Game Changer Academies focuses on intra- and inter-personal dynamics in the context of peer review. Our content is informed by research and best practice literature surrounding four key concepts: cultivating great discussions, mitigating cognitive shortcuts, engaging multiple perspectives, and approaching conflict constructively. Additionally, we draw significantly from research on peer review and gatekeeping in academia. Our primary emphasis is on the panel review discussion itself: after individuals have drafted their individual reviews and before a panel summary and subsequent funding decision is made.

This program is not a “how to” format, nor does it give simple answers. Game Changer Academies is designed with faculty in mind: people who are already highly trained to synthesize data and information and translate ideas into action through complex, adaptive, and continually evolving discussions with peers.

While NSF is fundamentally responsible for the funding decisions and processes it oversees, acceptable risk associated with the advancement of human knowledge and capacity cannot be defined by an institution. Across academia, the balance of risk, achievement and failure is negotiated daily through deep discussion between faculty, researchers, academic administrators, and scholarly experts. The target moves, evolves, and is understood differently according to a significant array of factors. Game Changer Academies exists because achieving this understanding requires highly skilled interactions and group processes. So, we don’t define an acceptable risk of failure in precise terms, but we do contribute to the capacity of the scholarly community to engage this important question.

We hope so! This type of conflict is the result of untended processes, missed opportunities, and constrained interactions. Game Changer Academies examines these variables and provides tools to produce better outcomes.

Panel Fellows will work with other panelists and Program Directors to mitigate cognitive bias in the review process. Because cognitive biases of any type, including implicit bias related to gender, race, and other social identities, are hardwired into the way we function as humans, awareness alone cannot eliminate bias. Instead we examine how and why cognitive biases operate so that Panel Fellows can actively take steps to mitigate the effects of these biases in the review process to produce more appropriate and equitable decisions.

This functions similarly to the role of a weather forecast: awareness does not change what the weather is, but it can significantly impact our ability to prepare for and navigate the effects of a particular weather pattern.

We assume that all Panel Fellows already bring some facility to the tasks associated with proposal review. Game Changer Academies addresses how the review process functions after individuals have read and initially reviewed a proposal.

The Game Changer Academies curriculum focuses on panel interactions and discussion; it is not designed to examine proposal components or review criteria. That said, high quality discussions hinge on common definitions and shared processes. (Indeed, a common discussion pitfall is working at cross-purposes as individuals to solve different problems.) Since intellectual merit and broader impacts exemplify a common cause of any NSF panel review, they do deserve (and receive) attention in the Game Changer Academies program. Watch this 20 minute video for additional information about NSF’s definition of these review criteria.

C-GCA focuses on the interactions that occur within a panel review discussion; C-GCA program leaders and discussion leaders will bring this as their primary expertise. CMMI leadership and Program Directors are the best source of information about NSF’s review and decision-making process as well as any changes in the division. There may be opportunities during the course of CMMI’s Game Changer Academies to hear directly from CMMI leadership. Additionally, conversations with other Panel Fellows will be a great way exchange information about how the review process works.

Academia is a conglomeration of ideas, questions, theories, frameworks, and projects that each represent a set of literatures, methodologies and disciplinary worldviews. As such, this skill set is cultivated across the full trajectory of a scholar’s career and is not easily generalized across disciplines or reduced to a procedure. What Game Changer Academies does address is how each individual brings vital and unique insights to a panel review discussion and how the interaction among panel members recognizes, utilizes, and benefits from these individual contributions so that a collective and relevant expertise is applied.

Mostly no – for two key reasons. First, the advancement of knowledge is a highly social and interpersonal process, not just a cognitive one. Science requires the human capacities to imagine, to challenge ourselves and each other, and to risk the unknown – and to support others as they take that risk. We rely on the variability, peculiarity, and genius of individuals to inform our understanding of quality, excellence, and science. In other words, the variable outcomes of panel discussions serve a larger mission.

To allow for this, NSF peer review is designed with many checks and balances. Panel reviews need not be so regimented that they produce the same outcome no matter the players. The process accounts for the variability.

At the same time, even functional peer review processes include avoidance of or poorly executed conflict; unconscious bias that penalizes, obscures, and excludes; and group dynamics hindered by academic egos and hierarchies. That is something we can and should change. Game Changer Academies’ Panel Fellows are at the cutting edge of this change.

As with panels themselves, faculty at all ranks are eligible to be Panel Fellows. Panel Fellows will also discuss how rank may impact group dynamics during the course of a given panel discussion.

CMMI is taking the lead with bringing Game Changer Academies to NSF. Other divisions and directorates are asking similar questions. CMMI’s success may pave the way for innovation in other programs.

There is no formal designation of membership in the CMMI community. By default, “membership” is defined as anyone with relevant expertise to be a panelist on a CMMI panel. On a practical basis, that means anyone who submits a proposal to CMMI, has been funded by CMMI, or could submit a proposal – but it’s not actually limited to that since panelists are sometimes drawn from other fields to help assess things like broader impacts.

Another way to think about the CMMI community is the people who receive CMMI’s listserv.
Anyone interested in subscribing can join by sending a blank email to engcmmicommunity-subscribe-request@listserv.nsf.gov

A third way to connect to NSF is to complete the Reviewer Recruitment Form for the ENG Division here:
https://nsfevaluation.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1HsLEUn9ktzrLue

Game Changer Academies is an investment in the quality of panel discussions broadly. As skilled discussion participants, the presence of Panel Fellows on a panel is intended to elevate the participation of all panelists and increase the capacity of the panel to benefit from a diversity of expertise and experience.

Yes. Program Directors will continue to lead the panel review process. The focus of Game Changer Academies is to increase panelists’ skill as participants in robust panel discussions.

There are no plans at this time to require Panel Fellow status of all CMMI panelists.