Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Processes of the Minerva Program
3 Processes of the Minerva Program
Pages 43-60
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 43... ...
The collaboration was structured to involve the research units and program managers from three military service branches: the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) , the Army Research Office (ARO)
|
From page 44... ...
The FIGURE 3-1 Organizational structure Army withdrew its support as of of the Minerva Research Initiative as of 2018. October 1, 2018, and will no longer manage new NOTES: The bottom row of the figure represents the military service branches.
|
From page 45... ...
Given that ARO was part of the Minerva Research Initiative from the beginning and was still part of the program when this evaluation was launched, the discussion of processes includes ARO's experiences. Topic Selection To ensure that the Minerva grants address knowledge gaps and national security needs, funding announcements highlight topics that represent questions of interest to DoD.
|
From page 46... ...
Some service branch program managers focus on honing a particular topic over several years and finding what best accords with the service branch's and OSD's strategic vision. Other service branch program managers focus on balancing the priorities of their service branch and the objectives of the Minerva program while at the same time aligning potential topics with the portfolio of their own larger research program area.
|
From page 47... ...
The white papers that best meet the evaluation criteria are recommended to the OSD Minerva Steering Committee, which includes representatives from OSD and representatives from the service branches (Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Services/Acquisition Directorate, 2018, pp.
|
From page 48... ...
Because some of the Minerva grants were managed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) when the program was first launched, and because NSF grants are familiar to many academic researchers conducting social science research, the processes used by NSF are also briefly described throughout this section.
|
From page 49... ...
Some service branches require grantees to have human subjects research approval from their home institution and by the service branch's institutional review board (IRB) before a grant involving human subjects is awarded.
|
From page 50... ...
At the individual service branch level, various methods are used to monitor grant performance and progress. Some service branch program managers write to grantees immediately after their award to let them know what is expected of them, such as obtaining IRB approval, if needed; sending monthly invoices; and maintaining regular contact.
|
From page 51... ...
adding information about all of the Minerva grants. At the service branch level, dissemination often occurs through responses to calls for information on research findings from individuals or organizational units, such as special operations, training groups, or other DoD branches.
|
From page 52... ...
DISCUSSION OF MINERVA PROGRAM PROCESSES The committee's evaluation of the Minerva program processes revealed opportunities for process improvements both to strengthen the program and to enhance the grantees' experiences. Process Improvements to Strengthen the Program A particularly challenging aspect of the Minerva program's organizational structure is the need to coordinate the interests of the policy office and the service branches.
|
From page 53... ...
served in the capacity of assistant director until ARO withdrew from the program. The service branch program managers oversee individual grants on behalf of their branches.
|
From page 54... ...
In some cases, moreover, service branch program managers have been proactive in raising awareness of Minerva research, mostly as ad hoc activities involving specific projects. However, the committee also found that there has been no systematic focus to date on disseminating information about the research funded through the Minerva program or on providing opportunities for the grantees to interact with policy makers or others who might be interested in the work.
|
From page 55... ...
The value of the Minerva grants is not only in the research produced but also in the expertise of the researchers, and the database needs to enable the easy identification of relevant expertise whenever the need or opportunity arises for a briefing, input, or some other form of dissemination. The database needs to be centralized, integrating information about all of the grants funded through the Minerva program from its inception, regardless of which service branch managed them.
|
From page 56... ...
Institutional review board 22 56 12 10 requirements Financial and narrative grant reporting 15 68 17 2 requirements Postaward communication 15 37 44 5 Assistance with dissemination or 7 56 22 15 translation of research findings NOTES: Sample size = 41. Grantee survey Q4: "How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Minerva grant program compared to National Science Foundation grants?
|
From page 57... ...
when grantees were asked to list the challenges they face "in conducting unclassified research relevant to national security that are different from the challenges you face in conducting research in other areas." Grantees were also asked to compare their experiences with the Minerva program and those with DHS grants and grants other than Minerva from the DoD service branches. Comparisons with DHS grants showed patterns similar to those for NSF grants, but the number of grantees who had experience with both Minerva and DHS grants was too small to permit meaningful conclusions (n = 9)
|
From page 58... ...
(%) Skipped Proposal submission process 75 14 5 6 -- and requirements Communication during the 51 32 8 10 -- proposal stage Postaward grant management 72 16 5 6 -- (e.g., incremental funding, modifications, no-cost extensions, compliance with terms and conditions)
|
From page 59... ...
The service branches each have their own rules about the human subjects review process, and grantees are encouraged to work with the service branch program manager overseeing their project to navigate the process. AFOSR does not release funds until IRB approval has been obtained.
|
From page 60... ...
. Information obtained from the interviews with DoD staff and the responses to the grantee survey suggest that the human subjects review procedures of some of the service branches place an extra burden on the grantees and delay the start of work.
|
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.