Appendix D
Responses from Stakeholders to Preliminary Observations
The Panel’s preliminary observations (see Appendix C) were posted online from April 14 through May 10, 2022, along with an online portal that presented observations sequentially in abbreviated form with the option to comment or skip. A total of 84 individuals left comments. Respondents were given optional questions about the type of organization for which they work (see Table D-1), job titles (see Table D-2), and location (see Table D-3). Table D-4 is a snapshot of agreement or disagreement and short topics mentioned by respondents. Complete responses are available from the project’s public access file at www.nationalacademies.org.
TABLE D-1 Type of Organization with Which Respondents Are Affiliated
| Type of Organization | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|
| 1862 land-grant institution | 43 |
| 1890 land-grant institution | 9 |
| 1994 land-grant institution | 7 |
| Regional Association of State Agency Experiment Station Directors | 2 |
| Regional Association of Extension Directors | 2 |
| Association of 1890s Research Directors | 1 |
| First-Americans Land-Grant Consortium | 1 |
| Extension Committee on Organization and Policy | 1 |
| Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy | 1 |
| State Science Teachers Association | 1 |
| Extension Foundation | 1 |
| Federal agency | 4 |
| State agency | 3 |
| Agricultural producer | 1 |
| Private company | 1 |
| Total | 78 |
TABLE D-2 Job Titles of Respondents
| Job Title | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Experiment station director | 2 |
| Extension administrator | 9 |
| Faculty (tenured professor or associate professor) | 18 |
| Faculty (non-tenure track) | 5 |
| Dean | 1 |
| Department chair | 5 |
| Lab technician | 1 |
| Land-grant director/coordinator | 4 |
| Land-grant outreach specialist | 1 |
| Library director | 1 |
| PhD candidate | 1 |
| Recruitment/student support | 1 |
| Sr. extension associate | 1 |
| Unit director | 1 |
| Vice president for research | 2 |
| Total | 53 |
TABLE D-3 Summary of Respondents’ Locations
| Location | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Midwest | 22 |
| Northeast | 17 |
| South | 17 |
| West | 19 |
| Other (Samoa) | 1 |
| Total | 76 |
TABLE D-4 Topics Mentioned in Responses to the Observations
| Observations and Topics Mentioned in Responses | Number of Responses |
|---|---|
|
Obs. 1: There are already many ongoing inter-institutional collaborations in the land-grant (LG) system. Topics mentioned: - Examples of successful collaborative projects/programs - Uneven participation in collaborations - Forced participation in large-scale projects - Collaboration will not occur without first building a relationship - Opportunities to bridge gaps - Meaningful participation requires equity - Individuals will seek out those with whom they have had prior success - Must include non-LGs in the perspective |
38 Agree: 21 Disagree: 17 |
|
Obs. 2: Inter-institutional collaborations do not routinely engage faculty from across the full range of LG colleges and universities. Topics mentioned: - 1862s just check box when seeking collaboration with 1890s or 1994s - Historical and current inequities - Regional rural development - Cluster collaborations - Function of the research goals; could be tailored to 1890 and 1994 focus - Funding excludes some institutions |
34 Agree: 23 Disagree: 11 |
|
Obs. 3: The nature of key questions for food and agricultural science are evolving, and the scientific approaches to address them are increasingly at the convergence of multiple disciplines and involve data collection across multiple geographies. |
0 |
| Observations and Topics Mentioned in Responses | Number of Responses |
|---|---|
|
Obs. 4: All of us are smarter than one of us: diversity promotes novel ideas. Topics mentioned: - Diversity, equity, and inclusion need attention - Indigenous knowledge is important - This is obvious and will happen when funding is provided |
28 Agree: 25 Disagree: 3 |
|
Obs. 5: Collaboration can allow human, fiscal, and physical resources to go further and have broader impact. Topics mentioned: - Yes, but mostly in theory - Indirect costs eat up budgets - Management of bureaucracy comes with a cost - LGs need to embrace National Science Foundation model of broader impacts - Systems between 1862s and 1994s too different and lead to frustration |
24 Agree: 11 Disagree: 13 |
|
Obs. 6: Institutions use different approaches for approving funds to support faculty involvement in collaborations that may create varying expectations on the nature of collaborations and the role of participants. Topics mentioned: - A capacity issue, as teaching is the greatest need before collaboration. - Underfunding by state is a common reason multistate funds are used for base services - May be on reason some do not seem to want to work with an HBCU - Each member should know resource allocation and ability to contribute - Research funding needed for two-way collaborations |
8 Agree: 6 Disagree: 2 |
|
Obs. 7: Historical inequities have handicapped the ability of 1890 and 1994 institutions to be full partners in collaboration. Topics mentioned: - More trust building needed - Competing demands may be an unsurmountable impediment to collaboration - Historical and current inequities continue - Matching funds not received - Support needed for more robust fiscal management |
27 Agree: 23 Disagree: 4 |
|
Obs. 8: Faculty members may be fully committed to teaching and other assignments, leaving insufficient time and resources to support collaborative projects. Topics mentioned: - That is the nature of the position; everyone sets their own priorities - Overcommitment is true for faculty at all land-grant colleges and universities - Early-career faculty must be cautious when pursuing collaboration |
28 Agree: 20 Disagree: 8 |
|
Obs. 9: LG colleges and universities emphasize and reward competitive, rather than collaborative, research projects. Topics mentioned: - Old mindset/nationalistic attitude persists - Would not be the case if funds for collaboration would be adequate - Competitive grants bring in more money - We spend too much time seeking resources and not working on projects |
30 Agree: 17 Disagree: 13 |
|
Obs. 10: Lack of information on the distribution of expertise across the LG system may hinder the ability to find suitable partners for collaboration. Topics mentioned: - Principal investigator (PI) to PI workshops best way to find partners - Funding agencies need to do a better job teaching people how to query databases for partners - Interpersonal networks and social media are needed - Fund travel for faculty to attend meetings |
20 Agree: 11 Disagree: 9 |
|
Obs. 11: Time for planning collaborations is sometimes inadequate. Topics mentioned: - National Institute of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crop Initiatives use planning grants - Big institutions have grant writers - Need to start planning a week after the Request for Applications comes out - Relationships have to be built before collaborations can happen - Never enough time to plan |
24 Agree: 16 Disagree: 8 |
|
Obs. 12: Leading collaborations requires team building, emotional intelligence, and project management skills that many faculty lack. Topics mentioned: - Being a collaborator is different than being a principal investigator - Training is needed but worry about useless training - Offer sabbaticals to undertake leadership of team - Training is needed - Full-time manager who is not a faculty member is ideal |
23 Agree: 17 Disagree: 6 |
|
Obs. 13: Differing administrative procedures and policies may create time lags, paperwork burdens, and opportunity costs that discourage collaboration. Topics mentioned: - Need to allow funds to be awarded then negotiate the agreement between institutions; otherwise, a waste of time if grant is not funded - Mandated policy on indirect costs is needed - Standardization is not possible - LGs should be working this out ahead of time |
21 Agree: 15 Disagree: 6 |
|
Obs. 14: The size and complexity of a collaboration should be expected to change over time and take on new goals and partners. Topics mentioned: - Partner with team scientists - Yes, but sometimes it takes a long time to fulfill an objective - Expand grant timelines - Have to deal with natural turnover of leadership |
12 Agree: 12 Disagree: 0 |
|
Obs. 15: Some key issues in agriculture may require large multidisciplinary collaborations and sustained research over time in multiple locations. Topics mentioned: - Yes, but this could separate the have and have nots further - Yes, but not possible on 3–5 year grants - Examples of research projects: climate, biosecurity, soil management - Need an infusion of money and cross-sectoral participation - We need convergence |
20 Agree: 16 Disagree: 4 |
| Observations and Topics Mentioned in Responses | Number of Responses |
|---|---|
|
Obs. 16: Collaborations lead to diverse outcomes, including some which require more time to achieve. Topics mentioned: - True, so engagement of evaluators to study the science of team science is needed - True, so short-, middle-, and long-term goals are needed |
15 Agree: 11 Disagree: 4 |
|
Obs. 17: Producers, policy makers, and the public are more likely to recognize the impacts and benefits of collaborations if communication strategies are tailored to them. Topics mentioned: - Do not tailor it to them, engage them - Need a major marketing effort to communicate - Researchers need to be held accountable |
21 Agree: 13 Disagree: 8 |
