Skip to main content
National Cancer Institute

A framework for analyzing funded and nonfunded teams through each phase of a research grant competition

Edit resource

Weber G, Contractor N, Lungeanu A, Tyshchuk Y. A framework for analyzing funded and nonfunded teams through each phase of a research grant competition. Oral presentation at 2017 SciTS Conference. Clearwater Beach, FL. Jun 14, 2017. Approaches To Foster New Innovative Collaborations.

In this presentation we describe our approach towards evaluating teams participating in an internal funding competition for $50,000 research pilot grants, conducted within Harvard in 2009 by its Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Of 37,266 eligible faculty, 1,469 formed 458 teams that submitted proposals. Peer-review narrowed this to 99 teams that were invited to in-person interviews, and 65 were awarded funding. We developed a Multi-Theoretical Multilevel (MTML) model to create an integrated explanatory framework to understand collaboration at multiple levels: (1) Individual (actor) level, such as academic rank and gender of each faculty member; (2) Relational (dyad) level, such as prior collaboration between team members; and (3) Higher Order (ecosystem) levels, such as connections between teams. Using the MTML model, we were able to study three distinct phases of the pilot grant process: (1) In the Team Assembly Phase we looked at which investigators chose to collaborate on a proposal and whether new collaborations formed; (2) in the Peer Review Phase, we looked for characteristics of the teams that were awarded funding; and, (3) in the Post-Award Phase, we followed all teams for five years to determine both the impact of funding on the awarded teams and the impact of applying on the non-funded teams. We developed a two-part analytical approach: (1) “Random Teams” compared actual teams that applied for funding to matched virtual teams consisting of randomly selected faculty who did not apply; and (2) “Random Networks” used exponential random graph models (ERGM) to study the applicants and awarded teams. Our findings include: (1) most teams consisted of a small core of prior collaborators joined by several new faculty, (2) faculty of the same gender were more likely to collaborate on proposals, and (3) non-funded teams continued to collaborate almost as much as funded teams.



Type of Publication:

Oral presentation


scits 2017 conference, presentation, pilot, grants, research grant

Addresses these goal(s):

  • Learn about the field of team science: history, theory and concepts
  • Conduct research on/evaluate team science

Comments (0 comments)

Add Comments
Resource created by Jane Hwang on 10/5/2017 3:08:06 PM.

Narrow your search by
resource type or goal:

Advanced Search



Email this page