SGER Survey of Non-Awardees

QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER
Survey of SGER Non-Awardees
Subject line:

NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) Survey

Dear Dr. [insert last name],
We are conducting a study for the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the Small Grants for
Exploratory Research (SGER) mechanism. We would appreciate your participation in this
study. NSF has provided your name as someone who submitted a SGER proposal to NSF in
fiscal years 2002–2007 but did not receive a SGER award during that period or in earlier years.
If you do not meet this criterion, please reply to this e-mail with “NO SGER PROPOSAL” in the
subject line, and we will remove your name from the survey population.
If you meet this criterion, please access our survey questionnaire by clicking on this link:
[insert link to survey—respondent’s survey ID number will be embedded]
All of your responses are confidential and will be used only in combination with those from
other respondents. Information stored in the SRI SGER database will be stripped of individual
PI names and award/proposal information. The ID number included in the survey URL allows
us to cross your name off our contact list once we have received your survey and to send you a
summary of the study results.
For more information about our study, please see the overview below.
questions or problems with the survey, simply reply to this e-mail.
Please complete and submit the survey as soon as possible.
important to the success of this study.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline Wagner, Ph.D.
Study Director
SRI International
1100 Wilson Blvd. Suite 2800
Arlington, VA 22209

13

If you have any

Your participation is very

STUDY OVERVIEW
Who funded this study and who is involved?
The project is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and is conducted by researchers
from SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute), http://www.sri.com/policy.
What is the objective of this study?
The objective of the study is to obtain in-depth information about the activities, outcomes, and
impacts of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) mechanism from the
perspectives of the principal investigators who submitted proposals for a SGER award. It is
anticipated that the study results will help NSF better understand the characteristics of SGER
proposals and awards, and the value of the SGER mechanism to NSF’s research mission and the
Nation’s science and engineering enterprise. The study is NOT an evaluation of outcomes from
individual SGER awards or the people involved with them.
How were you selected for this study?
All principal investigators who received a SGER award in fiscal years 1990–2007 are included
in this study. Also included are individuals who submitted a SGER proposal that was declined
in fiscal years 2002–2007 and who did not receive a SGER award in earlier years. The names
of the awardees and declinees were provided by NSF.
Can you get a copy of the study results?
SRI International will send all survey participants a web link to the summary of survey results in
early 2009.
Privacy Notice
Information from this survey will be retained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a
federal agency, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. The data will be made available in
the form of summary analyses and in a database stripped of individual PI names and titles of
awards/proposals. This information is being collected for the sole purpose of monitoring,
assessing, and evaluating NSF programs. The data will be used in accordance with criteria
established by NSF for monitoring research and education grants, and in response to Public Law
99-383 and 42 USC 1885c.
How can you obtain more information about the project?
Contact the SRI study director, Caroline Wagner ([email protected], 703-247-8478) or
the NSF program manager, Connie Della-Piana ([email protected] , 703-292-8040).

14

Revised 5/16/2008

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

SMALL GRANTS FOR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
(SGER)

SURVEY OF
NON-AWARDEES
Public Burden
Submission of the requested information is voluntary. Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless it
displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is _________.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer for OMB Collection _________, Facilities
and Operations Branch, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Blvd., Suite 295, Arlington, VA 22230.

Your responses to this questionnaire are confidential and will be used only in
combination with those from other respondents. Information stored in the SRI
SGER database will be stripped of individual PI names and award/proposal
information.

28

SECTION A:

YOUR SGER PROPOSAL

NSF data indicate that you submitted one or more SGER proposals during Fiscal Years 1990–2007, none of which was
awarded.
If this information is correct, please go to “BEGIN SURVEY” now and complete the survey. Thank you!
If this information is NOT correct, please explain below and then click the “SUBMIT EXPLANATION” button.
______________________________
SUBMIT EXPLANATION about how our information for you is not correct. Thank you for your participation!

BEGIN SURVEY
PLEASE ENTER THE TIME IT IS NOW: _____________ (hh:mm)
[SRI will insert a “referenced proposal” number, title, and submittal date]
PLEASE KEEP THIS SPECIFIC PROPOSAL IN MIND AS YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
A1. Was the SGER proposal referenced above your …?
(MARK ONE IN EACH ROW)
Yes No
First SGER proposal ................................................ 1
2
First proposal of any kind to NSF............................ 1
2

A2. How did you learn about SGER?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
01 From an NSF program director
02 From an NSF document (e.g., Grant Proposal Guide)
03 From a search of NSF web pages
04 At an NSF Regional Grants Conference
05 At another NSF conference, workshop, or PI meeting
06 At a conference/meeting of a professional society
07 From my campus’ Sponsored Projects Office
08 From a colleague
09 From an article or report that credited an SGER award
10 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
__________________________________________

29

A3. How important was each of the following in your decision to submit the referenced proposal through the
SGER mechanism?

PLEASE NOTE: The term “regular proposal” in this survey refers to a non-SGER proposal,
i.e., one that meets NSF’s usual proposal requirements including review by peer experts external
to NSF.
(MARK ONE IN EACH ROW)
Not
Important/
Doesn’t
Apply

Somewhat
Important

Fairly
Important

Extremely
Important

My research idea might have been (or was)
considered “too high-risk” by peer reviewers
of a regular proposal. “High risk” is defined as
research where possible outcomes are not
clearly foreseen and the values cannot be
estimated. Possible outcomes range from total
failure to produce any findings or impacts to
groundbreaking discoveries. There is a high
degree of uncertainty because the
probabilities of any particular outcome
cannot be known.

1

2

3

4

My research idea was at odds with
conventional paradigm(s) and might not have
been (or was not) received well by peer
reviewers of a regular proposal.

1

2

3

4

My research idea was so novel that it might
not have been (or was not) fully understood
by peer reviewers of a regular proposal.

1

2

3

4

My research idea was so novel that it might
not have been fully understood by the research
community.

1

2

3

4

My research idea was controversial and might
not have been (or was not) received well by
peer reviewers of a regular proposal.

1

2

3

4

My research idea crossed disciplinary lines,
and the pool of peer reviewers qualified to
assess a regular proposal on this topic was/is
quite small.

1

2

3

4

Peer reviewers of a regular proposal might
have (or did) consider me to be too
inexperienced to conduct the work
successfully.

1

2

3

4

Reviewers of a regular proposal might have
(or did) deem the equipment and research
“climate” at my institution to be inadequate
for my research to succeed.

1

2

3

4

y.

The proposal requirements were short and
simple.

1

2

3

4

z.

The funding and duration were about all I
needed at the time.

1

2

3

4

I needed a quick decision.

1

2

3

4

q.

r.

s.

t.

u.

v.

w.

x.

aa.

30

bb.

My usual funding source had no similar
mechanism.

1

2

3

4

cc.

My research idea was not sufficiently
developed for a regular proposal.

1

2

3

4

dd.

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)

1

2

3

4

ee.

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)

1

2

3

4

ff.

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)

1

2

3

4

A4. Before applying for the referenced SGER, had you submitted a regular proposal on the same research
topic that NSF declined?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes Æ CONTINUE
2 No Æ SKIP TO QUESTION A6

A5. Whose idea was it to resubmit your research idea in an SGER proposal?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 NSF program director or other NSF staff member
2 Someone at my institution
3 Someone outside of NSF and my institution
4 I decided on my own, without suggestion from anyone else

A6. At what point before submitting the SGER proposal did you discuss it with the NSF program director
who would be handling it?
(MARK ONE)
0 We did not discuss it before it was submitted
1 Before writing had begun (idea stage)
2 When it was partly written
3 When it was nearly ready to submit

Æ
Æ
Æ
Æ

SKIP TO SECTION B
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE

A7. In the course of pre-submittal discussions, to what extent did the NSF program director … ?
(MARK ONE IN EACH ROW)
Not At
All
1

h. Seem well informed about SGERs

To what extent?
SomeA Fair
what Amount
2
3

A Great
Deal
4

i. Seem supportive of SGERs in general

1

2

3

4

j. Help you consider the advantages and disadvantages of
preparing an SGER proposal

1

2

3

4

k. Encourage you to prepare an SGER proposal

1

2

3

4

l. Encourage you to submit a regular proposal instead

1

2

3

4

m. Other comment about your pre-submittal discussions
with the NSF program director (PLEASE SPECIFY)

1

2

3

4

31

_____________________________________________
n. Other comment about your pre-submittal discussions
with the NSF program director (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_____________________________________________

1

2

3

4

A8a. NSF defines SGER research in terms of the five characteristics described below. Which of these
characteristics apply to the referenced SGER proposal?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 Preliminary work on untested and novel idea(s)
This is defined as research in new areas or on new ideas not
researched before, for which little (if any) data exist, which
have few (if any) references in the literature, and which may
require new methods. Emphasis is on the newness and
novelty of the research area being addressed.
2 Venture into emerging and potentially transformative
research ideas
“Emerging research” is defined as a research area in which
a small number of non-conclusive findings exist that suggest
a new field of study. It may develop into an accepted, or
consensus-based, research area.
“Transformative research” is driven by ideas that stand a
reasonable chance of radically changing our understanding
of an important existing scientific concept or leading to the
creation of a new paradigm or field of science. Such
research also is characterized by its challenge to current
understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.
3 Application of new expertise or new approaches to an
“established” research topic
4 Work having a severe urgency with regard to availability of,
or access to, data, facilities, or specialized equipment,
including quick-response research on natural or
anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events
5 Effort of similar character likely to catalyze rapid and
innovative advances
“Innovative advances” in scientific understanding emerge
from step-by-step, project-focused research, with new
projects building upon the results of previous studies or
testing long-standing hypotheses and theories. Innovative
advances extend or shift prevailing paradigms over time.
Innovation is evolutionary, whereas transformative research
is revolutionary.
6 Other characteristic (PLEASE DESCRIBE)
________________________________________________

32

A8b. Which one of the characteristics you marked in question A8a is the primary characteristic of the
referenced SGER proposal?
(MARK ONE. IF TWO CHARACTERISTICS ARE EQUALLY PRIMARY, PLEASE MARK ONE AND
SPECIFY THE OTHER EQUALLY PRIMARY CHARACTERISTIC IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW)

1
2
3
4

5
6

(1) Preliminary work on untested and novel idea(s)
(2) Venture into emerging and potentially
transformative research ideas
(3) Application of new expertise or new approaches to
an “established” research topic
(4) Work having a severe urgency with regard to
availability of, or access to, data, facilities, or
specialized equipment, including quick-response
research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and
similar unanticipated events
(5) Effort of similar character likely to catalyze rapid
and innovative advances
(6) Other characteristic (as described in question A8a)

(ANSWER ONLY IF TWO CHARACTERISTICS ARE EQUALLY PRIMARY)

Which one other characteristic is equally primary? (PLEASE SPECIFY THE NUMBER (1–6) OF THE
OTHER PRIMARY CHARACTERISTIC) ________
A8c. Was the referenced SGER proposal primarily about convening a workshop?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes
2 No

A9. Would the proposed project, if awarded, have involved …?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 Collaboration of your institution/organization with one
or more industries/businesses

Æ

Please list the collaborating industries/businesses

Collaboration of your institution/organization with one
or more Federal laboratories

Æ

____________________________________
Please list the collaborating Federal laboratories

3

Collaboration of your institution/organization with one
or more state or local government entities

Æ

____________________________________
Please list the collaborating state/local government entities

4

Collaboration of your institution/organization with one Æ
or more community colleges, women’s colleges,
minority institutions, EPSCoR institutions, or primarily
undergraduate institutions
Contribution to knowledge about a topic of public
Æ
interest (e.g., environment, public health, national
security)
Dissemination of results to the general public
Accessing unique resources
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_________________________________

2

5

6
7
8

33

____________________________________
Please list the collaborating institutions
____________________________________
Please specify the general topic(s)
____________________________________

A10. Why do you think the referenced SGER proposal was not awarded?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 The program officer generally was not inclined to fund
SGERs.
2 The program officer thought the proposal was too
risky.
3 The program officer thought the proposal was not risky
enough.
4 The original program officer left NSF and the
subsequent program officer didn’t want to fund the
proposal.
5 You withdrew the proposal.
6 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_________________________________
7 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_________________________________

A11. Did you (or do you plan to) subsequently use the substance of the declined (or withdrawn) SGER proposal
in preparing one or more regular proposals?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes Æ CONTINUE
2 No Æ SKIP TO QUESTION A17

A12. Have you submitted any subsequent proposals yet?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes
2 No

A13. To which agencies or other funding sources did you (or will you) submit these proposals?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
01 National Science Foundation (NSF)
Æ

02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

Æ

Æ (if already submitted to NSF, please provide the
proposal number(s), title(s), and/or approximate
date(s), as convenient)

_______________________________________________
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
U.S. Army Research Office (ARO)
U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR)
U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
34

12 Industry/business
13 Private foundation
14 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_________________________________

A14. Have any of these subsequent proposals been awarded?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes
2 No, it is (they are) still in review
3 No, it was (they were) declined

Æ CONTINUE
Æ SKIP TO QUESTION A17
Æ SKIP TO QUESTION A17

A15. Which agencies or other sources provided funding for these awards?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
01 National Science Foundation (NSF)
02 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
03 National Institutes of Health (NIH)
04 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
05 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
06 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
07 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
08 U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
09 U.S. Army Research Office (ARO)
10 U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR)
11 U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
12 Industry/business
13 Private foundation
14 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
_________________________________

A16. NSF would like to learn about the outcomes of award(s) based on your subsequent proposal(s), including
both expected and unexpected findings. Within the categories below, please indicate whether or not the
awarded project(s) led to or resulted in each of the following, either during the project(s) or afterward.
(MARK ONE IN EACH ROW)
Yes No
Contributions to knowledge
Preliminary findings about novel or previously
untested ideas....................................................
New avenues of research/new hypotheses ...........
Sufficient data to prepare a follow-up proposal ...
Development of new techniques, research tools,
and/or instruments.............................................
Modification of existing techniques, research
tools, and/or instruments...................................

1
1
1

2
2
2

1

2

1

2

35

Rapid and innovative research advances..............
Potentially transformative findings ......................
Data on a disaster or other short-lived event or
situation requiring a quick response .................
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
__________________
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
__________________
Dissemination of findings
Development of a new database available to
other researchers ...............................................
Addition of data to, or other enhancement of, an
existing database available to other researchers...
Publication of books or articles in peer-reviewed
journals.................................................................
Patent application(s).............................................
Dissemination of findings to public .....................
Presentation of findings at meetings,
conferences, or workshops ...................................
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
__________________
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
__________________

1
1

2
2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1
1
1

2
2
2

1

2

1

2

A17. To date, has the research idea you submitted through the SGER mechanism (including subsequent work
done by other people) resulted in anything transformative?
(MARK ONE)
1 Yes
2 Maybe, not sure
3 No

Æ PLEASE DESCRIBE BELOW
Æ PLEASE EXPLAIN BELOW
Æ CONTINUE

(IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” OR “MAYBE, NOT SURE” PLEASE DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN HERE)
_______________________________________

36

SECTION B:
B1.

Your Views About the SGER Mechanism

Was your experience with the SGER proposal process such that you would submit another proposal
through the SGER mechanism?
(MARK ONE)
1 I already have done so
2 I would if the opportunity arose
3 No
Æ
Æ
Æ
Æ
Æ

B2.

Æ

Why not? (PLEASE EXPLAIN)
___________________________________

Did you encounter any problems or challenges due to the design of the SGER mechanism (as opposed to
the content of the proposal)?
(MARK ONE)
Yes Æ PLEASE DESCRIBE
1
_______________________________________________
2 No Æ CONTINUE

B3.

Please comment on any other aspects of the SGER proposal and award process, including preparation,
submittal, and NSF decision making.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION C:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The following information will help us interpret your responses to the previous questions. All of your responses are
confidential and will be used only in combination with those from other respondents. Information stored in the SRI
SGER database will be stripped of individual PI names and award/proposal information.
C1. What is your most advanced degree and when did you receive it?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY; IF YOU RECEIVED BOTH A RESEARCH DOCTORATE AND A MEDICAL DOCTORATE,
PLEASE MARK BOTH CATEGORIES)
1
2
3

Research doctorate (e.g., PhD, DSc)
Medical doctorate (e.g., MD, DDS, DVM, PsyD)
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
________________________________________

C2. What is your sex?
(MARK ONE)
1
2

Male
Female

C3. Are you Hispanic or Latino?
37

Æ
Æ

Year of receipt ______________________
Year of receipt ______________________

Æ

Year of receipt ______________________

(MARK ONE)
1 Yes
2 No

C4. What is your race?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 American Indian or Alaska Native
2 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
3 Asian
4 Black or African-American
5 White

SECTION D:

YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THIS SURVEY

D1. If there are matters about SGER that you feel were not adequately addressed in this survey, please tell us
about them.

_________________________________________________________________________________

D2. If you have any comments about the survey itself, please enter them here.

_________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE ENTER THE TIME IT IS NOW: _____________ (hh:mm)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY
If you have questions, please contact Lori Thurgood at [email protected]

38