ADDABD

Just curious if anyone else lurking about is in the 'alternate' situation or has been in the past with this grant. There's some info over at academic jobs wiki, but it seems to be a different crowd here so I thought I'd try. Like many of us, I have to make definitive plans for the fall quite soon and am wondering if it's pie in the sky to get a fellowship now, or actually plausible. Of course I'd prefer the latter, but I could also see it being a consolation prize for the also-rans rather than a functional list with a probability of award. Anyone with any insight into how they rank the list, and how big it is? Are the awards made by area of study or pure ranking? Probably no one knows but ACLS, but I thought I'd try.

Sorry to hear that. I got waitlisted, which I'm guessing is functionally the same thing except with another bout of agonized waiting and compulsive email checking. What fun. Any joy for anyone else?

Nope. Academic Jobs Wiki has a more active thread on this topic.

Well, the main difference between fieldwork funding and writing funding is that you can't teach, TA, or RA in the field. Most people do during write-up in my experience. That's not ideal, but it is funding, and it does allow people to finish. I wasn't talking about write-up fellowships in particular, which I'm sadly well-aware are very limited. So in my view, there's way more funding available for write-up than for fieldwork because usually, during fieldwork, it's either impossible or silly to try to also do paid work. And the original grants mentioned were, as you note, very fieldwork-specific. As in, cannot be used for other things, not even multiple trips to the field on the ones I'm familiar with. That's what my response was based on, not on whatever grant you or other people got that doesn't specify that. I've tried to make that really clear so it doesn't sound like I'm accusing you or anyone else in that situation of anything bad. Hence my assumption about whatever field you're in or not in; I obviously have no idea what your experience or background is, nor your employment history with Grad Cafe, nor where your servers actually are (insert condescending emoticon). All I can say about the tone of your rebuttal is, if the shoe fits wear it. I still think there should be considerations other than maximizing your career advantages re: your colleagues, even when it comes to the holy grants. And the broader point is that manipulating fieldwork funding (within the letter but not the spirit of the law) is not, in my experience, uncommon, even though you haven't done it. Most of the commentary on this site consists of people thinking about how to help their colleagues, collaboratively sharing information about how to make grants, applications, and other competitive documents better, which is obviously counter to one's own self interest (it would be better to have everyone else be a weak applicant). I find that to be one of the refreshing things about Grad Cafe in the broader atmosphere of the academy, which as you note above, is cutthroat.

Well, I'll try one more time to be clear about what I'm questioning, quoting my earlier published work for reference (every academic's dream): "Another way to state this is, the only thing that makes me uncomfortable here is the idea (that I'm imputing) of manipulating funding intended to cover one vital realm of grad work ('fieldwork') into covering others for which there is usually more support available (ABD, ADD. "Procrastinating on Dissertation on Comments Board" A Google Server In Indonesia: 2014)." In the very originalest post, Saveagemind asked about three 'fieldwork research only' grants (we're both anthropologists, I'm familiar with these grants). She or he asked how to maximize the return by writing a good budget, and later clarified by saying it was with the intention of legit research expenses. I have no problem with any of that. Some of the advice veered towards the 'maximize your ability to do later non-fieldwork work' stuff, which is different. That would be unethical, but not uncommon, for two reasons: 1. The things that win one grant appeal to other granting agencies, so a lot of successful grantees get multiple grants. 2. Grad students are incentivized to maximize all possible monies (hard to get, uncertain futures, underpaid anyway, stupid funding structure, not enough jobs and too many grad students) So a lot of students are faced with this enviable dilemma. In my time in grad programs, I have seen a number of people (friends) do things that were within the letter of the law to maximize funding from multiple sources for the same research, but in fact (knowingly) exceeded what they actually needed. They did this with the independent blessing of the grant organizations, who obviously are not on the phone with one another, but rely on submitted budgets. I find this common practice sketchy for the ethical reasons I hope I've outlined in these very excessive posts. Rising_star, with the clarification you gave, I obviously am not directing this at you. And you're probably in a different field, so didn't know those three grants were very specifically fieldwork grants. And despite all the caveats in my earlier posts, I do find the common scenario I'm describing to be unethical. I'm glad to hear no one on this comment board actually did or would consider doing it.

Saveagemind and TakeruK's last posts strike me as completely reasonable. I retract any criticism from what they did or advocated based on their further info. Rising_star, having dealt with two fieldwork granting agencies, and having been in a fieldwork-oriented program for 6 years, and having helped and talked with many friends who also dealt with them, I find it amazing that you got one to fund something that they knew wasn't fieldwork at all. I've never heard of such a thing, but it's definitely enviable. I have heard frequently of being able to expand, extend, or more comfortably fund fieldwork, which is obviously a different situation. The only place I'm going to stand my ground is on the defintion of ethical in this situation, which I understand as being something different than 'allowed' or 'legal.' Here's why: the fact that everyone involved gave you their blessing means that you got to spend a fieldwork grant on write-up rather than fieldwork, which is awesome. It also means that someone else (an alternate, let's say, for the fieldwork grant you used for write-up) maybe didn't get to do funded fieldwork at all, which is bad. That's life. I get that write-up is really hard (doing it right now), especially with a teaching load (dealing with that too). And, honestly, I'm not condemning you at all for doing this, but that's different from agreeing that it's, you know, in line with the categorical imperative. I would probably do it too, but only because I don't see any other good options, not because I'm deeply convinced that it's ethically unimpeachable. I say this because, if I were an alternate for a fieldwork grant, and I found out that the grant I badly needed to fund research went to fund someone to do write-up when they'd already done funded research, I'd be pissed. That's all I'm saying--we're involved in a broader system which includes our struggling colleagues, and we should think about that. In any event, I really didn't start this thread to criticize people, I just thought it was worth thinking about these grants in a more structural way, particularly on a comment board like this one where we mostly try to help each other out. But obviously, and as TakeruK pointed out a few comments back, this criticism is more appropriately directed at the broader funding structure of grad education (admittedly a vague and invulnerable target for my criticism), rather than at people like Rising_star who are acting completely logically--and with the obvious blessing of administrators--given the options available. That's my bad.

OK, I guess I'm not making myself clear. You say: "I don't think it's inappropriate to ask about how to ethically and legally get the most money out of multiple grants at all. This is something that academics have to often figure out anyways and something that is appropriate to actually try and do. In contrast, I've seen people post other questions like "How do I secretly accept two grad school offers at the same time" etc. while there are others still waiting for one offer. I think that is inappropriate because it's not something that you can actually achieve." I'm the one asking about ethics. The OP was simply asking how to maximize her or his returns. And basing 'appropriateness' on 'achievablility' is not an ethical stance at all--it's a pragmatic one. You say: "I agree that as researchers and academics, we should always think about the ethical concerns of our actions. But your comment seems to imply that not only we should think about it, but also that even trying to get more than one grant is "questionable". My response is that the only ethics we should worry about is that we do not commit fraud in applying for multiple grants and that we fully disclose our grant sources (i.e. don't try to hide grant money from an agency that does not allow you to accept other grant money)." Again, I have applied for multiple grants. I have no problem with that, or with using all the grant money you can get for legit stuff as above. I'm saying, perhaps there's a broader definition of ethics than the legal one of fraud. I know one fellow in my department that got 3 fieldwork grants, gamed them to get some 90k for a year of research, and spent the rest on write-up, personal travel, etc. This is ethically questionable, at best, to me. Perhaps this isn't what the OP had in mind, but then again, maybe it is. The advice veers fairly close to this kind of attitude. I agree with your last two paragraphs. Merit doesn't just measure hard work, although it does measure that too. And of course, a huge part of grad school is being enculturated into the specific ethos of the academy (which I think we all understand as basically, 'dog-eat-dog'). It just bothers me to see it play out on a nominally supportive grad forum, particularly without any consideration of the broader structures of granting and where the money goes. Another way to state this is, the only thing that makes me uncomfortable here is the idea (that I'm imputing) of manipulating funding intended to cover one vital realm of grad work ('fieldwork') into covering others for which there is usually more support available. But that's way more than I meant to say on this topic, and I'll just leave it alone now.

Yeah, I'm not disputing any of those points. And I'm not trying to get on anyone's case--completely understandable to maximize your return on those hard-won grants. I just think it's worth considering this situation as an ethical as well as a pragmatic one, at least in a situation where, as the OP stated, you have multiple grants covering the same exact thing. In any event, perhaps it's not the most tactful thing on a comment board where most people won't be getting grants (given the success rate of most major grants), to ask how to get the most money out of the multiple grants you'll be accepting such that alternates won't then get that money.

Ya know, I don't think of myself as a generally comment-y kind of person and I've only ever commented on this site for utilitarian grant-getting purposes. But I have to say, in the gentlest way posible, that this question and rising_star's response seem...questionable to me. I know that grad school is not an arena in which solidarity is privileged, given that jobs are pretty much a zero-sum game. But I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of gaming the grant system to use money for a purpose for which it wasn't really intended, particularly when (as a cursory reading of academic comment boards shows), declined grants go to alternates who badly need them to just do the research, much less fund write-up. As someone who only got one fieldwork grant, I fortunately or unfortunately didn't face this dilemma, and I'm not sure how I would have responded. But I'd like to think I would have considered perhaps declining it, or at least greatly reducing the amount if my research was already fully-funded, and putting the declined fellowship on my CV. I'm not saying I would have done this--extra money is always good--but I hope I'd have considered it. I don't know, maybe I'm just grumpy from beating my head against the near-impossible ACLS process for the last month and a half, and already angrily thinking of people who are gonna get the ACLS and some other grants too. It's a f-ed up system, but it's still worth thinking about how we deal with it vis a vis our nominal compatriots-in-underfunding.

Yup, absolutely right. It seems cruel to solicit so much work for such a small chance. If I were the dictator of ACLS-Mellonia, I would change the eligibility guidelines until I could award a more reasonable percentage, like 15 or 20. You have to think a majority of the submissions probably don't have a great chance anyway based on content, focus, or discipline. But best of luck to everyone anyway. Turning this beast in tonight and heading for the brisker climes of Charlotte Newcombeville.

Thanks, this is helpful. I guess at this point that I'm treating it much the same way, as in a combination of lit review, context, and methodology. Still seems a tall order for 5 pages. Good luck in the homestretch!

Yeah, the proposal description is pretty vague, but talks some about identifying what stage of research you're in and how you'll complete it. Speaking of which, how are you (or others) approaching the proposal? I think the chapter is probably more straightforward, but I'm having real trouble trying to figure out how to structure the proposal. Is the genre straight-ahead grant application? how much lit review/situating the research in our field of study type stuff is necessary, vs a broader outline of what the diss focuses on, the research done, the issues addressed, the categories of data, and so on? I feel like the dual goals of intellectual merit and explanation of the work as a coherent entity (which seems necessary to contextualize a random chapter) do not overlap enough to be accomplished in 5 double-spaced pages. Thoughts or ideas on this?

Well, it's actually 2000 characters, not words, which is significantly less. So I think it's mostly a sorting device rather than something very substantive. But it is odd that there are essentially four different abstracts of the diss you have to write. I'm struggling as well with how to scale the arguments. Also, it seems from reading the application that they expect you to not have done field research yet--they want a proposed timeline for your research. Which also seems strange, given that they want a completed chapter.

Just got unofficially rejected. Beyond frustrating that we missed an entire (last, for me) application cycle. Best of luck to those still waiting.

Thanks, will do. Has he told you anything unofficially?

Thanks for the info, Nrrrdgrrrl. This is depressing. Haven't heard anything still. Anyone else heard yes or no? I only know of one yes so far, on this forum. It sucks obsessing about this but my dept is scheduling who teaches courses for this fall right now, and it would be nice to know if I'll be funded or need to teach. I'm assuming I need to teach at this point.

Congrats, bipedalcycle. Did they come directly to you, or through your PI?

Based on other people having been awarded fellowships that you know of? I don't know anyone who's heard anything, but I guess we could have all been rejected.

Yeah, still haven't heard anything. I haven't talked to Mantz, but it is frustrating that, having put this much energy into a grant, we wouldn't get a chance to re-submit. I wonder if there's any precedent for allowing applicants who receive late notice of rejections an extended deadline to reapply. After all, this is supposed to be an iterative process, right? Seems like the NSF would lose out on some good reworked submissions by kicking us potential re-apply-ers out of the running...(just in case you're listening, Dr. Mantz....)

Hi fellow nail-biters, Waiting on a cultural anth ddig and haven't heard anything yet. Checked fastlane today and my proposal is also temporarily missing. I'm trying to figure out funding for next year and was thinking of contacting Mantz. Those of you who have done so, was he receptive to being contacted individualy? I know POs often get besieged at this time of year... On another note, it is frustrating to possibly miss an entire six month (re)application cycle. And I imagine, because most of the rejected proposals won't be eligible for resubmission in the Jan 15 round, that the spring cycle will have less competition due to no revised proposals.

Wanted to give this thread a bump. My DDIG external review date was apparently the 21st of October, but I haven't heard anything. Anyone else? Any info on how the shutdown will affect the announcements?

Two of my anth colleagues also just got negatives on the ol' fieldwork funding.

For what it's worth: Cultural Anth, review date of 3/25, just got word on Sunday that I was declined (by email). No change to my status on fastlane when I checked it today. My funding category was 'competitive--low priority.' They said they would send official word with comments within a few weeks. Best of luck to everyone who hasn't heard yet! Depending on the comments, I may drag myself through another application process in August..

Huh, that's interesting. I went from Mantz to McCarty, but I don't know when. I assumed it was the 18th, but maybe not. I know that Mantz took over from Winslow about a year ago, little more. Don't know why this latest switch happened--I assumed it was a year-long tenure. We're all in the dark as to whether any of it is negative, positive, or means anything at all...

So I've been lurking on this forum and the Wenner Gren one for the past year during grant applications. Although it's really just an excuse to not do other work, and I don't recommend it, it has been nice to have extra info. In the spirit of giving back, here's what I know about the NSF DDIG (DDRIG) and status date changes (mine changed on the 18th too). I'm quoting from another forum that deals with other NSF grants here: "I realize that the conventional wisdom is that a status date change on FastLane (while the proposal status remains pending and the PO remains the same) typically means that reviews have been uploaded and rejection is bound to follow, but is that always the case? Has any forumite ever been awarded a CAREER (or any other NSF proposal) with a similar sequence of status changes on FastLane? In my experience, there seems to be some truth to that. Usually, if your proposal is being recommended for funding, your program manager will contact you asking for a two paragraph abstract. In most of the times when I've seen the status date change on Fastlane without any contact from the program manager, the proposal was eventually declined. The only exception is when the program manager was a rotator, and responsibility for the proposal was transferred to another program manager after the rotator left, but that will be readily apparent on your Fastlane status page." Me again: I know that Deborah Winslow, who normally is the PO for the anth ddig, is on leave now. I assume others are rotating in on a yearly basis, and I know that sometime around the time my status date changed, my PO also changed. So, there you go: it doesn't mean anything in the end. Good luck!