« Time use: what's the Big Question? | Main | The economics of SSHRC research grants II: Cutting and restoring budgets »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Steve: Despite the fact that I have pretty much given up on SSHRC as a consistent source of research funding given the low success rates, I am looking forward to whatever insights your series will offer. Cheers. Livio.

What I'm interested in is what a 25% success rate does to the number of people applying. Who are these 240 people who think that they're in the top 25%, but aren't? Given that the identity and publication record of the winners is known, wouldn't you expect people to work out the level of publication success that's necessary to win, and withdraw if they're not close to a winning level? Perhaps that's the subject of your next post?

The last one.

Curious about overall changes to the size of the applicant pool - I have a strong sense that it has grown over time, which would compress the success rate.

Also, many IGs in the first years of the competition weren't awarded for five years (possibly even the majority?), remained as three year grants. It seems to me that the bigger change was upping the budget from a cap of $250k to $500k, rather than the change from three year maximum to five.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad