Attachment 1_SOW_Appendix C.pdf

Revised: March 2019

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STATISTICS

Guidelines for Preparing Technical Documentation for NCSES Surveys

Office of the Director i

Contents

Survey Descriptions

Sample Survey Description

Technical Notes

Sample Technical Notes

Detailed Methodology Report

Topics in the Methodology Report

Appendix 1: Methodology Report’s Survey History Content Example

Appendix 2: Checklist Covering Topics in the Methodology Report

Change Control Sheet

Survey Technical Documents and Samples

Survey Descriptions Purpose: The survey description1 provides a high-level overview of the survey’s purpose, design, collection, and data quality measures. Survey descriptions are, for the most part, cycle independent thus, they need not be re-written for each cycle unless there has been a significant change to the survey design.

Audience: The intended audiences for the survey description are (a) data users who are trying to determine if this is an appropriate source of data for their research and (b) respondents who want to determine if this is a legitimate survey.

This suggested redesign for the survey description maintains most of the topics that are currently included but significantly reduces the level of detail given for each topic. The survey description would be closer to a bulleted list rather than detailed passages. The proposed survey description topics are listed below, and two sample survey descriptions follow in the next section.

Survey Overview ([Year] survey cycle) (no more than ½ page in length) Purpose Data collection authority (including OMB control number and expiration date) Major changes to recent survey cycle

Key Survey Information Frequency Initial survey year Reference period Response unit (i.e. individual, establishment) Sample or census Population size Sample size Key variables (i.e., A listing and description of some of the key data elements collected in the survey.)

Survey Design (no more than ½ page in length) Target population Sample frame Sample design (if applicable)

Data Collection and Processing (no more than ½ page in length) Data collection Data processing Estimation techniques

Survey Quality Measures (no more than one page in length) Sampling error Coverage error Nonresponse error

1 The SED survey description can be found by clicking on the link:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/ and then expanding the “Survey Description” section.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/

Measurement error Data Availability and Comparability

Data Availability. A brief statement on the years that the survey data is available.

Data Comparability. A brief discussion on using the data for trend analysis across the years.

Data Products Contact Information

Sample Survey Description An example of the revised survey description for the Survey of Postdocs at Federal Funded R&D Centers is presented below. The example illustrates the intended structure, length and level of detail for the survey descriptions based on the proposed guidelines.

The underlying template and a full cut/paste version of the below sample in the template (to help in when drafting) is available in the NCSES Guidance Library, sub-library Templates.

SAMPLE - Survey of Postdocs at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers

About the Survey

The Survey of Postdocs at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers is a census of all federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) in the United States that employed postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) as of 1 October of the survey year. The survey is conducted as part of the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, which is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics within the National Science Foundation and by the National Institutes of Health. The survey collects the total number of postdocs in each FFRDC by demographic characteristic, source of financial support, and field of research.

Survey Description

Survey Overview (2017 Survey Cycle) Purpose. The Survey of Postdocs at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers is intended to identify all federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) that employed postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) as of 1 October of the survey year and to collect aggregate information on the demographic characteristics and fields of research of the postdocs employed at each FFRDC. The survey is conducted as part of the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, which is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation and by the National Institutes of Health.

Data collection authority. The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number is 3145-0062 and expires on 31 October 2020.

Major changes to recent survey cycle. None.

Key Survey Information Frequency. Periodic.

https://collaboration.inside.nsf.gov/sbe/ncses/Policy%20and%20Guidelines/SitePages/Home.aspx https://collaboration.inside.nsf.gov/sbe/ncses/Templates%20Policies%20and%20Guidelines/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Initial survey year. 2005.

Reference period. 1 October of the survey year.

Response unit. Establishment.

Sample or census. Census.

Population size. 42 FFRDCs.

Sample size. Not applicable.

Key variables. Key variables of interest are listed below.

• Sex and citizenship

• Source of financial support

• Ethnicity and race for U.S. citizens and permanent residents

• Field of research

• Administrative type of the FFRDC (university, nonprofit, industry)

Survey Design Target population. The survey target population includes all FFRDCs that employed postdocs as of 1 October of the survey year.

Sample frame. The survey is a census of all FFRDCs in the Master Government List of FFRDCs in the United States as of March 2017. The list is maintained by NCSES at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/.

Sample design. Not applicable.

Data Collection and Processing Data collection. The survey data are collected via a Web instrument. Before data collection begins, prior survey coordinators at each FFRDC are contacted via e-mail to confirm their status as the most appropriate contact person. Directors at the FFRDCs are notified about the survey launch and those at newly established FFRDCs are asked to designate a contact person for the survey. The survey access information is then e-mailed to the appropriate contact persons.

Data processing. All data submitted by the FFRDCs are reviewed to ensure that all data fields were completed, and that data are internally consistent. Data from any FFRDC that differ from the prior-year data at that FFRDC by more than 20% are flagged for review by the survey staff.

If additional information or data corrections are needed, FFRDC respondents are contacted by telephone or e-mail and asked to provide additional information or to correct data.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/

Estimation techniques. Weighting is not required because the survey is a census of all eligible FFRDCs. In 2017, carry-forward imputation and nearest-neighbor imputation were used to adjust for item nonresponse.

Survey Quality Measures Sampling error. Not applicable.

Coverage error. There is no coverage error for this survey other than that, if any, from the master list of FFRDCs maintained by NCSES.

Nonresponse error. The survey typically has high response rates. In 2017 95.7% of FFRDCs provided complete or partial data with only one FFRDC not responding.

Measurement error. Potential sources of measurement errors include incomplete administrative data or data misreported by the respondent.

Data Availability and Comparability Data availability. Postdoc data from FFRDCs are available for 2005–07, 2009–10, 2012–13, 2015, and 2017. The FFRDC survey data were first published in 2010.

Data comparability. The FFRDC postdoc counts in 2012 and subsequent years are not comparable with the counts reported in 2010 and prior years because the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) revised its postdoc reporting to include only FFRDC contract employees after it was reorganized and renamed from the National Cancer Institute at Frederick in 2012. Consequently, the total number of postdocs reported by FNLCR dropped from 286 in 2010 to 25 in 2012. All comparisons of FFRDC postdoc data spanning this period need to account for this difference.

Data Products Publications. NCSES releases the data from this survey through InfoBriefs and Detailed Statistical Tables in the publication series Postdoctorates at Federally Funded R&D Centers.

Electronic access. To obtain data files, contact the Project Officer.

Contact For additional information about this survey, or the methodology report, contact the Project Officer listed below.

Michael Yamaner Project Officer, Human Resources Statistics Program National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdcpd/ mailto:myamaner@nsf.gov

Phone: 703-292-7815 E-mail: myamaner@nsf.gov mailto:myamaner@nsf.gov

Technical Notes Purpose: Technical notes are intended to help data users interpret and use the data. They are provided with all sets of data tables disseminated through the NCSES website and provide a general understanding of the data and data quality. They are not intended to allow readers to reproduce survey results or use microdata for statistical research.

The technical notes contain some of the same information as the survey description, but at a deeper level. The technical notes may be accompanied by technical tables. Information that is well suited for data table display should be included as a technical table (e.g., unit response rates, item response rates, item imputation rates).

Note that these guidelines address the topics that technical notes cover. Please refer to the Word templates that ITSP has developed for mechanical guidance on technical notes for both DSTs and e-tables.

Intended Audience: Technical notes are written for data users interested in using our data as disseminated through data tables.

The technical notes will contain the following sections:

Survey Overview (XXXX survey cycle) Purpose Data collection authority (including OMB control number and expiration date) Survey contractor Survey sponsor(s)

Key Survey Information Frequency Initial survey year Reference period Response unit (i.e. Individual, establishment) Sample or census Population size Sample size

Survey Design Target population Sample frame Sample design (name of sample design, name strata)

Data Collection and Processing Methods Data collection. Include an overview on the survey’s collection process.

Mode. Type and percent respondents by mode Response rates. Include a summary of response rate information and, if applicable, a sentence indicating that detailed response information can be found in accompanying technical tables.

Data editing. Include a summary statement about the survey’s editing process, including any cautions related to editing that users need to be concerned about. Call out any variables that have undergone heavy editing.

Imputation. Include a statement about the survey’s imputation processes and, if applicable, a sentence stating that detailed imputation information can be found in accompanying technical tables. In this statement, alert the reader of any known limitations of the imputation process.

Note: If the imputation rates for all imputed variables are less than 3%, then only report the imputation rate range. Variables with imputation rates higher than 3% must be reported separately.

Weighting. Include a statement if the survey data is weighted for either sampling or non-response.

Variance estimation. Include a statement discussing any variance estimation techniques used for the survey and, the basis for using this method, and if applicable, a sentence stating that detailed variance information can be found in accompanying technical tables.

Survey Quality Measures Sampling error Coverage error. Include a description of any techniques that were used to mitigate the impact of coverage error.

Nonresponse error. Include a description of any techniques that were used to mitigate the impact of non-response error.

Measurement error. Include a description of any techniques that were used to mitigate the impact of measurement error.

Data Comparability Include changes that have a significant impact on the dissemination or interpretation of data and/or trends, but only for the years (and variables for those years) covered by that report’s data tables (include the years covered by trend tables). Reporting only high-impact changes should prevent swamping this section with minute detail. Organize changes as follows:

• Changes in survey coverage and population

• Changes in questionnaire

• Changes in reporting procedures or classification Definitions Notes

Sample Technical Notes The example illustrates the intended structure, length and level of detail for the survey descriptions based on the proposed guidelines.

The underlying template and a full cut/paste version of the below sample in the template (to help in when drafting) is available in the NCSES Guidance Library, sub-library Templates.

SAMPLE - Higher Education Research and Development Survey: Fiscal Year

Michael Gibbons Project Officer Research and Development Statistics Program

(703) 292-4590

Technical Notes

Survey Overview Purpose. The Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey is the primary source of information on separately accounted for R&D expenditures within higher education institutions in the United States and outlying areas.

Data collection authority. The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The Office of Management and Budget control number is 3145-0100 and expires on 30 September 2019.

Survey contractor. ICF.

Survey sponsor. The HERD Survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation.

Key Survey Information Frequency. Annual.

Initial survey year. In 2010, the HERD Survey replaced a previous annual collection, the Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges (Academic R&D Expenditures Survey), which was conducted from FY 1972 through FY 2009.

Reference period. FY 2017.

Response unit. Establishment.

Sample or census. Census.

https://collaboration.inside.nsf.gov/sbe/ncses/Policy%20and%20Guidelines/SitePages/Home.aspx https://collaboration.inside.nsf.gov/sbe/ncses/Templates%20Policies%20and%20Guidelines/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Population size. A total of 903 research-performing academic institutions.

Sample size. The survey was a census of all known eligible universities and colleges.

Survey Design Target population. The FY 2017 HERD Survey target population consisted of public and private nonprofit postsecondary institutions in the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher in any field; expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in FY 2017; and were geographically separate campuses headed by a president, chancellor, or equivalent. A list of all accredited, degree-granting institutions in the United States (the Higher Education Directory) was obtained from Higher Education Publications (HEP). More information about HEP and its sources can be found at https://www.hepinc.com/about/.

The survey population was reviewed before data collection began to ensure that each institutional classification was accurate. Characteristics of the schools were reviewed before and during the survey to determine whether changes had occurred (e.g., name; highest degree granted; school openings, closings, or mergers). Table A-1 shows all institution name changes between the FY 2016 and FY 2017 surveys.

After data collection closed, institutions were reviewed to verify that only those reporting at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D were included in the population. Of the 917 institutions surveyed, 14 completed the survey but reported total R&D expenditures of less than $150,000. These institutions were excluded from the population, and their data are not included in the FY 2017 survey totals. The total and federally financed R&D expenditures for these 14 institutions are listed in table A-2.

Sample frame. The frame for the FY 2017 HERD Survey included (1) all institutions considered in scope for the FY 2016 survey, (2) institutions that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher and reported an amount greater than $0 for research on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2015 Finance Survey, (3) all U.S. service institutions that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher and were not already part of the HERD Survey population, and (4) institutions that granted graduate degrees but did not report to IPEDS and were not already part of the HERD Survey population. The information in the Higher Education Directory was used to locate institutions meeting the conditions listed in (3) and (4). When FY 2016 R&D expenditures were not known, institutions in the frame were sent a brief questionnaire asking whether the institution had R&D expenditures during FY 2016 and whether those expenditures were less than $150,000, were $150,000 to $999,999, or were $1 million or more.

The population review screener was sent to 242 institutions. A total of 32 institutions were added to the survey population during the population review. Three other institutions were added when representatives of university systems contacted data collection staff about campuses that newly qualified for the survey. During data collection, 29 institutions were removed from the population after they indicated that their R&D expenditures were less than $150,000 for FY 2017 or that their institution had merged with another surveyed university or college. After accounting for these additions and subtractions, the number of academic institutions in the final population increased from 897 in FY 2016 to 903 in FY 2017 (table A-3).

https://www.hepinc.com/about/

Sample design. The FY 1997 survey was the last one conducted as a sample survey. Since FY 1998, the survey has been a census of all known eligible universities and colleges.

Data Collection and Processing Methods Data collection. The FY 2017 survey questionnaires were sent by e-mail in November 2017.

Respondents could choose to submit a questionnaire downloaded from the Web or use a Web-based data collection system to respond to the survey. Every effort was made to maintain close contact with respondents to preserve both the consistency and continuity of the resulting data.

Survey data reports for each institution were available on the survey website; these showed comparisons between the current and 2 prior years of data and noted any substantive disparities.

Questionnaires were carefully examined for completeness upon receipt. Respondents were sent personalized e-mail messages asking them to provide any necessary revisions before the final processing and tabulation of data. These e-mail messages included a link to the HERD Survey Web-based collection system, allowing respondents to view and correct their data online.

Respondents were asked to explain significant differences between current-year reporting and established patterns of reporting verified for prior years. They were encouraged to correct prior-year data if necessary. When respondents updated or amended figures from past years, NCSES made corresponding changes to trend data in the 2017 data tables and to the underlying microdata. For accurate historical data, use only the most recently released data tables.

Mode. Respondents could choose to submit a questionnaire downloaded from the Web or use the Web-based data collection system to respond to the survey. One institution submitted data using the downloaded questionnaire.

Response rates. By the survey’s closing date in June 2018, forms had been received from 869 universities and colleges out of a population of 903, a response rate of 96.2%. Responses were received from 97.2% of all doctorate-granting institutions. The R&D expenditures reported by these doctoral institutions constituted 98.9% of the estimated national R&D expenditures for FY 2017. Table A-4 displays a detailed breakdown of response rates by survey form and highest degree granted, and table A-5 displays a breakdown of response rates for each survey question.

Data editing. The HERD Survey was subject to very little editing. Respondents were contacted and asked to resolve possible self-reporting issues themselves. Questionnaires were carefully examined by survey staff upon receipt. Reviews focused on unexplained missing data, expenditures that were outliers compared to those of peer institutions, and explanations provided for changes in reporting patterns. If additional explanations or data revisions were needed, respondents were sent personalized e-mail messages asking them to provide any necessary revisions before the final processing and tabulation of data.

Imputation. Missing values were imputed based on the previous year’s data and the reported data of peer institutions in the current cycle. For the 32 institutions that had not responded by the closing date of the survey and had been included in the FY 2016 HERD Survey population, R&D expenditures were imputed by applying inflator and deflator factors to the prior year’s key totals. The key totals for FY 2017 included total R&D expenditures, federal R&D expenditures, expenditures received as a subrecipient from higher education sources, expenditures received as a subrecipient from non-higher education sources, expenditures passed through to higher education entities, and expenditures passed through to non-higher education entities. Imputation factors were ratios derived from the 2-year-trend data of responding institutions with similar characteristics, including highest degree granted, type of institutional control (public or private), and level of total R&D expenditures. Other values that were not identified as key totals were imputed by applying ratios from the previous year’s data.

For two institutions that were new to the survey population, no past-year data were available. For these institutions, total R&D expenditures were assumed to be $150,000 based on the institutions’ responses to the population review screener. Other values were then imputed as a proportion of total R&D expenditures based on the data of institutions with similar characteristics. Data for partial nonresponse were imputed using similar techniques.

Tables A-6 through A-19 present imputed amounts for each applicable survey variable. The dollar amount imputed is displayed, along with the percentage it represents of the national estimate for universities and colleges for a variable. The imputed total R&D was $110 million, or 0.1%, of the $75.3 billion in total R&D expenditures (table A-6).

Several surveyed institutions have responded intermittently in past years. For years in which no response was received, data have been imputed as previously described. Although the imputation algorithm accurately reflects national trends, it cannot account for specific trends at individual institutions. For this reason, a re-imputation of institutional data for prior years is also performed.

For each institution, previously imputed values from the HERD Survey (FYs 2010–16) were recomputed to ensure that the imputed data are consistent with reporting patterns from the FY 2017 survey. These procedures result in much more consistent reporting trends for individual institutions but have little effect on aggregate figures reflecting national totals. In the data tables, the letter i is used to identify imputed data.

R&D expenditures from unspecified federal agencies (Question 10) and capitalization thresholds for software and equipment (Question 13) were not imputed. Response summaries for these questions can be found in tables A-20 through A-21.

Weighting. Survey data were not weighted.

Variance estimation. No variance estimation techniques were used.

Survey Quality Measures Sampling error. Because the FY 2017 survey was distributed to all institutions in the universe, there was no sampling error.

Coverage error. Coverage error of large research institutions is minimal because of comprehensive lists. These institutions are easily identified using the NCSES Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. However, institutions with smaller amounts of R&D expenditures have been more difficult to identify because they often do not receive federal funding for science and engineering (S&E) R&D.

As part of the expanded HERD Survey collection, a special effort was undertaken in 2010 to screen 1,715 4-year and higher postsecondary institutions that were not currently included in the survey to identify additional institutions meeting the $150,000 threshold. These institutions were given detailed instructions regarding what to include as R&D expenditures and were asked to respond to Question 1, total R&D expenditures by source of funds, of the HERD Survey. This short form survey achieved a 64.4% response rate and identified 187 additional institutions that met the $150,000 threshold. The total R&D expenditures reported by these institutions in FY 2010 was $249 million, or 0.42%, of the $61.2 billion reported by FY 2010 HERD Survey respondents. More details on this effort are included in the methodology report and technical notes for the FY 2010 survey. NCSES continues to annually screen all 4-year and higher institutions reporting nonzero amounts of research expenses to IPEDS to determine whether new institutions qualify for inclusion in the survey.

Nonresponse error. Thirty-four universities and colleges did not respond in FY 2017, out of a total of 903 eligible institutions, for a nonresponse rate of 3.8%. Table A-4 displays a detailed breakdown of response rates by survey population and highest degree granted.

The item nonresponse rates varied from 0.0% for Question 1, total R&D expenditures by source of funds, and Question 9, federal expenditures by R&D field, to 7.2% for Question 6, R&D expenditures by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, and experimental development).

No question had a nonresponse rate of 10% or higher. Table A-5 displays a breakdown of response rates for each question in each of the two surveys. See section “Imputation” for mitigation of item nonresponses. Tables A-6 through A-19 present imputed amounts for each applicable survey variable.

Measurement error. The most likely source of measurement error is institutional records containing categories different from those on the survey. For example, institutions were asked to report all R&D expenditures by field. The NCSES-designed fields do not always translate to an institution’s departmental structure, and adjustments must be made by the institution in order to complete the survey. Fields were revised for the FY 2016 survey to better reflect the R&D currently being conducted at universities and colleges and make HERD Survey fields more consistent with those used by other NCSES surveys as well as with the National Center for Education Statistics Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes. Details of this change are included in the methodology report and technical notes for the FY 2016 survey.

Another source of error is the survey’s category of institutionally financed research. The survey requests that institutions report discretionary internal funds used for research. NCSES discovered through debriefings conducted at the conclusion of the FY 2010 survey that there were varying definitions of what should be included on the HERD Survey as institutionally funded research.

Some institutions were including all expenditures from separate accounts designated for research; others were including only internal R&D projects that are competitively awarded and have detailed budgets. A workshop was held in summer 2012 to discuss these differences in definitional interpretation. Based on the findings from the workshop, the FY 2012 survey was modified to clarify that all expenditures designated for research can be included in this category.

This includes expenditures for organized research and expenditures of other funds designated for research but not categorized as organized research. A checklist question (Question 1.1) was also added to encourage the inclusion of all eligible expenditures and to determine the full extent of the variations in reporting across institutions. This question has been on the survey since FY 2012. An analysis of Question 1.1 responses from FY 2016 indicated that the majority of institutions that reported some institutionally funded R&D were including funds that would not be considered organized research (e.g., 77% included startup funds, bridge funding, or seed funding, and 79% included other departmental funds designated for research). However, many institutions reported that they still could not report institutionally funded research that was not organized research because those funds were not separately accounted for. Therefore, survey totals are missing expenditures for R&D that come from multipurpose accounts, and as such, they represent an undercount of the total amount of internal discretionary funding that institutions make available to conduct R&D.

The reporting of unrecovered indirect costs is another known source of error. The survey requests that the total amount of indirect costs associated with a research grant or contract be calculated and reported, including costs that were not reimbursed by the external funding source.

The unrecovered indirect cost is calculated by multiplying the institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate by the corresponding base and then subtracting the actual indirect cost recovery, preferably on a project-by-project basis. In FY 2017, 6.0% of respondents reported that these data were unavailable. Respondents who were unable to provide values were asked to provide information on their nonresponse. Based on the collected information, survey guidance is revised to encourage response.

It should also be noted that because institutions were asked to include funds passed through to higher education institutions as well as subrecipient funding from higher education institutions, there is double counting included in national and group totals. For example, Institution A’s survey included the $2 million passed through to Institution B, and Institution B’s survey also included that $2 million in subrecipient funding that it received from Institution A. Overall, institutions reported $3.3 billion in expenditures from subrecipient funding received from other universities in FY 2017 and $3.3 billion in funds passed through to higher education subrecipients in FY 2017. Adjustments are made to R&D totals presented in the NCSES National Patterns of R&D Resources publications.

Data Comparability (Changes) Annual data are available for FYs 1972–2017. When the review for consistency between each year’s data and submissions in prior years reveals discrepancies, it is sometimes necessary to modify prior years’ data. This is especially likely to affect trends for certain institutions that fail to report every year, because current-year data are used to impute prior-year data. For accurate historical data, use only the most recently released data tables. Individuals wishing to analyze trends other than those in the most recent data tables are encouraged to contact the Project Officer for more information about comparability of data over time.

Changes in survey coverage and population. Before FY 2010, the population included only institutions with R&D expenditures and degree programs in S&E fields. Institutions that performed R&D in only non-S&E fields were excluded from the population. Although not a change in the coverage or population, each campus headed by a campus-level president, chancellor, or equivalent began completing a separate survey in 2010 rather than combining its response with the responses of other campuses in the university system. As a result, the overall number of academic institutions in the population increased from 711 in FY 2009 to 742 in FY 2010.

https://nsf.gov/statistics/natlpatterns/

To compare HERD Survey data across university systems by aggregating member campuses, table 6 shows all institutions in the FY 2017 population, including short form survey institutions, by state, institutional control, and system.

Universities and colleges can merge or separate, possibly resulting in large changes in data from previous years. For FY 2015, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) reporting line was changed from the Chancellor of the Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI) campus to the President of Indiana University. As such, the research expenditures for IUSM are now included in the Indiana University–Bloomington figures, resulting in an increase in total R&D expenditures of approximately $280 million for this campus. IUPUI total R&D expenditures decreased from $324 million in FY 2014 to $56 million in FY 2015. In September 2015, Yeshiva University relinquished control of Albert Einstein College of Medicine to Montefiore Health System. As a result, FY 2016 data for Yeshiva University included only 2 months (July–August 2015) of R&D expenditures from the college of medicine. Albert Einstein College of Medicine reported separately for its entire FY 2016 (January–December 2016).

Because of this change, FY 2016 research expenditures for Yeshiva University decreased by $260 million. For FY 2017, Yeshiva University included no expenditures from the college of medicine, and total research expenditures decreased by $43 million.

Changes in questionnaire. Tables include data from the Academic R&D Expenditures Survey (FYs 1972–2009) and the HERD Survey (FYs 2010–17). Analysts should be cautious when examining trend data. Although many variables are similar across the two surveys, because of clarification of which funds are to be included in the definition of R&D and the inclusion of non- S&E expenditures, exact comparisons may be misleading. In prior years, the Academic R&D Expenditures Survey collected expenditures for S&E and non-S&E fields separately. Institutions were not always able to provide non-S&E expenditures, and those data were not imputed previously. Also, revisions to the instructions on what types of activities are included as R&D in 2010 may have influenced reported values to varying degrees, depending on the numbers of clinical trials and training grants at an institution. Specific changes are described below:

• For the FY 2012 data collection, NCSES modified the survey instructions to clarify what types of institutionally funded activities should be included in reported data. The instructions explained that all expenditures for R&D from an institution’s current operating funds that are separately accounted for should be reported. This includes expenditures separately budgeted for organized research and expenditures of other funds designated for research but not categorized as organized research. The instructions also specified that funds from an institution’s 501(c)3 foundation should be reported under institutionally financed research.

• For the FY 2013 collection, the instructions were revised to clarify that funds from foreign and U.S. universities and colleges should be reported under All other sources (Question 1, row f). The instructions also specified that gifts designated by donors for research should be included in Question 1, row f.

• Several changes were made to the FY 2016 questionnaire:

o Question 16 on the FY 2015 questionnaire, regarding the number of postdocs paid from R&D expenditures, was removed from the survey.

o Question 2, regarding foreign funding of R&D, was expanded to identify sources of foreign funding. The question now collects R&D expenditures funded by foreign governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and higher education (see definition Foreign sources for additional information).

o Questions 9, 11, and 14 include revisions to the fields of R&D that better reflect the R&D currently being conducted at universities and colleges. The revisions make the HERD Survey fields more consistent with those used by other NCSES surveys as well as with the CIP codes.

• For FY 2017, the instructions were revised to clarify that funding from federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs) should be reported as direct federal funding from the FFRDC’s sponsoring agency.

Changes in reporting procedures or classification.

• In order to reduce the burden for institutions with minimal amounts of R&D expenditures, NCSES introduced a shorter version of the HERD Survey beginning with the FY 2012 collection. The short form includes four core questions. For the FY 2017 cycle, the short form population included 259 institutions that reported R&D expenditures between $150,000 and $1 million during FY 2016. The remainder of the institutions (644) received the full version of the survey.

• Short form survey data for FYs 2012–17 appear only in those tables that specify in their title that the data presented include data from the short form version of the survey. Data from the short form survey population are included in the year totals prior to FY 2012, aggregated under “all other surveyed institutions.” The total FY 2017 R&D expenditures reported by institutions in the short form survey population ($140.0 million) represent 0.2% of the expenditures reported by all institutions ($75.3 billion).

Definitions

• Clinical trials. Research studies designed to answer specific questions about the effects of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, tests, treatments, or other therapies for patients.

Clinical trials are used to determine safety and effectiveness. Includes Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III clinical trials with human patients but excludes Phase IV clinical trials.

• Contracts. Legal commitments in which a good or service was provided by the reporting institution and benefited the sponsor. The sponsor specified the deliverables and gained the rights to the results.

• Federal agency. Any agency of the United States government. Expenditures were reported by six specific agency funding sources (the Department of Agriculture;

Department of Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health; National Aeronautics and Space

Administration; and National Science Foundation). Any expenditures funded by other federal agencies were reported under Other. The names of agencies included in the Other category are also requested.

• Fields of R&D. A list of the 40 fields of R&D reported on can be found on the survey questionnaire. In the data tables, the fields are grouped into 10 major areas: computer and information sciences; engineering; geosciences, atmospheric sciences and ocean sciences;

life sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; psychology; social sciences;

other sciences; and non-science and engineering.

• Fiscal year. Institution’s financial year.

• Foreign sources:

Foreign government. All levels of foreign government, including national, regional, municipal, or other local government.

Business. Foreign for-profit organizations. Projects sponsored by a U.S. location of a foreign company were not considered foreign. Funds from a company’s nonprofit foundation were not reported here; they were reported under Nonprofit organizations.

Nonprofit organizations. Foreign nonprofit foundations and organizations, except higher education institutions. Funds from foreign universities were reported under Higher education.

Higher education. Foreign colleges and universities and units owned, operated, and controlled by such institutions.

All other sources. International governmental organizations located in the United States, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, and all other entities sending funds to the United States from a location outside the United States and its territories.

• Medical schools. A medical school awards MD or DO degrees. Expenditures from projects assigned to the medical school or to research centers that were organizationally part of the medical school were included.

• Pass-through entity. Organizations that pass through grant or contract funds to subrecipient organizations. Vendor relationships were not included.

• Principal investigators (PIs) and all other R&D personnel. A PI is designated by the institution to direct the R&D project or program and be responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project. All other R&D personnel includes other employees and students paid from R&D accounts.

• Research and development (R&D). R&D is creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of humankind, culture, and society—and to devise new applications of available knowledge. R&D covers three activities: basic research, applied research, and experimental development. R&D does not include public service or outreach programs, curriculum development (unless included as part of an overall research project), or non-research training grants. R&D as measured on this survey does not include capital projects (i.e., construction or renovation of research facilities).

• R&D expenditures. Expenditures from the institution’s current operating funds that were separately accounted for. For the purposes of the survey, R&D includes expenditures for organized research as defined by 2 CFR 220 Part 200 Appendix III and expenditures from funds designated for research. Expenditures came from internal or external funding and included recovered and unrecovered indirect costs. Funds passed through to subrecipient organizations were also included. R&D was excluded if it was conducted by university faculty or staff at outside institutions and was not accounted for in the reporting institution’s financial records.

• Sources of funds:

U.S. federal government. Any agency of the U.S. government. Federal funds that were passed through to the reporting institution from another institution were included.

State and local government. Any state, county, municipality, or other local government entity in the United States, including state health agencies. State funds that supported R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations were included. Public institutions reported state appropriations restricted for R&D activities in this category.

Business. Domestic or foreign for-profit organizations. Funds from a company’s nonprofit foundation were not reported here; they were reported under Nonprofit organizations.

Nonprofit organizations. Domestic or foreign nonprofit foundations and organizations, except universities and colleges. Funds from the reporting institution’s 501(c)3 foundation were reported under Institutional funds. Funds from other universities and colleges were reported under All other sources.

Institutional funds. Includes institutionally financed research (all R&D funded by the institution from accounts that are only used for research), cost sharing (committed), and unrecovered indirect costs (the portion of indirect costs associated with a sponsored project that was not reimbursed by the sponsor in accordance with the institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate).

All other sources. Sources not reported in other categories, such as funds from foreign governments, foreign or U.S. universities, and gifts designated by the donors for research.

• Subrecipient. The subrecipient for an award carries out the work but receives the funds from a pass-through entity rather than directly from the original funding source.

Subrecipients tend to be the coauthors of publications, writers of technical reports discussing findings, inventors, and similar. Vendor relationships were not included.

• Type of cost. R&D expenditures were reported in the following categories:

Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits. Includes compensation for all R&D personnel whether full time or part time, temporary or permanent, including salaries, wages, and fringe benefits paid from institution funds and from external support.

Software purchases, noncapitalized and capitalized. Includes payments for all software, both purchases of software packages and license fees for systems.

Capitalized equipment. Includes payments for movable equipment exceeding the institution’s capitalization threshold, including ancillary costs such as delivery and setup.

Pass-throughs to other organizations. See the definition for Subrecipient.

Other direct costs. Other costs that do not fit into one of the above categories, including (but not limited to) travel, tuition waivers, services such as consulting, computer usage fees, and supplies.

Indirect costs. Includes both recovered and unrecovered indirect costs.

• Type of R&D. R&D expenditures were reported in the following categories:

Basic research. Experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.

Applied research. Original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is directed primarily towards a specific, practical aim or objective.

Experimental development. Systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience and producing additional knowledge, which is directed to producing new products or processes or to improving existing products or processes.

Detailed Methodology Report Purpose: NCSES methodology reports serve two purposes: (1) they act as the institutional record of the execution of the survey and (2) provide technical details on the execution of the survey to methodologically sophisticated users.

Intended Audience: The methodology report is written for specialists who are interested in knowing the details of how the survey was executed. They include users with strong knowledge of statistical methods and survey methodology, new contractors who need to understand our survey processes, and the survey manager.

This section provides a set of guidelines on delivering the methodology report and the topics that should be included (when applicable to the survey).

Preparing and Delivering the Report

• NCSES requires delivery of a methodology report at the close of each survey cycle.

Ideally, the methodology report should be posted (or made available to users) at the same time that data is available to the users.

o Drafts of the methodology report submitted to NCSES for review must have the track changes function enabled for easy identification of changes from the previous cycle. The contractor and survey manager should decide at the beginning of the survey cycle, a delivery date for the first draft of the methodology report. Ideally, the first draft should come three months after data delivery.

• The final methodology report should be delivered in two formats: (1) as a single .pdf file to NCSES and (2) an editable Microsoft Word document.

o The contractor must ensure that the final methodology report is 508 compliant. Contractors should refer to Section508.gov2 (www.section508.gov) for policies, regulations, and standards.

• Each methodology report should have a table of contents corresponding to the sections of the report.

• The methodology report must follow the publication standards documented in the NCSES “Manual of Editorial Style and Publication Standards”.

• Exceptions to these overall requirements are made at the discretion of the NCSES deputy division director.

2 Additional guidance is can be found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103565 http://www.section508.gov/

Topics in the Methodology Report The methodology report should present the topics in the order presented below in narrative form. Topics that listed here that are not applicable to a survey do not need to be included in the methodology report. Please note that there are some topics that are duplicated in the Data Repository File requirements. Refer to the repository file requirements to see if content can be reused here.

Section 1: Introductory Section/Executive Summary

• The introductory section of the methodology report serves two purposes. First, to describe the survey’s purpose and to provide some historical background to the survey, Secondly, to provide an executive summary of the survey process, highlighting key methodological techniques used in the execution.

Section 2: Survey Background and Purpose

a. The background and purpose section describe the overall goals of the survey.

When applicable, this section should include the following information:

1. The legislative authority to collect this data.

2. History of the survey.

3. Key uses of the survey.

4. Key users of the survey (e.g. specific federal agencies, policy makers).

5. Main content areas (e.g. R&D, S&E education, S&E workforce) surveyed.

6. Target population surveyed.

7. Frequency of the survey.

8. Survey Reference Period

b. Major changes which are new to current survey cycle. Major changes are included but not limited to:

1. Any significant production changes done in this cycle (e.g. addition of a new collection mode)

2. Changes to definitions of key variables collected in the survey (e.g.

race/ethnicity, R&D)

3. The addition of questions written to collect a new element in the survey or a major change to a question.

Section 3: Survey Process Overview and Schedule

a. The survey overview and schedule provide an overview of the entire process from questionnaire design to the…