Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Survey of Earned Doctorates
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The NSF is like a group of helpful scientists who want to know when people earn special badges called "doctorates." They're asking for ideas on how to make their questions easier for people to answer and are waiting for suggestions from anyone who wants to help.
Summary AI
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted a request for review of their Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This survey collects data from individuals earning research doctorates in the U.S. and is used to prepare important reports and statistics. The NSF is seeking public comments on the usefulness and burden of this data collection. Comments can be sent within 30 days of the notice's publication, and the survey aims to gather information from approximately 57,000 and 58,000 individuals for the 2022 and 2023 survey cycles, respectively.
Abstract
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register, and one comment was received. NSF is forwarding the proposed submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary
The document announces that the National Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking public comments on its Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), which is a data collection initiative that targets individuals who have completed research doctorates in the United States. The data gathered from this survey are important for preparing various scientific reports and statistics that influence policy-making and research funding. The survey is expected to involve approximately 57,000 individuals for the 2022 cycle and 58,000 for the 2023 cycle. The NSF has already received some public feedback and is inviting additional comments within 30 days following the notice's publication.
Significant Issues and Concerns
While the document outlines a clear objective for the data collection, it leaves certain areas unaddressed which might raise concerns. For instance, it discusses the burden on respondents and provides estimates for the time commitment required; however, it does not delve into how these figures were precisely calculated. This lack of transparency could lead to uncertainty regarding the accuracy of these estimates.
The document also acknowledges a public comment received concerning the inclusion of data related to sexual and gender minorities in doctoral education. While the NSF acknowledges this concern and mentions ongoing research efforts, the document does not specify any concrete steps being taken to address this important issue. This could potentially leave concerned parties wondering about the timeline and seriousness of the implementation of such changes.
Technical jargon such as "CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations) and specific OMB control numbers are used throughout, which might not be instantly clear to all readers. Additional explanations or a glossary could help make the document more accessible to a broader audience.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the document outlines an opportunity to give input on how and why this data collection is conducted. It is a chance to voice opinions on whether such surveys are valuable and whether the processes should be improved. However, the average reader might need more context or simpler explanations to engage fully with the document's technical aspects.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For educational and research institutions, particularly those with graduate programs, the SED represents an important tool for maintaining an overview of doctoral achievements and facilitating informed policy decisions. Ensuring that the data collected is comprehensive and representative is crucial for these stakeholders. Institutional Coordinators, who help facilitate the survey, play a key role in this process, although the document could benefit from further clarification on how these coordinators are chosen and their responsibilities defined.
Conversely, the document indicates a significant administrative burden on both the doctorate recipients and the coordinating institutions. The stakeholders involved might view this as negatively affecting their time and resources unless streamlined procedures are developed as a result of the public consultation process.
In conclusion, while the document serves a critical function in gathering public input and preparing for the upcoming survey cycles, clarity and transparency in various areas would enhance its effectiveness and ensure comprehensive engagement from all stakeholders.
Issues
• The document mentions the collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, but does not specify what improvements, if any, have been made to the survey process to reduce the burden on respondents.
• The mention of estimating the respondent burden seems precise, yet the document could improve clarity by explaining how these burden estimates are calculated and what assumptions are made regarding the time or difficulty of responses.
• The section on comments received from the public is sparse. Although it briefly mentions a concern raised about inclusion of sexual and gender minority data, it lacks detail on concrete steps being taken to address this concern, potentially leaving the resolution ambiguous.
• The document uses technical jargon and references such as CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) and specific OMB control numbers, which might not be immediately clear to all readers. Simplifying explanations or providing a glossary could enhance understanding.
• While the document provides a summary of the expected respondents and the role of Institutional Coordinators, there could be more detail about the process and criteria for selecting these coordinators and ensuring equal representation across institutions.