NSERC Discovery Grants

• 2011 NSERC Discover Grant Workshop at UBC: Wed June 29, 2:30pm-4:30pm, Life Sciences Centre, room announced to registrants
  REGISTRATION is required through the VPRI Event Site: http://research.ubc.ca/vpri/workshops-events.
  Space is limited and prioritized to Faculty who are applying to the 2012 NSERC DG competition.
  More information and direct registration link: http://research.ubc.ca/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=32
  QUESTIONS: Nicole Bennett – SPARC - NSERC / SSHRC Internal Review Officer: nicole.bennett@ubcDELETEthisTEXT.ca 604-822-5386 www.sparc.ubc.ca
• 2011 per-bin funding amounts for CS, in k$/year: XX 14 20 24 29 33 42 49 60
• 2010 per-bin funding amounts for CS, in k$/year: 15 18 20 25 31 34 43 51 60

Links and Documents

• NSERC Discovery Grant Program web page
• NSERC DG Tips video tips video
• DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf: Merit Indicators -- important!! These serve as guidelines for reviewers.
• nserc-discovery-and-rti.pdf: Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI in CS, by Robert Bridson, 2010
• Discovery-2011-05-26.pdf: Slides from Michiel's short presentation to UBC CS on May 26, 2011
• DG-Competition-Model.pdf: How to succeed in the new competition model (2011)
• glasgow-grant.pdf: How to get (and keep) a research grant, by Witten & Glasgow (1990, 1996)
• DGStat-SDStat_eng.pdf: 2011 competition statistics

Internal Grant Review timeline

• now: submit suggested names (2 close and 2 not-so-close potential reviewers) to Michiel (van@csDELETEthisTEXT.ubc.ca)
• June 30: selection of 2 internal grant reviewers
• Aug 1: Notification of Intent due (Form 180)
• Sept 28: submission of first draft to internal grant reviewers
• Oct 5: comments back on first draft
• Oct 12: submission of second draft to internal grant reviewers
• Oct 25: application due, UBC CS
• Oct 27: application due, UBC ORS research services
• Nov 1: application due, NSERC final deadline

Examples

• Michiel van de Panne, Fall 2009: O-VS-VS F180 F100 F101 comments
• Wolfgang Heidrich, Fall 2009: F180 F100 F101
• Kellogg Booth, Fall 2009: O-M-O F180 F100 F101
• Kellogg Booth, Fall 2010: O-VS-O F180 F100 F101

There is an opportunity to make a direct year-to-year comparison. I submitted in 2009 and got into the sixth bin with EOR=Outstanding, MOP=Moderate, HQP=Outstanding. I was given a one-year award (bins are listed above, but the top bin is missing, so look at the fifth bin from the top). I reapplied in 2010 and MOP improved to Very Strong, so I was in the fourth bin (third in the table). The only real change is in the Form 101, although the Form 100 had some changes too. The delta was two bins. The difference in the applications was more detail in research description, less about past accomplishments, and a bit more focus.

Discussion

Advice wanted by some faculty:
Q1: Is it best to describe all one's research activities, or focus in one area?
Q2: Does it matter if one changes the title and summary after having submitted the F180?
Q3: What is a best practice for listing reviewers? Should we select: (a) prominent people worldwide (b) prominent Canadians in our own fields (c) Canadians who know us well, regardless of prominence? (d) less-prominent Canadians from smaller institutions who might not know us well?

-- MichielVanDePanne - 24 Jun 2011

First, a meta-comment. There are no answers. The answer is almost always context-dependent. It is a major mistake to think that there is somewhere a secret manual that has been hidden from you that has a formula for success. Life is not like that, and grants are definitely not like that. Having said this, there are of course good ways to place your bets. But they are still bets.

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

Request: For those who had applied in 2010 or 2011 - anyone minds posting not only the application but also the review/NSERC responses? This can perhpas give a sense of what NSERC looks for...

-- AllaSheffer - 24 Jun 2011

• comments.txt: