Research Methodology
SPARC employs a tiered evidence-gathering strategy combining national-level environmental scans, systematic literature reviews, institutional document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and participatory feedback cycles.
Research Methods
National Policy Scan
Comparative analysis of research security policies across 46+ U.S. higher education institutions, examining IRB, RCR, export controls, and NSPM-33 compliance.
Systematic Literature Review
Comprehensive review of scholarly and policy literature from 2010-2025 using Scopus, Web of Science, and Semantic Scholar databases.
Stakeholder Interviews
IRB-approved semi-structured interviews with 30+ individuals including research administrators, IT professionals, faculty, and compliance officers.
NLP Discourse Analysis
Natural Language Processing analysis of public digital discourse from 2024-2026, including topic modeling, sentiment analysis, and TF-IDF weighting.
Phased Evidence Building
National Landscape Scan
- ●Environmental scan of 50+ institutional policies
- ●Systematic literature review (2010-2025)
- ●Social media discourse analysis via NLP
- ●Field Scan Report & Literature Review Report
Institutional Case Studies
- ●Selection of 3-5 diverse case study institutions
- ●IRB-approved semi-structured interviews
- ●Thematic coding of qualitative data
- ●Secondary Data Analysis Report
TWG Convenings
- ●Recruitment of 5 national experts
- ●Three virtual TWG convenings
- ●Feedback integration into RSPF draft
- ●Preliminary RSPF Design Memo
Framework Finalization
- ●Usability testing at case study institutions
- ●Iterative refinement based on feedback
- ●Toolkit Bundle with templates and guides
- ●Issue Brief & NSF Proposal Strategy Memo
Data Sources
SPARC utilizes a range of high-value data sources selected for their relevance to the research security landscape, accessibility, and potential to inform institutional profiling, policy review, and empirical analysis.
| Source | Purpose | Access | Used For |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPEDS | Institutional characteristics (size, type) | Open | Field Scan, Secondary Data |
| NSF HERD Survey | R&D expenditure trends | Open | Secondary Data |
| NSF Research.gov | NSF awards & security-related projects | Open | Field Scan, Issue Brief |
| NCARS Reports | Academic threat models & mitigation | Open | Field Scan, Issue Brief |
| NIST CSF & 800-171 | Cybersecurity standards in education | Open | Issue Brief, RSPF |
| Scopus / Web of Science | Literature on compliance & gaps | Subscription | Literature Review |
| Semantic Scholar | NLP-mined trends in research literature | Open | Literature Review |
| Data.gov | Cybersecurity & education datasets | Open | Field Scan, Secondary Data |
What We Have Discovered
The Compliance Divide
A stark and widening gap exists between Tier 1 institutions with comprehensive security programs and Tier 2 institutions operating in a 'compliance desert' with minimal infrastructure.
Literature Gap
Peer-reviewed scholarly literature on research security at small-to-mid-sized institutions is remarkably thin. The most actionable information exists in gray literature and federal policy documents.
Universal Ethics, Uneven Security
While IRB and RCR policies are universally adopted, a significant compliance maturity gap exists in export controls and NSPM-33 responses, strongly correlated with R&D expenditure levels.
Practitioner Disconnect
NLP analysis of public discourse reveals a growing disconnect between federal policy intent and practitioner experience, dominated by themes of administrative overload and compliance fatigue.