Research on Gender in Science and Engineering
(GSE)
|
National Science Foundation |
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 02, 2009
Research Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
February 09, 2009
Extension Services Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 24, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
March 30, 2009
Research Proposals
April 06, 2009
Extension Services Proposals
April 06, 2009
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation Proposals
August 25, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), NSF 09-1, was issued on October 1, 2008 and is effective for proposals submitted on or after January 5, 2009. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in NSF 09-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity. Proposers who opt to submit prior to January 5th, 2009, must also follow the guidelines contained in NSF 09-1.
One of the most significant changes to the PAPPG is implementation of the mentoring provisions of the America COMPETES Act. Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a separate section within the 15-page project description, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Proposals that do not include a separate section on mentoring activities within the Project Description will be returned without review (see the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II.C.2.d for further information).
Research and Extension Services proposals now have a required Letter of Intent which replaces the previous preliminary proposal requirement.
A track for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) is included. I3 challenges faculty, administrators, and others in institutions to think strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards and is itself an integrative, cross-cutting effort within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance I3 goals:
Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST)
Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE)
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP)
Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST)
Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)
Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
Research in Disabilities Education (RDE)
Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)
All proposals submitted to I3 through these programs have a common due date and will be reviewed in competition with one another. Eligibility is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges). If the proposal is exclusively for I3 STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit. Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to the I3 competition for each deadline.
Program Title:
Research on Gender in Science and Engineering FY 2009 (GSE)
Synopsis of Program:
The Research on Gender in Science and Engineering program supports efforts to understand and address gender-based differences in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce participation through research, the diffusion of research-based innovations, and extension services in education that will lead to a larger and more diverse domestic science and engineering workforce. Typical projects will contribute to the knowledge base addressing gender-related differences in learning and in the educational experiences that affect student interest, performance, and choice of careers; how pedagogical approaches and teaching styles, curriculum, student services, and institutional culture contribute to causing or closing gender gaps that persist in certain fields. Projects will communicate and apply findings, evaluation results, and proven good practices and products to a wider community.
The Research on Gender in Science and Engineering program has been funding these objectives since 1993, under the prior names "Program for Women and Girls" (PWG), "Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology" (PGE), and "Gender Diversity in STEM Education" (GDSE). The program continues to seek to broaden the participation of girls and women in all fields of STEM education.
The program does not currently fund intervention or education projects that directly serve students as their primary purpose. Research projects may involve an intervention with students as subjects only if the intervention is an integral part of gathering data and if the findings from the intervention would substantially answer the research questions posed within the context of theory and hypotheses. There should be meaningful control groups also included in the design. Those wishing to undertake direct intervention or education service projects are encouraged to search the NSF web site and other publications for appropriate funding programs. Please see section IX below for suggested programs to consult.
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) projects enable faculty, administrators, and others in institutions to think and act strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards, with particular emphasis on awards managed through programs in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), but not limited to those awards. For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance I3 goals: CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Jolene Jesse, Program Director, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-7303, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: jjesse@nsf.gov
Tayana Casseus, Science Assistant, NSF, 815N, telephone: (703) 292-4684, email: tcasseus@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 15 to 22 GSE grants per year; a mix of Research Awards, Diffusion of Research-based Innovations Awards, and Extension Services Awards. Research grants will be up to 3 years. Diffusion of Research-based Innovations grants will be up to 3 years. Extension Services grants are for five years, with years 4 and 5 depending on performance. Up to 12 continuing awards will be made in the Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) activity for the February 24, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds. Up to 12 continuing I3 awards will also be made in Fiscal Year 2010 for the August 25, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $5,000,000 for new grants in all GSE tracks, pending availability of funds. $10,000,000 for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) projects across multiple EHR programs for each of Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, pending the availability of funds
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
No limits specified for GSE proposals
Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.
PI Limit:
The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer or president, unless the proposal is exclusively for I3 STEM educational or related research.None specified for GSE.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3 ): CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP. Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to the I3 competition for each deadline.
No limit for GSE.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:
None Specified
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
February 02, 2009
Research Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
February 09, 2009
Extension Services Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
February 24, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
March 30, 2009
Research Proposals
April 06, 2009
Extension Services Proposals
April 06, 2009
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation Proposals
August 25, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
One of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) key strategic goals is to cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens. Investments are directed through programs that strengthen scientific and engineering (S&E) research potential and education efforts at all levels. These outcomes are essential to the U.S. as we progress toward an increasingly technological job market and a scientifically complex society.
The Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) manages a portfolio of programs that aims to broaden the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning and in the STEM workforce. Programs are in place to address the learning, interest and participation of women, underrepresented minorities (African Americans, Alaska Natives, American Indians, Hispanics, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders), and people with disabilities, at all academic and professional levels.
The program for Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE) seeks to build resources--developing the nation's knowledge capital, social capital, and human capital--toward the goal of broadening the participation of girls and young women in STEM education from kindergarten through undergraduate education.
The program does not currently fund intervention or education projects that directly serve students as their primary purpose. Research projects may involve an intervention with students as subjects only if the intervention is an integral part of gathering data and if the findings from the intervention would substantially answer the research questions posed within the context of theory and hypotheses. There should be meaningful control groups also included in the design. Those wishing to undertake direct intervention or education service projects are encouraged to search the NSF web site and other publications for appropriate funding programs. Please see section IX below for suggested programs to consult.
In addition, proposals submitted to the Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) track would request support for projects that enable faculty, administrators, and others in institutions to think and act strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards, with particular emphasis on awards managed through programs in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), but not limited to those awards. For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance I3 goals: CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.
A. BACKGROUND
The issues underlying the need for the Research on Gender in Science and Engineering Program include:
Statistical profiles of STEM participation, with analyses, are documented in Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women (Catherine E. Freeman, National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, NCES 2005-016) and the publication Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (National Science Foundation, NSF 07-315) among others.
B. GOALS
The goal of GSE is to support efforts to understand and address gender-based differences in STEM education and workforce participation through research, the diffusion of research-based innovations, and extension services in education that will lead to a larger and more diverse domestic science and engineering workforce. Ultimately, the program hopes to advance efforts to support the participation of women and girls in STEM fields where they continue to be underrepresented. In the context of that overarching goal, the GSE program supports activities that address the following types of objectives.
Research
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovations
Extension Services
The program does not currently fund intervention or education projects that directly serve students as their primary purpose. Research projects may include interventions that involve students as subjects only if the intervention is an integral part of gathering data and if the findings from the intervention would substantially answer the research questions posed within the context of theory and hypotheses. There should be meaningful control groups also included in the design. Those wishing to undertake direct intervention or education service projects are encouraged to search the NSF web site and other publications for appropriate funding programs. Please see section IX below for suggested programs to consult.
C. DESCRIPTION - RESEARCH PROPOSALS
Proposals in the Research area may seek to enhance the multidisciplinary understanding of STEM learning to the extent that differences are evident based on gender. Gender should be the major variable in the analysis. Behavioral, cognitive, affective, and social differences may be investigated using methods of sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, statistics, and other social and behavioral science and education disciplines.
Successful proposals will incorporate relevant advances in research methodologies and theoretical models. They should capitalize on the development of new instrumental, computational, or statistical methods, models, and tools of observation and analysis.
According to the National Research Council report, Scientific Research in Education, educational research projects should:
1. pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically;
2. link relevant research to theory;
3. use methods that permit direct investigation of the questions posed;
4. provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning;
5. replicate and generalize across studies; and
6. disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique. (National Research Council, 2002)
All research proposals should, therefore, present the disciplinary (or interdisciplinary) and conceptual framework for the study. They should include a discussion of the theory or theories grounding the research and outline research questions and testable hypotheses. The proposal should discuss in detail the methods used to test the hypotheses, and if a population sample is used, this should be described along with the rationale for sample selection, and the project's access to the sample population. The proposal should address whether the design is premised on special needs and interests due to educational level, race, ethnicity, economic status, or disability, in addition to gender, and to what extent data will be disaggregated for multiple characteristics. The results should be expected to be of sufficient significance to merit peer-review and publication.
The effort should provide a research foundation for educational approaches, curriculum, and technological tools that are already developed or can be developed in the future, bridging research and educational practice in settings such as classrooms, informal learning sites, and technological learning environments. The research foundation is assumed to provide a strong base of support for sustained improvement in STEM educational practice. Strong research designs will produce rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable findings.
Suggested topics may include but are not limited to:
Outreach and Communication: Research proposals should address communicating findings to a national audience, particularly to education practitioners. Since the goal of the program is to contribute to a national knowledge base, it is important to show that the investigator is aware of appropriate channels -- specific peer-reviewed journals, publications, web sites, professional association conferences -- and is committed (including allocating resources) to make sure that the investment in the project leads to this contribution and that peers in the community will benefit.
Project Evaluation: All GSE projects should include in the project a plan for using benchmarks, indicators, logic models, roadmaps or other evaluative methods to document progress toward goals, objectives and outcomes defined in the proposal. All projects should include some consultation with an external evaluator about the kinds of data and data analysis appropriate for assessing the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the project. All projects are expected to track and report in detail their accomplishment of proposed targets for broader impacts and intellectual merit. The budget should include resources for evaluation and assessment. Evaluation plans should be appropriate for the scope of the project.
The following references may be helpful in designing an evaluation plan:
D. DESCRIPTION – DIFFUSION OF RESEARCH-BASED INNOVATION PROPOSALS
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation projects provide a mechanism for informing a wider audience (e.g., teachers, faculty, guidance counselors, parents) about issues, research findings, and strategies for changing educational practice. Diffusion proposals must justify a significant investment to reach a regional audience or national attention.
Suggested diffusion projects may include but are not limited to:
Broadening Participation Partnerships: Broadening participation of underrepresented groups in the sciences and engineering has long been a priority at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and is referenced in major policy documents, including the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (NSF 08-1), the NSF Strategic Plan (NSF 06-48), and the NSF Budget Request.
The GSE program seeks to foster collaborations across institutions, geographical regions, and various populations within the United States, its districts and territories in order to ensure broad diffusion of gender-equity research and practices in STEM. All proposals submitted to GSE are already intended to broaden participation in STEM. Proposals that, in addition, include a partnership with institutions serving underrepresented populations may request up to $100,000 more (for a total of $350,000) for Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation activities. The partnership must include one or more Co-PIs from the partnering institutions and the partnering institution should receive significant funds in the budget either as a sub-award or as a collaborative proposal.
A list of types of institutions that may qualify as partners for Broadening Participation Partnerships follows. All institutions must be accredited and award degrees in STEM fields. Enrollments are based on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data reported in the last two years. Proposers should supply evidence that partnering institutions qualify as one of the following:
Outreach and Communication: Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation proposals should contain information about how the process and outcomes of the work will be communicated to others. This may be through the popular press, professional meeting presentations, workshops, or publication in professional society newsletters, among other outlets.
Project Evaluation: All GSE projects should explore the use of benchmarks, indicators, logic models, roadmaps or other evaluative methods to document progress toward goals, objectives and outcomes defined in the proposal. All projects should include some consultation with an external evaluator about the kinds of data and data analysis appropriate for assessing the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the project. All projects are expected to track and report in detail their accomplishment of proposed targets for broader impacts and intellectual merit. The budget should include resources for evaluation and assessment.
Process, impact and outcome measures should be defined by the project and should rely on an appropriate mix of qualitative and quantitative measures. Project evaluation should focus on the strategic impacts of project activities. Strategic impacts are lasting outcomes attributable to the project. Anticipated strategic impacts should be specific, realistic, measurable, and achievable through the project’s research, educational activities and products.
Examples of such impacts include:
Evaluation plans should be appropriate for the scope of the project. Only when appropriate and affordable, projects are encouraged to use experimental and quasi-experimental designs that may include control, treatment or comparison groups. The use of external evaluators is encouraged, however internal evaluators may also be used where necessary. All evaluations should be conducted by an evaluator with some independence from the project. Proposals should include a plan to communicate information about the project, including aspects that are found to be effective and ineffective.
The following references may be helpful in designing an evaluation plan:
E. DESCRIPTION - EXTENSION SERVICES PROPOSALS
Extension Services projects will develop a cadre of extension service agents through the offering of proactive training, consulting, implementation assistance, and reporting on experience in the field. They will be a conduit for understanding research findings and for adoption of research-based approaches that will increase participation of women and girls in STEM. Extension services should use a train-the-trainer model and incorporate a unified program of change.
The major participants in an extension service project include:
Successful extension service proposals will identify all of the major players and describe their roles in the project. Most important is the development of feedback loops among the different actors that inform the formative and summative evaluation of the project and lead to further research and intervention development.
The Expert Project Team organizing the extension services will integrate various research findings into a unified program that will effect change. The Expert Project Team will then communicate research findings in clear language to a group of educators or other practitioners within a specified region or within a specific community of practice. These Extension Service Agents will then communicate and provide training to a wider circle of practitioners in the field. The word “Center” is intentionally not used. The project must meet the business standards of effective customer services: that is, it must be proactive, responsive, timely, customized for educators in the region or community, of high quality, and informed by feedback. (See Wilson & Daviss, 1994, pp. 17-20)
The Extension Service proposal may include, but is not limited to, some of the following elements:
Since the aim of the services is to change educational practices, direct services to students are not in scope. The target community should be described, especially if the design of the services is premised on special needs and interests based on educational level, race, ethnicity, economic status, and disability, in addition to gender. The target community may be comprised of members of educational institutions or departments having common characteristics. The Expert Project Team should be recognized as experts by the target community and evidence of this should be provided.
Outreach and Communication. The Extension Services have a strong mandate to communicate information to a community. In addition, there should be some plans to network with other educational improvement efforts, education researchers and professional associations.
Project Evaluation: All GSE projects should explore the use of benchmarks, indicators, logic models, roadmaps or other evaluative methods to document progress toward goals, objectives and outcomes defined in the proposal. All projects are expected to track and report in detail their accomplishment of proposed targets for broader impacts and intellectual merit. The budget MUST include resources for evaluation and assessment.
Process, impact and outcome measures should be defined by the project and should rely on an appropriate mix of qualitative and quantitative measures. Only when appropriate and affordable, projects are encouraged to use experimental and quasi-experimental designs that may include control, treatment or comparison groups. Project evaluation should focus on the strategic impacts of project activities. Strategic impacts are lasting outcomes attributable to the project. Anticipated strategic impacts should be specific, realistic, measurable, and achievable through the project’s research, educational activities and products.
Examples of such impacts include:
Evaluation plans should be appropriate for the scope of the project. The use of external evaluators is strongly advised and all evaluations should be conducted by an evaluator with some independence from the project. Proposals should include a plan to communicate information about the project, including aspects that are found to be effective and ineffective.
The following references may be helpful in designing an evaluation plan:
Summary of Key Characteristics. Extension Services are characteristically different from the other tracks in the following ways:
F. DESCRIPTION - INNOVATION THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION (I³)
Creativity, connectivity, integration, and synergy are keys to innovation and to developing human and institutional capacity to full potential. In both research and education, it is the forging of new links between ideas or methodologies that were previously disparate that frequently paves the way for innovation. When institutions optimize the benefits to be derived from the creative integration of intellectual perspectives or related domains of work, they create important opportunities for making progress on some of the most important scientific, technological, and educational challenges of our time. On individual campuses across the nation, for example, significant synergistic potential can be ignited when scholars and educators in related disciplines work together. Similarly, NSF awardees can harness new synergies by working together with other NSF-funded projects on their own campus or in close geographic proximity. When the results of these synergies are both compatible with and beneficial for the institution(s) involved, successful innovation can be created[i]. Past efforts at integration have shown that opportunities for synergy can be created most successfully when collaborative projects include:
The campus network is an important aspect of successful collaboration at every stage of development and is critical to the sustainability and enhancement of created partnerships as well as the institutionalization of new innovations. This network can (a) foster communication across the campus to encourage the formation and dissemination of new ideas, values, and learning; (b) serve as a source of leadership to promote and carry out integrative activities; and (c) develop and sustain existing connections while continually expanding collaborative efforts[iii].
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) challenges faculty, administrators, and others in institutions to think strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards towards a whole that exceeds the sum of its parts. Although there is particular emphasis in I3 on awards managed by programs in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), institutional integration is not limited only to EHR awards but can include other NSF awards with a STEM educational focus. Two or more institutions in geographic proximity might, for example, partner to bridge existing NSF-funded awards on their campuses (e.g., RDE, IGERT, LSAMP, ATE, CREST, REU) to broaden participation in STEM fields and enhance undergraduate research opportunities. Additional connections might be made internationally with faculty or students outside the United States who would add their considerable intellectual and cultural perspectives. As another example, an institution might implement new policies, procedures, or mechanisms that encourage and value synergistic efforts among existing NSF-funded awards (e.g., GK-12, MSP, Noyce, REESE, DRK-12) and with other institutional units to better understand and enhance seamlessness across critical educational junctures, perhaps infusing innovative approaches to cyber-learning.
This effort has the following interrelated goals:
Proposals that facilitate either (a) inter-institutional or (b) intra-institutional efforts are encouraged. Proposals may be submitted by (a) a single institution to address intra-institutional goals only or (b) an institution acting on behalf of an institutional partnership to address inter-institutional goals.
Proposals are expected to incorporate a depth and quality of creative, coherent, and strategic actions that extend beyond commonplace approaches to normal institutional operations. Proposals may also be submitted for research on institutional integration or other closely related themes articulated in the goals above.
I3 is a cross-divisional effort in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance I3 goals: CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP. All proposals submitted to I3 through these programs have a common due date and will be reviewed in competition with one another.
[i] Levine, A. (1980). Why Innovation Fails. New York: State University of New York Press. Pg. 160.
[ii] Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing Innovative Partnerships: Creating a Change Model for Academic and Student Affairs Collaboration. Innovative Higher Education 28(2): 137-156.
[iii] Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institutions: An Exploration into the Developmental Process. Research in Higher Education 46(7): 831-860.
G. PROGRAM EVALUATION
Measuring the overall effectiveness of the GSE program is increasingly important. The NSF is expected to provide federal policymakers in Congress and at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with evidence-based measures of all program impacts and effectiveness in accordance with the Program Effectiveness Rating Tool (PART) and the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC). For an overview on PART visit Expectmore.gov. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) (the act) established the ACC. The statute charged the ACC to:
Individual projects funded through the GSE program are expected to cooperate with third-party program evaluation and respond to inquiries, interviews and other approaches for collecting evaluation data across individual grants. All projects should respond to and provide process and outcome data elements that may be summarized across projects.
H. REVIEWING FOR THE GSE PROGRAM
The GSE program is always looking to expand our reviewer pool. If you are on a GSE proposal submitted this year, then you cannot be a panelist this year. If you did not submit a GSE proposal this year in response to this solicitation, you may volunteer to be a panelist. If you would like to volunteer, notify the program officer or science assistant. Include a URL or a biosketch and a brief description of your research expertise in your e-mail. The program officer will contact you if your area of expertise is relevant and we need panelists in that area. Please send the information to jjesse@nsf.gov or tcasseus@nsf.gov.
I. REFERENCES
Bordonaro, M., Borg, A., Campbell, G., Clewell, B., Duncan, M., Johnson, J. Johnson, K., Matthews, R., May, G., Mendoza, E., Sideman, J., Winters, S., & Vela, C. (2000). Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: The Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development, Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2000.
Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W.M. (Eds.). (2007). Why Aren't More Women in Science? TopResearchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Clewell, B.C. & Campbell, P.B. (2002). Taking stock: Where we've been, where we are, where we're going. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8:255-284.
CollegeBoard AP (2008). The 4th Annual AP Report to the Nation (http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/ap-report-to-the-nation-2008.pdf).
Dietz, J. S., Anderson, B., & Katzenmeyer, C. (2002). Women and the Crossroads of Science: Thoughts on Policy, Research, and Evaluation. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(3&4), 395-408.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University.
Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2005-016).
Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., Williams, C.C. (2008). Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science, Vol. 321, 494-495.
Jacobs, J.E., Davis-Kean, P., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J., Malanchuk, O. (2005). "I can, but I don't want to": The impact of parents, interests and activities on gender differences in math. In Ann Gallager and James Kaufman, eds. Gender Differences in Mathematics, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Shavelson, R.J., and Towne, L., Editors. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2003). The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America's Potential. Arlington, VA: (NSF 03-69)
National Science Foundation. (2003). New Formulas for America's Workforce: girls in science and engineering. Arlington, VA, 2003 (NSF 03-207 printed book, NSF 03-208 brochure+CD).
National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, Minorities and People with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. Arlington, VA (NSF04-317).
Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving Science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Steinke, J. (1997). A portrait of a woman as a scientist: Breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes. Public Understanding of Science 6:409-428.
Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers' gender stereotypes as determinants of teacher perceptions in elementary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 50:49-62.
Valian, V. (1998) Why so slow?: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watt, H. M. G. and Eccles, J. S. (Eds.) (2008). Gender and Occupational Outcomes: Longitudinal Assessments of Individual, Social, and Cultural Influences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wilson, K. G. & Daviss, B. (1994). Redesigning Education. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
J. INFORMATION ABOUT PREVIOUS AWARDS
NSF's web site provides links to abstracts for and other information about awards made by this program under prior names See the NSF web site, or use the Abstracts of Recent Awards Made Through This Program link at the bottom of the GSE Homepage. Historically, the program has been called "Program for Women and Girls" (PWG), "Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology" (PGE), and "Gender Diversity in STEM Education" (GDSE).
NSF's web site provides the ability to search awards using custom queries:
To find more specific awards, it is possible to narrow the search by, for example, using:
Two compendia of profiles of projects funded by the program, with a comprehensive index, are available in print, CD-ROM, and as an online PDF file using one of the publication numbers. See NSF online document system. In addition, New Tools, a catalogue of products available for order from program PIs, is also available. All documents are available at www.nsf.gov/newformulas as well.
National Science Foundation (2003). New Formulas for America's Workforce: Girls in Science and Engineering. Arlington, VA, 2003 (NSF 03-207 printed book, NSF 03-208 brochure+CD).
National Science Foundation (2006). New Formulas for America’s Workforce 2: Girls in Science and Engineering. Arlington, VA, 2006 (NSF 06-60 printed book, NSF 07-9 brochure+CD).
National Science Foundation (2006). New Tools for America’s Workforce. Arlington, VA, 2006 (NSF 06-59 printed book, NSF 07-9 brochure+CD).
Anticipated funding for new grants in all GSE tracks in FY 2009 is $5,000,000 pending the availability of funds.
Research proposals may request up to a total of $500,000 for up to three years, pending availability of funds. The proposal should include a budget for each year and a summary budget if there are multiple years.
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation budgets may request up to $250,000 for up to three years pending availability of funds. Projects may ask for up to $100,000 more (for a total of $350,000) if they include a Broadening Participation Partnership as described in the Full Program Description. Please see Section II.D. for more information about Broadening Participation Partnerships.
Extension Services proposals may request up to a total of $2.5 million for an average of $500,000 each year for five years, pending availability of funds. Continued funding in years four and five are contingent on satisfactory performance and availability of funds. Continued funding may be reduced or eliminated if performance is not satisfactory.
GSE expects to fund 7-10 Research proposals, 7-10 Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation proposals, and 1-2 Extension Services proposals, depending on the quality of the submissions and availability of funds.
The proposed start dates should be at least seven months from the full proposal deadline.
Funds should be budgeted for the principal investigator to attend a two-day grantees' meeting in the Washington, D.C. area, each award year (June/August time frame).
A limited equipment request (<10% of total budget) may be allowed for projects intensive in educational technology. Funds for office equipment for project staff is not allowed.
Research proposals and Research projects are eligible for REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates) supplements, which expressly support the participation of undergraduate students on the project research team, if funds are available. Please see the REU solicitation for complete parameters and the method for making a request for an REU supplement (see http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/reu/start.htm). Proposers should consult the Program Director in advance of a request for REU supplements.
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
No limits specified for GSE proposals
Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.
PI Limit: The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer or president, unless the proposal is exclusively for I3 STEM educational or related research.
None specified for GSE.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3 ): CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP. Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to the I3 competition for each deadline.
No limit for GSE.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:
None Specified
Additional Eligibility Info:
Letters of Intent(required):
A letter of intent is required for Research and Extension Services proposals prior to the submission of a full proposal. Letters of intent must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system, using the Letter of Intent module. The intended proposal type (research or extension service) must be specified in the first sentence of the Letter of Intent. Letters will be reviewed by NSF staff for purposes of assembling the most appropriate review panel(s) for the full proposals. No feedback will be provided to submitters unless a Letter suggests an inappropriate project for GSE funding. No Letter of Intent is required for Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation proposals. Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not allowed.
The LETTER OF INTENT is limited to one page and should include basic information about:
Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:
When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
On the COVER SHEET select the program name "Research on Gender in Science and Engineering" in the Education and Human Resources Directorate, Human Resource Development. The TITLE should be prefaced with an abbreviation identifying the GSE goal supported by the proposal:
The PROJECT SUMMARY should:
The Research PROJECT DESCRIPTION should address:
Common weaknesses in research proposals (according to Dietz, et al, 2002) are:
The Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation PROJECT DESCRIPTION should address:
The Extension Services PROJECT DESCRIPTION should address:
REFERENCES CITED: All references cited in the Project Summary and Project Description should be listed in this section BIOSKETCHES: Biosketches for the PI, Co-PI(s) and senior project personnel are required. Biosketches MUST follow the NSF guidelines outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide and may not be longer than 2 pages. BUDGET AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION: Budgets should be in NSF format and include up to three pages of budget justification. The budget justification should be in narrative form and include detailed explanations for each line item with budget resources listed in the budget. Information about what may or may not be included in the budget or budget justification is outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. If a subaward is indicated in the budget, a subaward budget must also be submitted. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT: A list of current facilities and equipment to be used in the implementation of the project activities should be included in this section. Further information is available in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS: Only those supplementary documents listed in the Grant Proposal Guide or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide are allowed to be appended in the Supplementary Document section. Additional project description, examples of survey or interview protocols, past PI efforts, or other project-related materials are NOT ALLOWED. The inclusion of Letters of Support from participating organizations is strongly encouraged. INNOVATION THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION (I³) PROPOSALS The proposal should articulate the project’s vision, goals, and anticipated outcomes and describe how the project will achieve them. The proposal should draw on the existing, relevant base of literature and articulate how the plan of work is so informed. It is expected that implementation of the plan of work will impact participating NSF awards, as well as other relevant parts of the institution(s). The proposal should, therefore, address how the goals of the overall project are compatible with the goals of the individual integrated components, as well as how the project is both compatible with and beneficial for thehost institution(s). The proposal should include a management/governance plan that describes who is responsible for what, a timeline, and an evaluation plan. All proposals must clearly demonstrate that the submitting team has the capability to manage the project, organize the work, and meet deadlines. Each proposed implementation project in Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) should have an evaluation plan to assess progress and success in meeting project goals and objectives. An independent, external project-level evaluation is to be conducted to inform the institution and others of the progress and findings of the grant activities, especially those that address the project’s synergistic activity (i.e., the value added by I3). I3 projects are expected to have baseline data, establish measurable targets, and collect evidence to determine annual progress and long-term outcomes. If applicable, it is highly desirable to establish a systematic plan to track student participants beyond their involvement in the project. Project-level evaluation should be designed to offer feedback for strengthening implementation over the course of the project, provide credible evidence to justify continued investment in the project, and report results (and describe models/paradigms) of institutional and/or disciplinary changes associated with the investment strategy. Each I3 project, as part of a national effort, is expected to cooperate in the monitoring and independent portfolio evaluation efforts conducted by NSF’s contracted evaluators. While each project will propose its own types of specific qualitative and quantitative measures, some later standardization of performance monitoring is anticipated so that NSF can conduct a summative/impact evaluation. The I3 portfolio (summative/impact) evaluation will be designed to determine how effectively I3 is contributing to the knowledge base, building a community of innovators, strengthening/advancing the higher education STEM infrastructure, and promoting collaborations that advance the goals of I3. Proposals for research must address one or more I3 goals and discuss the current state of knowledge relevant to the project. This brief literature review should clearly inform the proposed research. The project description should identify the methods the project will use and explain why those methods are appropriate to the questions that the proposal addresses. Methodologies must be matched with strategic research questions, and the logic among research question, method, analysis, inference, and evidence should be well articulated. The results of prior, relevant NSF investment(s), especially projects on which the proposed institutional integration is based, are to be described and supported by data, along with a discussion of both successes and failures. The proposal should also clearly indicate how the intended work differs from, builds on, or is otherwise informed by prior efforts. |
Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Research budgets may be up to $500,000 for up to three years.
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation budgets may be up to $250,000 for up to three years. Projects may ask for up to $100,000 more (for a total of $350,000) if they are partnering with institutions serving underrepresented populations. Please see Section II.D. for more information about Broadening Participation Partnerships.
Extension Services budgets may be up to $2,500,000 for five years, with years four and five dependent upon performance.
Funds should be budgeted for the principal investigator or a project member to attend a two-day grantees' meeting in the Washington, D.C. area, each award year, in March/April.
A limited equipment request (<10% of total budget) may be allowed for projects intensive in educational technology. Office equipment for project staff are expected to come from other sources. (See Section III)
Awards for Innovation through Institutional Integration projects will be made for durations of up to five years, with years four and five dependent on performance, in amounts of up to $ 250,000 per year, for a total of up to $ 1.25 million over 5 years. Innovation through Institutional Integration awards will be made as continuing grants.
February 02, 2009
Research Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
February 09, 2009
Extension Services Proposals - Required Letter of Intent
February 24, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
March 30, 2009
Research Proposals
April 06, 2009
Extension Services Proposals
April 06, 2009
Diffusion of Research-Based Innovation Proposals
August 25, 2009
Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3)
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. The Grants.gov's Grant Community User Guide is a comprehensive reference document that provides technical information about Grants.gov. Proposers can download the User Guide as a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF document. The Grants.gov User Guide is available at: http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.
Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.
NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:
Additional Review Criteria:
In addition to the two NSF criteria for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, special review criteria for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) implementation projects are:
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Special Award Conditions:
Extension Services awards will be made for up to five years. Funding for years four and five is contingent on performance and availability of funds, as evaluated from annual reports and site visit reports. If performance is not satisfactory, then continued funding will be reduced.
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
Jolene Jesse, Program Director, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-7303, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: jjesse@nsf.gov
Tayana Casseus, Science Assistant, NSF, 815N, telephone: (703) 292-4684, email: tcasseus@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
Toni Edquist, Program Specialist, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-4649, email: tedquist@nsf.gov
Victoria A Smoot, Financial Operation Specialist, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-4677, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: vsmoot@nsf.gov
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, MyNSF (formerly the Custom News Service) is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. MyNSF also is available on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
The program does not currently fund intervention or education projects that directly serve students as their primary purpose. Those wishing to undertake direct intervention or education service projects are encouraged to search the NSF web site and other publications for appropriate funding programs. Some potential programs to consult include the following, although there may also be other programs not on this list:
- Discovery Research K-12 (DR-K12) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=500047&org=DRL&from=home;
- Advanced Learning Technologies (ALT) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12834&org=DRL&from=home;
- Advanced Technological Education (ATE) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5464&org=DRL&from=home;
- Informal Science Education (ISE) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5361&org=DRL&from=home;
- Information Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5467&org=DRL&from=home;
- Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13667&org=DRL&from=home;
- Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5741&org=DUE&from=home;
- Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5488&org=DUE&from=home;
- Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13510&org=CNS;
- Engineering Education Programs (EEP) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13374&org=EEC;
- Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) - http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5517&from=fund.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, " 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
|
||||||||||||||||||
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||||