1 / 3

CAREER Workshop April 9, 2014

CAREER Workshop April 9, 2014. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY. Common problems with noncompetitive proposals and “near misses ”. Ross Ellington Associate Vice President for Research. (derived, in part, from a presentation by Dr. M. J. Pazzani , VC for Research, UC Riverside) .

field
Download Presentation

CAREER Workshop April 9, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CAREER WorkshopApril 9, 2014 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Common problems with noncompetitive proposals and “near misses” Ross Ellington Associate Vice President for Research (derived, in part, from a presentation by Dr. M. J. Pazzani, VC for Research, UC Riverside)

  2. Common problems with noncompetitive proposals • Problem not clearly articulated • Failure to identify goals and plan of attack • Many unrelated tasks • Failure to differentiate the proposed work from that of others • Emphasizing the lack of information about the research problem you are addressing (when, in fact, the reason why there is a lack of information is because the problem itself is not particularly important or interesting) • Poor page space planning (Pazzani says at least 60% of the project description should be devoted to the research plan. In the case of CAREERs the percentage will be lower due educational and career development components.)

  3. Common problems with “near misses” • Solid but incremental work without a truly fresh perspective • Lack of innovation; proposed effort is similar to your prior published work • Lack of compelling evidence that the research plan will succeed • Important within a narrow subfield, but does not make a convincing case that the work is important in a broader context • Education plan is uninspiring and lacks assessment mechanism(s) • Missing timeline.

More Related