Emiel van MiltenburgDec 22, 2022

Does anyone have experience with sharing their (successful) research proposals?

If so:
- How did you share your proposal?
- When did you share your proposal?

If you didn't:
- Why didn't you share your proposal?

Would be nice to do this as a form of preregistration: publicly stating the goal of your project and the proposed research methods. Could also time-stamp & schedule it to be made public upon completion of the project.

Show threadMark DingemanseDec 22, 2022
@evanmiltenburg I am usually happy to share mine on (personal) request
Show threadEmiel van MiltenburgDec 22, 2022
@dingemansemark That's great to know, but why not make them fully public? (Or public once the project has been completed.)
Show threadMark Dingemanse

@evanmiltenburg tricky... sharing publicly in early stages of the project feels like scooping the project, and these things get dated after a while (e.g. my Veni and Vidi predate the narrative CV, now evidence-based CV, at NWO)

I may share the completed Veni proposal though, you have got me thinking about this

Dec 22, 2022 at 12:48pmWeb
Show threadDamian TrillingDec 22, 2022
@dingemansemark @evanmiltenburg When people ask me on a personal level, I share proposals. But uploading it somewhere.... I'd be careful b/c of it getting outdated like Mark said, and b/c projects *never* are done exactly as proposed (because the world and science move on), and I do think there are (few, but one can be enough!) bad-faith actors out there that may hunt you with some "Gotcha! Look at these frauds, they didn't do what they promise!!!!" shitstorm.Little to win but much to loose...
Show threadEmiel van MiltenburgDec 22, 2022

@damiantrilling @dingemansemark If no one ends up doing what they thought they would do, then that's interesting and worthy of reflection!

I (naively?) think that these worries about critics just mean that proposals may need to be shared (or integrated) with some accompanying text to explain the choices that were made.

If you can anticipate this criticism, that also means you can prepare for it.

Show threadDamian TrillingDec 22, 2022
@evanmiltenburg @dingemansemark I agree - but then again, it essentially requires extra work, an extra liability, and nothing to win for the individual. I'm willing to go quite far for the 'common good' - but here, I think the incentives are just too skewed. We already have to worry about so much things that are not research itself (just compare research 10 years ago: expectations now include ethics approval, preregistration,... - good measures by itself, but one also still needs ...1/2
Show threadDamian TrillingDec 22, 2022
@evanmiltenburg @dingemansemark ... to have the time and headspace for the reseach itself, and having to worry about such a 'justification note' (plus the scooping part that has also been mentioned), it at one point just is too much 'non-primary-process' stuff that one does... So I am sympathetic to sharing proposals (a lot, actually!) but would probably not do it on a public platform... 2/2
Show threadMark DingemanseDec 22, 2022

@damiantrilling @evanmiltenburg

Yeah I think on balance I feel pretty much the same.

In response to Emiel's point that it's 'worthy of reflection' if you end up doing something different, I absolutely agree — it's why I wrote about the importance of serendipity in my final Veni report (blog: https://ideophone.org/the-role-of-serendipity-in-shaping-fundamental-research/)

The role of serendipity in shaping fundamental research | The Ideophone

Show threadEmiel van MiltenburgDec 22, 2022
@dingemansemark Would be nice to see the proposal + post-hoc assessment about how you've grown during the project and maybe changed your plans based on experience or new developments.