2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[Bren]

I know a few people who were caught out in the gender aspect. It doesn't matter one bit if gender isn't relevant to your research, this isn't about logic or rationality, but, rather, the prevailing political climate in Europe. Feminist theory has penetrated political society, one has to be gender aware regardless. We live in the postmodern era, as Jordan Peterson would say.


quote=Dort post_id=7668 time=1550099574 user_id=506]
I understand (though not completely agree) with most of the comments made on my project... But I have to say that it is simply an absurd having to add a single word on gender if it is just not relevant to the project (as was my case). Losing points for not wasting time on somethint irrelevant (for the project) is just fucking ridiculous.

"The proposal lacks clear specifications of how gender aspects would be addressed analytically or conceptually."

Well, because gender aspects will NOT be addressed!

"- The proposal does not clearly identify internet studies as an appropriate area for the researcher to gain new knowledge during the fellowship."

Internet studies is exactly my main area of study, all my research (previous and future) relates to internet, do I really need to say that I'll gain knowledge on it during the fellowship?

Also it really seems reviewers don't pay attention to what you write. I proposed a field trip on my project, but mentioned that one of my WP's was focused exaclty in prospecting possible targets for interviews (in a series of countries) In other words, one WP was solely to find who to interview but the reviewer complained that I failed to provide enough data on to who I'm going ot interview during the fild trip! Also that it wasn't clear the allocation of time for each country. I'm studying diaspora, so I allocate more or less time based on the size and relevance of the studied diaspora in each country. Ok, I failed to disclose it, but because that seems absurdly obvious, specially when I say that part of the job was to look for interviewees.
[/quote]

[lolome]

I did not say anything regarding gender aspects in my proposal, because they are not relevant, and was not penalized (97.6%). As someone said before, it is perhaps used as an excuse when the reviewer wants to find reasons to justify his/her opinion about the project.

I know a few people who were caught out in the gender aspect. It doesn't matter one bit if gender isn't relevant to your research, this isn't about logic or rationality, but, rather, the prevailing political climate in Europe. Feminist theory has penetrated political society, one has to be gender aware regardless. We live in the postmodern era, as Jordan Peterson would say.

[Bren]

Maybe you had reviewers with some common sense. I plan on applying to be an expert soon, and I hope to be such a reviewer.

I did not say anything regarding gender aspects in my proposal, because they are not relevant, and was not penalized (97.6%). As someone said before, it is perhaps used as an excuse when the reviewer wants to find reasons to justify his/her opinion about the project.

I know a few people who were caught out in the gender aspect. It doesn't matter one bit if gender isn't relevant to your research, this isn't about logic or rationality, but, rather, the prevailing political climate in Europe. Feminist theory has penetrated political society, one has to be gender aware regardless. We live in the postmodern era, as Jordan Peterson would say.

[CountZ]

Just a quick post to tell you that I've opened a new thread "MSCA-IF awardees in 2019 and academics networking" to keep this beautiful gathering of gentle people going on!

Link to Turpentine's thread: viewtopic.php?p=7670

[danGFSOC]

As already said and proved by lolome, the gender aspect is not the problem (but part of the procedural and "codification" problems in the evaluation). I know funded projects in which the gender aspect was clearly relevant and was not addressed as well as funded projects in which the gender aspect was not addressed because not relevant. I think the problem is that the evaluation procedure is very rigidly codified and sometimes the real reason you do not get it is not clearly spelled. So they pick different marginal elements to bring your score down and gender aspect is one of those elements. For projects that I know and for my project, they used very marginal elements for setting the score under the threshold like: Intellectual Property Rights (even if not relevant), frequency of your communication activities (how many times you update your twitter account... I mean...), etc.... Gender and also Interdisciplinary aspects enter among these elements that are used to do it (also because they are in the Excellence part).

I have got it at the third attempt. I got a very helpful and well-done evaluation the first time with a low score (77) and a meaningless evaluation the second time with a high score (88). My idea is that the second time they did not find the project convincing enough also for limits that, although not codified in the guide and clearly spelled in the evaluation, were clear to me: I had a too strong connection with host in Europe (a university where I was MA student, PhD and post-doc) and supervisor (my supervisor during post-doc) and there is also a strong connection between countries and institutions (my former institution has a branch in the third country where I have the secondment phase). These elements can be evaluated positively (you know what you do and with whom and strong practical support) and negatively (no real exchange, no real differences in approaches): at the end they are not evaluated explicitly because can be very slippery in evaluation. I tried to explain why the project contributes to my career and to my institution, but it was very difficult to do it (what my instution could give to me after 20 years training and working in it as student, PhD and postdoc? What could give my project to an institution with already very strong links and past and ongoing projects with the TC?). Last year they identified just a weakness in Excellence that was written very badly and cut my score hugely and very ridicolous weaknesses in the other sections (frequency in updating webistes for example). In 2018 I moved the project to another host and another country (also because the situation in my country is getting, if possible, worse) and these limits were not concretely there anymore. I got it with 5/5 in Excellence with a score of 98,4 and the negative comment of last year just disappeared.

On one hand, there is a clear problem in the "codification" of the evaluation process at large.On the other hand, the evaluation process of 10'000 applications is very difficult to manage and check, ensuring for each application a very high quality of evaluators and comments. The second problem can be solved by giving more time to evaluators, for example with an evaluation process that can take 9 months and not 5. Now, with this number, luck plays a too much important role (although they will always play a role). And I keep saying this now just like I did in the past when rejected.

I did not say anything regarding gender aspects in my proposal, because they are not relevant, and was not penalized (97.6%). As someone said before, it is perhaps used as an excuse when the reviewer wants to find reasons to justify his/her opinion about the project.

I know a few people who were caught out in the gender aspect. It doesn't matter one bit if gender isn't relevant to your research, this isn't about logic or rationality, but, rather, the prevailing political climate in Europe. Feminist theory has penetrated political society, one has to be gender aware regardless. We live in the postmodern era, as Jordan Peterson would say.

[CountZ]

Dan congrats! I know you have been a part of our community since before the forum, so I'm really glad you got it this time around!!

What do you mean by a codification problem? It seems that you are saying that projects are given "impression marks" that don't correspond to an objective element of the evaluation sheet. Since these are subjective and may be questionable, the evaluators choose to not justify them in the comments, or to choose on minor issues as substitutes.

On one hand, there is a clear problem in the "codification" of the evaluation process at large.On the other hand, the evaluation process of 10'000 applications is very difficult to manage and check, ensuring for each application a very high quality of evaluators and comments. T

[Mojca]

Dan were you applying for global fellowship? Congrats

[rkrkochi]

I am 7th in the reserve list Any chance St-IF-Chem

[hmdoel]

How much do the reviewers get paid per review? Anyone know?

They got paid per day work = 450 euro
But i really wonder how many person-hour the EU count for every proposal review

[hopefulacademic]

€450/day??? I should become a reviewer rather than going for the grant itself