Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Overview of the Committee's Information-Gathering Activities
2 Overview of the Committee's Information-Gathering Activities
Pages 27-42
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 27... ...
Table 2-2 shows the detailed list of questions included in the committee's statement of task and the data sources used to address them. REVIEWS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS The committee asked DoD to provide any available historical documentation about the program, including information about the grants that have been awarded over the years.
|
From page 28... ...
the selection of projects to X X X X X fund so as to meet contemporary, changing national security challenges, as well as the needs of each service branch, more effectively? 5. hould and how can DoD increase -- deepen and S broaden -- the engagement of social scientists in X X X X X X research relevant to national security?
|
From page 29... ...
2. hat is the quality of research funded and its W impact on the social science knowledge base, as X X X X well as on public understandings of the problems addressed by the researchers? 3. hat challenges has Minerva confronted in W generating interest in participation in the program X X X among basic social scientists and how has it addressed those challenges?
|
From page 30... ...
2. ow does the project implementation and H management process compare to similar programs at X X X X X NSF, DHS, and the service branch research agencies? 3. re the right projects being prioritized for (a)
|
From page 31... ...
4. ow might Minerva cultivate the interests of young H scholars in working with DoD on social science X X X X security issues?
|
From page 32... ...
DoD began work on developing a central database of the Minerva grants around the time when the committee's evaluation began, but this work was still ongoing when the evaluation was completed. To compensate for the lack of a database of grants, National Academies staff worked with the Minerva program director to compile a list of grantees and information about the characteristics of the grants based on public records and other DoD materials, such as the Minerva Research Summaries from Minerva Conferences.
|
From page 33... ...
The interviews were conducted by a National Academies senior program officer using a semi structured interview guide developed by the committee. Appendix D shows the detailed interview guide; the broad topics covered in the interviews were • structure and management of the program, • successes and challenges of the program, • quality of the research funded, • use of the research funded, • selection of topics to fund, • selection of projects to fund, • broadening of engagement among social scientists, and • vision of Minerva.
|
From page 34... ...
The survey was conducted via web, and potential respondents were initially contacted by email. NORC sent all individuals identified as PIs an email inviting them to participate in the study and conducted successful locating searches to identify valid email addresses for those whose contact information (initially compiled by National Academies staff)
|
From page 35... ...
. Three additional grantees submitted partially completed surveys, which were included in the analyses described in this report whenever possible.
|
From page 36... ...
"Other social science fields" includes such fields as anthropology, demography, criminology, and geography, while "other fields" includes earth and ocean sciences, engineering, law, and physics. Response rates were lowest among those with degrees in mathematics and computer sciences.
|
From page 37... ...
Grantees Grant Start Year 2009–2012 84 65 37 2013–2016 73 65 52 2017 77 69 13 Program Manager Air Force Office of Scientific Research 50 39 18 Army Research Office 79 64 33 Office of Naval Research 85 76 33 National Science Foundation 89 78 18 Principal Investigator's Academic Discipline Economics 75 63 8 Mathematics and Computer Sciences 58 58 12 Political Science 81 77 53 Psychology 73 36 11 Sociology 83 83 6 Other Social Science Fields 83 50 6 Other Fields 83 33 6 Principal Investigator's Earliest Peer-Reviewed Publication (Seniority) 1968–1994 72 58 36 1995–2008 81 72 54 2009–present 75 58 12 Number of Publications in Scopus 1–17 82 68 34 18–40 79 73 33 41–421 71 57 35 Number of Citations in Scopus 1–295 82 67 33 296–1,219 79 76 33 1,220–15,825 70 52 33
|
From page 38... ...
In some cases, it was necessary to make a judgment call about the most appropriate person to contact, but as with the grantee survey, sample members were given the opportunity to delegate the survey to someone else if one of their colleagues was better suited to respond. Appendix F includes the wording of each of the survey questions, which addressed • experiences with Minerva grants compared with other social sci ence grant programs, • broadening of engagement among social scientists, and • perceptions of research relevant to national security.
|
From page 39... ...
Frequency distributions, along with the wording of the questions, are shown in Appendix F TABLE 2-5 Rates of Completion, Partial Completion, and Nonresponse/ Refusal for the Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research Number of Administrators Percent Total 222 100 Completes 88 40 Partial Completes 18 8 Nonresponse/Refusals 116 52 TABLE 2-6 Rates of Response to the Survey of Administrators of Sponsored Research, by Institution Type Number of Completed or Partially Institution Type Administrators Completed Survey (%)
|
From page 40... ...
The committee met with grantees, national security experts, representatives of social science organizations, staff from other government agencies and organizations with similar social science grant programs, and others. These stakeholders provided valuable background information and perspectives that informed the committee's deliberations.
|
From page 41... ...
Third, because of DoD's confidentiality policies, the evaluation did not include a survey of those who had applied for Minerva funding but did not receive grants. Nor did the evaluation include a survey of social science researchers who conduct research relevant to national security but have never applied for a Minerva grant.
|
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.