What activities in the workshop are the most helpful?
1. Overall presentation by especially CAREER awardees experiences.
2. All, mock study is quite helpful; however, some related proposals (with our expertise area) are preferred.
3. Presentations by program directors in attendance. Presentations by previous career awardees. Mock panel review. Networking dinner. The limited number of workshop attendees. Facilitated better interactions.
4. The mock panel review. Chatting with program managers.
5. Summarize do and not to do list. NSF directors.
6. Meeting with program directors.
7. Successful stories and presentation on “do’s” and “don’t’s.”
8. Presentations were excellent, and interactions between program directors and participants were very helpful.
9. Listening to CAREER awardees stories (initial failure or success). Interactions with program director. Advise on how to construct proposal. Mock panel review.
10. Mock panel.
11. Workshop was well balanced, with experienced PM and grantees presenting their point of view, as well as involvement of all the participants.
12. Reading the proposals, grading proposals. Panel discussions.
13. The awardee’s story, and experience in the whole process of career proposal writing.
14. Review/panel process. Awardee history.
15. Panel review.
16. The size of the workshop (20 people) was a strength. Allowed personal interaction. Personal experiences of past winners. George Hazelrigg was great.
17. Review panels.
18. The panel reviews were very helpful. I learned a lot. Also, program directors expertise.
19. All of it. It was well organized and enough time was spent on each aspect of grant writing.
20. Panel discussions and presentations.
What activities in the workshop were not helpful?
2. The location of the workshop (and future workshops) should be more easily accessible to those traveling great distances; perhaps consider a more central location. The timing of the activities; the first day should begin at 7-8 am.
3. Very repetitive presentations by former CAREER award winners. Have the presenters know what order they will present in and see each others slides so they can be modified accordingly.
5. If DP would be more involved in final panel reviews, it would be much better.
6. No suggestions at this time.
7. Everything was useful.
8. Need better redacting of sample proposals to remove all identifying info (state, school, Ph.D. institution, etc.) and shouldn’t tell participants ahead of reading them who the prior award winners participating will be – causes bias in reviewing.
9. Personal presentation of the CV of the PI’s who won a Career could be shortened.
10. Dinner and breakfast would be better if in more of a reception style.
14. Too many recent awardees, that simply repeated each other. Why are they “experts?”
15. 7 AM breakfast, 7:30 AM would have been early enough or maybe just convene at 8:00 AM and start the review while eating.
What activities would you suggest to be included in future workshops?
1. Joint organization together with several divisions.
3. Fewer proposals to review prior to attending the workshop; perhaps include 4-5 proposals.
4. Introduction of everyone at the workshop. Or an official social hour before the beginning of the workshop.
5. Better schedule.
6. These are more general comments: 1) the size (# of participants, # of presenters) of the workshop is effective, allows active participation, interaction with NSF directors and answers to individual questions. 2) Access to example proposals are very (extremely) helpful. However, if possible, have participants be assigned as lead to approximately 3 proposals as opposed to all 9, which is more like real panels.
7. Try to expand it to other divisions of NSF, it seems extremely useful to help junior faculty being successful.
8. Nothing to add!
9. Extend the time, perhaps to two days.
10. More senior staffs and directors from EVERY program.
11. Summary of each panel presented to all members.
12. More Program Directors.
13. More program directors attend the workshop. NSF should also get feedback from this workshop about its evaluation process. I encourage NSF to design mechanisms to see if the workshop groups have something to say about the NSF review process.
14. More time spent on writing panel reviews.
15. Having an unfunded & funded proposal from an NSF career awardee, i.e., see the progression of a proposal.
16. Have more program directors present.