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.
