Innovation and Organizational Sciences | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): NSF Innovation and Organizational Sciences (IOS) Program (Archived)

1) What was the NSF Innovation and Organizational Sciences (IOS) program?

The Innovation and Organizational Sciences (IOS) program was a discretionary National Science Foundation (NSF) grant opportunity within NSF's Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences portfolio (CFDA 47.075). It supported theory-driven research aimed at building generalizable scientific knowledge about how organizations innovate and how they function, compete, change, and evolve.

2) What was the main goal of IOS-funded research?

The core purpose was to advance broadly generalizable, theory-based explanations of organizational phenomena. IOS emphasized insights that extend beyond a single company, site, or one-off intervention, with the aim of improving scientific understanding of innovation and organizational dynamics across contexts.

3) What kinds of topics did IOS consider within scope?

IOS positioned innovation and innovation management as central themes, while also welcoming related drivers of organizational effectiveness and competitiveness. Examples mentioned in the opportunity include adaptation, coordination, learning, diffusion of practices, and mechanisms of organizational change over time.

4) How broadly did IOS define "organization" and "organizational research"?

IOS was explicitly broad in what it considered "organizational." Research could examine multiple levels of analysis, including individuals (e.g., managers, entrepreneurs, employees), groups and teams, entire organizations, relationships across organizations (e.g., alliances, supply networks, partnerships, ecosystems), and larger institutional arrangements (e.g., industry structures, regulatory environments, professional norms).

5) What levels of analysis could a project focus on?

The program allowed work at many levels: individual, group/team, organizational, interorganizational, and institutional. Projects could also examine interactions across levels, as long as the research design remained rigorous and the contribution was theory-driven and generalizable.

6) Which disciplines or intellectual perspectives were encouraged?

IOS encouraged a wide range of perspectives, including organization theory, strategy, organizational behavior, industrial and social psychology, technology and innovation management, organizational sociology, entrepreneurship, organizational economics, communication and information sciences, public administration, and decision and management sciences.

7) Was IOS open to interdisciplinary proposals?

Yes. Interdisciplinary openness was a stated feature of IOS. The program sought explanations that were theoretically anchored while being informed by the realities of how organizations operate in different contexts.

8) What research methods were acceptable under IOS?

IOS supported a diverse methodological toolkit and did not privilege one method over another. Approaches referenced in the opportunity included qualitative and quantitative designs such as archival and longitudinal analyses, surveys, experiments (lab, field, or natural experiments), simulation and computational modeling, comparative case studies, and social or interorganizational network analysis.

9) Did IOS require a specific research design or method?

No. The program emphasized that methods should be rigorous and aligned with the scientific question. The key requirement was that the research be grounded in theory and produce broadly generalizable knowledge.

10) What kinds of research settings were considered appropriate?

IOS welcomed research across many settings, including private industry, education, service organizations, government agencies, nonprofits, voluntary organizations, and interorganizational arrangements. The program focus was the general science of organizing and innovating wherever it occurs.

11) What was a key boundary or "line" IOS drew about what it would fund?

A central boundary was that funded work needed to be theory-driven and aimed at producing broadly generalizable knowledge. While research could be motivated by real-world problems, IOS distinguished between studying organizational phenomena to advance fundamental understanding versus implementing, rolling out, or evaluating a specific innovation or change program for practical adoption.

12) Would proposals focused mainly on implementing or evaluating a specific intervention be a fit?

The opportunity stated that proposals primarily focused on deployment, implementation, or program evaluation of a particular intervention, without a strong contribution to theory and generalizable insight, were not appropriate for IOS.

13) Could an IOS project involve collaboration with industry or work inside industrial sites?

Yes, research could involve close collaboration with industry or work inside industrial sites. The announcement also pointed applicants to NSF's GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry) mechanism as a potentially relevant complement for structuring industry-university collaborations while still pursuing publishable, generalizable science.

14) What is GOALI in relation to this opportunity?

GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry) was referenced as a mechanism that could complement IOS when investigators planned close collaboration with industry or research conducted within industrial settings.

15) What was the Funding Opportunity Number for IOS?

The opportunity was issued under NSF Funding Opportunity Number PD 07 5376.

16) Was cost sharing required?

No. The opportunity stated there was no cost sharing requirement.

17) Who was eligible to apply?

The opportunity described eligibility as generally unrestricted, subject to any additional eligibility clarifications in the full solicitation text.

18) How many awards and how much total funding were anticipated?

At the time the program was active, NSF anticipated about 20 awards with an estimated total funding level of about $3.2 million.

19) What were the proposal target dates listed for this solicitation?

The solicitation listed proposal target dates that included February 2 (annually thereafter) and September 3 (annually thereafter). It also listed an original closing date of September 3, 2009.

20) Is this IOS solicitation still accepting proposals?

No. The record indicates the opportunity is archived and no longer receiving proposals. An archive date of December 9, 2011 is provided, meaning this specific solicitation is historical (even if related NSF programs may exist in updated form).

21) Does the archived status mean NSF no longer funds research on these topics?

The information provided indicates only that this specific solicitation is archived. It also notes that related NSF programs may exist in updated form, but details of any current opportunities are not provided here.

22) What does NSF mean by "generalizable" knowledge in this context?

Within the description provided, "generalizable" refers to research that explains organizational phenomena in ways that extend beyond a single company, site, or intervention, producing insights that contribute to broader theory and scientific understanding rather than one-off solutions tailored to a specific organization.

23) Can a project focus on innovation without being limited to innovation management?

Yes. Innovation and innovation management were central themes, but IOS also extended to other organizational dynamics tied to effectiveness and competitiveness, such as learning, coordination, diffusion of practices, adaptation, and change over time.

24) Are network-based studies within scope?

Yes. The opportunity explicitly listed social or interorganizational network analysis as an acceptable methodological approach.

25) Are both qualitative and quantitative studies acceptable?

Yes. IOS supported both qualitative and quantitative designs, including approaches such as comparative case studies (qualitative) and surveys, experiments, and archival/longitudinal analyses (often quantitative), provided the design was rigorous and aligned to the research question.