (1) to least
important (3), the following possible actions for awards to your institution.
mark one |
|
||
Ranking |
|
||
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
36% |
39% |
12% |
Increase only the amount of
funding per award |
6% |
28% |
52% |
Increase only the duration per
award |
46% |
20% |
21% |
Increase only the total number of
awards per year |
4.2 Overall, if
NSF made each of the following changes, would it increase, decrease, or not
make any difference in the administrative time your institution uses to
mange all aspects of NSF awards?
|
|
Increase Time Needed |
Decrease Time Needed |
No Difference
in Time
Needed |
|
a.
|
Increasing the amount of funding
for NSF awards................................................................ |
17% |
5% |
77% |
|
b.
|
Increasing the duration of NSF
awards........... |
41% |
20% |
38% |
|
c.
|
Increasing the total number of
NSF awards.... |
85% |
1% |
14% |
|
4.3 In your
opinion, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your
institution if NSF increased the average dollar amount for each grant award?
4.4 Now, what, if
any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF
increased the average duration for each grant award?
4.5 Please outline
any suggestions you have for NSF changes that would result in a reduction of
the amount of time and resources used by your institution to manage NSF grants.
The following questions will provide
an overview of the grants managed by your institution.
5.1 Thinking about
all the grant awards managed by your office in FY 2001, approximately
what percent is for NSF grants?
| | | |
percent Median=10%
Mean=16% Mode=10%
5.2 And,
approximately what percent of the total dollar amount of all grant
awards managed by your office in FY 2001, is for NSF grants?
| | | | percent Median=11%
Mean=18% Mode=10%
Questionnaires
by their nature are sometimes limited.
Please write in any other comments you have about your institution’s
experiences with the NSF grant process.
Thank you very much for completing this
questionnaire. Please use the
enclosed postage-paid envelope to return it to: Matt Mishkind, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., P.O. Box
2393, Princeton, NJ 08543. |
Type of Institution |
20% Non-Academic |
30% Non-PhD |
34% Other
PhD |
2% NSF Funding Top 20 |
5% NSF Funding Top
21-50 |
9% NSF Funding Top
51-100 |
TABLE C-1
NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTION SURVEY
CHANGES
IF NSF INCREASED THE AVERAGE DURATION PER GRANT
|
Total Responses (415) |
|
Grant Process General
comments (21) Increase
time and effort (11) Decrease
time and effort (7) |
39 |
|
Research Changes Improved
quality/efficiency |
15 |
|
Award Duration Improvements More
stable funding; fewer no-cost extensions |
12 |
|
Staffing Changes General
comments (5) More
student involvement (4) Positive
PI impact (6) |
16 |
|
No Changes |
10 |
|
No Comment/No Response |
8 |
|
TOTAL |
100 |
TABLE C-2
NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTION SURVEY
CHANGES
IF NSF INCREASED THE AVERAGE DOLLAR AWARD PER GRANT
|
Total Responses (438) |
Grant Process General
comments (14) Increase
time and effort (7) Decrease
time and effort (5) Increase
number of applications (4) |
31 |
Research Changes More
conducted, improved quality |
26 |
Staffing Changes General
comments (5) More
student involvement (12) More
faculty involvement (4) |
21 |
Award Amount More
stable funding; more budget flexibility |
7 |
No Changes |
9 |
No Comment/No Response |
6 |
TOTAL |
100 |
TABLE C-3
NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTION SURVEY
SUGGESTIONS
FOR NSF CHANGES TO REDUCE
INSTITUTION
TIME AND RESOURCES
|
Total Responses (329) |
Grant Process |
50 |
General
comments (22) Reduce
budget revisions, requests (3) Comments
on FastLane improvements (5) Positive
experience with FastLane (20) |
|
General Comments on Award Amount and Duration |
8 |
No Suggestions |
6 |
Experience with NSF Staff No Comments/No Response |
4 32 |
TOTAL |
100 |
TABLE C-4
NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTION SURVEY
OTHER
COMMENTS ON THE NSF GRANT PROCESS
|
Total Responses (313) |
NSF Staff |
5 |
-
Positive experiences (3) -
Other comments (2) |
|
Technology/Fast Lane |
19 |
Level of Effort for Grant Process |
21 |
Award Duration and Amount |
* |
Other Comments |
7 |
No Comments |
47 |
TOTAL |
99 |
*Less than 1%
APPENDIX D
VERBATIM RESPONSE CODING FRAME
APPENDIX D CONTENTS
A. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
B. INSTITUTION: SAMPLE AND NONSAMPLE
APPENDIX
D – A
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY - VERBATIM RESPONSE CODING FRAME
101. Reduced project scope
102. Reduced data quality
103. Reduced lab analysis
104. Reduced field work
105. Delayed start of project
106. Slower rate of project progress
107. Elimination of follow-on work
108. Possible project termination
109. Increased
ability to travel
110. Increased
project scope
111. Increased
research efforts
112. Increased rate
of project progress
113. Reduced
time/rushed results
114. Reduced
duration of research
115. Reduction in
high-risk projects
No other impacts have been identified that differed from those already listed in section 2.3B of the survey.
C. Process and Team
Building
301. Ability to recruit/retain staff
302. Staff eliminated
303. Salaries reduced
304. Advisor involvement curtailed
305. Team morale harmed
306. Travel reduced
307. Increased time spent on seeking funding rather than research
308. Increased time spent on other projects to generate income
309. Project continuity jeopardized
310. Training curtailed
311. Increased
ability to concentrate on project/research
312. Enabled to
develop more effective international collaborations
313. Eliminated
collaboration with other scientists
314. Enabled to hire
more students (under grads, minority)
315. Increased
community interaction (teachers, schools)
401. Ability to purchase supplies and equipment
402. Limited funding to cover emergencies/equipment repairs
403. General
increase in funding
E. No Impact/Impact
Unknown
501. No additional impact
502. Minor impact only
503. Too early to determine impact
504. No impact because funding cut was compensated by another institution
601. Possible termination of relationship with NSF
101. Expand planned project scope
102. Research new ideas/information discovered during
planned research (innovative/high risk)
103. Improve data quality
104. Increase data analysis
105. Increase amount of field work
106. Faster rate of project progress
107. Pursue longer-term projects
108. Without NSF
support my research would never have been supported/continue
201. Improve dissemination:
202. Enhanced integration of research with education
203. Development of new course material
204. Conservation
205. Enhance national and international public health
206. Positive impact on reputation of institution
207. Positive career impact/tenure for PI
208. Increase public outreach
209. Increase technology transfer to underdeveloped countries
210. Lend credibility to project
211. Keep up with inflation
212. Implementation and commercialization of research results
213. Maintain competitiveness within international scientific community
214. Positive agricultural implications
215. Enhanced possibility of developing patents
216. Specific description of a scientific advance
217. Increased
interaction/collaboration with colleagues/peers/other scientists
218. NSF grant
increases my ability to receive matching funds from other sources
C. Process and Team
Building
301. Ability to recruit/retain staff
302. Increase travel
303. Decrease time spent on seeking funding; increase time spent on research
304. If a larger grant were to be given rather than multiple smaller ones, less time would be spent on administrative activities.
305. Increased ability to mentor women and minority students
306. Increasing duration of grant would better correlate with the length of time needed for a student to earn a graduate degree.
307. Improve productivity/continuity of project with less staff turnover
308. Improve student productivity by funding them as Research Assistants
instead of as Teaching Assistants.
309. Increased ability to attract
bright, quality, graduate and post doctorate students/ability to
encourage/excite scientists of the future
401. Increase ability to purchase supplies and equipment
402. Establish separate course and research labs possible
403. New methodologies for research/experimentation
404. Establish research facilities
E. No Impact
501. No additional impact
502. Question is not applicable
101. NSF is the only source of funding for the particular type of project
102. Project would not have been possible but for NSF funding
103. NSF funding enabled a new area of research within a program
104. NSF funding allows researchers more flexibility than other agencies
105. NSF funding enables more fundamental research rather than applied research only
106. NSF funding helped the investigator’s career
107. NSF funding enabled more funding to be obtained
108. Funding for new scientists should be facilitated
109. Funding of international projects is excellent
110. There should be an award appeal process
111. More awards should be given, even if that would necessitate smaller grants
112. Non-US citizens should be able to be supported by awards
113. Program directors should have term limits
114. Program directors should not rotate for improved continuity
115. More focus should be placed on research programs than individual projects
116. Individual awards should not be eliminated in favor of awards to larger groups
117. More graduate student scholarships should be given
118. The CAREER program emphasizes teaching too heavily
119. Valuable to have teaching/training incorporated with research
120. NSF should have
a larger total budget
121. NSF budget cuts
during projects are problematic
122. Require more
funding of international projects
123. Funding for new
scientists is satisfactory
124. Probability of
receiving NSF grants is low
201. Grant size should be larger
202. Grant size should not be larger to allow more researchers to receive grants
203. Perceived disparity regarding size of grants awarded within different programs
204. Principle Investigators deliberately request larger budgets in anticipation of reduction in award
205. Award size is not keeping up with inflation
206. Award size is not keeping up with growing costs of conducting research
207. Award size is not keeping up with scientists’ now-higher standard of living
208. Additional funding needed for more students
209. Additional funding needed for publication and dissemination of results
210. Additional funding needed for equipment
211. Additional funding needed for technical support
212. Overhead should not be included in awards but handled separately
213. Salary-release funding should be included in awards
214. Grant should
cover summer salaries
215. Grant should
not cover summer salaries
216. Grant amount
should be smaller
217. Receiving
funding for smaller projects is difficult
218. Funding for new
scientists is good/satisfactory
219. Additional
funding for information management is needed
220. Need for more
starter grants
301. Grant duration should be longer
302. Grant duration should remain shorter to allow more researchers to receive grants
303. 3 years is not enough time to complete project
304. 2-3 years is not enough time for a graduate student to complete his/her degree
305. Longer award duration is better as it provides more stability and ability to plan ahead
306. Projects with shorter term awards lose research assistants, who seek projects with longer-term funding.
307. Impossible to define a finite end to research, so cannot determine how much award duration should be increased
308. Difficult to maintain program continuity with breaks in funding
309. No-cost extensions are useful
310. Award renewals should be facilitated
311. Grant duration should be shorter
401. Smaller award size requires more time to be spent on proposal preparation
402. Excessive amounts of time required for proposal preparation
403. Reasonable amounts of time required for proposal preparation
404. Increased program officer involvement is needed
405. Program officer involvement was satisfactory/helpful
406. NSF should require justification for any proposal not including student involvement
407. Investigators must promise more than can be delivered in proposals
408. The proposal process is becoming too competitive to be a cost-effective way to obtain funding.
409. Investigator uncertain of the criteria used to determine a fundable proposal
410. Page limit of proposals should be increased
411. Proposal deadlines are inappropriate for the field season
412. Investigators should be allowed to submit proposals to more than one organization.
413. NSF should increase the number of proposal due dates to help eliminate funding gaps.
414. NSF should not put so much emphasis on inclusion of outreach and/or elementary education activities in proposals
415. Multiple submissions for the same
project is draining/a waste
416. Proposal
process is beneficial to clarify goals
417. Must have results in hand in order to be funded
501. Reviews do not enable multidiscipline work
502. Reviews enable multidiscipline work
503. Panel review should not replace mail review
504. Investigators should be able to respond to review feedback.
505. Reviewers should be made more accountable for their reviews
506. Some reviewers appear unqualified
507. Some reviewers appear not to be conscientious in their efforts
508. Award decisions are risk-averse
509. Award decisions support risky projects
510. Reviewers are too influenced by requested budget
511. Reviews should be completed in a shorter timeframe
512. Review completion timeframe was satisfactory
513. Publication of books as well as peer-reviewed articles should be considered
514. Too much delay between notification of award and the time when funds actually became available.
515. Investigators should be notified that they did not receive an award in time to resubmit for the next deadline.
516. More information should be provided on the details of how a panel arrives at its decision.
517. Reviewer comments were inappropriate
518. Investigators should not be penalized for already having another grant
519. Peer review process is satisfactory
520. Reviewer(s) who review an initial proposal should also review resubmissions
521. Reviewers should focus on conceptual aspects of the proposal only
522. Past results from awards should not be considered
523. Past results from awards should be considered more
524. Review process is overly
political/biased; more anonymity with respect to researchers (names, salaries)
reviewers favor colleagues’ interests
525. Rating system appears arbitrary and ratings assigned by reviewers
are given too much consideration by project managers
526. Review process needs improvement (not further specified)
527. Review panel participants should be changed periodically
528. Larger and/or more prestigious institutions/universities are favored
in reviews
601. FASTLANE is satisfactory/convenient
602. FASTLANE is improved
603. FASTLANE is difficult/inconvenient
604. The paper process is preferred over the automated process
605. Satisfaction with NSF grant officer
606. Annual report should be required after rather than prior to the end of the first year
607. Administration workload is too heavy
701. Open workshops are very helpful
702. More guidance on determining appropriate funding levels is needed
703. NSF’s main web site is difficult to navigate
704. An on-line chat site should be available where investigators can post questions concerning the proposal preparation process.
705. New scientists need more assistance with budget formulation
706. More feedback is needed on annual reports
707. Means for providing anonymous feedback regarding program officers should be made available to PIs.
708. More orientation is needed for new awardees
709. Workshops should be held for writing and managing proposals
710. Researchers should receive annual updates indicating NSF’s targeted areas of support.
711. Investigators need more
assistance/guidance overall
801. The number of articles co-authored should be considered in addition to number of articles where the PI is the primary author, since many PIs allow students to be listed first.
802. The number of books authored should also be considered
803. Survey respondents should be provided with a summary of survey responses
804. The survey is too long
805. Survey is not easily applicable to the respondent’s project
806. Overall
satisfaction with NSF grant
I. No Additional Comments
APPENDIX E
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY CONTACT INFORMATION
APPENDIX E CONTENTS
A. DR.
COLWELL EMAIL INVITATION
B.
PARTICIPATION EMAIL
C. REMINDER
EMAIL
Dear NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is examining its principal investigator research grants program with regard to the appropriate size and duration of awards. This examination will include an external survey to provide NSF with FY 2001 principal investigator advice on the most appropriate grant size and duration of their FY 2001 awards. The goal of the study it to improve the overall efficiency of the research process.
To accomplish this objective, NSF has commissioned Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.(MPR) to conduct a confidential survey. In the next week or so you will receive information directly from MPR about your participation in the survey. MPR will present the results of this survey only as statistical tabulations and there will not be any personal identification. All of your responses will be totally confidential.
This survey will provide important guidance to NSF with regard to future decisions about proposal funding. We realize that your time is very valuable, but we ask that you participate in this study so that NSF will have the most complete and accurate information. If you would like additional information please contact Mathew Mishkind at MPR (nsfgrantsweb@mathematica-mpr.com).
Thank you for participating in this survey.
Sincerely,
Rita R. Colwell
Director
APPENDIX
E - B
Dear
NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR,
In January, you were sent a letter from
Dr.Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, asking you to
participate in a study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research to learn more
about NSF grants from the perspective of the principal investigator. As described in Dr. Colwell's letter, MPR
contacted you with information on how to participate in this study.
Our records indicate that you have not yet
completed the questionnaire for this very important study. We understand that your time is important
and that is why we have designed this study to be completed at your convenience
on the World Wide Web. Because each NSF
grant is unique, it is very important to get a completed questionnaire from
each principal investigator. Due to the
continued interest in the project, we have extended the due date to March 8,
2002. Please take the time now to go to
the website and complete the questionnaire.
Please click on this link to begin the
questionnaire:
http://NSFGRANTS.Mathematica-mpr.com
USERNAME: NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PASSWORD: 12345
All of the information you provide will be
totally confidential. We will not use
your name or email for any other purpose than this study. Mathematica is required to protect the
privacy of people who respond to the survey.
Please be assured that the information you provide is confidential. Names and addresses will not be released to
anyone. All personal data are stored
behind Mathematica's firewall to protect against unauthorized access.
If you have any questions about the
background of the study you may contact Bob Abel at NSF
mailto:NSF-Surveys@nsf.gov . For
general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matt Mishkind at
(877)-236-4185 or mailto:NSFGRANTSWEB@Mathematica-mpr.com .
Regards,
Janice
Ballou
Vice
President
An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB number for this project
is 3145-0185.
APPENDIX
E - C
Dear
NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR,
Recently a letter from Dr.Colwell, Director
of the National Science Foundation (NSF), informed you that Mathematica Policy
Research would contact you about a study we are conducting to assist NSF in
their future planning. The main objective
of the study is to learn more about NSF grants from the perspective of the
principal investigator. This study will
give you an opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences with
the grant process. Because each NSF grant is unique, it is very important to
get a completed questionnaire from each principal investigator. March 8, 2002 is the deadline to complete
the questionnaire. Please take the time
now to go to the website and complete the questionnaire.
The questionnaire that NSF would like you
to complete can be found at http://NSFGRANTS.Mathematica-mpr.com . You will be prompted to enter a username and
password when you enter the site.
USERNAME: NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PASSWORD: 12345
All of the information you provide will be
totally confidential. We will not use
your name or email for any other purpose than this study. Mathematica is required to protect the
privacy of people who respond to the survey.
Please be assured that the information you provide is confidential. Names and addresses will not be released to
anyone. All personal data are stored
behind Mathematica's firewall to protect against unauthorized access. If you have any questions about the
background of the study you may contact Bob Abel at NSF
mailto:NSF-Surveys@nsf.gov . For
general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matt Mishkind at
(877)-236-4185 or mailto:NSFGRANTSWEB@Mathematica-mpr.com .
Regards,
Janice
Ballou
Vice
President
An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB number for this project
is 3145-0185.
APPENDIX F
INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY CONTACT INFORMATION
APPENDIX F CONTENTS
A. LETTER FROM DR. COLWELL TO INSTITUTION
PRESIDENTS INTRODUCING THE SURVEYS
B. INVITATION AND CONTACT
INFORMATION EMAIL
C. INVITATION LETTER
D. QUESTIONNAIRE INSERT - 2001
NSF GRANTS AWARDED
E. QUESTIONNAIRE INSERT - NO
GRANT AWARD REFERENCE
F. EXTENDED DEADLINE INSERT
G. REMINDER EMAIL 1
H. REMINDER EMAIL 2
APPENDIX F - A
Dear NAME OF INSTITUTION
President,
The National Science Foundation
(NSF) continues to examine ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the research funding process. In order
to better understand the appropriate size, appropriate duration, and impact of
its awards, NSF has commissioned two surveys: one survey of principal
investigators and one survey of institutional representatives.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
(MPR), on behalf of NSF, will conduct these surveys. In the next week or so the surveys will be sent directly to a
sample of principal investigators at your institution and to your institutional
representative.
All of the responses will be
confidential and there will not be any identification of institutions or
principal investigators. MPR will
present the results of these surveys to NSF only as statistical tabulations.
These surveys are integral to
NSF’s commitment to fully enabling science and engineering. The survey results will provide insight to
NSF on the grant process and investment priorities and strategies. We greatly appreciate your willingness to
support this project in order to ensure that NSF will have the most complete
and accurate information. If you would
like additional information, please contact Mathew Mishkind at MPR (nsfgrantsweb@mathematica-mpr.com).
Thank you for supporting your
institution’s participation in these surveys.
Sincerely,
Rita
R. Colwell
Director
APPENDIX
F - B
Recently Dr.Colwell, Director of the
National Science Foundation (NSF), informed your institution that Mathematica
Policy Research is conducting a study to assist NSF in their future
planning. The main objective of the
study is to learn more about NSF grants from the perspective of the
institutions.
It is very important that the Institutional
Survey is completed by the person who is the most knowledgeable about the
overall grant process from the proposal phase to grant administration, and who
has final administrative responsibility for this process. Please reply to this
email with the name and contact information for this person.
__ I am the person who should be
contacted for this study.
__ The person listed below should be
contacted for this study.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
EMAIL:
If you have any questions about the
background of the study you may contact Bob Abel at NSF (703-292-4492 or
mailto:nsf-surveys@nsf.gov). For
general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matthew Mishkind at
877-236-4185 or mailto:NSFGrants@Mathematica-mpr.com
This study will give your institution an
opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences with the grant
process. Because each institution is
unique, it is very important to have your participation. Please take the time now to email the requested
information.
Regards,
Janice
Ballou
Vice
President
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB number of this project
is 3145-0185.
Greetings:
Recently a letter from Dr.Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), informed your institution that Mathematica Policy Research would contact you about a study we are conducting to assist NSF in their future planning. The main objective of the study is to learn more about NSF grants from the perspective of the institutions.
The questionnaire that NSF would like you to complete is included in this packet. All of the information you provide will be totally confidential. Information from the study will only be in the aggregate.
If you have any questions about the background of the study
you may contact Bob Abel at NSF
(nsf-survey@nsf.govb).
For general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matt
Mishkind at 877-236-4185/nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com.
This study
will give you an opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences
with the grant process. Because each institution is unique, it is very
important to get your completed questionnaire by March 8, 2002. Please take the
time now to answer these questions.
Regards,
Janice Ballou
Vice President
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB number of this project is
3145-0185.
APPENDIX F - D
NSF Grants Awarded FY 2001
Institution
Principal Investigator Award Amount Award Duration Grant Title
George
Washington Univ
Bellaachia Abdelghani "$369,003.00" 3 ITR/AP:
A Web‑Based Scientific Analysis Facility for
Nuclear
& Particle Physics Data
Goodfriend Glenn "$250,063.00" 3 The
Origin of Geographic Diversity in the Bahamian
Land
Snail Cerion: The Fossil History of Modern
Patterns
Heller Rachelle "$149,201.00" 3 ADVANCE
Leadership Award
Maltzman Forrest "$72,142.00" 2 Collaborative Research: Party Effects
in Congress
Vonortas Nicholas "$183,295.00" 2 Network
Indicators
Zeng Chen "$300,000.00" 5 CAREER:
Statistical Physics of Disordered Systems:
A
Program for the Development and Application of
Exact
Combinatorial Algorithms to Extended Systems
in
Disordered Media
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 Page
250 of 1164
APPENDIX
F- E
MATHEMATICA
Policy
Research, Inc.
MEMORANDUM P.O. Box 2393
Princeton,
NJ 08543-2393
Telephone
(609) 799-3535
Fax
(609) 799-0005
www.mathematica-mpr.com
TO: NSF Grants Institutional Survey Respondent
FROM: Janice BallouDavid
Frank DATE:
3/1/2002
SUBJECT: FY
2001 NSF FY 2001 Grant Awards
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has provided As noted in the instructions to the questionnaire, Mathematica
Policy Research (MPR) planned to provide you with a listing of your
institution’s Fiscal Year 2001
Principal Investigators and their respective NSF FY 2001 Grant
Awards as a
reference.. In order to assist those individuals who are
completing the NSF Grants Institutional Survey, MPR has been including an
insert that identifies the grants awarded to Principal Investigators from their
institution as a reference while considering the survey questions. Unfortunately, MPR has not been able to
prepare this insert for your institution.
We apologize for any inconvenience or increased burden that this
imposes. While Wwe
are do
not able to
provide you with this information. However, you can complete the questionnaire without this
listing or you
may have your own list of NSF FY 2001 Grant Awards to use as a reference.
Pleasehave specific grant
information that we can provide you with at this time, please feel free to
contact MPR at nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com
if you have any
questions. We look forward to your
participation in this important study.
are unable to complete this survey without further
information.
ATTENTION
EXTENDED DEADLINE TO RETURN
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY
RETURN DATE MARCH 15, 2002
The enclosed questionnaire will have a March 8, 2002 return date. Since we have just recently received the information to mail your questionnaire packet, the return date has been extended to March 15, 2002.
This study will give your institution the opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences with the grant process. Because each institution is unique, it is very important to have your participation.
Please note that this study had two different questionnaires: 1) the NSF Institution Survey which is the focus of this letter and 2) a web-based survey of principal investigators that focuses on individual grant experiences. If for some reason you were included in both groups, you may have already completed the principal investigator questionnaire. It is very important to also complete the institutional questionnaire.
APPENDIX
F - G
The National Science Foundation (NSF) study
of institutions is very important. In
the past few weeks, you received an initial email and a reminder from
Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) briefly describing the study and requesting
information to insure we contact the most appropriate person to participate in
this study.
We have not heard from you and would like
to have your response as soon as possible so we can insure the research
conducted for NSF is representative and provides the information NSF needs for
their future planning. If you have
already replied, thank you for your cooperation. Your institution will soon
receive a three page questionnaire about your NSF experience.
It is very important that the Institution
Survey is completed by the person who is the most knowledgeable about the
overall grant process from the proposal phase to grant administration, and who
has final administrative responsibility
for this process. Please reply
to this email with the name and contact information for this person:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
EMAIL:
If you have any questions about the
background of the study you may contact Bob Abel at NSF
(mailto:nsf-surveys@nsf.gov). For
general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matthew Mishkind at
877-236-4185 or mailto:nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com .
This study will give your institution the
opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences with the grant
process. Because each institution is unique, it is very important to have your
participation. Please take the time to
email the requested information.
Regards,
Janice
Ballou
Vice
President
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB number of this project is 3145-0185.
APPENDIX
F - H
REMINDER: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL
SURVEY RETURN DATE EXTENDED TO MARCH 15, 2002
We have not yet received a completed
questionnaire from your institution.
If you have already completed and returned
the mail questionnaire please inform us by responding to this message. Thank you very much for your participation
in this study.
As you know from our previous messages, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) study of institutions is very important. In
the past few weeks, you were sent an email from Mathematica Policy Research
(MPR) describing briefly the study and requesting information to insure we
contact the most appropriate person to participate in this study. All
institutions providing this information were sent a packet containing the
questionnaire and a list of FY 2001 grants received by the respective
institutions.
--If you have completed the questionnnaire,
but have not yet returned it by mail to MPR, please consider making copies of
all of the pages, including the cover, and sending it by fax to the attention
of Matthew Mishkind at 609-799-0005.
If you have any questions about the
background of the study you may contact Bob Abel at NSF
(mailto:nsf-surveys@nsf.gov). For
general survey questions or questions about MPR, contact Matthew Mishkind at
877-236-4185 or (mailto:nsfgrants@mathematica-mpr.com).
This study will give your institution the
opportunity to provide NSF information about your experiences with the grant
process. Because each institution is unique, it is very important to have your
participation.
Regards,
Janice
Ballou
Vice
President
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB number of this project is 3145-0185.
APPENDIX G
STATISTICAL TABULATIONS
APPENDIX G CONTENTS
A. MEASURE
OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR SURVEY
B. MEASURE
OF CENTRAL TENDENCY CONSTRUCTED VARIABLES:
PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR SURVEY
C. CROSS
TABULATIONS: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
SURVEY
D. MEASURE
OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: SAMPLE
INSTITUTIONS
E. MEASURE
OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: NONSAMPLE
INSTITUTIONS
APPENDIX G
STATISTICAL
TABULATIONS
The statistical tabulations that follow include the central tendency distributions for the: (1) PI survey results, (2) sample institution survey results, and (3) nonsample institution survey results. In addition, for the PI survey results there is a set of cross tabulations for a selected group of key questions in the questionnaire. There is a full set of electronic tabulations for all questionnaire items. The questions included in Appendix G represent the following PI categories:
Banner 1
· Type of grant submission
· Type of research being funded
· Changes in funding from proposal request to award
· Changes in duration from proposal request to award
· Professional age based on date of PI’s last degree
Banner 2
· Additional years needed to accomplish PI goals
· Percentage of goals achieved in next 5 years with NSF award
· Additional funding needed to accomplish PI goals
· Use of national or international facility
Banner 3
· NSF Directorate
· Preparation hours for FY 2001 grant proposal submission
· Number of PI published peer review articles
APPENDIX G – A
MEASURE OF CENTRAL
TENDENCY: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY
APPENDIX G – B
MEASURE OF CENTRAL
TENDENCY CONSTRUCTED VARIABLES:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY
APPENDIX G - C
CROSS TABULATIONS:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY
APPENDIX G – D
MEASURE OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: SAMPLE INSTITUTIONS
APPENDIX G – E
MEASURE OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: NONSAMPLE INSTITUTIONS