3 ms·
This is a common trick for theorists. You need to have essentially completed the work in order to write a compelling grant proposal.
by antognini 3y ago
This is a common trick for theorists. You need to have essentially completed the work in order to write a compelling grant proposal.
- lisper 3y agoI did this when I was a researcher even though I was not a theorist (I was working in mobile robots). I always worked a year ahead, and write a proposal for what I had done the year before. I acquired a reputation as someone who always delivered. Then one year I had a proposal rejected on the grounds that what I was proposing was impossible to achieve within the budget and time frame I was proposing. That's when I quit.
- genericone 3y agoThey wanted you to ask for more time and money? What kind of grift were they actually running?
- marcosdumay 3y agoPeople evaluate the proposals expecting them to be estimations. And when somebody estimate some work taking too little time or money, people often don't trust that estimate. This is all completely normal and reasonable. Except for the part where you are expected to estimate results of scientific research.
- mcmoor 3y agoYeah too good to be true things are red flag for fraud or pipe dream
- ok_dad 3y agoI hope you quit, took 6 months off, then came back with the previously finished work and told them, “You were right! It only took six months and zero grant money; I did this while traveling in Japan.” That might have blown their little bureaucrat minds.
- lisper 3y agoThe problem is that the reviews were anonymous (which was supposed to make the process less political). My direct managers knew what I was doing.