next »

[onion]

I'm sure this is flogging a dead horse and clearly it's a thread hijack (continued from above though) but it's just hard to ignore how little we understand each other in different fields.  In my area of science publication can be slow because we often travel to remote locations and then stay there for months.  Once there we have to find rare plants or animals, deal with weather that can affect the ability to find those organisms, and then if we're experimentalists keep those animals alive long enough for those experiments.  It's tough to figure out what to feed an insect you've never even seen before.  After that we write papers that have to integrate the work of the last hundred years to tell a new story about how the world functions.  That's ignoring figuring out Bayesian analysis, getting permits, and actually having interesting experimental results.  This isn't to say history isn't hard - my assumption is we all work pretty comparably hard - but it's good to know more about how other academics work and not make too many assumptions.  Ok back to reasonable advice for the OP...

Thanks for this.  I guess when I included anthropologists, I was thinking about field work (i.e. extensive travel to remote locations) and that applies in the sciences as well.  Pardon my myopia.  How are grant/funding opportunities in your field?

[ls410]

At my mid-way to tenure meeting with the dean, the advice about publications pre-hire was to include them in the tenure file.  They will not be the sole determinant of tenure but they will not be totally ignored.  The unspoken impression I received was that if someone is close to the requirements (especially if something is not quite on paper yet but in press), than pre-hire work would count.  Of course none of these impressions matter so back to writing an aticle.

[mouseman]

I'm sure this is flogging a dead horse and clearly it's a thread hijack (continued from above though) but it's just hard to ignore how little we understand each other in different fields.  In my area of science publication can be slow because we often travel to remote locations and then stay there for months.  Once there we have to find rare plants or animals, deal with weather that can affect the ability to find those organisms, and then if we're experimentalists keep those animals alive long enough for those experiments.  It's tough to figure out what to feed an insect you've never even seen before.  After that we write papers that have to integrate the work of the last hundred years to tell a new story about how the world functions.  That's ignoring figuring out Bayesian analysis, getting permits, and actually having interesting experimental results.  This isn't to say history isn't hard - my assumption is we all work pretty comparably hard - but it's good to know more about how other academics work and not make too many assumptions.  Ok back to reasonable advice for the OP...

Thanks for this.  I guess when I included anthropologists, I was thinking about field work (i.e. extensive travel to remote locations) and that applies in the sciences as well.  Pardon my myopia.  How are grant/funding opportunities in your field?

NSF and some small conservation grants, and if you're lucky, National Geographic Society or the Nature Conservancy may fund you in small amounts (NGS usually gives less than $15,000).  Sometimes there are species, or taxonomic-group specific funding, such as exist for primates or tigers.  In the USA sometimes states will put aside money for study of species that it considers important. 

[namazu]

NSF and some small conservation grants, and if you're lucky, National Geographic Society or the Nature Conservancy may fund you in small amounts (NGS usually gives less than $15,000).

This is somewhat tangential, but for frame-of-reference purposes, I just want to point out that while $15,000 may sound like a lot of dough to some of us, it can cost that much to buy a single very-low-temperature freezer for storing specimens.

[onion]

NSF and some small conservation grants, and if you're lucky, National Geographic Society or the Nature Conservancy may fund you in small amounts (NGS usually gives less than $15,000).

This is somewhat tangential, but for frame-of-reference purposes, I just want to point out that while $15,000 may sound like a lot of dough to some of us, it can cost that much to buy a single very-low-temperature freezer for storing specimens.

This is all very informative for me, and I hope to remember it all if I ever end up on the College P&T Committee.

And it's funny because if I had a summer and $15,000 on top of my salary, I could research the next book!  Everything is relative...

[the_honey_badger]

And it's funny because if I had a summer and $15,000 on top of my salary, I could research the next book!  Everything is relative...

It sure is realtive---an entire summer off and that much money? I could research the next book, get a good start on drafting it and do it in comparative luxury at my regional archives. It would be great!

[barred_owl]

I'm sure this is flogging a dead horse and clearly it's a thread hijack (continued from above though) but it's just hard to ignore how little we understand each other in different fields.  In my area of science publication can be slow because we often travel to remote locations and then stay there for months.  Once there we have to find rare plants or animals, deal with weather that can affect the ability to find those organisms, and then if we're experimentalists keep those animals alive long enough for those experiments.  It's tough to figure out what to feed an insect you've never even seen before.  After that we write papers that have to integrate the work of the last hundred years to tell a new story about how the world functions.  That's ignoring figuring out Bayesian analysis, getting permits, and actually having interesting experimental results.  This isn't to say history isn't hard - my assumption is we all work pretty comparably hard - but it's good to know more about how other academics work and not make too many assumptions.  Ok back to reasonable advice for the OP...

Thanks for this.  I guess when I included anthropologists, I was thinking about field work (i.e. extensive travel to remote locations) and that applies in the sciences as well.  Pardon my myopia.  How are grant/funding opportunities in your field?

NSF and some small conservation grants, and if you're lucky, National Geographic Society or the Nature Conservancy may fund you in small amounts (NGS usually gives less than $15,000).  Sometimes there are species, or taxonomic-group specific funding, such as exist for primates or tigers.  In the USA sometimes states will put aside money for study of species that it considers important. 

I'll add that many field studies are seasonal in nature.  One may be required to return to a field site several times for data collection, and living on or near a site may require renting a place to live, in addition to the costs for travel, equipment, consumable supplies, field assistants, and so forth.  So, a one-time grant of $15K might have to stretch across two or more field seasons.  Future funding opportunities, too, are often based on the outcome of the original funded research--if experiments fail, don't work, or result in inconclusive findings, it's much harder to make a case for continuing support.  This last consideration is true for bench scientists as well.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

This is somewhat tangential, but for frame-of-reference purposes, I just want to point out that while $15,000 may sound like a lot of dough to some of us, it can cost that much to buy a single very-low-temperature freezer for storing specimens.

Those were specimens?  I thought they were just beakers of very cold apple juice. 

From unusually sour apples.

- DvF

[mouseman]

I'm sure this is flogging a dead horse and clearly it's a thread hijack (continued from above though) but it's just hard to ignore how little we understand each other in different fields.  In my area of science publication can be slow because we often travel to remote locations and then stay there for months.  Once there we have to find rare plants or animals, deal with weather that can affect the ability to find those organisms, and then if we're experimentalists keep those animals alive long enough for those experiments.  It's tough to figure out what to feed an insect you've never even seen before.  After that we write papers that have to integrate the work of the last hundred years to tell a new story about how the world functions.  That's ignoring figuring out Bayesian analysis, getting permits, and actually having interesting experimental results.  This isn't to say history isn't hard - my assumption is we all work pretty comparably hard - but it's good to know more about how other academics work and not make too many assumptions.  Ok back to reasonable advice for the OP...

Thanks for this.  I guess when I included anthropologists, I was thinking about field work (i.e. extensive travel to remote locations) and that applies in the sciences as well.  Pardon my myopia.  How are grant/funding opportunities in your field?

NSF and some small conservation grants, and if you're lucky, National Geographic Society or the Nature Conservancy may fund you in small amounts (NGS usually gives less than $15,000).  Sometimes there are species, or taxonomic-group specific funding, such as exist for primates or tigers.  In the USA sometimes states will put aside money for study of species that it considers important.  

I'll add that many field studies are seasonal in nature.  One may be required to return to a field site several times for data collection, and living on or near a site may require renting a place to live, in addition to the costs for travel, equipment, consumable supplies, field assistants, and so forth.  So, a one-time grant of $15K might have to stretch across two or more field seasons.  Future funding opportunities, too, are often based on the outcome of the original funded research--if experiments fail, don't work, or result in inconclusive findings, it's much harder to make a case for continuing support.  This last consideration is true for bench scientists as well.

Furthermore, even for ecologists, who work on shoe-string budgets, compared to other fields in biology, equipment can be quite expensive.  For example, a medium-sized live-trap costs about $45-60.  Doesn't seem like much, except that, for a decent experimental set up, you'll need about 100 units.  There goes 1/3 of the $15,000.  Then think of bait, marking, gas, etc...  Of course, if, like me, you radio-collar animals, well, a GPS collar goes for $1,500 per unit...  You get the idea.

[marigolds]

You guys have officially scared the pants off me now. 

[the_honey_badger]

You guys have officially scared the pants off me now. 

[slapping palms across each other]  Good, then our work here is done!

[daniel_von_flanagan]

You guys have officially scared the pants off me now. 

Mouseman is just talking about devices that monitor animal behavior.  The gizmos that let scientists control animal behavior (we call them "willards") are far more expensive, and beyond the limits of NSF funding. DoD is another matter. - DvF

[mister_p]

Food for thought from another field:

http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10466