tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post7434871140721048061..comments2024-03-28T04:15:44.459-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Advice on proposal writingDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-61331746619148445252019-11-12T16:33:51.513-06:002019-11-12T16:33:51.513-06:00PPP, that's certainly the usual dilemma. I th...PPP, that's certainly the usual dilemma. I think in practice it's often not quite as dire. If you have experience in the general area to establish some credibility, you don't necessarily need to have a bunch of prior publications on some narrow topic. Preliminary indications that an approach is reasonable (e.g. whether those are good, conservative estimates or calculations, or some demonstration that the measurement scheme works on a test case if not the actual samples) can go a long way. This is exactly why it can be hard to move into a really new area, though. Bootstrapping credibility can be slow and difficult. Some agencies and foundations have programs that are specifically meant to be "high risk" and really mean it. The NSF EAGER program (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_1/gpg_2.jsp#IID2), for example, gives money for a year or two to try new things. In terms of finding a balance, I just try to feel my way. I've been fortunate enough sometimes to get support for very challenging things without a ton of preliminary data; and sometimes the pendulum has swung the other way for me. I wish I had better advice.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-75552284046949017522019-11-12T10:54:22.979-06:002019-11-12T10:54:22.979-06:00Thanks for this!
I wanted to ask about various &#...Thanks for this!<br /><br />I wanted to ask about various 'no-win' situations that I have experienced in my (albeit very brief, limited) experience writing postdoc/grant fellowships. Namely, I am talking about the fact that on the one hand, I am expected to propose something novel and different from what I or anyone else has done when I am writing a grant proposal, but on the other hand, I am expected to have experience and/or preliminary results and publications. If my aim is too exploratory without my having published or presented anything on it, I will get dinged as reviewers say its not clear that I will be able to to carry out the proposed work. But if I have too much prior work, the reviewers ask "what is the novel contribution that is being made here?" How do you, personally, find the right balance?Pizza Perusing Physicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02213655278674258393noreply@blogger.com