The document addresses a series of clarifications and policy explanations related to the Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey, particularly focusing on eligible funding sources, categorization of expenditures, data reporting challenges, and suggested improvements. It clarifies that Hatch Act funding should be included in the HERD survey only for the R&D component conducted by the university, given its cooperative research nature. Cooperative extension service (CES) expenditures can also be included if they pass through the university’s accounting system and are strictly for research or development purposes, not for education or outreach. Indirect costs should not be included in institutional expenditures except where specified for externally funded R&D, although incorporating unrecovered indirect costs across all relevant subsections can present practical difficulties. The breakout of institutional funds, including cost-sharing and under-recovery, is not currently shared at the institution level due to concerns over potential repercussions, but aggregate data can be provided by Carnegie code or grouped expenditures.
The document also discusses the application of updated definitions for basic research, applied research, and experimental development, aiming to improve clarity and consistency with international standards but acknowledging the ongoing challenge of accurately categorizing activities. Reporting research by field of science remains critical for benchmarking and policy-making, with classification systems harmonized with federal standards to support data usability. Interdisciplinary research poses persistent reporting challenges, as the current survey structure requires allocations by academic department or field, a system seen as inadequate for genuinely cross-disciplinary work. Ongoing efforts to refine data collection processes are described, although solutions remain in development. NSF awards should be categorized according to HERD survey definitions, not merely by agency guidance for financial reporting. Routine fee-for-service activities may be categorized differently for internal versus HERD reporting, reflecting differing survey objectives. Finally, the document outlines reporting unit guidelines, specifying exclusions and discussing a proposed allowance for combined campus reporting under strict administrative criteria, and poses questions about the potential impact of such a policy change on institutions’ reporting practices and rankings.
