NSF 24-537: General Social Survey Competition

Program Solicitation NSF 24-537

National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences      Division of Social and Economic Sciences

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     June 07, 2024

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     August 15, 2024

Important Information And Revision Notes

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

General Social Survey Competition

Synopsis of Program:

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a nationally representative interview survey of the United States adult population that collects data on a wide range of topics: behavioral items such as group membership and participation; personal psychological evaluations including measures of well-being, misanthropy and life satisfaction; attitudinal questions on such public issues as crime and punishment, race relations, gender roles and spending priorities; and demographic characteristics of respondents and their parents. The GSS has provided data on contemporary American society since 1972, serving as a barometer of social change and trends in attitudes, behaviors and attributes of the United States adult population. In 1984, the GSS stimulated cross-national research by collaborating with Australia, Britain and Germany to develop data collection programs modeled on the GSS. This program of comparative cross-national research, called the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), now includes 43 nations and enables researchers and analysts to place findings and trends from the United States within a comparative context.

Since its inception, the GSS has completed 34 in-person, cross-sectional surveys of the adult household population of the United States with response rates that exceed 50 percent. The survey is currently fielded biennially. Data from the GSS are made available to scholars, students and the public for research, analysis and educational activities within 12 months of data collection.

Several innovations have been initiated over the past 15 years, most of which warrant continuation. Most significantly, the GSS has been exploring a substantial use of web mode while maintaining the integrity of the time series. The 2022 and 2024 surveys used web mode in various combinations with face-to-face administration for purposes of testing and comparison. A collaboration with the American National Election Studies (ANES) was initiated for the 2020 election and continued for the 2024 election. Other innovations are linkages with administrative data made possible by asking respondents for permission (since 2018) and use of post-stratification weights (since 2020).

The Research Infrastructure in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Program (RISBS) in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences expects to make one award for the next four-year funding cycle, fiscal years 2025-2028, to support the 2026 and 2028 GSS and the U.S. component of the ISSP survey. We anticipate an award in the range of $14 million and at most $16 million over four years to support two waves of data collection, dissemination activities, and outreach. The expected starting date is August 2025.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Joseph M. Whitmeyer, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-7808, email: jwhitmey@nsf.gov
• Lee D. Walker, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-7174, email: lwalker@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 1

Anticipated Funding Amount: $16,000,000

Estimated program budget and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Organizations are restricted to submitting only one proposal in response to this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

Individuals identified as Senior/Key personnel (i.e., PI, co-PI, other senior/key personnel) are restricted to participating in only one proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

       June 07, 2024

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

       August 15, 2024

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration 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.

I. Introduction

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a nationally representative personal interview survey of the United States adult population that collects data on a wide range of topics: behavioral items such as group membership and participation; personal psychological evaluations including measures of well-being, misanthropy and life satisfaction; attitudinal questions on such public issues as crime and punishment, race relations, gender roles and spending priorities; and demographic characteristics of respondents and their parents. The GSS has provided data on contemporary American society since 1972, serving as a barometer of social change and trends in attitudes, behaviors and attributes of the United States adult population. In 1984, the GSS stimulated cross-national research by collaborating with Australia, Britain and Germany to develop data collection programs modeled on the GSS. This program of comparative cross-national research, called the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), now includes 43 nations and enables researchers and analysts to place findings and trends from the United States within a comparative context.

Since its inception, the GSS has completed 34 in-person, cross-sectional surveys of the adult household population of the United States with response rates that exceed 50 percent. The survey is currently fielded biennially with numbers of cases typically in the 2500 range. Data from the GSS are made available to scholars, students and the public for research, analysis and educational activities within 12 months of data collection.

Several innovations have been initiated over the past 15 years, most of which warrant continuation. Most significantly, the GSS has been exploring a substantial use of web mode while maintaining the integrity of the time series. The 2022 and 2024 surveys used web mode in various combinations with face-to-face administration for purposes of testing and comparison. A collaboration with the American National Election Studies (ANES) was initiated for the 2020 election and continued for the 2024 election. Other innovations are linkages with administrative data made possible by asking respondents for permission (since 2018) and use of post-stratification weights (since 2020).

In 2016, a group of scholars organized by the Committee on National Statistics of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education at The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine conducted a study of the future of the "Big 3" Surveys that are funded in whole or part by the National Science Foundation.

We suggest that proposals consider some of the following suggestions stemming from that review:

• Continue surveying a nationally representative sample on a biennial cycle to monitor trends in attitudes and behaviors of the adult United States population.
• Enhance the panel design whose baseline sample was initiated in the 2006 survey.
• Maintain participation in the ISSP data collection program.
• Involve the Scientific Advisory Board actively in selecting, evaluating and approving the content of both core and topical survey modules.
• Support a "module" competition that would allow members of the Scientific Advisory Board and other social scientists to propose topics and questions for inclusion in the GSS.
• Encourage experimentation and innovation in survey administration and techniques, embedding methodological and substantive experiments within the survey.
• Retain and revitalize GSS core items, involving the user community and Board in the process.
• Continue to explore ways to over-sample minority groups, improving the quality and precision of comparisons, and collect more "paradata" and "metadata" from the process and context of survey administration.
• Experiment with digital recording of interviews to enable studies of social interaction that occurs during interviews, using the results both to improve data quality and to encourage the integration of qualitative and quantitative data.
• Upgrade documentation and dissemination technologies to improve the speed, completeness and ease of use of data for research and teaching.
• Improve the variety and flexibility of data available online, allowing potential users to produce customized data sets (for example, by year, topic, module or ethnic group) for analysis.
• Continue collaboration with the ANES.

II. Program Description

The Research Infrastructure for the Social and Behavioral Sciences Program (RISBS) in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences invites investigators who possess the theoretical, methodological, measurement and managerial skills, as well as organizational resources, to undertake a large-scale survey data collection project to submit proposals to conduct the General Social Survey (GSS) and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) United States surveys. The GSS is a personal interview survey that collects data on a wide range of topics: behavioral items such as group membership and voting; personal psychological evaluations, including measures of happiness, misanthropy and life satisfaction; attitudinal questions on such public issues as abortion, crime and punishment, race relations, gender roles and spending priorities; and demographic characteristics of respondents and their parents. The basic GSS design is a repeated cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized adults who speak either English or Spanish. In face-to-face mode, the GSS is a 90-120-minute in-person interview, with forty-five minutes devoted to the core items, 15 minutes to questions selected as part of the ISSP and 30 minutes allocated to topical modules. The core consists of questions that regularly appear on the GSS, allowing long-term comparisons. The topical modules are used to introduce new topics not previously investigated by the GSS and to cover existing topics in greater detail. The topical modules are currently supported by additional funding secured by the principal investigators (PIs) who propose them. Since 2022, there also has been a web mode, with the same questions delivered and answered primarily online.

Beginning in 2006, the GSS core (questions that appear regularly on surveys) was translated into Spanish and administered in either English or Spanish, as preferred. This practice will need to continue in future surveys.

Innovations in the data collection process that fall within the parameters outlined in this solicitation are welcome.

Project oversight is provided by the GSS Scientific Advisory Board that consists of prominent scholars with expertise in survey research, other social and behavioral methodologies, and a range of substantive areas. Board members review major project operations and participate in the initiation and development of topical modules. Board members represent the interests of the research communities that use the GSS. New Board members are nominated by the current board and usually serve four-year terms. It is expected that proposals will be designed so that the Scientific Advisory Board will continue to fulfill its important functions.

The GSS award will fund the following activities.

• Two waves, 2026 and 2028, of data collection for the GSS sample, including the United States ISSP surveys.
• Participation in the ISSP. The United States is one of the four founding members of the ISSP and the GSS representative to the ISSP is a member of the executive standing committee and may serve on subcommittees, for example, the survey drafting and methodology committees.
• Survey instrument and module development and experimentation for both the GSS and ISSP surveys based on scientific expertise in relevant social sciences.
• Survey design, innovations and continual enhancement (based on assessment and analysis) of the cross-sectional survey and possible future panel designs.
• Post data collection editing, processing and generation of constructed variables, data files and codebooks.
• Data dissemination through a cutting-edge web-based data archive.
• Provision of user assistance.
• Support for a Scientific Advisory Board.
• Interaction with the principal investigators of the ANES and PSID.
• Interaction and coordination with the principal investigators of the ANES to enable integration of the GSS and the ANES where beneficial.
• Outreach as described below.

The GSS award will not support secondary data analysis or investigator-based research.

Project descriptions should address the principal investigator's ability and capacity to meet the following scientific infrastructure objectives:

• Demonstrate scientific and methodological expertise and resources for survey sample and survey instrument development and innovation.
• Collect of two biennial waves of survey data from 2500 new cross-sectional respondents, while maintaining at least a 50% response rate.
• Maintain continuity and the high quality of the GSS data set.
• Produce innovative and experimental modules to meet the needs of the academic community, other government agencies and potential funders.
• Process, edit and release raw data, generated variables and code books within 12 months of collection.
• Maintain security of the data.
• Maintain cyberinfrastructure to disseminate/share data and documentation, with expansions and innovations in data sharing tools as technology develops.
• Develop educational and research outreach activities illustrating the use of the data to key audiences.
• Maintain the following functions:
  • Sensitive data dissemination archive.
  • User assistance.
  • Bibliographic and award archive.

The GSS has been a vital resource for researchers and students across a wide variety of fields in the social sciences and beyond. An important goal for the GSS is to continue to expand the range of users to additional disciplines. For example, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education researchers and developers have underutilized the data to address key questions regarding attitudes towards education and cross-national analyses regarding the role of STEM education in affecting a variety of societal outcomes. In addition, researchers need to understand how to develop opportunities offered by linkages of the GSS with administrative data. Project descriptions should present a plan for outreach to the STEM education community. The outreach would effectively communicate the potential for GSS data to inform questions that STEM education researchers need to address. The goal would be to build a new and expanded community of scholars who use the GSS to address the broad range of STEM education issues facing our society today. Such outreach would also encourage usage of ISSP data to put the U.S. educational system and dynamics in international perspective. Outreach to underrepresented institutions and demographics is especially encouraged.

Project descriptions must highlight the ways in which GSS data, both past and future, is being made available to users, including researchers, undergraduate and graduate students, and larger communities beyond the academy. Metrics should be included so that the amount of use by various communities can be measured and the assessment of trends in use will be possible. The proposal should include a plan for making these several groups of users aware both of the GSS data and of the capabilities of these data.

Project descriptions should also address the following project management issues:

• The role of the Scientific Advisory Board.
• Standards for data archiving and acquisition.
• Plans for managing and integrating all GSS functions.

All proposals submitted for the GSS competition must include a section titled "Expected Project Significance." This section should address, in separate sub-sections, the intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the project. One sub-section must explain how the next years of the GSS will generate new insight and understanding of attitudes, behaviors and attributes in the United States, taking into account international and temporal comparisons. The second sub-section should discuss the potential broader impacts of the project, including contributions to education, infrastructure, survey methodology and public opinion research. In this sub-section the proposal must explicitly address how the project will promote broadening of participation of underrepresented groups in the science pipeline. This includes, but is not limited to, how the project will provide innovative opportunities for training women, minorities and other groups underrepresented in aspects of social science that the project includes.

Special Requirements and Restrictions

If a project is being undertaken by researchers at multiple organizations, a single organization must be identified as the lead organization. A single proposal describing the entire project must be submitted by the organization with funds distributed among partner organizations via subawards from the lead organization. Direct submission of linked collaborative sets of proposals by multiple organizations is not permitted.

III. Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 1

Anticipated Funding Amount: $16,000,000

Estimated program budget and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Organizations are restricted to submitting only one proposal in response to this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

Individuals identified as Senior/Key personnel (i.e., PI, co-PI, other senior/key personnel) are restricted to participating in only one proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Letters of Intent (required):

Letters of Intent (LOI) are required and must be submitted via Research.gov, even if full proposals will be submitted via Grants.gov.

To expedite the review process for the GSS competitions proposals, an LOI to submit a proposal must be submitted via Research.gov by 5 p.m., submitting organization's local time, on the letter of intent due date. The LOI must contain the following information:

• The title of the project.
• The names and affiliations of the principal investigators and other senior/key personnel and professionals.
• The names of any other participating organizations.

One LOI should be submitted per research team. Failure to meet the LOI deadline will disqualify a proposal from consideration. LOIs are not evaluated for scientific merit; rather, they are used to assemble review panels with appropriate expertise. Please direct any questions about the LOI to Joseph Whitmeyer, RISBS program director.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:

When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

• Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required when submitting Letters of Intent.
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4

  Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted

• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 2

  Other Participating Organizations are permitted

• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not permitted

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following instructions supplement or deviate from the guidance contained in the PAPPG:

Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step 1 of the Full Proposal wizard. The information in Step 2, Where to Apply, is pre-populated by the system. Please note that no co-reviews will be allowed for GSS proposals and additional programs must not be added after the proposal is created. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards). Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

Title

The title of the proposal should describe the project in concise, informative language so that a scientifically or technically literate reader could understand what the project is about. The title of the proposal should include the following prefix to designate the specific kind of proposal being submitted, with the substantive title of the project following the prefix: GSS:

Project Description

The Project Description is limited to 25 pages in length.

1. GSS Research Project

With the exceptions noted below, proposers may organize the different components, including the requirements outlined in Section II above, of the project description as they wish. The following sections MUST be included under separate headings in the project description:

• Management Plan. The following information should be provided: (1) a description of the management structure that will enable the team to work effectively; and (2) specification of the qualifications of each of the senior/key personnel as well as the contribution they are expected to make to the project. This section increases in importance as the number of senior/key personnel or organizations involved in the project increases. The management plan usually is between 1 and 2 pages in length.
• Expected Project Significance: This section should clearly specify what proposers expect will be the results and contributions of the project. The section should include a separate subsection to address: 1) the expected Intellectual Merit of the proposal and 2) the expected Broader Impacts. In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the subsection addressing broader impacts must a separate subsection and must clearly be labeled "Broader Impacts." This section should clearly specify how the proposed work will advance basic knowledge and make intellectual contributions across multiple social and behavioral science fields. It should also convey expected benefits to society, including enhancing opportunities for underrepresented groups in the science pipeline.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

Following are supplementary documents for which special instructions are provided for proposals submitted in response to this solicitation:

NSF-Required Supplementary Documentation

Data Management and Sharing Plan

All proposals must include a plan for data management and sharing the products of research.

The data management and sharing plan must address all five of the points specified in the NSF PAPPG, Chapter II.D.2.i. Proposers are especially encouraged to specify how they intend to make data, software, and other products of the research readily available to potential users through institutionally based archives, repositories, or distribution networks so that the products may be easily accessed by others over long time periods.

GSS-Required Supplementary Documentation

Cybersecurity Plan

All proposals must include a two-page plan for ensuring the security of all data that may be accessible via electronic means. In addition, the plan must indicate how confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained for data that may be linked to administrative or other kinds of data. If an award is made, the plan will need to be maintained.

Confirmation Statements from All Senior/Key Personnel

Because an individual may serve as senior/key personnel on only one GSS proposal submitted in response to this solicitation, the following statement, provided from each individual designated as Senior/Key Personnel, must be included as a supplementary document in the proposal. (This statement may be in the form of a signed statement or a statement sent by e-mail to the PI.)

To: NSF GSS Competition

From: ____________________________________
(Printed name of the individual collaborator or name of the organization and name and position of the official submitting this memo)

By signing or transmitting this message electronically, I acknowledge that I am a PI, co-PI, or other member of the senior/key personnel for the project outlined in the proposal titled "_____(proposal title)_______," with _______(PI name)______ as the Principal Investigator.

In addition, I confirm that I am not a PI, co-PI, or other member of the senior/key personnel for any other project submitted for the GSS competition.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

If an individual is involved as PI, co-PI, or other member of the senior/key personnel on two or more GSS proposals submitted, all proposals with which that person is associated will be returned without review.

Other Allowable Types of Supplementary Documentation

The following kinds of documentation may be included as supplementary documentation in a GSS proposal.

Letters of Collaboration

Brief statements, whether written as letters or as free-standing e-mail messages from individuals and/or organizations that will work with the PIs and/or provide assistance for the proposed project, may be included as supplementary documents. Such letters are not needed from individuals included as senior/key personnel on a project or from subawardee organizations because their involvement in the project is affirmed by the inclusion of their biographical sketches and/or subaward budgets.

Letters of collaboration should focus on the willingness of the letter's author to collaborate or provide assistance for the project in ways that have been outlined in the proposal. Such letters should not argue for support of the project by articulating in greater detail what activities the collaborator will undertake and/or by elaborating reasons for supporting the project. Such additional text may be included in the project description of the proposal but is not permitted in a supplementary document.

The RISBS program directors strongly recommend the use of a template like the following for letters of collaboration. If this template or very similar text is not used, the text provided by the letter's author must be equally brief and to the point. Inclusion of longer letters may result in the PIs being forced to remove such letters (with no other changes to the proposal permitted) or in NSF's returning the proposal without review.

Suggested template for a letter of collaboration. (This statement may be in the form of a signed statement or a statement sent by email to the PI.)

To: NSF GSS Competition

From: ____________________________________ [Insert the name of the individual collaborator or insert the name of the organization and the name and position of the official submitting this statement]

By signing below or by transmitting this message electronically, I acknowledge that I/my organization [Choose appropriate text] will collaborate in and/or assist with the conduct of the project described in the proposal titled "____________" [Insert proposal title] with _____________ [Insert the PI's name] as the Principal Investigator.

I/My organization [Choose appropriate text] will provide assistance as described in the project description of this proposal.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

Institution Review Board (IRB) Certifications

Proposers are reminded to consult the PAPPG policies on proposals involving human subjects.

Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Supplementary Documentation

If the GSS proposal is being submitted from a primarily undergraduate institution, the two supplementary documents described in the Facilitating Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions: Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and Research Opportunity Awards (ROA) solicitation are permissible in proposals submitted to the GSS competition. Those supplementary documents are a certification of RUI eligibility and a separate RUI impact statement. Prepare these documents in accordance with instructions in the RUI/ROA solicitation.

Note that the RUI/ROA solicitation includes instructions that specify that if a predominantly undergraduate institution is submitting an RUI proposal for the GSS competition, it should select the number of the RUI/ROA solicitation for the cover sheet, but it should then select the SES-RISBS program as the NSF unit to consider the proposal, and it should include reference to the proposal being submitted for the GSS competition in the first sentence of the project summary. Although the proposal may be formally submitted in response to the RUI/ROA solicitation, the proposal must otherwise be compliant with all requirements in the GSS solicitation.

Supplementary Documentation NOT Allowed in GSS Proposals

Letters of Support

As specified in the PAPPG, letters of support are not permitted in NSF proposals unless specifically authorized in a solicitation. The GSS solicitation does NOT allow the submission of letters of support as supplementary documents. Letters from others that expound on or articulate in detail what activities a collaborator may undertake may be included in the project description, although inclusion of such letters must be accommodated within the 25 pages permitted for the project description.

Research Instruments, Data, Publications and Other Non-permissible Supplementary Documentation

Documentation that elaborates on how research will be conducted is not permitted as supplementary documentation. Survey or interview protocols, lists of data to be examined or already collected, graphics related to the project, and other such documentation may be included within the 25 pages permitted for the project description, but they may not be included as supplementary documents.

Reprints of publications or other materials that provide additional evidence of the past work of the researchers are not permitted as supplementary documents.

If a principal investigator has any uncertainty regarding the possible appropriateness of any document to be included as supplementary documentation, the investigator should contact the RISBS program officer, usually well in advance of the proposal submission deadline.

Appendices

No appendices are permitted.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the project to be conducted.

C. Due Dates

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

       June 07, 2024

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

       August 15, 2024

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html. For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail rgov@nsf.gov. The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov 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.

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. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical 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 Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide, and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions. Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. 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 either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with 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. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

These criteria apply to the scientific infrastructure objectives listed in Section II.

• Possession of the scientific expertise and resources needed for survey instrument and sample development and innovation;
• Capacity to develop and implement modules to meet the needs of the social science research community, other government agencies, and potential funders;
• Cost-effectiveness;
• Ability to continue collecting high-quality data from the cross-sectional sample of 2,500 new respondents while maintaining the target response rate of at least 55%;
• Ability to process, edit, and release data, variables and codebooks within the target timeframe of 12 months after collection;
• Ability to maintain and develop survey data infrastructure;
• Ability to generate tutorials illustrating the use of the data;
• Ability to maintain a sensitive data archive, user assistance, and bibliographic and award archive; and
• Quality of oversight and management plan.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. 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 strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform 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.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, 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.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. 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.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, 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 notice; (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 notice. 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 https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

The membership of the GSS Board of Overseers will be selected jointly by the awardee in coordination with the cognizant NSF program officer. The cognizant program officer has final approval of the membership of the Board and can suggest additional members as needed.

The awardee will be expected to develop and implement the GSS as well as archive and disseminate data from the same.

C. Reporting Requirements

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 no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. 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 Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Joseph M. Whitmeyer, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-7808, email: jwhitmey@nsf.gov
• Lee D. Walker, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-7174, email: lwalker@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: rgov@nsf.gov

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail:support@grants.gov.

IX. Other Information

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, "NSF Update" 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 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. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov.

About The National Science Foundation

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 55,000 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 Arctic 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 (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 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 https://www.nsf.gov Location: 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 For General Information (NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111 TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090 To Order Publications or Forms:   Send an e-mail to: nsfpubs@nsf.gov or telephone: (703) 292-8134 To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

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 proposers 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 proposers 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 System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." 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
Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support
Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314