Q1: You cannot explain all of your activities in enough depth to be persuasive, so you need to have enough focus to provide a balance between depth and breadth. You can certainly leave out entirely some threads of your research if they are not relevant to the main arguments you present. It is probably still a good idea to indicate (in either your F100 or the F101) all of the areas in which you have worked (as evidenced by publications, students supervised, or funds expended). Having a bunch of publications in an area you never mention would be weird, as would thesis titles or students known to be in areas not covered. But this can be just a few sentences. The degree to which you focus depends on your career trajectory (past and present). There is no perfect degree of focus.

Q2: Common sense suggests that you put the time in over the summer to figure out a title so the F180 and F101 have the same title. As far as I know, the external reviewers never seen the F180, and the committee members may not see it either, after the stage of assigning external reviewers. The title used on the F180 will influence who is asked to review your application, so it makes sense to have it match the final title.

A related issue: Should you change the title each time you apply? I have changed the title of my DG maybe three times over 30+ years. Other people I have asked change the title every time they apply. It is not clear to me the title matters at all, except for helping to assign reviewers. Certainly I would hope that this is the case.

Q3: Absolutely you need a mix of (a)-(c). I think (d) is subsumed by (c), although perhaps the small institution angle is something to consider (on the assumption these people might be more likely to accept a request to review). I have never even thought of (d) before, but I always look for a mix of (a)-(c). Specifically, you should have one from the U.S., one not from the U.S., and one from Canada who you think knows your work and is familiar with the NSERC system. (NOTE: Just being a long-time Canadian researcher with lots of NSERC funding does not mean one "knows" the system. Some "stars" are clueless about the politics of NSERC because they are above it by virtue of being a star.) The other two slots (assuming a total of five requests -- some grants allow seven or more) will probably depend on your circumstances. I tend to list at least two Canadians, both because they are more likely to understand the NSERC system, but also because they are more likely to accept a request to review.

-- KelloggBooth - 24 Jun 2011