Spurring Innovation in Food and Agriculture A Review of the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Program (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 A Quantitative Assessment of Project Input-Output Relationships in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
4 A Quantitative Assessment of Project Input-Output Relationships in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
Pages 79-106
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 79... ...
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) 's fundamental (knowledge or discovery)
|
From page 80... ...
CHANGES IN STATISTICAL PROFILES OF NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE PROJECTS It is useful first to examine how project-level sample means of important outputs and policies have changed, beginning with the late USDA National Research Initiative (NRI) period and proceeding through AFRI 2012.3 This brief history of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
|
From page 81... ...
Beyond project scale, there have been notable changes in project locus; "locus" being defined as the nature of the projects themselves, including subject area, type of performing institution, and rank of project director. The transition from NRI 2008 to AFRI 2009–2010 saw little change in the proportions of grants awarded by subject area (as defined by the foun
|
From page 82... ...
31.6 41.7 37.8 PROJECT SCOPE Project complexity Number of co-principal investigators 2.9 3.5 4.3 Project composition Basic research 61.5% 60.2% 54.9% Applied research 32.3% 29.0% 33.5% Extension or education 6.3% 10.8% 10.8% PROJECT LOCUS Subject area Plants 31% 37% 12% (26%) a Animals 21% 21% 11% (24%)
|
From page 83... ...
program, the proportion of awards going to predoctorates and postdoctorates rose dramatically from 4% in NRI 2008 to an average of 26% for AFRI 2011–2012. The average number of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral laboratory assistants per project rose steadily during that same interval.4 Profiles of the Average Dollar Several components of the award profile change substantially when the allocations of the average dollar rather than the average project are examined.
|
From page 84... ...
Although the share of projects awarded CAP grants rose only from 1% to 3% between AFRI 2009–2010 and AFRI 2011–2012, Figure 4-1 shows that the corresponding proportion of AFRI dollars going to CAP grants rose dramatically from 8% to 39% percent. The reason for the discrepancy is that the funds awarded to the average CAP grant were much larger than the average FASE or standard grant.
|
From page 85... ...
Some 33% of CAP resources awarded in 2009–2010 went to extension and education, whereas 47% of resources awarded in 2011–2012 went to these functions.5 5 he CAP grants initiated in 2011–2012 were in the challenge-area programs. In contrast, T the CAP grants initiated in 2009–2010 were awarded before the inauguration of the challengearea programs.
|
From page 86... ...
Research outputs can be expressed either as an annual flow of information or as the accumulated stock of knowledge capital. One strand of the literature has used such flows or stocks to explain individual or institutional performance.
|
From page 87... ...
dollar invested. The average rate of knowledge production attributed to AFRI expenditures is the total amount of research output per dollar of (i.e.,
|
From page 88... ...
Alternatively, the marginal rate of knowledge production is the amount of additional output created by an additional expenditure dollar or additional unit of such project feature as duration. The principal focus in this chapter is on marginal response, although as will be seen, per-unit outputs are also a useful way of assessing research productivity.
|
From page 89... ...
The questions to be addressed are how much output -- that is, how many refereed and nonrefereed articles and presentations -- AFRI produces per dollar invested and how many additional articles are published when progressively larger project budgets are provided. The latter is estimated as the slope of the relationship between the project budget and the number of scholarly publications attributed to that project.
|
From page 90... ...
are controlled for, locus factors likely have their own bearing on expected research output. Refereed journal articles are generated or cited more abundantly in some agricultural research fields than they are in others, and AFRI researchers may intrinsically appear more productive (when research output is denominated in terms of the number of publications)
|
From page 91... ...
These specific parameters each reflect a different scope dimension although they are partly redundant in that, for example, the average CAP grant involves more co-PIs, functions, and performing agencies than does the average standard grant. To evaluate the association between project scope and productivity, the committee assessed how peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed communications were affected when project scope was expanded, while budget size was held fixed.
|
From page 92... ...
Productivity Analysis, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2009–2010 Every AFRI project output and input (characteristic or policy) variable was initially regressed against 2009–2010 project budgets and separately against 2011–2012 budgets.
|
From page 93... ...
However, FASE awardees required $86,000 less to generate a given journalpublication rate than did standard awardees. CAP grants, in contrast, expended $2,296,900 more than standard grants for a similar scholarly communication rate.
|
From page 94... ...
For example, the first column of the matrix shows the respective influence of $10,000 of additional budget, one more PI, and one more project month on refereed journal-article output. In cell (i)
|
From page 95... ...
–1.49 (3) $10,000 of project budget (ii)
|
From page 96... ...
Outputs may then arise if additional resources are applied. But the additional output created by an additional input unit typically declines as the input volume grows because increasing demands are being placed on the project's remaining (fixed)
|
From page 97... ...
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT INPUT-OUTPUT 97 FIGURE 4-3 Stylized relationship between setup cost, per-unit output, and marginal cost.
|
From page 98... ...
If refereed-article output is held constant, another month of project time requires $10,900 of additional budget. Thus, in the period examined, scholarly communication rate was maintained even when both duration and budget were reduced.
|
From page 99... ...
Projectdirector rank and institution type were largely nonsignificant, implying as before that the AFRI proposal selection and funding process was successful in equating eventual productivity rates across investigator ranks and institution types. Policy Factors As in the 2009–2010 analysis, the committee did not detect a significant relationship between current support from other federal or nonfederal entities on the one hand and the number of scholarly communications (output-constant cost or cost-constant output)
|
From page 100... ...
When project scope, scale, and other included program factors are controlled for, more published output requires more funding, and more funding generates more output. In particular, raising a project budget by 1% raises article output by 15.9%, similar to the return rate in 2009–2010.
|
From page 101... ...
With the greater emphasis in 2011–2012 on CAP grants and other complex PI arrangements, this challenge has intensified. Further addressing such potential shortcomings probably will require a better understanding of how project scope and scale combine to influence publication rate.
|
From page 102... ...
Number of nonrefereed articles (i)
|
From page 103... ...
Efficiency impairment was such that publication rates rose even when the budget was held constant and project scope fell. The difficulty with complex projects may be their high intraproject coordination and communication costs, which would have pushed variable expenses too far above fixed or infrastructural costs.
|
From page 104... ...
In particular, reducing average project complexity -- represented especially in the number of the project's PIs -- would substantially improve publication output at no cost to AFRI's budget. That critique extends beyond the CAP program to include many non-CAP grants.
|
From page 105... ...
2008. The evaluation of large research initiatives: A participatory integrative mixed-methods approach.
|
From page 106... ...
biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88(1)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.