THE KEYS TO PREPARING SUCCESSFUL RESEARCH GRANT PROPOSALS

This article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.competitive grants, national research initiative competitive grants program, NRI, USDA-CSREES, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

Peer Review Practices

Peer Review (PRev) is among the oldest certification practices in science and was designed to prevent poor research from taking place. There is overall agreement that PRev is the most solid method for the evaluation of scientific quality. Since PRev spans the boundaries of several societal communities, science and policy, research and practice, academia and bureaucracy, public and private, the purposes and meaning of this process may be understood differently across the communities. In Europe, internationally competitive research activities take place in large superstructures as well as in small, insufficiently funded university departments; research can be publicly or privately funded; the purpose may be applied research often with a focus on the needs of regional industry, or purely ‘blue-sky’ research. In current report we focused mainly in on PRev of grant applications, the analysis has been carried out on the basis of PRev related literature analysis (Thomson Reuters, Union Library Catalogues, Google Scholar, and reports of selected research funding organisations)

Herding Cats: Improving Law School Teaching

What makes a good law teacher? Is excellence in teaching largely a matter of intellectual brilliance, of superior organization and delivery of material, of friendliness and fairness to one\u27s students? Or does it have more to do with style, with stage presence, with the ability to engage an audience in the act of reflective and spontaneous thinking? While the question of how to define and evaluate teaching necessarily bedevils deans and tenure committees who must make personnel decisions, the focus on defining the competent teacher has obscured from faculty attention the more fundamental question: how can we implement a system to improve faculty performance across the board? It is this question that law schools around the country have not adequately addressed. Three years ago, the faculty of Franklin Pierce Law Center adopted a program to improve our classroom teaching. This article describes and evaluates that program, in which all three authors played a role

University of Northern Iowa Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda, October 12, 2009

Meeting agenda from the Faculty Senate of the University of Northern Iowa

Ageing bodies and the space they call home

Within the population of âolder adultsâ there is more diversity than in any other user group. Yet, generalised assumptions still exist about their capabilities, needs, and technology use. This paper briefly outlines existing research into designing technology for (older) users and suggests that the built environment can, and should, serve as the canvas for new technologies that support the sociophysical interactions of ageing bodies. Innovations coming from the fields of tangible interaction and interactive architecture have the opportunity to consider the whole environment in which such bodies reside. Rather than devising specific technologies for older users, this paper suggests focusing on the incorporation of flexible, mainstream technologies, into adaptable, intelligent homes, which support the autonomy of older adults. The challenges of such an endeavour are discussed as the grounding for future research into sociophysical technology that supports older user

The Advocate

Profs to Students: Drop Dead ; Kill Reading Week After Amending Minutes; FLS on Trial at Columbia; Archie Williams Takes Wormser Moot; Nat\u27l Team Stopped Despite High Score; William Henry Takes Second; Best Brief 2nd in Oralshttps://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/student_the_advocate/1064/thumbnail.jp