Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| aaac:apr27 [2015/04/24 12:40] – prisca | aaac:apr27 [2015/05/25 13:24] (current) – prisca | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ==== AAAC Proposal Pressures Group: | + | ==== Agenda April 27, 2015 ==== |
| - | === List of possible survey questions that go beyond the Von Hippel | + | * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel |
| - | == Important note: This list is far too long and we would clearly need to reduce the number of questions, | + | * Discussion: See below. |
| - | * How would the following actions by the funding agencies affect you? | + | * Moving forward with Agency Statistics and Analysis. The {{: |
| - | * Limiting applicants to one PI or CoI proposal per year: | + | * Next Teleconference - AOB |
| - | * This action would increase the time I could spend on my research | + | |
| - | * This action would reduce my chances for tenure. | + | |
| - | * This action would cause me to leave the field. | + | |
| - | * This action would reduce the number of proposals I submit. | + | |
| - | * This action would improve | + | |
| - | * This action would reduce the size of my research group | + | |
| - | * Calling for proposals every other year | + | |
| - | * Etc.. | + | |
| - | * Introducing | + | |
| - | * Etc... | + | |
| - | * Reducing | + | |
| - | * Etc.. | + | |
| - | * Creating smaller research grants for exploratory research, with an expectation that successful proposals are likely to be funded in the following year | + | |
| - | * Proposals to non-governmental research funds are easier to get funded (or "are available to me" ) | ||
| - | * There are too many scientists in the field of astrophysics and the low success rate is an appropriate method of population control | ||
| - | * My institution uses successful proposals as a primary reason for promotion | ||
| + | ==== Discussion with Ted ==== | ||
| + | === FYI, here are some comments from his email === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Your proposal has both overlap with what we asked and substantial | ||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | would also include non-tenure track faculty. | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | well. | ||
| + | d) I like the question "Is writing grant applications an explicit | ||
| + | (or an unspoken but implicit) expectation for your position?" | ||
| + | suggest it is set up so that someone could instead check " | ||
| + | " | ||
| + | categories could be expanded to be | ||
| + | " | ||
| + | " | ||
| + | " | ||
| + | " | ||
| + | "not an expectation" | ||
| - | All these are to answered by strongly agree <--> neutral <--> strongly disagree) | ||