2016 NEH Panelist Survey

NEH Panelist Survey

Introduction to this Survey: Traditionally, the NEH has done the bulk of its peer review panels in-person. That is, panelists travel to
Washington and participate in a face-to-face meeting. Recently, we have begun to experiment with remote panels, including some
conducted via telephone conference call and some via a video-conferencing system.
As a panelist who has served on both types of panels (in-person and remote) we are keen to get your frank opinions about the
strengths and weaknesses of each and understand how we can improve the panelist experience.
To that end, we would be grateful if you would respond to the following questions, which we expect to take about fifteen minutes.
Thank you!
OMB #: 3136-0140, Exp: 12/31/2018
Public Burden Statement
The Office of Management and Budget requires federal agencies to supply information on the time needed to complete forms and also
to invite comments on the paperwork burden. NEH estimates that the average time to complete this survey is fifteen minutes per
response. This estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing and reviewing the
survey.
Please send any comments regarding the estimated completion time or any other aspect of this survey, including suggestions for
reducing the completion time, to Brett Bobley at [email protected], or to National Endowment for the Humanities, Attn: Office of Digital
Humanities 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20506. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless
it displays a valid OMB number.

* 1. Your remote panel was of what type?

* 2. Prior to the panel discussion, what appealed to you about participating in anin-person panel in DC? If
there were any negatives, what were they?

* 3. Prior to the panel discussion, what appealed to you about participating in aremote (video or phone)
panel? If there were any negatives, what were they?

* 4. Did the panel format (in person vs. remote) signal to you that one review was more important to the NEH
than the other?

If Yes, please explain.

* 5. Did you prepare differently for an in-person panel than for a remote panel?

If Yes, please explain.

6. During each type of panel meeting, did you want more, less, or "OK as is" for each of the following?
In-Person Panel

Remote Panel

Time to convey your
thoughts fully?
To hear others’ thoughts
fully?
Organic discussion
among fellow panelists
Direction from the panel
chair (e.g. being asked
specific questions, being
called upon)
Time to discuss each
proposal
Time to discuss more
proposals (That is, do
you think some did not
get discussed that could
have been a contender
for funding OR did the
discussion include too
many that did not seem
fundable?
Comments?

* 7. What was the best part of thein-person discussion? What, if anything, hindered the in-person
discussion?

* 8. What was the best part of theremote discussion? What, if anything, hindered the remote discussion?

* 9. In your opinion, was the quality of the review equal for applications going to both in-person and remote
panels? Please explain.

* 10. One goal of a panel, in addition to adjudicating applications, is to cultivate the understanding of current
work in the humanities and at the NEH. For example, we hope that a panel may help a junior scholar learn
about the grant process or help panelists and NEH staff refresh their knowledge of humanities fields. Do
either of the panel methods (in person vs. remote) better facilitate this? Please describe.

11. Do you have any suggestions for how NEH could improve either remote or in person panels?