The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is pleased to announce a new small grants program to support creative research on the U.S. workforce and labor markets in science and engineering (“S&E”).

Available data indicate that nearly 7.4 million persons are engaged in S&E occupations, representing about 5% of the civilian U.S. workforce of 147 million. Though a rather small percentage of the total, this S&E workforce is very highly skilled, and many are engaged in leading-edge R&D activities that are critical to the future economic wellbeing of the United States. In addition, a similar percentage of U.S. workers have earned at least bachelors degrees in S&E fields but are employed in non-S&E occupations. Rather little is known about the latter category.

We believe that much could be gained from an improved understanding of the U.S. S&E workforce and the labor markets in which it operates. These subjects have long attracted a great deal of rhetorical and political commentary, yet objective research attention has been limited by the difficulty of obtaining needed grant funding.

Depending on the number and quality of proposals received, this grant program will provide up to 10 research grants. Awardees will be selected on the basis of recommendations by a peer review committee of leading researchers. Projects of up to two years in length will be considered. Proposed budgets requested cannot exceed a total of $45,000, though we expect that most successful submissions will be smaller than this ceiling. No overhead or indirect cost deductions can be allowed; requested funds should be allocated entirely to the proposed research efforts.

We understand that grants of this size will not be sufficient to support substantial levels of original data collection. However, we encourage applicants to consider creative ways to make use of existing datasets such as those produced by the National Science Foundation, as well as of new and very large datasets emerging from the American Community Survey and the New Immigrant Survey.

Topics to be addressed may range widely so long as they address issues that offer the possibility of improving our collective understanding of the U.S. S&E workforce. We list below some examples of researchable questions, but we emphasize that submissions need not be limited to these examples:

1. Relative attractiveness of career paths: We have special interest in assessments of the relative attractiveness of recent and current career trajectories in science and engineering over the life-course, i.e. at early-, mid-, and late-career stages, relative to those of other high-skill professions. We include elements such as: length of required training periods; student debt burdens; patterns and trends in the availability of job openings; remuneration; stability of employment and career; upward mobility; retention in S&E occupations; the impacts of industry cycles on career patterns; etc.
2. S&E graduates in non-S&E occupations: What occupational paths are being followed by the reportedly large fraction of S&E degree-holders who are in non-S&E occupations in the U.S.? How should we understand the responses of those who report to NSF surveys that their jobs are closely or somewhat related to their highest S&E degree? Is there credible empirical evidence to support the claim that the productivity of all workers is increased by S&E knowledge, even in non-S&E occupations?
3. “Mismatch” between education and occupation: With respect to U.S.-educated engineers and scientists, is there evidence of what some describe as “mismatches” between U.S. S&E education and occupational opportunities in S&E fields, and do foreign-educated scientists and engineers differ in this respect?
4. Retention/completion in S&E degrees: What are the key factors underlying the reportedly low retention/completion rates in S&E undergraduate degrees (with ca. 50% of entering freshmen who intend to complete majors in such fields not doing so)? What fields do they shift to, and what careers do they pursue subsequently? To what extent do these differ by gender and underrepresented minority status?
5. Sufficiency of supply: What are the sources and key arguments underlying continuing reports of “shortages” of scientists and engineers in the U.S.? What kinds of data, experiences, anecdotes, or other evidence are presented? What can be said empirically about the kinds of organizations and/or individuals that promote and oppose such arguments?
6. Longitudinal and/or synthetic data: Are there creative ways to take advantage of existing but under-utilized longitudinal datasets, or alternatively to develop improved longitudinal and/or synthetic data, that would allow us to better characterize and analyze career paths and remuneration trends of U.S.-born engineers and scientists, disaggregated by field? Are there similar approaches possible for scientists and engineers who are foreign-born but U.S.-educated? For those who are both foreign-born and foreign-educated?
7. Improving labor market projections: With due attention to the failure of past efforts and the difficulties involved, research to improve the sophistication and credibility of projections of supply and demand in S&E labor markets, including assessments of the oft-cited industry and occupation projections produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
8. Proportions foreign-born: What are the most important factors underlying empirical patterns and trends (disaggregated by S&E field and type of institution or employer) in the proportions foreign-born among a) U.S. graduate students, b) postdocs, and c) those working in the U.S. in S&E occupations? What are the best ways to measure these? To what extent can they be accurately measured? What can be learned from non-U.S. databases about U.S.-trained scientists and engineers working outside the U.S.?
9. Return rates: For foreign-born graduate students and postdocs who have studied at U.S. universities, what have been historical and recent patterns in rates of short-to-medium-term return to home countries vs. long-term or full-career employment in the U.S., disaggregated by field and country of origin? Can leading indicators of changes in historical return-rate patterns be developed for rapidly-developing countries such as China and India?
10. Characteristics of student, temporary worker, and permanent admissions: What similarities and differences (e.g. skill levels; countries of origin; career experiences; sectors/disciplines of employment; etc.) can be discerned between S&E migrants admitted to the U.S. under differing provisions of law, e.g. a) as foreign students and exchange visitors; b) as temporary workers, e.g. H-1B; c) as legal permanent residents?
11. Uses and impacts of temporary worker visa programs: What can be shown empirically as to how U.S. universities use temporary visa programs? Do non-academic employers use such workers in distinctive ways? Are there any discernable effects of temporary visa programs upon the broader S&E workforce, e.g. alleged weakening of attachment of company, career, country? Alleged links to offshore outsourcing?
12. Case studies of key employers: Carefully-selected case studies of how the forces of globalization and technology are affecting recruitment and careers of scientists and engineers in industries such as aerospace, computer, semiconductor, pharmaceuticals, or in multinational companies such as Boeing, IBM, etc.
13. Labs: Studies of scientific labs and career patterns inside them, as distinct from studies forcused on individual scientists and engineers.
14. Conceptual analyses: What can be usefully learned about some of the distinctive aspects of S&E activities, e.g. the production of public goods usable by others, or the roles played by open scientific networks in which ideas generate ideas.
15. Scientists working in industry: What are the distinctive elements of science careers in industry, including attention to how long such scientists continue in research tracks, the extent to which they switch employers, mobility between industrial and academic paths, the extent to which their careers are affected by business cycles, etc.
16. Postdocs: What factors affect the length of postdocs, including differing and/or changing disciplinary norms, labor market demand, time-limit policies in some universities? What more can be learned about the kinds of positions into which “graduating” postdocs are now transitioning?
    

We emphasize that the above list of topics is intended only to illustrate the kinds of topics we have in mind. Our overarching goal is to encourage the development of innovative yet feasible research ideas that best emerge from the creative insights of researchers.

Eligibility

Grants can be made only to U.S. institutions of higher education and research that are eligible for Foundation grants. An appropriate officer of the institution must indicate its willingness to receive and administer the proposed grant.

Grant applicants must be faculty members or other regular employees of the eligible institution.

Application procedures:

Proposals may be submitted via regular mail or as email and attachments, by the program deadlines (see below).

Proposals must not exceed 20 pages double-spaced. Appendices with additional information may be attached if so wished.

The proposal should include, on the first page, a brief abstract of 100 words or less.

In addition, please attach:

• a brief (1-2 page) curriculum vitae for the researcher(s)
• a simple line-item budget of proposed expenditures.
  

Term and budget of proposed grants:

The term of proposed projects should be two years or less. These are intended to be small research grants; in no case should the total budget for the requested term exceed $45,000, and we expect that the amounts requested by most successful submissions will be smaller than that limit. The proposal should include a simple line-item budget justifying the funding items requested, and confirming that no indirect costs or overhead charges will be applied by the institution.

Two rounds of review are planned, with the following submission deadlines:

• April 7, 2008
• November 17, 2008

Submissions and inquiries should be addressed to:

Michael S. Teitelbaum
Vice President
Research Awards on the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2550
New York, NY 10111
Teitelbaum@sloan.org