Research News

 Welcome!

It’s only been a month since our previous newsletter came out, but I would particularly like to promote Idaho’s effort to develop our next EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement proposal to NSF. A short article on the opportunity appears below: a successful concept should be potentially transformative and build on Idaho’s strengths as well as leverage past EPSCoR and/or other Idaho research investments.

As the Office of Research continues to develop its capabilities, I’d like to remind readers that contracts and awards are now being handled by our Contracts Director, Monica Huyg. If you have questions or concerns about your awards, please contact Monica. She also develops all sub-awards for externally funded projects, so if you have a sub-award in your project, talk with Monica to get these developed. I am also pleased to be welcoming Kati Chipps to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

I hope that we all have a happy holiday season, and that the new year will bring us success in all our endeavors – including research! Best Wishes!
Richard T. Jacobsen Ph.D. PE

NEW CALLS

Call: Idaho NSF EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) Program

Idaho’s NSF EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) is seeking concept ideas for the state’s next Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) application. Submissions should be sent in Word or PDF format to epscor@uidaho.edu by 5:00pm Pacific Time on December 19, 2011. If you would like to see the full call, please contact Deb Easterly.In this preliminary stage, the EPSCoR State Committee is seeking focused concept documents in any one of the following four areas:

• Big picture research concepts that could form the core of the State proposal.
• Innovative concepts for integrating research with STEM education at any level from pre‐K to grey (pre‐K through continuing education of professionals).
• Transformative concepts for the sustainable engagement of traditionally underserved communities in STEM fields.
• Cyberinfrastructure (CI) Innovations in Discovery and Learning

Concepts should develop a unified statewide initiative to strengthen the Idaho Science Community and increase Idaho’s national and international competitiveness. The Idaho Universities participating in the NSF EPSCoR program will be considering submissions in early February, and then begin development of the RII proposal to NSF, which is expected to be due in late 2012. Interested researchers should note that RII competitions are becoming increasingly competitive. While the announcement for 2012 may differ, the current RII announcement can be referenced here: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf11565

NEW NSF SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD PROGRAM

NSF describes its new Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) Program as having the primary objective of bringing “together leading STEM researchers/educators from different countries, both physically and virtually, to work collaboratively on problems of mutual interest, building on relationships initiated by NSF-supported teams of researchers. NSF will support U.S. participants, while their international partners will be supported by their own national or regional funding source.” SAVI is NOT a stand-alone program; rather, it makes supplemental awards, to new or existing projects. SAVI awards are expected to vary from $50,000 to $400,000 per year for up to five years, including both direct and indirect costs. You can find out more about SAVI in the “Dear Colleague” letter announcing the Program, and at SAVI’s “FAQ” page.

 

RESEARCH FORUM

Research Forum
ISU held a dual-location Research Forum on the Pocatello and Meridian campuses November 10. It included 17 presentations (paper posters and multi-media) departments at the Pocatello campus and 10 more at Meridian. A variety of Departments were participating, including English and Philosophy, Biological Sciences, Engineering and several more. Paper copies of all the presentations at Pocatello were available at Meridian, and vice-versa. The presentations were all of faculty projects, though many had student involvement. The purpose of the Forum was giving faculty a time to share their research with colleagues across ISU. “Sometimes people from one department will not be aware of what someone in the department on the next floor is doing,” says Deb Easterly, Director of Research Development & Compliance. “The Forum was an opportunity for faculty to learn what research is going on at ISU, to find a collaborator for a project, to learn how someone else solved an issue concerning their project.” The Forum was well attended, not only by faculty, but also by students.

 

Research Office Website Updates

The Office of Research has added some new pages and information to its website. The Idaho State University Research Centers, Institutes and Facilities page listed in the Navigation Bar now has a supplemental listing of additional Facilities and Equipment available to researchers. Also in the Navigation Bar lists additional resources in Research Cyberinfrastructure, and general information about ISU’s Faculty Recognition for Outstanding/Distinguished Researchers.

 

CITI EXPORT CONTROL TRAINING

Going abroad, and wondering if your new laptop or other device is legal to take with you? Need to ship some technology to, or discuss some aspect of proprietary rights/intellectual property with, a foreign collaborator? CITI, the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative, is now offering a peer-reviewed training module on US federal Export Control.  It is an introduction to the nature, purpose and scope of the major U.S. export control regulations; defines key terms and concepts that recur throughout the export control regulations; and identifies the major impacts of export controls on research in institutions of higher education.

 

NEW FACES

Kati Chipps, Grant/Sponsored Programs Specialist

Born and raised near Pocatello, Kati attended ISU where she received a double Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and Political Science as well as a Master’s degree in Public Administration. With a wide range of experience and an innovative spirit, Kati is excited for her transition into higher education and is looking forward to her new position at ISU. She loved the learning atmosphere at ISU, and now looks forward to assisting ISU staff and faculty in the development of funding proposals and budgets, disseminating funding information, reviewing and approving funding submissions, and writing the monthly UPDATE newsletter. In her off time, Kati enjoys learning and writing, competitive tennis, and spending time with her husband and two kids.

Statistically Speaking….

by Teri Peterson

Statistics for Research Grants

Do you need to write a statistical analysis when submitting a research proposal, or do the reviewers even care? I contend that well-written statistical considerations helps convince reviewers that you have demonstrated both skill and effort in a) the framing of your research questions, b) the planning of your study, and c) the analysis of your data. A well-written statistical discussion should start with a well-crafted primary research question. This could be a testable hypothesis or a research question with additional secondary questions. Along with your study design, you should describe the outcome (dependent or response) variable(s) you intend to measure. This will lead right into your statistical analysis plan. Are you going to perform an ANOVA, a regression, a mixed model analysis, some other statistical technique, or perhaps just calculate descriptive statistics? When choices in analysis exist, you may need to discuss the rationale behind your choice, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of them.You need to ensure that the chosen analysis ties directly back to your research question. You should discuss your sampling scheme and randomization if appropriate. You should have a data management plan. Finally, what type of technical support do you have for data management and analysis? Not every grant follows the same format; the information above could be put in different places, as specified in the RFP. Remember, too, if a proposal asks you to write your own “Evaluation Plan,” your choice in statistical analysis might be a key part of the discussion.  The “up front” effort you put into discussing your use of statistics can pay off not only with grant reviewers, but also through providing a road map for your research efforts. If I can do anything to help with your research efforts please feel free to give me a call!

 

Proposal Prose

by Ralph Norton

Becoming a Reviewer Serving as a proposal Reviewer is often an eye-opening experience, and is highly recommended for anyone wanting to improve their grant-getting skills. The benefits include seeing how a review panel works, the discussions of what the agency is/isn’t looking for, and – perhaps the most enlightening – the smorgasbord of ways applicants succeed and fail to address the agency’s concerns.

Many agencies are “always” actively looking for new reviewers. Sometimes they lack volunteers with the appropriate expertise; other times, they may simply want “new blood” with different perspectives. For an agency with long-term review panels, there’s also an advantage to bringing in “newbies” while there are “old hands” on committees to mentor them.
The biggest demand you’ll face as a reviewer is your time. You might be asked to review 1 proposal, or perhaps as many as 30 – it depends upon the program, agency, the number of reviewers available, and a small host of other variables. If time’s a concern, discuss it with an agency representative/program officer before taking the job on. You might be asked to review things by mail, electronically, at a panel discussion (the agency covers any travel costs), or some combination of the three. Serving as a reviewer is especially helpful when the agency or specific grant program is one you have your own future designs upon. Who wouldn’t want insights as to how review criteria will be applied to their own proposal?

But how do you actually become a reviewer? The best way to start is talking to a program officer at an agency you’re interested in. They’ll tell you how to proceed. Conferences are a great place to do this, but a phone call also works. You’ll probably be asked for some kind of a follow-up: a letter or e-mail. Once I was asked to mail in a formal résumé, but that’s about as vigorous as it gets.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that just because you volunteered for the job, the agency will pick you – this year, anyhow. In some cases, they simply might not have an application in your area of expertise, or they already have enough reviewers for the competition. Some agencies keep a list of potential reviewers, but as with writing grants, persistence pays: if you don’t get asked one year, politely re-express your interest to the same (or a different) program officer to show you’re both serious and still available.