Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials

User Tools

Trace: • cosmic • vtech • apr27
aaac:apr27

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
aaac:apr27 [2015/04/27 14:01] – priscaaaac:apr27 [2015/05/25 13:24] (current) – prisca
Line 1: Line 1:
-==== AAAC Proposal Pressures Group: Agenda April 27, 2015 ====+==== Agenda April 27, 2015 ====
   * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel on the article and its survey. Linked at [[aaac:resources|RESOURCES]]   * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel on the article and its survey. Linked at [[aaac:resources|RESOURCES]]
-  * Discussion: See below for a list of possible survey questions  +  * Discussion: See below. 
-  * Moving forward with Agency Statistics and Analysis. \\ +  * Moving forward with Agency Statistics and Analysis.  The {{:aaac:aaacdemosection_long.docx|Longer report on Proposal Pressures}} that was not in finished form by the March 2015 AAAC report, may be a good place to start.  What are the questions not yet answered, what additional information is required to make a case.
-Here is the {{:aaac:aaacdemosection_long.docx|Longer report on Proposal Pressures}} that was not in finished form by the March 2015 AAAC report.   It may be a good place to start  - what are the questions not yet answered, what additional information is required to make a case.+
   * Next Teleconference - AOB   * Next Teleconference - AOB
  
  
-==== Sample questions that go beyond the Von Hippel Survey ==== +==== Discussion with Ted ==== 
-== Important note:  This list is far too long and we would clearly need to reduce the number of questions,  The ones listed are just examples ==+=== FYI, here are some comments from his email  ===
  
-=== Answer these questions with a scale:  strongly agree <--> neutral <--> strongly disagree) === +   Your proposal has both overlap with what we asked and substantial 
-  * How would the following actions by the funding agencies affect you? +   additional detail that would be helpful to know.
-    * Limiting applicants to one PI or CoI proposal per year: +
-      * would increase the time I could spend on my research +
-      * would reduce my chances for tenure. +
-      * would cause me to leave the field. +
-      * would reduce the number of proposals I submit.  +
-      * would improve the quality of those proposals I submit +
-      * would reduce the size of my research group +
-    * Calling for proposals every other year +
-      * Etc.. +
-    * Introducing a pre-proposal stage. +
-      * Etc... +
-    * Reducing the amount of funding for individual proposals +
-      * 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" ) +   Courtney would probably have additional suggestions if you/we ask her.
-  * 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+
  
-=== Other questions ===+   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".
  
-  * If my proposal is rejected, (choose one answer that best represents your action) 
-    * I resubmit the same proposal the next year 
-    * I submit a different type of proposal the next year 
-    * I support my research on someone else's grant 
-    * I submit a similar proposal to a different federal funding source 
-    * I submit a similar proposal to a private funding source 
-    * I concentrate on other aspects of my job (e.g. teaching)  
  
  
  
aaac/apr27.1430161292.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/04/27 14:01 by prisca

Page Tools