PhDOG,ESQ

Good morning winners and ragers! I’m pulling myself out of the gloom. My closest supports have been pretty disappointing so this board has been a big help. (sorry for my big font; no explanation) @UC-23 Similar profile to you! This means you ROCKED it! ALL on your OWN merits! @1Q84 thank you for sharing the numbers, yours and the rankings etc. And congrats again! I remember it used to be (a decade ago) that getting SSHRC once was basically a lock for future SSHRC, ad infinitum. I’m starting to see a different picture now. It is good that SSHRC is being less insular and relying less on its own previous (de facto problematic) judgment. And thank you for confirming that too @SSHRCDreams @SSHRC frustrations If it were me doling out this money, you sound like an exceptionally strong candidate. The fact that you worked centrally on the core funded project and were unsuccessful is maddening. Two insights, hopefully helpful for all: First is re: career trajectory and teaching, mentoring Earlier in my time in academia I got advice from some long-seasoned top faculty (TF, hereon) who ~knows things~ about how these ~things~ happen. They told me to stop teaching, in firmer language. At the time I was really focused on teaching to the detriment of my own research because I needed the money, and because there were complications with access to my research sites, beyond my control. But TF’s view was to avoid teaching at all costs; it gets in your way etc etc. I think this is expresses the shitty but realistic closed-loop political economy of early academia. I didn’t take the advice but I see in hindsight its shrewd value. (spoiler reminder, I was unsuccessful this round). When hiring early faculty at major research universities now, they expect faculty divides their time 40% research, 40% teaching including mentoring grad students (!!!!), 20% admin. SSHRC only cares about that first 40%. That is all. They don’t care if we have mentored struggling students who are now making a difference in the same field, if we redesigned whole programs and revitalized our department’s ranking…. If we facilitated research that’s changing the world. That falls into the second 40% for them. They just don’t care. TL;DR SSHRC doesn’t care about a lot of the work that keeps the universities going, no matter how closely it is tied to the likely very high success (“impact”) of the applicant’s research. @SSHRC frustrationsIt sounds like you’ve done a lot of meaningful work that they have simply decided to ignore in their evaluation criteria. SSHRC is always yabbering about impact and community (see my first post!) but I think when splitting hairs in applications they don’t care unless they can see an immediate benefit to them. In this case they already funded your project so they may (wrongly) assess your specific role as repetitive. This is all speculation. But I am gobsmacked by your situation - it is so counterintuitive. Second insight: a TF-type just reminded me of this. SSHRC is mandated to equitably spread funds across the country, with consideration to University size of course. Let’s say 75% of the top picks for committee X are at U of T. Committee X can’t give 75% of that pool of money to U of T; they can give 40% at MOST. This means they have to pull that top 75% of applications back out and rip them apart at a new standard, tougher than the one met by the 25% whose spot is secured by university location, tougher than the original standard altogether. So 35% of the winning pool gets dumped. Then they pull from the originally lower ranked applicants to fill up those openings, or most of them, if the lower applicants were quite weak. (Messy program of study, meh reference letters). The new goal is distribution ratio. TLDR, applicant’s success is also tied to representational geopolitics. ….Opening the floor on another topic closely related. The “committees.” I’m starting to wonder about the politics in these selection committees… like if there is some unspoken coda or some such. I was comm 3 - I think. Whichever one was sociology and anthropology but also folklore and mythology. (Or similar?) I’m a social scientist. Maybe my project was too “hard science”-y for this committee. Of course we will never know. So shall we speculate?! Do you think the reading committee makes a big difference? Surely each reviewer must be UNfamiliar with 90% of what they read, respectively, so I wonder if it’s a crapshoot that depends on individual committee composition. (maybe a different committee would have LOVED a losing app). We’ve all been in universities for ages now so we’ve had our hand at reading a lot of work and applications in progress. I am trying to think sincerely about what biased (not prejudiced) my readings because we are all biased. is it time to make a separate MORALE thread!?

@UC-23 that IS helpful to hear, actually. This board has been a small but important comfort for me

Congrats @UC-23 ! lol I played up policy relevance a ton myself and didn’t get funded. You must have rocked it!!! CHEERS!! oh to all - PS: logging into the damn site was a nightmare for me too w all the error messages etc 😑

Hey everyone! another loser here lol and HAHA - to think I was the one who came here with some insider knowledge!! CONGRATS to @HeatherCT (thank you for the tips too!) @SSHRCDreams (you killed it!) and to @1Q84!!!!! And their spam folder This is wonderful news for you all! Pour out a little liquor for us when you toast And to my comrades @fmlfmlfml@Boudicca and @brert Did all of you get the “merit review recommended you but we don’t have the money” line? I’m wondering if this is gaslighting or actually means anything. It’s SSHRC so I’ll bet on the former. My results are a lot like @Boudicca , same committee, and (humbly) I was pretty taken aback with how “meh” I was ranked. I have the urge to speculate but I also know how unhelpful it is. But I’m down to share some moral support with you all if you still want it Edited to add: I am working up the guts to tell my supervisor and referees the bad news. It feels crappy to disappoint the people who rallied for you. (But not as disappointing as it feels to tell my $$debt).

@Smitten Pears neither am I.... but that doesn't stop my manic inbox refreshing!

Can you explain in more detail how to try this? And .......... is anyone else paranoid that SSHRC just *lost* their application since it's disappeared from the webapp interface where we submitted it?

GOING NUTS!

I'm also limiting myself to only refreshing this page twice a day to check in on others' experiences and then totally unhelpfully try to extrapolate what this means for my application. SENDING EVERYONE GOOD VIBES! @UC-23 @fmlfmlfml (great username, fml!)

@UC-23 @SSHRCDreams The good news: SSHRC is not as fickle as hiring committees, who tend to select the candidate that is no one’s top choice but everyone concedes is a good compromise. The committee is largely evaluating the relevance and viability of your project. Journal publications matter, yes, but SSHRC is increasingly fixating on “public scholarship,” so they are turning greater attention to if/how your work can engage the public. Even for scholarship in very niche areas, they want to see that you are able to connect what you’re doing to public debate and (yup) media engagement. Remember SSHRC is an arm of the Canadian government, so the more exposure your work can get – the more your work can promote the govmt’s image as progressive and community-oriented - the more they want in. Since the postdoc is a career bridge, and there are fewer academic careers and more academics entering the private sector, they also want to see that your project is something that can get you employed, simply put. Reviewers also favour applications that have a little “pizzaz” – a unique voice and confidence. They are not well-inclined to applications that harp on oppression and are more-and-more interested in projects that speak to empowerment and possibility. The CLEAR organization of the POW is key. Reviewers favour applications with very explicit subheads. If relevant they also want to see that you have contingency plans in case there’s another pandemic or the like. With all of this said! Every application is different and there is no single recipe for success. The committee also needs to spread awards across a range of disciplines, fields, and themes, and some projects are slam dunks simply for being nothing like the others. And I agree - six months is an INSANE amount of time to wait. Four days left in February........ARGHHH

Hi everyone, I'm also waiting... I had tech problems with the webapp interface and came THISCLOSE to not being able to submit it at all! NIGHTMARE! But now I'm sitting on my hands like the rest of you. I think I may have some practical advice up my sleeves, though, if anyone's interested. My father is R1 graduate faculty in an unrelated discipline (no nepotism - wouldn't it be nice?) - he's overseen dozens of admission/fellowships etc. Former student was former head of SSHRC. So I've learned a thing or two here or there about how these things are read, what's ignored, what counts. I'm in the same boat as you all waiting and wondering and worrying. I don't have any kind of answers or solutions. But if anyone wants more info for speculation's sake, shoot away.