Britt Holbrook

@ChrisP: totally right about the blank slate, though I prefer to call it freedom!

Here’s hoping folks will take advantage of it.

Very cool! Now we’ll have to figure out just how much of the advice pertains to the newly revised criteria. Check out my posts here starting January 11 for some preliminary thoughts: http://cas-csid.cas.unt.edu/?cat=42.

Thanks, Sage. Actually, I don’t get the sense that there’s much push-back to the bill coming from the scientific community. In fact, the reverse seems to be the case — there’s a push-for the bill itself, since it would serve to keep agencies like NSF on a doubling path vis-a-vis their budgets. So, even scientists […]

I’m so glad Bruce got in touch with you! I’m hoping he joins the group. Perhaps if others engage him on the articles, we can tempt him to do so ….

The bootcamp idea sounds interesting — especially since it’s potentially integrable with your research. Can you demonstrate a need for your students to have these techniques? And what about an exchange — getting some molecular biologists out into the field?

Have you contacted the diversity center? I suggest reaching out to them.

Well, it would be kind of silly for me to answer this question, since Sharon Franks is at UCSD! 😉 But let me say something, anyway: Of course you want to visit geologically relevant sites; but I took a geology class in college, and we went out in the field — so it doesn’t seem […]

OK, no one is being brave; so I went to the NSF website and looked at awards made under the Physical Oceanography program. The first award, which is Award # 0962054, doesn’t explicitly mention BI in the abstract, or maybe it does …. Here’s the ostensible BIC paragraph: “The project aims to optimize the utility […]

It’s interesting, also, to note Chris’ claim: “This statement could be much stronger if grounded in the ed literature regarding how well what’s proposed fits with what the ed research says works.” Well, I don’t know about you other non-ed specialists, but one reaction I have to this statement is: Hey, how am I supposed […]

It’s really interesting to me to read Sharon’s comments, which are both helpful and critical. If only all reviewers were so demanding! We certainly would have much better responses to BIC. In general, however, it is not the case that most reviewers are so demanding. In fact, most reviewers don’t know what to do with […]

Chris makes a great point, I think — and I wonder whether we all agree on terminology here — about the difference between outputs and outcomes. Essentially, I would suggest there are 4 major stages of the research process, looked at from the outside, as it were, from a performance assessment sort of angle: (1) […]

OK — so here I think the idea is good, but I’m far from convinced that the proposer can carry out these activities. I should add, however, that I think this is still above average, even for funded proposals.

This is also an example of a good BIC response — and this one has something example one lacks ….

This is certainly well above average for a response to BIC. There’s evidence that the proposers have thought about integrating their own research with the BI component, and they intend to partner with folks with appropriate expertise. So, they don’t have to start from scratch and can concentrate on integrating their research with an EPO […]