MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

February 17-18, 2000

National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

Thursday, February 17, 2000

Welcome, Minutes and Opening Remarks

The Chair, Dr. Emi Ito, opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. in Room 1235 and welcomed the Committee members. After members introduced themselves, the Committee approved the minutes of the last meeting (October 14-15, 1999) with corrections. Dr. Ito reviewed the agenda and reported on her February 13, 2000 meeting with Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of NSF, and Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director of NSF. Dr. Ito emphasized two areas for future consideration--dissemination of best practices and cross-directorate presentations about education initiatives and/or diversity concerns.

NFS’s Unified Graduate Research Fellowship Program

Mr. Lawrence Rudolph from the Office of General Counsel presented the legal context for discussing changes to the Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Mr. Rudolph explained strict scrutiny and discussed legal encounters in defending programs with an exclusive eligibility component. Dr. Susan Duby, Director of the Division of Graduate Education, provided a brief history of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program that started in 1952 and the special component for Minority Graduate Fellowships that was added in 1978 and discontinued in 1999. She shared how NSF is trying to ensure that the current Consolidated Graduate Research Fellowship Program is inclusive with uniform eligibility criteria for all applicants. The Program has put more emphasis on outreach and recruitment, establishing strong relationships with minority-serving institutions and professional organizations, as well as research intensive universities that grant a substantial number of baccalaureate degrees to members of minority groups. It was pointed out that the information that is shared with one group of applicants is equally applicable to another group of applicants. The Program now requires a personal statement as part of the application package which is an important source of information for reviewing the broader impacts of Fellowship applications. Review panelists are given an orientation about indicators of ability and how to think more inclusively in considering the broader impact criterion; they are given information about minority-serving institutions, also. Mr. Rudolph added that the disclosure to the review panels of the applicant’s racial or ethnic background helps to embrace the idea that excellence is everywhere and that those who may have overcome obstacles may have greater success ultimately than those who have not. Dr. Duby presented 1998 and 1999 applicant and award data to show both gains and losses in the minority applicant pool and the number of awards made before and after the Consolidated Graduate Research Fellowship Program. In general, CEOSE members noted that a more thorough review of applicants was a fairer system, but did raise several concerns: content and subjective evaluation of the personal statement; reduction in the number of minority research fellows; the need to monitor demographic data by undergraduate institutions and disciplines/fields; role/impact of GRE in the review process; the need for an in-depth comparison study of completion rates; and the timeframe for assessing the effectiveness of this “experimental” Consolidated Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

NSF’s Efforts to Broaden Participation

Dr. Bordogna, Deputy Director, led the presentation on Partnerships for Innovation, stressing the need to have people well prepared to face the future. He described innovation as new knowledge applied to things that are new and different and discussed partnerships as connecting everybody. Specific NSF programs were highlighted for each of the following four areas of partnership activity: state research and education development, industry research and development, university partnerships, and national research and development centers. Two key factors were emphasized: leveraging (intellectual capital and financial capital) and inclusivity (connections and integration).

Dr. Judith Sunley, Interim Assistant Director of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), focused on broadening the opportunities for individuals to participate in NSF programs, referring to a mix of people activities (for underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities) and institutional activities. The aim is to make sure that the broad workforce of American citizens has the capabilities to participate in activities that are related to science and engineering and to participate in decision-making that involves science and engineering. Dr. Sunley described three core strategies to enhance participation more broadly in NSF programs: developing intellectual capital, integrating research into education, and promoting partnerships. She stressed that NSF is expanding its thinking about diversity to give attention to all kinds of institutions (e.g., minority-serving institutions, commuter institutions, etc.) and geographic distribution (e.g., urban areas, rural areas). Current efforts to broaden participation include: embedding diversity in such a manner that all programs look to attract and fund a broader spectrum of individuals and institutions, continuing focused programs aimed at broadening participation, engaging in aggressive community outreach, using information and communication technology to make connections, and being accountable for accomplishing diversity goals. Within the preschool to workforce frame of reference, some of the programs that Dr. Sunley highlighted to build equal opportunity for entry and retention in science and engineering were: Urban Systemic Program, Rural Systemic Initiative, Advanced Technology Education Program, HBCU Undergraduate Program, Alliance for Minority Participation, Alliance for Graduate Education Program, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education, CAREER Program, ADVANCE, EPSCoR, and Advanced Networking Infrastructure Program. CEOSE members expressed an interest in continuing the dialogue about embedding diversity.

Directorate Advisory Committee Liaison Reports

CEOSE Liaisons to advisory committees (AC) provided highlights of the following Fall 1999 AC meetings: Engineering (Dr. Gary May), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (Dr. Arturo Brunson), Biological Sciences (Dr. Joe Martinez), Geosciences and Education and Human Resources (Dr. Ito). During these brief presentations, CEOSE members covered the following issues: discussions of unmet opportunity need to include both a research context and a people context; the impact of COV ratings and future funding for Directorates; degree production and the rating of GPRA Goal 3; the meaning and use of Criterion II in proposal evaluation; value of intrinsic interest in and marketing of science related careers; complexities of parity in the context of transiting in, out, and within scientific disciplines; the success rate for awards by demographic factors; and the need for Directorates to establish a baseline for measuring success, as well as identifying indicators of success. While members acknowledged the increased attention of the Directorates to diversity programming, the following “key question” was raised. Is the responsibility of NSF for diversity housed in EHR or is it housed equally among all the Directorates?

NSF Workforce Update

Mr. John Wilkinson, Director of Human Resource Management, provided CEOSE with a range of statistical data about NSF’s science and engineering staff, showing an increase from 38 percent in 1990 to 45 percent of the NSF workforce in 1999. Females constituted approximately 58% of the NSF workforce but the largest percentage of female representation was in the clerical staff component. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that minority scientists and engineers were underrepresented in a number of areas and to a much lesser degree than women for executive positions. Additionally, information was shared regarding the gender and racial/ethnic composition of advisory committees. CEOSE members engaged Mr. Wilkinson in a discussion about outreach and the federal recruitment and selection process. He noted several strategies being employed to address some of the diversity concerns: memorandum expressing top-level commitment for a diverse workforce at NSF, inclusion of a diversity awareness module as part of the program management seminar, family support activities (e.g., child care center, housing clearinghouse), policy document requesting all the Assistant Directors and Office Heads to formalize a recruitment plan for professional staff, internship programs, participation in career fairs and career development programs, accountability system for monitoring recruitment plans and performance goals, and community outreach using membership lists from professional organizations targeting underrepresented groups and using websites that have been targeted to specific groups. Three entry points to NSF were identified--an applicant for a position, a reviewer, and a proposer. CEOSE members asked about numerical targets for GPRA Goal 3 and incentives for increased diversity among NSF’s workforce of scientists, engineers, and executives. Mr. Wilkinson encouraged CEOSE to make comments and suggestions about diversifying the applicant pools and new hires.

Meeting with NSF Deputy Director

Dr. Bordogna briefed CEOSE on NSF’s budget request for FY 2001 and provided additional information about Partnerships for Innovation. He discussed institutional grants and individual awards within the context of resource development and diversity, addressing several of CEOSE’s concerns about the Consolidated Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Additionally, he emphasized parallel attention to women’s issues and the formulation of a new program (ADVANCE) for advancing women through the academic ranks. The Integrative Education Research and Training (IGERT) Program was also discussed as a program designed with an inclusive focus. CEOSE members shared the following concerns with Dr. Bordogna: reliance on test scores as predictors of success in undergraduate and graduate education, COV practices in rating the performance of the Directorates and concerns for the fiscal well-being of the Directorates, and increasing the responsibilities of the research directorates for increased diversity. CEOSE was encouraged to examine the Strategic Plan and identify five or six places to provide advice on diversity issues.

2000 Report to Congress

Dr. May, Vice-Chair, provided an overview of the biennial report to Congress. CEOSE members reviewed the recommendations of the previous two reports (1996 and 1998). CEOSE members generally agreed to: revise the vision statement; examine issues of parity in SMET enrollment, graduation and employment; review NSF policies to make sure that each address the maximum level of inducement for diversity permitted by existing legal framework; review the effectiveness of NSF programs; have a completed (draft) report in year 2000 describing the seriousness of the problem and what would happen if the problem of diversity in SMET is not solved, in addition to presenting the statistical facts, stories of progress, and recommendations.

Friday, February 18, 2000

NSF’s Merit Review Criteria

Mr. Joseph Burt of the Office of Integrative Activities discussed the implementation of NSF’s two-year-old Merit Review Criteria. He also shared that NSF had met its 1999 quantitative performance goal to ensure that all program announcements would include statements about the importance of integrating research and education and the importance of improving participation of underrepresented groups in order to get Principal Investigators to address these issues in their proposals. Mr. Burt’s presentation included final report data about how Principal Investigators responded to a question about the contributions of their projects to five different areas (within their disciplines, other disciplines in science and engineering, development of human resources, infrastructure for research and education, and public welfare). He also shared demographic information about four categories of project participants: postdoctoral fellows, senior personnel, graduate students, and undergraduate students.

The Committees of Visitors in FY 1999 judged NSF to be “largely successful, needs some improvement.” Mr. Burt briefly commented on several efforts undertaken to improve the availability of information for the COVs to make informed judgement regarding the use of the Merit Review Criteria. The Director issued an Important Notice and a Dear Colleague Letter that encouraged proposers and reviewers to address the elements of the second criterion in both the proposals and the reviews. There have been presentations and informal conversations about the importance of addressing the second criterion at regional seminars, site visits, and at other outreach activities conducted by NSF. Plans are underway to split the single narrative for proposal review so that each criterion will be addressed separately. Mr. Burt stated that Program Officers do discuss the importance of both criteria in the review process at the outset of panel meetings. CEOSE members expressed their concerns about proposers’ and reviewers’ difficulty in addressing Criteria 2. One suggestion was to rate each criterion or to give some thought to assigning weights to the criteria. Another recommendation was to provide prescriptive instructions to the potential proposer on how much attention should be paid to Criterion 2. Another suggestion from CEOSE was to consider incentives or penalties associated with the inclusion or the lack of inclusion of Criterion 2 in the proposals. CEOSE members also expressed the need for NSF leadership to take the position of demanding rather than encouraging greater use of Criterion 2, taking bold steps rather than incremental steps for ensuring the use of both Merit Review Criteria. CEOSE members suggested that the Chair should directly communicate to the Director of NSF two points: the need to quantify both review criteria and the need to hold proposers and program officers accountable for addressing both criteria as a necessary condition before projects are funded. CEOSE members agreed that there is a need for a separate summary box for Criterion 2 in the FastLane submission.

Congressional Briefing

Mr. David Stonner, Head of Congressional Affairs in the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA), engaged CEOSE in an interactive dialogue regarding how one interacts with Congress. He provided examples of how to contextualize issues for Congress and discussed the role of media coverage to show the impact of NSF dollars. The dialogue covered several areas: NSF budget, connections between NSF investment and benefits to society, the involvement of staffers and member turnover.

Mr. Stonner encouraged CEOSE to prepare a report that identifies problems, recognizes solutions with powerful examples/stories, and provides statistical data with summary statements of areas of progress and areas lacking progress. He stressed the importance of the Executive Summary and also stated that OLPA would be willing to assist with the news release of the next CEOSE biennial report to Congress.

Report of Executive Council Liaison

Dr. Wanda E. Ward, Executive Council Liaison, led a brief discussion about focused programs, highlighting the congressionally mandated Minority Graduate Education Program. She described the POWRE and CAREER programs as a means of contrasting the two methods of individual fellowships and institutional approaches for advancing diversity. She encouraged CEOSE to continue to be active in discussions about three areas in need of improvement as indicated in the GPRA Report: risk, diversity, and the use of the Merit Review Criteria. In addition to sharing their expertise on minority issues in higher education and the workforce, CEOSE members were encouraged to monitor and provide input on K-12 issues. Emphasizing the strategic approach of embedding diversity, Dr. Ward pointed out the need to monitor specific disciplines/fields where underrepresented minorities are grossly underrepresented in number and in receipt of high quality research training and experiences. She stressed that NSF is intending to enforce the use of both merit review criteria from the initial proposal processing stage to project completion at the final report stage. She noted the need to do as much internally with Program Officers and Division Directors as with the community externally in addressing the utilization of both Criterion 1 and Criterion 2. She also suggested that CEOSE might want to share a draft copy of their 2000 Report with members of the Directorates’ Advisory Committees for review/feedback. She briefly discussed efforts addressing GPRA Goal 3 that deals with a globally diverse workforce. Dr. Ward also distributed position announcements and asked CEOSE members to recommend potential candidates.

Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities In Science, Engineering, and Technology Development (CAWMSET)

Dr. Ward shared that former CEOSE member, Dr. Beatriz Clewell, accepted the role of Executive Director of CAWMSET in December 1999. Dr. May will serve as CEOSE Liaison to CAWMSET. Dr. Ward briefed CEOSE about the CAWMSET’s meeting in December 1999 and the upcoming meeting planned for March 2000. She also reminded CEOSE of their agreement to review or provide input on the draft report as well as review the commissioned papers. Several CEOSE members volunteered to review one or two of the commissioned papers. Dr. Ward described the five major topics that the report will cover and stated that the report will be completed late spring/early summer 2000. A media campaign is being planned to give high visibility to the messages about diversity and to increase the value and pursuit of careers in science, engineering, and technology by underrepresented groups.

Committee Business

Dr. Ito reminded CEOSE Liaison members to attend the Directorates’ Spring 2000 Advisory Committee meetings. Dr. Suzanne Brainard is under consideration as the CEOSE Liaison to the Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources. Suggested agenda items for the June 2000 CEOSE meeting included: data (funding and participation rates) on the NSF diversity programs and presentations about specific diversity-focused programs being implemented by the various directorates; a status report on the recommendations made in the 1996 and 1998 Biennial Reports; media options for the 2000 Biennial Report; a status report on the use of merit review criteria, especially criterion 2; evaluative data on diversity programs, particularly at the K-12 level; information about cross-directorate and multi-agency funding of diversity-related programs; and/or presenters from other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Education, Department of Energy, NASA, NIH) to discuss their diversity issues and programmatic efforts. The Chair will contact members regarding their availability for several meeting dates in June 2000.

The meeting was adjoined at 12:45 p.m.

	Bernice Anderson
	Executive Secretary

[Return to top of page]

[Return to the CEOSE home page]