2019 - 2020 Banting / NSERC Post-doc Fellowships

[shuttlespace]

Banting is one of the most competitive post-doc fellowships offered by the Canadian Govt, followed by NSERC PDF.

I am starting this thread to compile any information related to 2019 - 2020 results. Perhaps the reviewers will meet and finalize their recommendation list this month.

If you are an applicant, please share any updates you receive from CIHR or Banting.

 

[Adelaide9216]

What is a typical Banting fellow's profile? 

[shuttlespace]

I would say top-quality journal publications (Science, Nature etc.) and has previous history of awards (NSF, NSERC) and recognitions.

Also, the choice of supervisor for PDF and strong research plan helps.

Here is a very informative video explaining all of that:
 

 

[musichistorygeek]

Applied to Banting through SSHRC. This is my second year on the job/postdoc hunt, so an additional year of publications/conference presentations/teaching experience and revising the project outline will lead to something. 
 

 

[pm123]

I applied for NSERC PDF and I still haven't heard anything! On the NSERC website, it says they will notify the applicants by the end of January ....with only 3 days left till end of Jan, I am not sure if I should expect a good or bad news. When are you expected to hear from the Banting?

[musichistorygeek]

Mid-February, I believe. 

[shuttlespace]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:48 AM, musichistorygeek said:

Applied to Banting through SSHRC. This is my second year on the job/postdoc hunt, so an additional year of publications/conference presentations/teaching experience and revising the project outline will lead to something. 
 

 

Hope you get positive news this year!

Please update the thread if you hear back from Banting PDF office.

[labangel]

Does anyone know when the results have been released in previous years?  It looks like last year people had their results the first week of February.  I'm wondering if we could expect the results early Feb instead of mid-month.  

[musichistorygeek]

Scrolling through Twitter and this forum, it seems like it has ranged from February 3 to February 6 to February 15 recently. When it was first offered, it was announced even later (later March/early April). 

[musichistorygeek]

Results posted today. Was not funded. 

[shuttlespace]

Rejections come first (Feb 1st week) and then funded applicants receive their news in the second week of February.

Unfortunately, I did not make the cut this time. My application was ranked 61 / 181.

Only the top 40 are discussed in Ottawa and the top 23 will be funded.

[labangel]

My application was not funded.  But I have no reviewer comments or scores, so I don't know where I was ranked. I applied through CIHR and I received the following information in an email:

"We have been experiencing some difficulties with our results documentation and as such the Results letter has been removed from your ResearchNet accounts. The situation is being rectified and the Results letters will be re-uploaded with the correct scores as soon as we are able."

[researchfirst]

Application was not funded. High scores on the excellence/CV and synergy parts, but the proposal sank me.

I've since learned the CVs of several individuals who received one, and there seems to be a theme: activism over research. People with as little as two actual peer-reviewed publications getting the most prestigious postdoctoral award in Canada. I understand that "putting ideas into action" and promoting equity/inclusion/diversity and whatnot are important, but seriously? This committee seems to have forgotten that, in their own words, the fellowship is meant to drive "research-based growth" and build "research leaders of tomorrow". Starting non-profits and rallying world citizens to protest inequality and whatnot are certainly noble and worthwhile activities, but this is not research leadership.

I'm sorry. I understand this will come off as salty, and I guess it is a little, but I just don't understand this field anymore.

[Adelaide9216]

8 hours ago, researchfirst said:

Application was not funded. High scores on the excellence/CV and synergy parts, but the proposal sank me.

I've since learned the CVs of several individuals who received one, and there seems to be a theme: activism over research. People with as little as two actual peer-reviewed publications getting the most prestigious postdoctoral award in Canada. I understand that "putting ideas into action" and promoting equity/inclusion/diversity and whatnot are important, but seriously? This committee seems to have forgotten that, in their own words, the fellowship is meant to drive "research-based growth" and build "research leaders of tomorrow". Starting non-profits and rallying world citizens to protest inequality and whatnot are certainly noble and worthwhile activities, but this is not research leadership.

I'm sorry. I understand this will come off as salty, and I guess it is a little, but I just don't understand this field anymore.

I understand your dissapointment. I also did not get a scholarship I really wanted this year as well. I will try again next year.

Yet, I do believe that it is important to have research that is actually impactful and useful to communities. It's more than just "activism". The field of research has historically been quite oppressive to certain communities and have excluded some forms of knowledge. So I'm more than happy about the changes that are happening, it forces all researchers to think about these aspects within their own work. 

Plus, when it comes to publications, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, including the prestige of the journals these people were published in. You did not have access to their files, so you do not know who were the other applicants and what were their files.

And there's always the "luck" factor as well. Some of these selection processes can be somewhat subjective to a certain extent, for many reasons. 

 

[researchfirst]

I understand this. As a social researcher you can't get very far in the game without understanding how research comes with the ability to oppress and marginalize.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, because while I think research can (and should) inform interventions to make more equitable and just outcomes for individuals and populations, I think blurring the lines completely between the two, which this particular committee seemed intent on doing by way of choosing candidates, is a dangerous exercise. It's dangerous insofar as it captures researchers to certain causes and limits the epistemological vision and sight of individuals producing knowledge.

Sometimes knowledge that is produced is inconvenient to progressive causes and champions. The same thing happens when you have conservative researchers (see e.g. Charles Murray) who have their conclusions decided on before even reaching the data they're analyzing. If the main or only goal is "emancipation", for example, then data and knowledge become slaves to causes rather than sophisticated explanations.

I'm not saying that those who won don't deserve it, because yes, I don't have "access to their files". Of course I don't. At the same time, I'm simply expressing that I think this informal criterion of "must be an activist" is a potentially rigid yet increasingly common requirement, from what I've seen, that can actually be detrimental to how knowledge is produced.

[Adelaide9216]

I think this speaks to different epistemological stances that we have in research (and that is okay), but personally speaking, I don't believe in objectivity in research, regardless of the type of research. I think a research is more rigourous when the subjectivity of the researcher is made explicit. Because it is always there anyway. 

[researchfirst]

7 minutes ago, Adelaide9216 said:

I think this speaks to different epistemological stances that we have in research (and that is okay), but personally speaking, I don't believe in objectivity in research, regardless of the type of research. I think a research is more rigourous when the subjectivity of the researcher is made explicit. Because it is always there anyway. 

It's possible to have some distance from research without claiming that one's view comes from "outside", which, as I think you're pointing out here, isn't possible. There is no view from "outside", especially in social research.

I think distance is healthy, because becoming overly invested in the outcomes of research really begins to introduce some trouble. Being captured by one's cause limits what they're willing to say. I don't think it's as simple as saying, for example, "well politics is always a part of research, so let's throw measured analysis out the window!".

But yes, we have different epistemological stances, and that's fine. I would consider myself more of a critical realist--there are, objectively, mechanisms that govern social relations, but there's no "view from nowhere" that can fully capture it in a holistic/detached way. Nonetheless, it is good to have some ground rules around how far one is willing to become personally captured by their research and participants.

[james viky]

I got NSERC PDF 2 years ago and then Banting this year. 

[gentvenus]

2 hours ago, james viky said:

I got NSERC PDF 2 years ago and then Banting this year. 

Nice one. Any advice on how you did it?