Spurring Innovation in Food and Agriculture: A Review of the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Program (2014)
Chapter: Appendix D: Summary of Responses to Web-Based Questionnaire
D
Summary of Responses to
Web-Based Questionnaire1
Please select one of the following options that best describes you:
|
Research performer, educator, extension leader, or grant seeker (researcher from academic, government, non-profit, or other institutions) |
524 | 90.8% |
|
Research user from government or industry |
34 | 5.9% |
|
Agricultural or forest producer and related professional society |
19 | 3.3% |
|
Total Responses |
577 | |
|
Research Performers - Type of Institution: |
||
|
1862 Land Grant University |
387 | 75.2% |
|
1890 Land Grant University |
39 | 7.6% |
|
1994 Land Grant University |
4 | 0.8% |
|
Public Non-Land Grant |
30 | 5.8% |
|
Private University/College |
12 | 2.3% |
|
Private Research |
7 | 1.4% |
|
Federal |
30 | 5.8% |
| 2.3% | ||
|
Other |
12 | |
|
Australian Government |
(1) | |
|
Botanic Garden |
(1) | |
|
M&O for NSF’s FFRDC |
(1) | |
_______________
1Responses from all respondents are available upon request through the National Academies Public Access Records Office for this study.
|
Multiple of above |
(1) | |
|
Non-profit |
(2) | |
|
Public University |
(2) | |
|
Scientific Professional Society |
(1) | |
|
State Experiment Station |
(1) | |
|
Total Responses |
521 | |
|
Area of Research |
||
|
Agronomy |
41 | 7.9% |
|
Animal science |
87 | 16.8% |
|
Crop science |
52 | 10.1% |
|
Economics |
26 | 5.0% |
|
Food science |
48 | 9.3% |
|
Nutrition |
40 | 7.7% |
|
Plant science |
106 | 20.5% |
|
Renewable energy, natural resources and environment |
75 | 14.5% |
|
Sociology |
26 | 5.0% |
|
Soil science |
29 | 5.6% |
|
Veterinary science |
41 | 7.9% |
|
Weed science |
32 | 6.2% |
|
Other |
158 | |
|
Agricultural Law |
(1) | |
|
Agricultural Literacy |
(1) | |
|
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources Research |
(1) | |
|
Anthropology |
(1) | |
|
Aquaculture |
(1) | |
|
Atmospheric Sciences |
(1) | |
|
Biochemistry and Cell Biology |
(1) | |
|
Biologicals |
(1) | |
|
Biology |
(1) | |
|
Carbohydrate |
(1) | |
|
Communication |
(1) | |
|
Community/Economic Development |
(1) | |
|
Family Science |
(1) | |
|
Cropping Systems |
(1) | |
|
Demography |
(1) | |
|
Ecology |
(1) | |
|
Education |
(6) | |
|
Adult/Extension Education |
(3) | |
|
4-H and Youth Development |
(4) | 30.6% |
|
Engineering |
(3) | |
|
Agricultural |
(5) | |
|
Biological |
(1) | |
|
Food |
(2) | |
|
Food Processing |
(1) | |
|
Entomology |
(25) | |
|
Pest Management |
(3) | |
|
IPM |
(2) | |
|
Environmental Risk Assessment |
(1) | |
|
Environmental Science |
(1) | |
|
Feed Extrusion |
(1) | |
|
Food Safety |
(4) | |
|
Food System |
(1) | |
|
Natural Resources |
(2) | |
|
Forestry |
(5) | |
|
Policy |
(1) | |
|
Products |
(1) | |
|
Wildlife Management |
(5) | |
|
Genetics |
(2) | |
|
GIS |
(1) | |
|
Immunology |
(1) | |
|
Health and Wellness |
(1) | |
|
Public Health |
(1) | |
|
Horticulture |
(19) | |
|
Hospitality Management |
(1) | |
|
Infectious Diseases |
(1) | |
|
Meat Science |
(1) | |
|
Microbiology |
(3) | |
|
Food Microbiology |
(1) | |
|
Molecular Biology |
(1) | |
|
Pathology |
(1) | |
|
Plant |
(11) | |
|
Poultry Science |
(2) | |
|
Public Administration |
(1) | |
|
Remote Sensing |
(1) | |
|
Research Administrator |
(1) | |
|
Supply Chain Management |
(1) | |
|
University Engagement |
(1) | |
|
Vector Biology |
(1) | |
|
Virology |
(1) | |
|
Water |
(1) | |
|
Quality |
(1) | |
|
Wood Science |
(1) | |
|
Fundamental Animal Science |
0 | 0.0% |
|
Fundamental Plant Science |
0 | 0.0% |
|
Total Responses |
517 |
Principal agencies/organizations (including federal and state agencies, charitable or nonprofit organizations, and private corporations) that have supported your research
|
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
74 | 14.9% |
|
National Science Foundation (NSF) |
120 | 24.1% |
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) |
421 | 84.5% |
|
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) |
77 | 15.5% |
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |
58 | 11.7% |
|
Charitable Foundation |
92 | 18.5% |
|
Private Sector |
265 | 53.2% |
|
Other |
130 | 26.1% |
|
All of the above |
(1) | |
|
Federal Agencies |
||
|
APHIS |
(1) | |
|
ARS |
(1) | |
|
BARD |
(2) | |
|
BLM |
(1) | |
|
CAPES (Brazil) |
(1) | |
|
CDC |
(1) | |
|
Commerce |
(1) | |
|
CSREES |
(1) | |
|
DAFF (Australia) |
(1) | |
|
DHS |
(2) | |
|
DOD |
(10) | |
|
DOI |
(1) | |
|
Education |
(1) | |
|
ESTCP |
(1) | |
|
DOL |
(1) | |
|
DOT |
(2) | |
|
FDA |
(2) | |
|
FHWA |
(1) | |
|
FWS |
(2) | |
|
HHS |
(1) | |
|
HUD |
(1) | |
|
HRSA |
(1) | |
|
NASA |
(3) | |
|
NOAA |
(2) | |
|
OSM |
(1) | |
|
SERDP |
(1) | |
|
USAID |
(1) | |
|
USBR |
(1) | |
|
USGS |
(1) | |
|
State Agencies |
(17) | |
|
Department of Agriculture |
(10) | |
|
Natural Resources |
(6) | |
|
Military Branches |
||
|
U.S. Navy |
(1) | |
|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
(1) | |
|
Check Off Funds |
(4) | |
|
Commodity Organizations |
(15) | |
|
Industry |
(10) | |
|
International Governments |
(2) | |
|
Land-Grant Universities |
(3) | |
|
National Academy of Sciences |
(1) | |
|
None of the above |
(1) | |
|
Nonprofit |
(1) | |
|
Private Foundation |
(2) | |
|
Public/Private Agency |
(1) | |
|
SeaGrant |
(1) | |
|
Total Responses |
498 |
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE RESPONSES
For researchers that feel the AFRI process is unfair to some institutions, they believe so because:
• Larger institutions have access to more resources and administrative support, which alleviates the burden of managing paperwork and application materials for the researcher.
• The process favors land-grant institutions.
• Scope of RFPs and short turn-around time make it difficult for researchers to fit their proposal into the mold.
• Effort required for application is too burdensome for the amount of money awarded, when comparing to comparable process, such as NSF.
Researchers that thought the AFRI application process was difficult:
• Too lengthy and involved.
• Timing: Solicitation window is too small, and often given around the holidays, when people are busy.
• “Collaborative” requirement/preference makes it difficult to coordinate among team members.
Researchers that thought the pre-award and post-award periods were not handled well:
• Substantial delay between notification of award and disbursement.
• Communication issues between institutions and even among groups within the awarding institution.
Researchers that thought the panel review process was not helpful:
• Very little extension focus.
• Panelists do not always have appropriate expertise to review proposals.
• Panels are composed of experts in and tend to favor basic research instead of applied research.
• Panels can be derailed by strong personalities or researchers with specific agendas.
