3

Town Hall I, Day 2: Capacity Development through Funding Portfolios, Infrastructure, and Federal Programs

The second day of the April 24–25 Town Hall focused on how several institutions have built diverse funding portfolios over time, as well as ideas on what constitutes a critical threshold for infrastructure investments. It ended with presentations on capacity-building programs supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

DEVELOPING A DIVERSE FUNDING PORTFOLIO

Workshop chair Oscar Barton, Ph.D., P.E. (Morgan State University), moderated the first session to gleam the necessary components of a diverse funding portfolio at higher education institutions. Speakers included Kamal Khayat, Ph.D. (Missouri University of Science and Technology [Missouri S&T]), and Renata Rawlings-Goss, Ph.D. (Georgia Institute of Technology/South Big Data Innovation Hub).

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Dr. Khayat explained that Missouri S&T is a land-grant institution that is a part of the University of Missouri System. The goal is to transition from R2 to R1, although he noted the challenge because the dominance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has meant little research and no doctoral students in non-STEM subjects. Programs in business, technical writing, and psychology are being planned to broaden into non-STEM areas. University leaders undertook strategic planning to identify areas of growth, invest in and pursue large proposals in these core areas of strength, and build capacity in emerging areas such as Bio-X (biomedical and environmental science) and sustainability.

Through the establishment of nine research centers, multidisciplinary and multi-institutional proposals can be developed, and about 80 percent of indirect funds are submitted through the centers. Most are in STEM, although he called attention to the Center for Science, Technology, and Society that combines humanities, social sciences, and technology. Another area for fostering growth is through new initiatives, such as the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen funded by the Department of Energy.¹

Missouri S&T also has a large portfolio of awards with industry, according to Dr. Khayat. Forty-one percent of research awards in FY 2022 were with industry compared with 36 percent with the federal government. Over the past 5 years of about $155 million in total, about 29 percent has been with industry, which he noted is more than comparative schools and is considered an area of growth. He commented that while most of the grants are not very large, they represent repeat business because the companies return to Missouri S&T for use-inspired research. Missouri S&T also

___________________

¹ For more information on the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen, see https://machh2.com/.

participates in research consortia with industry to pursue federal grants, the largest of which is the Peaslee Steel Manufacturing Research Center.² Other research consortia involve aerospace technology, construction engineering and management, and other areas. The consortia can be leveraged to go after federal grants such as the Industry-University Cooperative Research Center funded by the National Science Foundation, he added. Dr. Khayat underlined the “virtuous cycle” of working with industry through consortia. “If you do a good job, it is repeat business for the consortia and for consortia members,” he said. In addition, students like to work on real-life problems, and, in many cases, the research sponsors become their employers.

Funding from the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services, DOE, and NSF has grown at the institution. Dr. Khayat noted a high success rate on DOD proposals, which he attributed to “establishing relationships at DOD, delivering on time and budget—all are important to build capacity for the researchers to continue to get contracts and grants.” He noted the value of subscribing to consortia, including the Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium and National Armaments Consortium. Membership usually costs from $500 to $1,000 annually and provides opportunities for education, publication of white papers, conferences, and networking. This is especially helpful for early-career researchers, he pointed out.

According to Dr. Khayat, a point of inflection for Missouri S&T was a transformational gift of $311 million to fund the Kummer Institute. The mandate is to elevate Missouri S&T, broaden STEM outreach to young people, and drive economic development in the state. A $1 million fund for educational and research grants provides $50,000 grants to faculty to build teams to compete for large proposals. Also, research centers have been established to help industry prototype, de-risk, and train the workforce in artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, resource sustainability, and advanced and resilient infrastructure. Some of the funds are for capital investment, with the Missouri Protoplex as the first of four planned buildings. Another will be the Bio-X Center for life sciences, engineering, sustainability, and environment.

Explaining how industry connections developed, Dr. Khayat said faculty meet industry representatives at conferences and by serving on technical committees. Workshops are held for early-career faculty to have the

___________________

² For more information, see https://mse.mst.edu/steelmanufacturingresearchcenter/.

mindset of helping industry solve problems. Also, through the consortia, researchers can work on a problem that affects multiple companies that would not normally work together as competitors.

Georgia Institute of Technology/South Big Data Hub

Dr. Rawlings-Goss explained that Georgia Tech is unique in that research spans three parts: the university, primarily for basic research; Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) as a separate contracting arm, primarily for DOD; and the Georgia Tech Foundation for philanthropic efforts. The sponsored research at the university and GTRI combined was above $1 billion in 2019.

GTRI is a nonprofit applied research arm with 2,500 employees, mostly engineers and scientists. Annually, it serves about 200 clients within DOD. GTRI started in the 1920s, when the state legislature created it as an engineering experiment station along the lines of agricultural experiment stations. Employees are mostly self-funded through the contracts they bring in; they are not faculty, although some students come to GTRI as interns. She echoed the comments by others about the need to establish relationships and build a reputation to get contracts. In 2019, GTRI received a $245 million contract from the U.S. Air Force for software and technology that will support hundreds of systems for 60 different aircraft. With large contracts like this in mind, she explained the history of GTRI to show the benefit of starting small, building a niche, and concentrating in particular areas.

On the university side, Dr. Rawlings-Goss said the faculty portfolio is organized in Interdisciplinary Research Institutes (IRIs), which she described as internal coalition points and an external face. She is involved in an IRI on data engineering and science that brings together data-centric work across Georgia Tech’s schools, colleges, and departments. The institute connects faculty who then can go after larger, cross-cutting opportunities. She commented that the days of large awards going to a single principal investigator (PI) working alone are mostly gone. Building the consortia within the university is key.

Dr. Rawlings-Goss is also director of the South Big Data Innovation Hub, funded by NSF, which aims to build economic development and capacity across the region.³ The hub comprises 1,300 partners, including

___________________

³ For details of the South Big Data Innovation Hub, see https://southbigdatahub.org.

R1s, industry, and federal, state, and local government, to solve grand challenges the country faces. She stressed the hub can help transfer best practices and strengthen partnerships through seed grants and other support. Awards in service to other institutions, such as through seed grants, sometimes do not get much attention, but they build trust and benefit everyone, she stressed. She noted one partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through the Data Science Consortium.⁴ Dr. Rawlings-Goss closed by reiterating the need to coalesce around areas of strength through centers and institutes, taking advantage of external partnerships, and supporting grassroots efforts.

Discussion

Considering the lessons learned in how to build the Data Science Consortium with HBCUs, Dr. Rawlings-Goss described how a seed grant was used. In the first year, she connected with all members, and a central finance team helped everyone with procurement. She added that administrative staffing is critical to start-up, because faculty are busy, but back-office activities and communications are often left out of traditional awards but are needed to build a consortium. Dr. Rawlings-Goss said a win-win attitude is essential to solve grand challenges as a country. As the founding director of the data hub, she has worked to establish the culture of collaboration. Georgia Tech is one member, and she had to talk to leadership about the benefits of being a trusted partner. The narrative she has taken with leadership and with staff, she shared, is that a win for a partner is a win for all. She noted that a consortium can offer deep levels of expertise unmatched by individual members.

ADDRESSING THE CRITICAL THRESHOLD FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

This panel extended the dialogue into the area of critical infrastructure investment. Moderated by Chad Womack, Ph.D. (United Negro College Fund [UNCF]), the panelists were Jaret Riddick, Ph.D. (Center for Security and Emerging Technology [CSET]), Victor McCrary, Ph.D. (University of the District of Columbia [UDC]), and Shannon Arnold, M.Eng., M.S. (GBL Systems Corporation). Topics included an investigation of critical

___________________

⁴ For more information on the HBCU Data Science Consortium, see http://hbcu-dsc.org.

thresholds, funding opportunities for infrastructure development, and strategies for institutions and DOD to consider toward support for research infrastructure.

The Need for Metrics

Dr. Riddick explained CSET is a think tank based at Georgetown University that works at the intersection of national security and emerging technology to provide insight to policymakers. He came to CSET after 20 years at DOD and, as an HBCU graduate, is a strong supporter of leveraging HBCUs to serve the nation. Referring to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study on defense research capacity, he called attention to the recommendations about improving data collection at DOD to assess critical areas, including by HBCUs and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and to develop metrics to track progress (NASEM, 2022, Recommendation 3). “When we think about this infrastructure conversation, it’s easy for us to see what’s lacking, but I want to have a forward-looking conversation where we talk about how to construct real measures based on data to build strategies so that infrastructure investments align with national security,” Dr. Riddick said.

He pointed to Section 223 of the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act,⁵ which calls for a pilot program, partly inspired by the National Academies report (NASEM, 2022) and by the HBCU RISE Act,⁶ in which Congress mandated the secretary of defense to create a 10-year program to help MSIs and HBCUs move from R2 to R1. “So, there is great language and a charge, but to understand where we are going, we need formidable and formalized metrics,” he said. Redefinition of the Carnegie Classification system in 2018 provided new opportunities, he continued. The number of R1s has doubled, and there is a broader perspective about what an R1 looks like. Quality comes in all shapes and sizes, and the funding profile of new R1s looks like the top HBCU R2s, he observed.

Publicly available data provide useful information, Dr. Riddick continued. For example, data of new-entrant R1s and the equipment they

___________________

⁵ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7776/text.

⁶ The HBCU RISE Act, designed to increase research capacity at HBCUs through a pilot project to fund equipment, instrumentation, and facilities, was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act and signed by President Biden on December 23, 2022. See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/centers-research-excellence-science-technology-0.

purchased over the past few years can be tracked.⁷ Similarly, data from the HBCU-MI (Minority Institutions) instrumentation program can show what is being purchased and understand trends. In his view, the critical areas identified in this program do not necessarily align with actual Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering critical technology areas. “If we are trying to be sure that we are effective in developing research capacity, we want to be sure that we are aligning with the actual priorities of DOD,” he stated. He noted that the Section 223 mandate is an opportunity to have the secretary of defense and DOD weigh in about critical technology areas so that HBCUs can ensure they are aligning with DOD priorities.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities as a National Security Asset

Dr. McCrary described his background as a Washington, DC native and part of a military family, graduate of Howard University, and leader with industry, government, and universities. He was involved in DOD through work at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which is a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). He focused on internal research and development and spent about $1 million with HBCUs. “I believed if we were looking for innovations for the country, we could not keep investing in the same lakes and ponds,” he said. He is currently at the University of the District of Columbia, the land-grant institution of Washington, DC (Dr. McCrary also spoke at the May 22 Town Hall; see Chapter 4).

There were 11 R2 HBCUs at the time of the town hall, according to Dr. McCrary. Figures from 2020 show that DOD has increased expenditures in these institutions, but at a fraction of the resources going to R1s. To increase the amount, research administrative talent is needed, he said. Most institutions lack sufficient staff who have familiarity with grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts; research security and integrity considerations; and technology commercialization. As an opportunity, he called attention

___________________

⁷ Dr. Riddick referred to the DOD’s Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP), a funding mechanism for purchasing research instrumentation and equipment for high-quality defense-related research. In September 2019, the Institute for Defense Analyses conducted a review of publicly available data from the DURIP program. See https://www.ida.org/research-and-publications/publications/all/r/re/review-of-defense-university-research-instrumentation-program-durip.

to NSF’s Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity (GRANTED) program in which smaller institutions share this infrastructure (see presentation below). Another suggestion he made for attracting talent is the DARPA Innovation Fellowship Program.⁸

In August 2022, as one of the councils funded by the Universities Space Research Association, the HBCU Science and Technology Council was established.⁹ The council comprises vice presidents from nine institutions (additional invitations have been extended) to align with NASA centers and DOD areas and to exchange best practices and experiences. Partnerships are important, and there are enough resources to go around. He lauded the recent UARC established at Howard University and noted that UDC has agreements with three other UARCs to support access to instrumentation, internships, research experiences, and other efforts.

Dr. McCrary stressed the importance of technology transfer. He noted that research conducted at Tuskegee University resulted in more than 300 inventions but only three patents (none filed on behalf of Tuskegee itself), so that the institution does not benefit from the research. By contrast, African American engineer and inventor Percy Julian, Ph.D., who applied for patents for his research and founded his own lab, understood commercialization. UDC held no patents when Dr. McCrary arrived 5 years ago, but now has 14 provisional patents and more are in process. He stressed a new university paradigm that encompasses both academic and entrepreneurial aspects. The value proposition to DOD is patents and commercialization, rather than traditional academic outputs like papers, he concluded.

Partnering in the Future Operational Environment

Mr. Arnold has subject-matter expertise in autonomy and artificial intelligence. Partnering with DOD means supporting the warfighter, which requires everything from outer space to under the sea, he stressed. “Your school is probably doing something relevant,” he posited, listing software engineering, mechanical engineering logistics, medicine, materials, and other areas. “You are not outside the scope; it is a matter of partnering to bring that forward. The battleground is about putting technology into the warfighter’s hands.”

___________________

⁸ For more information, see https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/darpa-innovation-fellowship.

⁹ For more information, see https://newsroom.usra.edu/new-hbcu-science-and-technology-council-established-at-universities-space-research-association/.

DOD staff can assist institutions and faculty in identifying opportunities, he said, such as the director and staff of the HBCU/MI Program in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. He urged getting involved with UARCs to have access to larger amounts of funding. He took note of the UARC at Howard and the advocacy role of many people to make it happen. In addition to the support to the HBCU, Mr. Arnold pointed to workforce issues. In 2030, a large percentage of DOD will be at retirement age and students at HBCUs can provide the talent as a win-win for the country and universities.

Stressing the range of services and technologies needed by DOD, he urged HBCUs and other MSIs to “get your foot in the door.” Institutions without the infrastructure can start with the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program, in which large companies work with universities to help serve DOD.¹⁰ He also suggested contacts with R1s and with UARCs to get training and leverage infrastructure. Howard is now setting up its infrastructure, getting clearances, and other needs to establish its UARC. “The money is out there once relationships are built,” he said. The language in the National Defense Authorization Acts shows technical areas that are important to DOD, he pointed out.¹¹ He also noted that schools located near military bases and testing ranges, many of which are in the South, can work with their nearby DOD installations.

Discussion

Dr. Womack noted HBCUs’ strong base of teaching and posed whether the requirements for R&D, especially commercialization, are asking faculty to do too much. “Would we be better positioned if we look at teaching as a core premise and lift that up as an essential component, but also build out space for researchers to be on campus or affiliated who are focused on research?” he queried. Dr. McCrary concurred with the pressure of teaching loads. The issue requires conversations at the top with boards of trustees. He said it is important for HBCUs and other MSIs not to give up their legacy as teachers, but to go after opportunities at DOD and other agencies through multiple pathways. It is about culture change, he suggested. With contracts, faculty can be hired on research lines.

___________________

¹⁰ For more information, see https://business.defense.gov/Programs/Mentor-Protege-Program/.

¹¹ For more information, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text.

He cautioned institutions not to make too many requests for no-cost extensions when money cannot be spent because of teaching loads. “We have to start the conversations with the provosts, deans, and the boards to understand how the landscape has changed,” he said. “If they want to bring in these new opportunities, they cannot operate with faculty hamstrung with teaching or policies that are outdated.” For example, many faculty on DOD work cannot publish, but professors are penalized for lack of publications when they go up for tenure. Dr. Barton said he supported models of collaboration and contract building but noted that a university is set up toward knowledge generation. “I think it is scary for us to say that we want to have an institution that completely disaggregates the ability for our faculty members to engage in knowledge generation because of resource generation,” he cautioned.

Dr. Riddick commented that when he was involved in internal collaborations at DOD, it created a problem when institutions received grants but were slow in spending the money. “People are less willing to accept that universities have slow burn rates,” he said. He also noted that emerging technologies create an “open canvas.” In many cases, experts have not yet been identified as “the only show in town,” which provides opportunities for many institutions to be at the table at ground zero. Related to the missions of universities if they are pursuing research opportunities, he said, “I come back to data.” Using the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) as an example, he noted UTEP’s mission is around first-generation Americans; furthermore, “They did not lose the mission, they even doubled down on it as they became an R1.” He said in his role at CSET, he plans to make data available, help people understand those data, and build models based on the data.

Dr. McCrary stressed the need for HBCUs to be at the table. Senior leaders need to participate in relevant forums and boards. It is important to engage program officers to learn their expectations. Presidents and board members must understand that the game has changed, doors are open, and “this is the time to band together.” Dr. Womack said UNCF and the Thurgood Marshall Center put together, with Google Research, an Applied Research Institute (see Chapter 5). An outgrowth of engagement with 12 university presidents, he suggested it can serve as a model for other cross-institutional partnerships. However, he also recognized the complexities across HBCUs and other institutions, with both public and private structures and with different pressures, mandates, assets, and resources.

Dr. Barton said that Carnegie Center representatives came to Morgan State University during a strategic planning effort to discuss how to attain R1 status. Dr. McCrary noted that UDC had not been including its law school in its degrees awarded in its IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data. The importance of a focused person to collect data under the vice president of research was recognized. In looking to attain R1 status, Dr. Riddick noted, “In the data, you will find complex interdependencies that can build a strategy that is nonintuitive.” Modeling and metrics are important not just to reach but also to sustain a Carnegie designation.

Dr. Barton said for many on the pathway, it is important to build infrastructure to sustain operations. He suggested institutions talk with Carnegie representatives. Another participant commented on getting aging and failing infrastructure up to par. Everyone talks about new buildings while others are falling down, he commented. DOD cannot pay for this, but it was pointed out that a “DOD dollar” can be leveraged to get other resources in the long term. Dr. McCrary urged institutions to think big. “Sometimes we play checkers instead of chess. Who sits on the board of regents? Who appoints them?” he said. It is important that the boards of MSIs reflect current and future leaders, including those who can tap into resources for the institution with state legislators and other decision-makers. Mr. Arnold said it is important to leverage all options and connections to make the best case for an institution and how growing it benefits the community.

FEDERAL CAPACITY-BUILDING PROGRAMS

Several research capacity-building programs sponsored by federal agencies were mentioned by presenters during the town halls. A session moderated by Keith McGee, Ph.D. (Alcorn State University), brought in representatives from two agencies: Natalia Melcer (Department of Energy) and Dina Stroud, Ph.D. (National Science Foundation).

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science

Ms. Melcer spoke about two new cross-cutting initiatives coordinated by the Office of Science at the Department of Energy: Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce (RENEW) and Funding for Accelerated, Inclu-

sive Research (FAIR).¹² They are part of a larger effort to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion at DOE and in DOE-supported work, she said.

FAIR and RENEW began with 16 listening sessions, including with people from MSIs, community colleges, and underrepresented communities, to understand barriers to participation in DOE. She reported the most frequent comments were about systemic barriers, lack of awareness of opportunities, implicit bias, unclear solicitation processes, inequitable access to equipment, recruitment, and mentoring. This input is being used to inform not only FAIR and RENEW but also other ongoing DOE efforts. Goals include to (1) support diverse participation and a sense of belonging for all project personnel; (2) avoid tokenism and require substantive roles for all partner institutions; (3) address structural and financial barriers to participation for MSIs; (4) address concerns of bias in peer review of MSIs; (4) expand outreach and engagement to attract broad interest and foster partnerships; (5) invest in long-term and sustainable research and training efforts; and (6) evaluate efforts for progress toward building institutional capacity and retaining underrepresented individuals in Office of Science research areas in the long term.

Overall changes in business practices include inserting explicit language in all funding solicitations to encourage applicants from underrepresented institutions to apply, targeted advertisements, and webinars for faculty and administrators. Program Policy Factors, which are part of the awards, announce the intent to prioritize proposals from underrepresented institutions, first-time applicants, and/or institutions not previously funded by the Office of Science. There is also an emphasis on increasing reviewer diversity.

RENEW, which began in December 2022, has a student focus.¹³ Solicitations were issued from each DOE research office, with common principles that include outreach and focus on students from underrepresented institutions conducting research at DOE labs and directly addressing barriers raised by stakeholders. Proposals are required to include a plan to address diverse participation and a sense of belonging, and review criteria were developed to evaluate the quality and efficacy of the plan. To avoid tokenism, the proposals have to demonstrate substantive roles for underrepresented institutions, again with specific review subcriteria, she

___________________

¹² For information on RENEW, see https://science.osti.gov/Initiatives/RENEW. For information on FAIR, see https://science.osti.gov/Initiatives/FAIR.

¹³ For more information on RENEW, see https://science.osti.gov/Initiatives/RENEW.

said. Structural and financial barriers are addressed with language explaining allowable costs related to teaching staff, administrative support, instrumentation, student stipends, and other costs. To address bias in peer review, reviewers from underrepresented institutions were recruited and an orientation was held for all reviewers on implicit bias awareness and mitigation strategies. Ms. Melcer noted that some opportunities support planning and seed grants to develop future proposals. In addition, the Workforce Development for Teachers and Students (WDTS) program is developing new pathways for students and faculty from non-R1 MSIs, community colleges, and underrepresented groups to promote equitable access to STEM training opportunities, build science identity, and cultivate a sense of belonging. She also highlighted pathway summer school programs for high school and early undergraduate students at national labs, as well as a Visiting Faculty program for faculty to collaborate with DOE labs to do research or develop curricula. WDTS will also lead the evaluation and assessment of RENEW to understand what is working and adjust as needed.

Ms. Melcer characterized FAIR as a companion piece to RENEW in that it is designed to build research programs, mostly at non-R1 MSIs and emerging research institutions (ERIs) as defined in the CHIPS + Science Act.^14,15 FAIR supports mutually beneficial relationships between these institutions and a national lab, Office of Science user facility, or R1 MSI. Support is provided to a PI or research team to perform basic research and is designed to complement the student-focused traineeships supported by RENEW. She pointed out that equipment and infrastructure investments are allowable costs.

“In sum, both of these programs aim to increase the diversity of individuals and institutions participating in Office of Science research and to build relationships with institutions historically underrepresented in the Office of Science research portfolio,” Ms. Melcer concluded. She noted that RENEW made its first awards in December 2022, and FAIR, with its focus on faculty research, will be awarded in the coming months.

___________________

¹⁴ For more information on CHIPS + Science Act, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4346.

¹⁵ For more information on FAIR, see https://science.osti.gov/Initiatives/FAIR. ERIs are institutions of higher education with an established undergraduate or graduate program that has less than $50 million in federal research expenditures.

National Science Foundation GRANTED Program

Dr. Stroud discussed NSF’s GRANTED program, but she also called attention to NSF’s HBCU Excellence in Research (HBCU-EiR) as another resource to explore.¹⁶

She likened the Office of the Director at NSF as equivalent to a university’s leadership. The Office of Integrative Activities is within the Office of the Director and is a central place for broadening participation across NSF. Programs in addition to GRANTED and HBCU-EiR include the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, or EPSCoR; Major Research Instrumentation, or MRI; and Science and Technology Centers, or STC. According to Dr. Stroud, NSF funds about 25 percent of federally funded basic research, and MSIs received about 15 percent of proposals evaluated and awarded (see Figure 3-1). Overall, the number of institutions submitting and receiving awards has decreased, which is a source of concern, she said.

An agency priority goal is to increase participation from underrepresented investigators and institutions by 10 percent over the 2020 baseline by the end of 2023. All eight NSF directorates have programs to reach this goal. However, as Dr. Stroud pointed out from the GRANTED program language, “A strong enterprise relies on more than funding for the research itself.” The research enterprise is composed of researchers (investigators, teams, and trainees), staff and administration, and the institutions and organizations where they work. GRANTED is designed to strengthen capacity to apply for and manage external funding from both within and outside NSF. Partnerships, compliance, security, analytics, and commercialization are among the underpinnings that are often unseen but important to success, she noted.

All these aspects are addressed in what Dr. Stroud described as the GRANTED Wheel, which has three central elements: (1) enhancing practices and processes, (2) developing and strengthening human capital, and (3) translating effective practices into organizational contexts through professional societies and organizations.

Dr. Stroud encouraged institutions to develop strategies that could work to “raise all boats” for nationally transformative models of all sizes. “We have operated too long on the belief that all institutions are functioning from a similar space of resources support infrastructure, when they are

___________________

¹⁶ For information on HBCU-EiR opportunities, go to https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/historically-black-colleges-universities-2.

not,” she said. She urged participants to learn more about GRANTED and to reach out to her and others at NSF.¹⁷

Discussion

Dr. McGee commented that the programs at both agencies show a thoughtful, deliberative look at the communities that are generally underserved and asked how the programs came about. Dr. Stroud explained a review of data about who is represented in the NSF portfolio showed no shift over time. She added that the Office of Integrative Activities director, Alicia Knoedler, had been a vice president of research at an institution and provided experience and observations from her perspective. Diving into the data, reflecting on it, and being intentional about acting can create change, she said. Dr. McGee commented that institutions sometimes take a micro look at data, but aggregated data could be useful. Ms. Melcer responded that DOE wanted to broaden participation across programs and to expose non-R1s to DOE opportunities. The hope is they will move into general research programs. Reviewer pools have been broadened, reaching people to serve on panels who may not be aware of the opportunities.

Dr. Barton commented that NSF and DOE awards represent a gold standard, and that, even when applicants are not successful, reviewer feedback is valuable for subsequent engagement. Dr. Stroud said NSF training materials stress that a review is not just a fund/do not fund decision but should provide constructive feedback to applicants. Ms. Melcer said that in working on new applicant tools it was important to provide more information about the review process, especially for those with less experience. In some cases, her office receives questions from faculty that a more robust university office of sponsored research could have helped with. The Office of Science is setting up webinars and more general outreach at the start of the fiscal year to explain opportunities. Dr. Stroud commented that to meet the expectation that institutions transfer to core research grants, resources are needed to make these transitions. Dr. Wolcott welcomed the programs and expressed the hope that they remain in place for an extended period of time. Ms. Melcer and Dr. Stroud said this is the intention at both agencies. “The drive is there, and it is growing, not shrinking,” Dr. Stroud said.

___________________

¹⁷ For more information about NSF 23-221Y (GRANTED), see https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/growing-research-access-nationally-transformative-0.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AFTER THE FIRST TOWN HALL

In the final session of the first town hall, workshop planning committee members shared some of their takeaways.

Dr. Barton reflected that the panels gave a sense that there is a long way to go, but opportunities can create a pathway going forward. As several presenters said, it is essential to advance the realization that faculty cannot do it all. A supportive and parallel structure is needed to enhance the research enterprise, he commented. For Tribal Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–Serving Institutions, identity is important; it must be preserved in all engagements and can add value to the funders. Human capacity building is very important. Seeded throughout the presentations, he reflected, is the need to build frameworks over time. Institutions will have their own research initiatives, but they need to align with DOD research and technology initiatives to write credible proposals for DOD funding. Dr. Barton urged collecting data and making data-driven decisions to impact efforts, capitalizing on both well-established and innovative programs, and leveraging partnerships and consortia.

Dr. Wolcott urged messaging by agencies to communicate to institutions that they can participate in various opportunities. Faculty, who are busy with multiple responsibilities, may not realize that they are doing work that DOD needs. Conversely, DOD may not know about faculty who are undertaking research of value to its mission.

Dr. McGee commented that it is important to recognize that many professors at MSIs want to do research in support of teaching. Even if they are not at an R1 or R2 institution, they are looking for opportunities for their students so that they gain a solid foundation to go on to conduct cutting-edge research.

Dr. Newsome said it is important to keep the mission of the institutions in mind and balance innovation and cutting-edge research for the next generation, as well as increase the critical mind power of people who can look forward.

REFERENCE

This page intentionally left blank.