Your proposal has both overlap with what we asked and substantial
additional detail that would be helpful to know.
Courtney would probably have additional suggestions if you/we ask her.
My only thoughts on reading through this are
a) I would break out research staff more to include support duties
at observatories vs. the various ranks of research faculty. I
would also include non-tenure track faculty. Not only does this
capture what could be a meaningful fraction of the respondents,
but if people don't see their category there, they can become
disillusioned about the survey, not answer, and that gives biased
results.
b) It is OK to have questions with lots of possible sub-categories,
like your PI and co-I grant writing questions. The way to keep
this from taking too much time is to have it set up with drop
down categories for the number of proposals in each category or
a neatly formatted table where respondents can put in the number
of proposals that they have had in each category.
c) I suggest breaking out the formula-driven observation-support
grants into a separate table as for many colleagues, this signal
may overwhelm the number of standard research proposals that they
have written. The dollar values are often substantially less as
well.
d) I like the question "Is writing grant applications an explicit
(or an unspoken but implicit) expectation for your position?" yet
suggest it is set up so that someone could instead check "explicit",
"implicit", or "not an expectation". Possibly the first two
categories could be expanded to be
"strong explicit expectation"
"moderate explicit expectation"
"strong implicit expectation"
"moderate implicit expectation"
"not an expectation".