Link to Session Platform

Chairs(s):

Trina Hamilton, State University of New York at Buffalo (UB)

; Elizabeth Havice, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Description:

Is there space for critical geography at NSF? How are critical geography proposals reviewed in NSF’s Human-Environment and Geographical Sciences (HEGS) program? Recent program name and description changes sparked anger and concern that NSF was drawing new boundaries that would negatively affect funding prospects for critical geography (broadly conceived) and Black and Brown geographers in particular. As governance scholars, we (the panel organizers) recognize the significance of mission statements and other agenda-setting practices, and also recognize the need to go inside institutions in order to understand what actually goes on in the room as concepts such as “science” and “broader impacts” are defined and operationalized. In this AAG panel, recent HEGS review panelists from the regular proposal panel will share their experiences as reviewers in an attempt to peel back the curtain on this NSF grant review process. Panelists will be speaking only in their personal/professional capacity and are not representing the National Science Foundation broadly or the HEGS division specifically. While we do not have direct insight into the processes or rationale behind the shift from GSS to HEGS or the communication around that decision, our goal is to provide would-be proposal writers with concrete information that will a) encourage more geography submissions to HEGS from critical geographers, b) help to prepare proposal writers (graduate students and faculty from across the discipline) to craft competitive proposals, and c) encourage diverse representation on the HEGS review panel and throughout NSF.

The panel will commence with a brief, step-by-step summary of how the NSF HEGS review process works, including stages of ad hoc and panelist reviews, the structure of the panel, and panel ranking processes. Following this introduction, panelists will reflect on the following questions:

- What are common characteristics of successful proposals in general and specifically in areas of critical geography?
- What are common mistakes made by proposal writers?
- How do panelists treat and respond to proposals outside of their own research sub-fields and/or epistemologies?
- How do the HEGS program description and other NSF priorities shape the panel review process?
- What works and what are specific areas for improvement of the panel review process?

Finally, we plan to leave plenty of time for questions and answers, and to collectively develop feedback for NSF program officers and directors.

Non-Presenting Participants Agenda