FY25_ARI_BASIC_FOA-BRU.pdf

UNITED STATES ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (ARI)

FOUNDATIONAL SCIENCE RESEARCH UNIT (FSRU)

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR

BASIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

W911NF-25-S-0006

04 February 2025 – 01 July 2025

ISSUED BY:

U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground

Research Triangle Park Division

P. O. BOX 12211

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY:

A. Required Overview Content B. Additional Overview Information

II. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY:

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scientific Problems for Basic Research Types of Proposals Basic Research Topic Areas of Interest

1. Measurement of Individuals and Collectives

2. Teams and Small Groups

3. Organizations and Systems

4. Formal and Informal Learning and Development

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

1. Grant

2. Cooperative Agreement

3. Governance of Grants and Cooperative Agreements

4. Governance of Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Exempted Organizations

5. Websites for Governing Regulations and Terms and Conditions

C. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Address to View Funding Opportunity Announcement

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

Section 1 – General Information Section 2 – Application Process Overview Section 3 – White Paper Preparation

Section 4 – White Paper Submission Section 5 – White Paper Review Section 6 - Preparation of Proposals Section 7. Conference and Symposia Grants Section 8 – Submission of Proposals

3. Submission Dates and Times

4. Intergovernmental Review

5. Funding Restrictions

6. Other Submission Requirements

E. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

1. Criteria

2. Recipient Qualification

F. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Award Notices

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

3. Reporting

G. FEDERAL AWARD AGENCY CONTACTS

H. OTHER INFORMATION

I. OVERVIEW OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

A. Required Overview Content

Agency Name:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Foundational Science Research Unit (FSRU)

Issuing Acquisition Office:

U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, Research Triangle Park (ACC-APG-RTP) Division

Research Opportunity Title:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Funding Opportunity Announcement for Basic Research (Fiscal Year 2026)

Announcement Type:

Initial Announcement

Research Opportunity Number:

W911NF-25-S-0006

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number and Title:

12.431 – Basic Scientific Research

Response Dates (Submissions):

White paper submissions must be received by: 5:00 PM/1700 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 9 March 2025

Proposal submissions must be received by: 5:00 PM/1700 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on 1 July 2025

2025 Response Dates (Questions):

General questions regarding white papers must be submitted in writing to Dr. Kimberly Wingert, kimberly.m.wingert.civ@army.mil. Questions about a specific research topic area must be submitted in writing to the listed technical POC. All questions regarding white papers must be submitted by: 5:00 PM/1700 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 23 February 2025.

General questions regarding proposals must be submitted in writing to Dr. Kimberly Wingert, kimberly.m.wingert.civ@army.mil. Questions about a specific research topic mailto:kimberly.m.wingert.civ@army.mil area must be submitted in writing to the listed technical POC. All questions regarding proposals must be submitted by: 5:00 PM/1700 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on 15 June 2025

A white paper submission is not required to submit a proposal, although it is strongly encouraged. Awards are intended to be obligated between 1 October 2025 and 30 September 2026. Amendments to this FOA will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities (beta.SAM.gov; FBO.gov has been moved to beta.SAM.gov and is now known as Contract Opportunities) and http://www.Grants.gov when they occur.

Interested parties are responsible for periodically checking these websites for updates and amendments.

(End of Section) http://www.grants.gov/

B. Additional Overview Information

INTRODUCTION:

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the Foundational Science Research Unit (FSRU) of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) solicits new proposals for its fiscal year 2026 program of basic research in behavioral and social science. It is issued under the provisions of paragraph 6.102(d) (2) and 35.016 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which provides for the acquisition of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement through the competitive selection of proposals and 10 U.S.C. 4001, 10 U.S.C. 4021, and 10 U.S.C. 4022.

Proposals submitted in response to this FOA and selected for award are considered to be the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law 98- 369, Section 2701, "The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984" and subsequent amendments.

ARI is the Army’s lead agency for the conduct of research, development, and analyses for the improvement of Army readiness and performance via research advances and applications of the behavioral and social sciences that address personnel, organization, and Soldier and leader development issues. ARI’s mission is to drive scientific innovation to enable the Army to acquire, develop, employ, and retain professional Soldiers and enhance personnel readiness. The mission of the Basic Research Program is to execute high-risk, high-reward foundational research to develop state-of-the-art theory, methods, and models to create the innovative concepts required to support the Army’s future capabilities and needs related to personnel readiness.

We strongly encourage applicants to propose novel, state-of-the-art, and multidisciplinary approaches that address the stated high-priority research questions.

A key consideration in the decision to support a research proposal is that its findings are likely to stimulate new, basic behavioral research, which in turn, will lead to improved performance of Army personnel and their units. ARI will not support proposals through this FOA that are primarily applied research projects (e.g., human factors studies, specific-use technology development and validation, or training program evaluations) or primarily focused on physiology, psychopathology, or behavioral health.

Collaboration is encouraged among institutions of higher education (IHE), non-profit organizations, and commercial organizations. Funding of basic research proposals within ARI areas of interest will be determined by funding constraints and priorities set during each budget cycle.

A proposal should describe its potential contribution(s) to theory along with potential benefits to the Army. Those contemplating submission of a proposal are strongly encouraged to submit a white paper before submitting a proposal. Submission of a white paper before a proposal allows for the earliest determination of the potential for funding and minimizes the labor and cost associated with the submission of a proposal that may have minimal probability of being selected for funding. Costs associated with preparation of a white paper or proposal submission in response to this FOA are not considered allowable direct charges to any resulting award. These costs may be allowable expenses to normal bid and proposal indirect costs specified in FAR 31.205-18. An applicant submitting a proposal is cautioned that only a Government Grants Officer may obligate the Government to any legal instrument involving expenditure of Government funds.

Award decisions are subject to funds availability, and ARI may choose to not execute any award under this FOA due to unavailability of funds or other factors. Due to Government budget uncertainties,

(1) No specific dollars have been reserved for total awards under this FOA, and

(2) No award floor or ceiling thresholds have been established for individual awards under this FOA.

II. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS FOR BASIC RESEARCH:

To meet the operational objectives of the U.S. Army over the next two decades, the Army must improve its capability to acquire, develop, employ, and retain Soldiers and leaders who can individually and as part of a group:

• Prepare for and adapt quickly to dynamic missions, unpredictable operational environments, and a wide spectrum of contexts;

• Effectively function autonomously and as part of larger systems in complex, information-rich environments;

• Perform in extended, hybrid, and continuous operations;

• Interact and collaborate effectively in joint-service and multi-national operations.

ARI requests proposals to conduct basic research that will provide a scientific foundation to support these broad capabilities.

The Basic Research program focuses on four strategic areas for advancing personnel science.

1. Measurement of Individuals and Collectives: Advanced psychometric theory for deriving valid measurements from complex assessments and continuous streams of data

2. Teams and Small Groups: Understanding dynamic restructuring, coordination, and composition processes in teams and promoting optimal team adaptation

3. Organizations and Systems: Multilevel theory and methods for complex organizations

4. Formal and Informal Learning and Development: Holistic models of individual and collective learning and development across work settings and contexts throughout the career span

To be eligible for an award under this announcement, a prospective awardee must meet certain minimum standards pertaining to financial resources and responsibility, ability to comply with the performance schedule, past performance, integrity, experience, technical capabilities, operational controls, and facilities. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and Department of Defense (DoD) and Army policies, no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Army on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability.

Types of Proposals

The funding opportunity is divided into three types of proposals for basic research: (1)

Standard Basic Research Proposals and (2) Targeted Opportunities which encompass: a) Early Career Proposals (ECP) and b) Short-Term Innovative Research (STIR) Proposals (both of which are for basic research). ARI will accept all three types in response to this

FOA.

1. Standard Proposals. Most basic research awards are awarded in response to Standard Proposals provided by experienced researchers. In recent years, the most typical period of performance has been for three years, and the mean award total has been approximately $750,000.

2. Targeted Opportunities

a. Early Career Proposals. To foster the development of innovative and creative researchers, ARI solicits proposals with primary investigators who are early in their research careers and have never received ARI funding as a Principal Investigator. All ARI evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate Early Career Proposals, except the criteria that address the experience of the Principal Investigator (see SECTION II. E of this FOA for evaluation criteria). In all other respects, the evaluation criteria used in this FOA apply equally to both Standard and Early Career Proposals. While there is no specific amount of funding set aside for these proposals, initial budgets should be modest: approximately $125K for the initial year. To be considered for the Early Career category:

i. An Investigator must specify in the proposal abstract and on the proposal cover page that they are requesting consideration under this funding category.

ii. Projects should be designed for one year of funding. Note that optional periods of research (one to two additional years) may be included in the proposal and may be funded should the initial work prove promising. These years should be denoted as option years in the proposal.

iii. The research must fit at least one of the stated four (4) domains of the FOA Basic Research areas of interest.

iv. The Principal Investigator must have received their Ph.D. within five years of the time of proposal submission, and not previously received funding from ARI as a Principal Investigator.

b. Short-Term Innovative Research (STIR) Proposals. The objectives of the STIR awards are to support rapid, short-term investigations to assess the merit of innovative new concepts in basic research. STIR awards provide an excellent opportunity to showcase new concepts and explore new areas in basic research. STIR awards are aimed at shaping new directions in research and the sciences. To be considered for a Short-Term Innovative Research Award:

i. An Investigator must specify in the proposal abstract and on the proposal cover page that they are requesting consideration under this funding category.

ii. Projects should be designed for one year of funding.

iii. The research must fit at least one of the stated four (4) domains of the FOA Basic Research areas of interest.

iv. Proposals in the amount of $60,000 or less are sought for STIR awards.

v. Capital equipment cannot be purchased under a STIR Program award.

vi. Report preparation costs must not exceed $100.

vii. A fee is not permitted under STIR Program awards as they are awarded as grants.

viii. Due to the relatively small dollar amount and short-term nature of these awards, applicants are encouraged to maximize the benefit derived from this funding by prioritizing labor and employing other cost-saving measures in support of the STIR program effort.

General Guidelines for All Proposals. Both single-investigator and collaborative research efforts are encouraged. Multidisciplinary approaches are especially encouraged to the extent that the proposal reflects the theories, models, and approaches of multiple disciplines, combined creatively to address the research problem.

Collaborative efforts may involve researchers either at a single institution or in cooperating institutions. Highly innovative proposals addressing high-risk, high-reward topics are strongly encouraged and should include strong methodology and other risk-mitigation strategies. Theory development and/or meta-analyses that address theoretical issues in ARI research interest domains will also be considered. The use of military participants is neither necessary nor encouraged, and ARI is unlikely to arrange access to military participants to support basic research investigations. This includes provision or use of extant Army data.

Basic Research Topic Areas of Interest

Basic research is effort directed toward increasing knowledge and understanding in science and engineering, rather than the practical application of that knowledge and understanding. It typically is funded within Budget Activity 1 and Research Category

6.1. Basic Research is systematic study directed toward a fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts. Basic research aims for broad impact rather than to develop specific processes or products for targeted applications. The ARI Foundational Science Research Unit (FSRU) manages the Basic Research Program and maintains close contact with ARI's applied scientists and other relevant agencies within the Army and Department of Defense. These contacts help define issues that require foundational research, ensure that the Basic Research Program is coordinated across Services (Department of Defense), and facilitate the transition of basic research results to applied programs for eventual use by the operational Army.

All proposals will be considered; however, ARI has identified the following four (4) domains as particularly germane to its basic research needs. This list is neither comprehensive nor exclusive and ARI is especially open to proposals that combine or cut across these domains. These domains are:

1. Measurement of Individuals and Collectives

2. Teams and Small Groups

3. Organizations and Systems

4. Formal and Informal Learning and Development

An in-depth description of each domain follows. For additional information on these domains, and other potential areas of interest, applicants may also consult the following reports by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (Available at http://www.nap.edu):

• “Adult Learning in the Military Context” (2024) supervised by the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and the Board on Science Education

• “Measuring Human Capabilities: An Agenda for Basic Research on the Assessment of Individual and Group Performance Potential for Military Accession” (2015) supervised by the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences

• “The Context of Military Environments: Social and Organizational Factors” (2014) supervised by the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences

Detailed descriptions of the four broad research domains are provided below. Each domain description includes: (a) a broad overview of the relevant Army problems and the strategic goal of the domain, (b) the primary research objectives, and (c) high-priority research questions.

1. Measurement of Individuals and Collectives

Technical POC: Dr. Katherine Ciarlante, katherine.e.ciarlante.civ@army.mil

The success of the U.S. Army can be largely attributed to the selection, assignment, development, and retention of highly skilled and exceptional Soldiers. To fulfill the Army People Strategy and modernization priorities for the Army and ensure continued success, the U.S. Army needs to place the right Soldier, in the right job, at the right time. To do so, the U.S. Army must continuously identify and refine the core knowledge, skills, and behaviors (KSBs) critical to Soldier success, both across the U.S. Army as a whole and within specific military occupational specialties (MOS), while also improving the ability to understand and assess Soldier effectiveness and performance.

http://www.nap.edu/

Traditional personnel tests were designed to capture broad, diffuse constructs (e.g., cognitive ability, personality, vocational aptitudes) that aggregate individual experiences over long periods of time often in mass-testing settings (e.g., annual performance, initial training, and career continuance). More recent technological advances afford observing and recording human behavior at increasingly finer-grained scales of resolution (e.g., real-time GPS coordinates, physiological sensors) without the need for direct elicitation of information from participants via surveys and interviews. However, extracting meaningful psychological conclusions from such fine-grained observations has proved challenging, at least with respect to the psychometric models from which traditional personnel tests were developed.

Psychometric models and methods have advanced greatly since the advent of traditional personnel tests. Lagging, however, is adapting and refining such models and methods to better understand human behavior in organizations, particularly with respect to performance in the massively hierarchical, interdependent, and constantly fluid social situations of the environment the military operates in. Such environments are not well-represented by broad, diffuse aggregates (e.g., a single standardized test score). What are needed now, more than ever, are psychometric models and methods for quantifying meaningful patterns of human behaviors in complex social situations.

Strategic Goal. The primary goal for the Basic Research program within the Measurement of Individuals and Collectives domain is to fundamentally improve psychological testing and measurement by deriving means of enhancing testing efficiency and increasing overall precision, understanding, and prediction of individual and collective behavior and performance. To further progress to this goal, the basic research program in measurement of individuals and collectives will look to support research to a) advance psychometric theory and methods, b) understand performance and expand the criterion space, and c) expand measurement approaches and assessment methods. To follow are a brief overview of each research objective in the area.

• Advance Psychometric Theory and Methods. Novel psychometric theory and methodology is needed understand and accurately assess complex behavior in organizations with a strong need for innovative paradigms and approaches to expand the boundaries of existing test theory. Key to addressing this objective is the development of theory and psychometric quantities beyond those of classical (e.g., reliability, validity) and modern (e.g., item and test information) test theory that explicitly address the limitations of existing methodology. Additional important issues include:

(a) psychometric approaches for deriving construct score estimates from dynamic flow data or behavioral streams and to examine complex longitudinal data more accurately, (b) longitudinal modeling techniques and construct validation models that explicitly incorporate time, and (c) new and refined theory related to understanding the impact of emerging technologies and algorithms (e.g., machine learning, generative AI, natural language processing (NLP)) on psychological testing and measurement, specifically as it relates to bias and fairness in assessment.

• Understand Performance and Expand the Criterion Space. The ability to accurately and comprehensively measure individual-, team-, and organizational-level performance, as well as to identify and understand predictors of performance, is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of Army policies and practices. While many significant advances have been made on the predictor side of understanding predictor-criterion relationships, theory has remained relatively stagnant in the performance space. Significant innovation in performance measurement and theory is needed to better understand performance in complex organizations. This will require an integration of multi-level, contextual, and temporal factors into the understanding and empirical study of performance as well as conceptual explorations of the definition of performance that clarify the differences between performance and related constructs/terms such as effectiveness.

• Expand Measurement Approaches and Assessment Methods. As concerns rise regarding the testing demands placed on Soldiers, there is a strong opportunity and need for innovative measurement techniques that efficiently and accurately assess complex social and behavioral processes via non-traditional methods. By leveraging emerging technologies (e.g., sensors and wearable technology) and non-traditional data sources (e.g., process data), researchers can advance the theory and practice of measurement and expand the “toolkit” of methodologies with which to assess individual and collective behavior and performance. Methodologies of strongest interest include measurement approaches for unobtrusive, efficient, and simultaneous multi-construct measurement and innovative methods for extracting meaningful patterns from archival and real-time dimensional behavioral data. There is also a strong demand for approaches to measuring difficult to assess constructs and dynamic phenomenon, including cognitive and affective processes, that emerge over time.

High Priority Research Questions All proposals will be considered for relevance to the topic area and research objectives. Furthermore, the following are provided as high-priority research questions for the Basic Research Program in Measurement of Individuals and Collectives:

1. What are the specific limitations of classical and modern test theory and what novel methodologies and psychometric quantities can be developed to overcome these? How can traditional and novel psychometric methods be integrated and combined to improve the testing development and construct validation process?

2. What methodologies can be leveraged to increase testing efficiency and reduce survey burden on participants? How can these methodologies (e.g., unobtrusive measurement; adaptive sampling techniques; non-traditional data sources) be utilized, independently and in tandem, to decrease testing demands and address sources of bias frequently present in traditional testing models?

3. How can we expand our understanding of the criterion space by developing novel theories and measures of performance? What assessment methodology and testing models can be developed to better predict performance and effectiveness in modern organizations?

4. How can emerging technologies and AI facilitated methods be used to enhance performance assessment and improve data scope and granularity?

What novel methods can be developed, or existing methods be adapted, to extract meaningful patterns from high dimensional behavioral data (e.g., video, audio, physiological data)?

5. How do individuals experience and perceive change in their affective, cognitive, and behavioral experiences over time? How can between- and within-individual change be modeled in meaningful and predictive ways?

2. Teams and Small Groups

Technical POC: Dr. Alexander Wind, alexander.p.wind.civ@army.mil

Teams are the core element of the Army’s organizational structure and are typically comprised of a few junior enlisted Soldiers and a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving as the team leader. Teams serve to fulfill specialized functions, and a set of teams combines into a squad led by a squad leader, typically an NCO such as a Staff Sergeant. Historically, mission success has been contingent on many individual squads’ independent but coordinated contributions. While the importance of this role will continue, evolving contexts and conditions will change how teams and squads are composed, managed, and evaluated. Basic research is needed to continue to support and modernize those processes. Given the nature of teams, advances in scientific understanding are needed in both field work and laboratory settings.

The composition of these groups may be stable for up to a few years, but frequently changes to composition will occur for numerous reasons including individuals’ deployment, advance in rank, leaving the service, changing job series, or cycling into a new assignment. Ideally, established extant Army teams deploy together, but frequently at least one of the members of the group will have joined shortly before or during deployment. While progress has been made toward understanding how the composition of teams impacts team processes and performance, less is known about how teams adapt after team member changes and evolve after extended amounts of time serving together as an intact team.

In the future, teams and squads will likely be more heterogeneous in composition with members representing varied capabilities, perhaps from different commands or even services. As technology progresses, some traditional team member functions may be allocated to non-human team members. In an uncertain future operating mailto:alexander.p.wind.civ@army.mil space, teams may need to be rapidly assembled or reconstituted.

The primary objective within the Teams and Small Groups domain, is to further science to support team assignment, development, and optimization reflective of emerging requirements and characteristics of teams. The Research Objectives of this area are:

• Advanced Composition and Adaptation. Advanced novel or refined multi-trait models of team functioning are needed that better predict team performance and capability of compensatory groupings. While progress has been made in the development of novel methods and multi-trait models of team functioning, these approaches are nascent and focused on a limited number of traits. These models likely require adaptation to specific team goals and contexts. Additionally, frequent changes in team composition, local and organizational policies, and environments necessitate a focus on adaptation as an outcome in these models. Further, although emerging technology has resulted in significant advances in systems models of composition that optimize personnel distribution to yield many good teams within multi-echelon organizations and/or multi-team systems, these models need to be refined, extended, and tested across contexts.

• Team Formation, Development, and Reconstitution. New theories on team formation and maintenance processes are needed, with an emphasis on ad hoc and rapidly-formed teams. While there have been some advances in understanding of how team member changes impact team functioning and performance, the uncertainty of the future operating space results in circumstances in which teams may need to be rapidly assembled or reconstituted, where reconstitution involves mobilization of previously trained teams or creation of new teams with entirely new capabilities to maintain readiness during the short term and for large scale future combat operations. Additionally, advances are needed in our understanding of how time spent in an intact team affects team processes, development, and performance. A deeper understanding of these temporal dynamics is also needed when reconstitution involves the mobilization of previously trained teams. Research is needed on collective training versus training focused on the individual, and the preparation of teams and small groups, and this research will need to account for composition changes that occur over time.

Further, the structure of the Army results in a need for new models on personnel modularity in team efficacy and performance.

• Team Processes and Performance. The Army is in need of new means to measure, model, and represent team constructs such as shared mental models, collective efficacy, team-specific culture, identity, and trust at the collective and individual contribution levels. Additional methods are needed to study collaboration and interaction between teams in shared and distributed environments, as well as an understanding of how novel team constructs impact these processes and performance outcomes.

High Priority Research Questions. All proposals will be considered for relevance to the topic area and research objectives. Furthermore, the following are provided as high-priority research questions for the Basic Research Program in Teams and Small Groups:

1. What are the mechanisms of developmental trajectories of rapidly formed and ad hoc teams and what conditions and approaches best optimize this process?

2. What are the determinants of team success over time? What is the relative importance of composition, continuity of membership, leader behaviors, external support / intervention?

3. When would teams benefit most from training focused at the team level versus training focused at the individual level in terms of the benefits that it affords to team development?

4. How can we better understand how teams concurrently operate in and interact with multiple physical and non-physical domains of operation (e.g., immediate surroundings, distributed forces, cyber)?

5. How can trust be reinforced, repaired, or sustained among team members after the initial emergence of trust decisions and following interactions over time and changes in team composition and structure, and how does this influence team processes and performance outcomes? How does access to an individual and their ability to share information impact these processes?

6. How do team culture and identity influence team goals and outcomes?

3. Organizations and Systems

Technical POC: Dr. Peter Wang, peter.p.wang.civ@army.mil

The U.S. Army is a very large organization with approximately 450,000 active-duty, 180,000 reservist, 325,000 National Guard personnel, and more than 230,000 civilians (DMDC, Jun 2024). Army Forces are organized into hierarchically nested groupings from teams of four up to corps with tens of thousands of members. The Army must operate within the Department of Defense and in coordination with the other services to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security. Additionally, the Army must often engage with other federal agencies and increasingly at a multi-national, coalitional level. The composition, foci, and context of all elements in these systems are always changing.

The Army must proactively change and adapt to meet evolving requirements and conditions while maintaining its longstanding identity, culture, and traditions.

Soldiers operate as individuals, members of teams, members of teams of teams, and members of the broader Army organization. As such, Soldiers are expected to manage their commitments in different roles. Roles are not static, as members of the Army often move throughout the organization through reassignment or turnover. Standards of behavior are established to promote cooperation, coordination, and discipline among Soldiers, standards that include the Army Values (Leadership, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal mailto:peter.p.wang.civ@army.mil

Courage). At the same time, innovation, creative thinking, and flexibility are needed for problem-solving. The complexity of Army organizational structure means that bottom-up, top-down, and external changes may flow through the organization at different tempos, exerting influence within and across levels. Since the Army also operates jointly with other armed services and agencies, Soldiers must overcome differences in organizational structures, cultures, and norms to coordinate action. Further, the Army must adapt to changes in technological capabilities and societal shifts in values. There has been a general proliferation of conflicting value-laden narratives, which may threaten the strength of identities, organizational commitment, and cohesion. Future operational environments are also projected to involve greater mission complexity as Soldiers deal with greater numbers of factors that affect mission success, and to require increased autonomy from teams who must make decisions without direct communication with coordinated units. Key issues include bolstering Soldier resilience against events in the information space and increased mission difficulty and complexity, as well as promoting sound decision-making that adheres to organizational values in the absence of direct guidance. The Army’s performance will depend on its ability to adapt and react, particularly within complex, changing operational environments.

The primary objective within the Organizations and Systems research area is to identify means to leverage theories, methods, and models of organizational functioning to effect deliberate sustained systemic outcomes. To further progress to this goal, the program will look to support research to a) boost novel, empirical research on organizational theories; b) advance deeper or more comprehensive theories of how culture influences behavior within organizations and dynamics; and

c) advance deeper or more comprehensive theories of organizational processes. To follow are a brief overview of each research objective in the area.

• Empirically Supported Organizational Theories. Novel, empirically-supported theories are needed to make substantial advancements in understanding organizational functioning. These include theories that can identify factors influencing effectiveness at different or multiple levels of an organization (e.g., individual, dyad, team, team of teams, organization) and their interactions across levels.

• Organizational Culture and Identity. Understanding the effects of culture, values, and identity on cognitions and behaviors within organizations, as well as overall organizational performance, is a key objective. Important issues include: 1) identifying cultural resources that organizations draw on to promote performance; 2) investigating the inception and dissemination of organizational cultural norms and identities; and 3) identifying how organizational members interpret organizational values and identities to take action.

• Organizational Processes. Understanding the processes underlying dynamic, multilevel organizational behaviors is another key objective. Some major themes are top-down vs. bottom-up influences on performance, change over time, and influences from multiple levels of an organization on cognitions and behaviors. Important issues include: 1) the integration of theoretical approaches to identify how individuals make decisions based on organizational, team, and personal goals, contextual and experiential information, and other factors; 2) novel theories on organizational interventions that account for implementation at different scales, at multiple levels, and over time; 3) situating organizational influences and factors that affect organizational outcomes in changing contexts, such as shifts in values or affordances, to understand organizational functioning over time; and 4) generating novel theories to capture the broader multilevel and multifactored nature of organizations, particularly those with frequent between- and within-organization member changes.

High Priority Research Questions. All proposals will be considered for relevance to the topic area and research objectives. Furthermore, the following are provided as high-priority research questions for the Basic Research Program in Organizations and Systems:

1. How do members of organizations draw on organizational values and other cultural resources to take action, evaluate the behaviors of other members, and evaluate the organization? How do members engage with perceived mismatches between their organizational identities and the values of society at large, or with competing organizational identities? How do organizational values and identities interact with contextual and individual differences to structure, coordinate, and give meaning to cooperation among individuals, teams, and the organization over time?

2. How can organizations bolster commitment among members in the face of contested narratives, adversarial social influence, information overload, and increasing mission difficulty? What aspects of organizational culture and practices could support resilience against these threats without suppressing innovation and creative conflict?

3. How do organizations build and cultivate trust from its members and at different levels and with external parties and systems? What is the relative contribution of trust in the organization and trust in team members to outcomes?

4. What are novel theories and models that can improve current prediction of behavior within organizations at the individual, team, team-of-teams, and overall organizational levels?

5. How can recent advances in measurement, modeling, and analyses of multi-teams and multi-systems be leveraged to develop and further approaches to interventions at the organizational level?

4. Formal and Informal Learning and Development

Technical POC: Dr. Kimberly Wingert, kimberly.m.wingert.civ@army.mil

Our military personnel must be demonstrably ready for myriad and varied scenarios. Recently, the operational landscape has evolved to include irregular warfare, stability requirements, and multi-domain operations across land, sea, air, space, and cyber fronts. Projections all seem to suggest that the trends to greater complexity and scope will continue. As such, there is significant pressure on the Army, its educational institutions, Soldiers, and leaders to identify and optimally utilize all available learning vehicles to prepare for, adapt to, and maintain readiness and combat effectiveness in a complicated and unpredictable future.

Traditional Army approaches to personnel training and development, characterized by pull-out training, on-the-job-learning, and drill and scenario exercises, have done well historically to prepare our forces for myriad mission types. However, success in a future operational environment will rely on further scientific advances to augment, complement, and improve our educational models. Distributed learning, self-directed learning, and new educational technologies have high potential to support future learning.

Developmental trajectories of our personnel are also greatly important. Like learning, development is conceptualized as being incremental, iterative, and driven by the individual. Developmental maturation continues throughout one’s career and facilitates the individual to take on roles and responsibilities that require interpersonal and intrapersonal capabilities. Leadership roles and responsibilities are a notable example of positions that require those skills. As the Army develops its own leaders, research in development and understanding the trajectories of emerging leaders is a key focal point in this area. To meet the needs of the future, the Army requires leader development models, strategies, and measures to guide the Army to grow the leadership talent needed to face future challenges.

Understanding how to prepare leaders to recognize and get the most out of leader development opportunities across domains and sources is crucial to develop leaders efficiently and effectively.

Basic research investments in learning and development will expand the toolkit, empower individual learners, and support decision makers’ improved capacity to best structure personnel training and development. The primary goal for the Basic Research program within the Formal and Informal Learning and Development domain is to understand, support, and optimize learning and development of Soldiers and leaders through formal learning settings, operational experience, and self-development. To further progress toward this goal, the basic research program in formal and informal learning and development will look to support research to a) understand adult learning and career-long learning, b) measure and model learning, and c) promote practices and structures that support learning and development. To follow are a brief overview of each research objective in the area.

a) Understand the Adult Learner and Career-long Learning. Developing Soldiers and leaders who are efficient, lifelong, and motivated learners is key to meeting the demands of the future. Active self-directed learning, heutagogical learning, is an emerging theory on adult learning that has great potential to yield adaptive spontaneous learners. Little is known about the mechanics of authentic informal self-directed learning processes nor of the contextual factors that incite and support in situ learning. Outside specific learning events, very little is known about adult learners’ approach to meeting long-term learning outcomes. Diffuse development concurrent over many domains through sustained deliberate effort is a key to successful career-span development.

b) Measure and Model Learning. To study learning in any context, it is important to understand the antecedents, conditions, and the processes of learning. Much of the scholarship on learning is indirect, relies on pre- and post-tests and behavioral outcomes, and says little about the actual processes. These measures give rudimentary feedback on what elements and approaches are most conducive and force more inference into educational design than would be necessary with better data. Furthermore, summative unidimensional data are not as useful to the learner or the instructor than specific contemporaneous feedback that reflects not just learning gains and understanding but also attitudinal, motivational, and engagement levels during the learning phase.

c) Understand Practices and Structures that Promote Learning and Development. The complexity and unpredictability of the future operational environment will mean application of learning will need to be highly distal to the acquisition phase. Deeper learning is defined in the 2012 National Research Council report, Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills for the 21st century, as the process by which an individual becomes capable of taking what was learned in one situation and applying it to new situations. Research is needed to update practices to support deeper learning and optimize engagement with material at the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels. This requires a sustained focus on structures of learning environments, understanding individual and collective institutional training, and the best practices for incorporating technology into training.

High Priority Research Questions. All proposals will be considered for relevance to the topic area and research objectives. Furthermore, the following are provided as high-priority research questions for the Basic Research Program in Formal and Informal Learning and Development:

1. How can we better understand, track, and support, spontaneous, in situ self-directed learning particularly for sustained, long-term, and diffuse learning goals?

2. How can we better understand, train for, and capture adaptation and distal application of learning to real-world performance?

3. How do we assess learning, retention, and adaptation over time in operational and self-development realms with precision and accuracy? How do we capture and incorporate contextual factors in our understanding of learning and development?

4. What learning methods and theory can be developed to maximize individual and collective learning processes and outcomes? What theory can be developed to understand the bidirectional relationships between individual and collective learning? How do learning gains disseminate through groups, teams and networks?

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION:

The Army Contracting Command- Aberdeen Proving Ground, RTP Division has the authority to award a variety of instruments on behalf of ARI. The award types are:

procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. The ACC (APG) RTP Division reserves the right to use the type of instrument most appropriate for the effort proposed. Submissions to this FOA will only yield grants and cooperative agreements. Applicants should familiarize themselves with these instrument types and the applicable regulations before submitting a proposal. The following are brief descriptions of the possible award instruments:

1. Grant: A legal instrument, that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship in which:

a. The principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law or the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Department of Defense’s direct benefit or use.

b. Substantial involvement is not expected between the Department of Defense and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the grant.

c. No fee or profit is allowed.

2. Cooperative Agreement: A legal instrument which, consistent with 31 U.S.C.

6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition "grant"), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Department of Defense and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the cooperative agreement. The term does not include "cooperative research and development agreements" as defined in 15 U.S.C.

3710a. No fee or profit is allowed.

3. Grants and cooperative agreements for institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, foreign organizations, and foreign public entities are primarily governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes

b. Federal regulations

c. 2 CFR Part 200

d. 2 CFR 1104

e. 32 CFR Parts 21, 22, 26, and 28

f. DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions

g. Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions

4. Grants and cooperative agreements for for-profit and nonprofit organizations exempted from Subpart E - Cost Principles of 2 CFR Part 200, are primarily governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes

b. Federal regulations

c. 32 CFR Part 34 - Administrative Requirements for Grants and

Agreements with For-Profit Organizations

d. 32 CFR Parts 21, 22, 26, and 28

e. DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions

f. Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions

5. The following websites may be accessed to obtain an electronic copy of the governing regulations and terms and conditions:

• FAR, DFARS, and AFARS: https://www.acquisition.gov

• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): http://www.ecfr.gov

• DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions:

https://www.nre.navy.mil/work-with-us/manage-your-award/manage-grant-award/grants-terms-conditions

• Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions:

https://www.arl.army.mil/resources/FOA-forms/#terms-and-conditions https://www.acquisition.gov/ http://www.ecfr.gov/ https://www.nre.navy.mil/work-with-us/manage-your-award/manage-grant-award/grants-terms-conditions https://www.nre.navy.mil/work-with-us/manage-your-award/manage-grant-award/grants-terms-conditions https://www.arl.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/#terms-and-conditions

C. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION:

1. Eligible Applicants:

Proposals are sought from institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, and commercial entities, domestic or foreign, for research and development (R&D) in those areas specified in SECTION II. A of this FOA. Foreign owned, controlled, or influenced organizations are advised that security restrictions may apply that could preclude their participation in these efforts. Countries included on the U.S. State Department List of Countries that Support Terrorism are excluded from participation in these efforts.

Government Laboratories, Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and U.S. Service Academies are not eligible to participate as prime Recipients under this FOA. If a proposal selected for award includes the involvement of a Government laboratory, Federally Funded Research and Development Center, or U.S.

Service Academy, award funds allocated for the involvement…