TAMU-C Proposal Writing Workshop If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any : TAMU-C Proposal Writing Workshop If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any Presented by Mike Cronan, PE, Director, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M University
Introductory Tips on Proposal Writing
Social & Behavioral Sciences & Education Funding Agencies (NSF, NIH, DoED, HHS)
Developing Partnerships in Math, Science & Education
Research Funding Advice & Strategies for Junior Faculty, or Faculty Transitioning Research to New Areas
8:30 to 2:30 (lunch will be served)
2:30 to 4:30 Individual PI meetings with Mike Cronan
Mayo Room, 2rd floor, Memorial Student Center
OPD WEB: http://opd.tamu.edu/
Office of Proposal Development : Office of Proposal Development Unit of Vice President for Research Office;
Supports faculty in the development and writing of research and educational proposals:
center-level initiatives,
multidisciplinary research teams,
research affinity groups,
junior faculty research,
diversity in the research enterprise.
Office of Proposal Development, OPD-WEB : Office of Proposal Development, OPD-WEB OPD-WEB (http://opd.tamu.edu/) is an interactive tool and faculty resource for the development and writing of competitive research and educational proposals to federal agencies and foundations:
Funding opportunities (http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities)
Junior faculty support (http://opd.tamu.edu/resources-for-junior-faculty)
Proposal resources (http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources)
Grant writing seminars (http://opd.tamu.edu/seminar-materials)
Grant writing workbook (http://opd.tamu.edu/the-craft-of-writing-workbook)
PI Observations
Members, Office of Proposal Development : Members, Office of Proposal Development Jean Ann Bowman, ecological and environmental sciences/ agriculture-related proposals and centers, jbowman@tamu.edu;
Libby Childress, Scheduling, resources, training workshop management, project coordination, libbyc@tamu.edu;
Mike Cronan, center-level proposals, A&M System partnerships, new proposal and training initiatives, mikecronan@tamu.edu;
Lucy Deckard, New faculty initiative, fellowships, physical science-related proposals, equipment and instrumentation, interdisciplinary materials group, OPD web management l-deckard@tamu.edu;
John Ivy (June 1), biomedical & health related initiatives, NIH
Phyllis McBride, craft of proposal writing training, NIH and related agency initiatives in the biomedical, social and behavioral sciences; editing and rewriting, p-mcbride@tamu.edu;
Robyn Pearson, Education, social & behavioral sciences, and humanities-related proposals, interdisciplinary research groups, editing and rewriting, rlpearson@tamu.edu
Presenter Background : Presenter Background Mike Cronan, P.E., has 15 years experience at Texas A&M University in planning, developing, and writing successful center-level research and educational proposals.
Author of > $60 million in System-wide proposals funded by NSF: Texas AMP, Texas RSI, South Texas RSI, Texas Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, CREST Environmental Research Center, Information Technology in Science, CLT.
Named Regents Fellow (2000-04) by the Board of Regents for his leadership role in developing and writing NSF funded research and educational partnerships across the A&M System.
B.S., Civil Engineering (Structures), University of Michigan, 1983
M.F.A., English, University of California, Irvine, 1972
B.A., Political Science, Michigan State University, 1968
Registered Professional Engineer (Texas 063512, inactive)
http://opd.tamu.edu/people
Open Forum, Q&A Format : Open Forum, Q&A Format Audience is encouraged to ask questions continuously;
Audience questions will help direct, guide, and focus the discussion on proposal topics.
Generic Competitive Strategies : Generic Competitive Strategies Understanding the mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, culture, and review criteria of a funding agency will enhance the competitiveness of a proposal.
Knowledge about a funding agency helps the applicant make good decisions throughout the entire proposal development and writing process.
Analysis of the funding agency : Analysis of the funding agency Know the audience (e.g., program officers, reviewers) and the best way to address them.
Identify a fundable idea and characterized it within the context of the agency research investment priorities.
Communicate your passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform the proposed research to review panels.
Develop Agency Specific Knowledge Base : Develop Agency Specific Knowledge Base Electronic Funding Alert Services / Email Alerts
http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/electronic-funding-alert-services-email-alerts
Grants.gov
http://www.grants.gov/
http://www.grants.gov/search/subscribeAll.do
MYNSF
http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/electronic-funding-alert-services-email-alerts
NIH National Institutes of Health Listserv
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/listserv.htm
U.S. Dept. of Education, EDINFO
http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind05&L=edinfo
Writing a competitive proposal : Writing a competitive proposal Preparing to write
Developing hypothesis & research plan
Preliminary data & background data
Writing the proposal
Preparing to write a competitive proposal : Preparing to write a competitive proposal Develop a sound, testable hypothesis
Ask other faculty to review proposal for competitiveness of ideas and appropriateness to agency
Understand the program guidelines (RFP)
Relationship with program officers (e.g., NIH/NSF)
Understand funding agency culture, language, mission, strategic plan, research investment priorities (e.g. NIH Roadmap, NSF Strategic Plan)
Understand the agency review criteria, review process, & review panels (http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources/understanding-the-proposal-review-process-by-agency)
Developing the hypothesis & research plan : Developing the hypothesis & research plan Review research currently funded by an agency within your research domain (e.g., reports, abstracts)
Communicate your research passion and capacity to perform to reviewers
Know your audience (e.g., agency, program officers, reviewers)
Explain how your research fits the agency;
Support claims of research uniqueness and innovation
Build on your research expertise
Do not present overly ambitious research plans
Preliminary data & background data : Preliminary data & background data Present evidence of “research readiness” to show the proposed work can be accomplished
Present evidence of institutional support for the research (e.g., facilities, equipment & instrumentation)
Know what counts as preliminary and background data and how much is sufficient
Map your research directions and interests to funding agency research priorities (e.g. NIH Roadmap)
Writing the proposal : Writing the proposal
Tell a good story grounded in good science that excites the reviewers and program officers
Ensuring the proposal is competitive for funding—
Proposal Form
Use program guidelines as a proposal template
Good writing, clear arguments, reviewer friendly text (don’t make reviewers work), organization, figures, etc.
Proposal Content
If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any : If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any – Important to have your proposal targeted. Look for the intersection of:
where research dollars are available;
your technical interests; and
where you can write a competitive proposal within the time you have available.
Researchers have a lot of great ideas but if not in scope of the agency it will not be funded;
For proposals that have RFPs, or others that are blue sky, unsolicited research, the key is to have a good idea that you are enough of an entrepreneur to sell someone else that it is a good idea and worthy of funding.
If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any : If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any Get someone who writes well to read your proposal for coherence and “hook” and to review the writing,
Remember your reviewers are broader in scope than your one proposal and if you get too technical you get too many reviewers that don’t understand;
Some think if you submit your best idea it will be stolen but if you submit your second best idea it won’t be funded .
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Relates to purposes & goals of the applicant agency.
Adheres to the content and format guidelines of the applicant agency.
Establish your major points succinctly & repeatedly.
Directed toward the appropriate audience--i.e., those who review the proposal.
Write for technically diverse reviewers; intelligent readers, not experts
Avoid unnecessary complexity and technical minutia
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Addresses the review criteria of the funding agency.
Interesting to read; compelling ideas; conveys excitement to reviewers.
Uses a clear, concise, coherent writing style, free of jargon, superfluous information, and undefined acronyms -- i.e., easy to read.
Organized in a logical manner that is easy to follow; use RFP as an organizational template.
Use of figures, graphs, charts, and other visuals.
Proofread so it is free of grammatical errors, misspellings, & typos.
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Clear, concise, informative abstract that stands alone and serves as roadmap to the narrative.
Clearly stated goals and objectives not buried in a morass of dense narrative densely formatted.
Clearly documents the need to be met or problems to be solved by the proposed project.
Indicates that the project's hypotheses rest on sufficient evidence and are conceptually sound.
Clearly describes who will do the work (who), the methods that will be employed (how), which facilities or location will be used (where), and a timetable of performance outcomes (when).
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Justifies the significance and/or contribution of the project on current scientific knowledge.
Includes appropriate and sufficient citations to prior work, ongoing studies, and related literature.
Establishes the competence and scholarship PI
Does not assume that reviewers "know what you mean."
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Makes no unsupported assumptions.
Discusses potential pitfalls & alternative approaches.
Plan for evaluating data or the success of project.
Is of reasonable scope; not overly ambitious.
Work can be accomplished in the time allotted.
Demonstrates that PIs and the organization are qualified to perform the proposed project;
Does not assume that the applicant agency "knows all about you."
Elements of a Successful Proposal : Elements of a Successful Proposal Includes vitae which demonstrate the credentials required (e.g., do not use promotion and tenure vitae replete with institutional committee assignments for a research proposal.)
Documents facilities necessary for the success of the project.
Includes necessary letters of support and other supporting documentation.
Includes a bibliography of cited references.
Elements of a Successful Proposal Budget : Elements of a Successful Proposal Budget Has a budget which corresponds to the narrative: all major elements detailed in the budget are described in the narrative and vice versa.
Has a budget sufficient to perform the tasks described in the narrative.
Has a budget which corresponds to the applicant agency's guidelines with respect to content and detail, including a budget justification if required.
The forgoing list was collected from various sources, including Rebecca Claycamp, assistant chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Pittsburgh
Social & Behavioral Sciences & Education Funding Agencies (NSF, NIH, HHS, DoED) : Social & Behavioral Sciences & Education Funding Agencies (NSF, NIH, HHS, DoED) Gain a better understanding of each agency
Agency cultures
Competitive strategies
Comparisons among and between agencies
Review processes
Strategies for developing multidisciplinary proposals
Types of Research Agencies & Research : Types of Research Agencies & Research Basic research agencies (NIH, NSF);
Mission-focused agencies (DoED);
Hypothesis-driven research;
Need- or applications driven research at agencies.
http://opd.tamu.edu/the-craft-of-grant-writing-workbook/manual/the-craft-of-grant-writing-workbook/analyzing-funding-agencies
National Institutes of Health : National Institutes of Health It is interesting to get the "other side of the story" especially with respect to funding priorities and how they can change very quickly given specific research findings (not that the funding is immediately available for new projects, but more like decisions are made quickly about how to re-prioritize).
Funding is definitely tight at NIH right now and will be for the next few years. Applications have to be exemplary and very much tied to the current strategic plan of each institute and center. I guess that's what you guys have been preaching for some time....it just seems particularly relevant now.
Susan E. Maier, Ph.D., Office of Scientific Affairs, NIH/NIAAA (prior OPD)
NIH Reference Toolkit : NIH Reference Toolkit All About NIH Grants, Writing the R01
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm
Annotated R01 Grant Application and Summary Statement
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/app/default.htm
How to Write a NIH Grant Application
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/write/write_pf.htm
Advice for New Investigators: Who is a New Investigator?
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/plan/plan_i1.htm
http://www.training.nih.gov/careers/careercenter/grants.html
Develop a Strong Hypothesis
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/plan/plan_c1.htm
Research Plan Section a. Specific Aims
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/write/write_j1.htm
Proposal Writing: The Business of Science (NIH)
http://www.whitaker.org/sanders.html
NIH Grant Writing Handbook, Univ. Pennsylvania
http://www.med.upenn.edu/rpd/documents/gwm.pdf
Social Work Links: HHS, NIH & others : Social Work Links: HHS, NIH & others HHS Funding (http://www.hhs.gov/grants/index.shtml)
HHS Funding for Women’s Health (http://www.4woman.gov/fund/)
HHS Funding Opportunities, ACF (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/grant/fundingopportunities/fundopport.htm)
HHS Office of Community Services Funding (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_ocs.html)
Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health (R01) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-081.html)
Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health (R03) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-082.html)
GWB School of Social Work, Washington Univ. (http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/library/websites.html)
A Guide to Internet Resources in Social Work (http://www.abacon.com/internetguides/social/weblinks.html);
Social Work Links: HHS & others : Social Work Links: HHS & others Social Work Internet Resources (http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/resources/socialwork.html)
Institute for Advancement of Social Work Research (http://www.charityadvantage.com/iaswr/TechnicalResources.asp)
Ball State Social Funding (http://www.bsu.edu/oarsp/pubs/htmlnewsltr/dec2003/social.htm)
LSU Health Science Center Funding (http://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/ResearchAndEvaluation/Research/FundingOpportunities.html)
CNDC Funding (http://www.cndc2.org/funding_opportunities.htm#recent)
Selected Slides for NIH : Selected Slides for NIH
NIH: Don't Propose Too Much : NIH: Don't Propose Too Much Sharpen the focus of your application. Novice applicants often overshoot their mark, proposing too much.
Make sure the scale of your hypothesis and aims fits your request of time and resources.
Reviewers will quickly pick up on how well matched these elements are.
Your hypothesis should be provable and aims doable with the resources you are requesting.
NIH: Develop a Solid Hypothesis : NIH: Develop a Solid Hypothesis Many top-notch NIH grant applications are driven by strong hypotheses rather than advances in technology (NSF, DoD counterpoint).
Think of your hypothesis as the foundation of your application -- the conceptual underpinning on which the entire structure rests.
Generally applications should ask questions that prove or disprove a hypothesis rather than use a method to search for a problem or simply collect information.
NIH: Develop a Solid Hypothesis : NIH: Develop a Solid Hypothesis Choose an important, testable, focused hypothesis that increases understanding of biologic processes, diseases, treatments, or preventions.
It should be based on previous research. State your hypothesis in both the specific aims section of the research plan and the abstract.
Avoid a fishing expedition. Reviewers see many grants that did not have a hypothesis; rather, the investigator was obviously hoping that something interesting would pop up in the course of his or her investigation. That sort of approach is not appealing to a study section.
NIH: Applications Driven Research : NIH: Applications Driven Research A new trend is pushing NIH toward more applied research.
Especially in key areas, such as studies of organisms used for bioterrorism, NIH is turning more to applications seeking to discover basic biology or develop or use a new technology.
If your application is not hypothesis-based, state this in your cover letter and give the reasons why the work is important.
Section a. Specific Aims : Section a. Specific Aims Your specific aims are the objectives of your research project, what you want to accomplish, and your project milestones.
Write this section for audiences, primary reviewers and other reviewers, since they'll all read it.
Choose aims reviewers can easily assess.
Your aims are the accomplishments by which the success of your project is measured.
Recommended length of this section is one page.
A common mistake new applicants make is being too ambitious. You should probably limit your proposal to three to four specific aims.
Design your specific aims and experiments so they answer the question posed by the hypothesis. Organize and define your aims so you can relate them directly to your research methods.
NIH: Investigator-initiated review criteria : NIH: Investigator-initiated review criteria Significance
Does the study address an important problem?
Approach
Are the design and methods appropriate to the address the aims?
Innovation
Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, methods?
Investigator
Is the investigator appropriately trained to carry out the study?
Environment
Will the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success?
Developing Partnerships in Mathematics, Science & Education : Developing Partnerships in Mathematics, Science & Education There are three general categories of grants made to universities by federal agencies that include educational partnership components:
research grants,
integrated research and education grants, and
education grants.
Key Partnership Infrastructures : Key Partnership Infrastructures Developing educational partnerships or partnerships to address agency specific educational and outreach components to research proposals, include:
institutional commitment to the effort
resources available on campus,
effective models,
evaluation and assessment capacities,
defining long term objectives and outcomes.
Required Educational Partnerships : Required Educational Partnerships Increasingly, principal investigators are required by federal research agencies, most notably the National Science Foundation, to address educational or related activities in research proposals.
At NSF, this requirement derives from two agency-wide priorities: 1) the agency strategy for the integration of research and education and 2) the broader impacts review criterion (http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources/broaderimpacts/main.html).
However, many researchers struggle with the boarder impacts requirement, and often seek help in developing this section of the proposal and implementing and evaluating it if funded.
Educational Partnership Topics : Educational Partnership Topics Topics will include:
Developing and writing educational components to research grants,
Developing and writing any required evaluation and assessment components;
Linking to successful broader impacts models,
Linking to other groups on campus that can implement the required broader impacts or educational components to research grants
Define Community of Interest : Define Community of Interest Researchers
Providers of educational components
Providers of educational component models
Providers of evaluation and assessment
Writers of educational components of research grants
Define Educational Components by Agency : Define Educational Components by Agency National Science Foundation
Broader Impacts criterion
Research-education integration core strategy
Societal impacts
National Institutions of Health
Educational objectives mostly separate programs
NASA Education and Public Outreach
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/research/epo.htm
http://ssibroker.colorado.edu/Broker/Eval_criteria/Guide/Default.htm
Energy, NOAA, Others
NSF Broader Impacts : NSF Broader Impacts The advance of discovery and understanding;
Improvement of the participation of underrepresented groups;
Enhancement of the education/research infrastructure;
Broad dissemination of results; and
Benefits of the activity to society at large.
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/bicexamples.pdf
1. Tips on Developing Partnerships : 1. Tips on Developing Partnerships Fully committed PI with institutional support
Beware “good idea” that lacks institutional advocate
Analysis of the RFP
Assemble proposal development team
Partnerships/collaboratives are often more competitive
Ensure team members "brings something to the table"
2. Tips on Developing Partnerships : 2. Tips on Developing Partnerships Clearly define reasons for and nature of partnership
State concise benefits of the partnership
Review each team member's relevance to the RFP
Develop major concepts specific to each RFP item
3. Tips on Developing Partnerships : 3. Tips on Developing Partnerships Develop strong arguments specific to each RFP item or objective
Integrate specific objectives into overarching vision or strategic plan
Integrate evaluation and assessment (http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources/online-project-evaluation-assessment-resources-for-principal-investigators)
4. Tips on Developing Partnerships : 4. Tips on Developing Partnerships Initial teaming process and brainstorming will not be linear
Distill concepts and arguments into linear presentation
Converge drafts and interactions to final text
Research Funding Advice & Strategies for Junior Faculty & Other Researchers : Research Funding Advice & Strategies for Junior Faculty & Other Researchers How to be successful in winning funding early in your research career;
Special challenges and opportunities available to new faculty as they work to establish their research program and to compete for federal research funding;
NSF, NIH and related Young Faculty CAREER awards
1. How to be successful in winning funding : 1. How to be successful in winning funding Critical to gain as much informal insight into funding situation as possible;
Each agency has its own culture, its own track. Your research should be what you love – not just what is popular;
Make yourself known in the scientific community and to reviewers.
Give talks at meetings, seminars – know how to be politically savvy and engaged with peer community;
Make your scientific enterprise work for you;
Publish
2. How to be successful in winning funding : 2. How to be successful in winning funding Experience working with large interdisciplinary teams. Different agencies have a different view of research.
Choose your opportunities carefully – it’s easy to see your own research interests in many different solicitations, but you have to do your homework and review the agency, the solicitations, and look for related workshops and primary documents that have led to the solicitations.
Particularly at NSF, know your program manager. Don’t hesitate to call.
3. How to be successful in winning funding : 3. How to be successful in winning funding As junior faculty, if you have start-up funds, you want to spend some of that to develop preliminary data to develop your track record. Use it as a foundation to move forward.
The role of mentors is critical. Some junior faculty just need the support. Learning how to write, learning about the agency. What does the RFP really mean?
4. How to be successful in winning funding : 4. How to be successful in winning funding It is crucial to read the RFP very carefully. Write to the RFP. You have to respond to every item.
Proposals take a lot of effort. Don’t lose because of some overlooked requirement.
Get help from others who have read the RFP or who have funding already.
Your summary or abstract is critical. That can be what sells your proposal – makes reviewers want to keep reading. It should include all the critical points of your proposal.
5. How to be successful in winning funding : 5. How to be successful in winning funding At NSF, it is very important to know the program officers. They have power. They keep up with trends in their field. They need to know your name. They’ll work with you.
However, just because you know the PD doesn’t guarantee funding. There are checks and balances at NSF. There’s still a peer review process. It is a professional relationship, and it’s objective. Just getting along with the program officer won’t turn bad science into good science.
6. How to be successful in winning funding : 6. How to be successful in winning funding Consider writing a white paper first, particularly for unsolicited proposals to NSF, defense agencies or others.
Call the program manager – often there is money set aside. They’re looking for new ideas, but won’t just fund a cold proposal. Send the white paper and ask if they’re interested or if they know someone who might be.
This saves you time and gives you a reasonable chance of getting funded.
A white paper is a broad-brushed outline – what you will gain and why it will be successful and how you’ll do it, and rough costs.
7. How to be successful in winning funding : 7. How to be successful in winning funding It is informative to look at what has been funded before, especially if you’re having trouble finding out what the RFP means.
Also, you can see workshop documents, etc. You can prepare by going to workshops – get to know the research community and the program directors.
If you’re involved in the planning of future directions, you’re in a better position for future funding. Might be difficult for a young faculty, but certainly should do this as your career develops.
8. How to be successful in winning funding : 8. How to be successful in winning funding A common mistake among young investigators is to combine 3 projects into what should be only one. Focus is the key term – write a blue sky section at the end, if you like, talking about what your plans are for the future.
It doesn’t matter how good your idea is; if it is not well presented, it won’t get funded. The opposite is also true; no matter how well written a proposal is, if the science isn’t there, it won’t get funded. You have to have both form and content.
If your proposal has grammatical errors or is hard to follow, it can indicate sloppy research to reviewers.
Twelve Steps To A Winning Research Proposal by George A. Hazelrigg, NSF : Twelve Steps To A Winning Research Proposal by George A. Hazelrigg, NSF I have been an NSF program director for 18 years. During this time, I have personally administered the review of some 3,000 proposals and been involved in the review of perhaps another 10,000. Through this experience, I have come to see that often there are real differences between winning proposals and losing proposals. The differences are clear. Largely, they are not subjective differences or differences of quality; to a large extent, losing proposals are just plain missing elements that are found in winning proposals.
1. Know yourself: (Back) : 1. Know yourself: (Back) Know your area of expertise, what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses. Play to your strengths, not to your weaknesses. Do not assume that, because you do not understand an area, no one understands it or that there has been no previous research conducted in the area.
If you want to get into a new area of research, learn something about the area before you write a proposal. Research previous work. Be a scholar.
2. Know program from which you seek support: : 2. Know program from which you seek support: You are responsible for finding the appropriate program for support of your research. Don’t leave this task up to someone else. If you are not absolutely certain which program is appropriate, call the program officer to find out.
Never submit a proposal to a program if you are not certain that it is the correct program to support your area of research.
Proposals submitted inappropriately to programs may be returned without review, transferred to other programs where they are likely to be declined, or simply trashed in the program to which you submit. In any case, you have wasted your time writing a proposal that has no chance of success from the get-go.
3. Read the program announcement: : 3. Read the program announcement: Programs and special activities have specific goals and specific requirements. If you don’t meet those goals and requirements, you have thrown out your chance of success.
Read the announcement for what it says, not for what you want it to say.
If your research does not fit easily within the scope of the topic areas outlined, your chance of success is nil.
4. Formulate an appropriate research objective: : 4. Formulate an appropriate research objective: A research proposal is a proposal to conduct research, not to conduct development or design or some other activity. Research is a methodical process of building upon previous knowledge to derive or discover new knowledge, that is, something that isn’t known before the research is conducted.
In formulating a research objective, be sure that it hasn’t been proven impossible (for example, “My research objective is to find a geometric construction to trisect an angle”), that it is doable within a reasonable budget and in a reasonable time, that you can do it, and that it is research, not development.
5. Develop a viable research plan: : 5. Develop a viable research plan: A viable research plan is a plan to accomplish your research objective that has a non-zero probability of success. The focus of the plan must be to accomplish the research objective. In some cases, it is appropriate to validate your results. In such cases, a valid validation plan should be part of your research plan.
If there are potential difficulties lurking in your plan, do not hide from them, but make them clear and, if possible, suggest alternative approaches to achieving your objective.
A good research plan lays out step-by-step the approach to accomplishment of the research objective. It does not gloss over difficult areas with statements like, “We will use computers to accomplish this solution.”
6. State research objective clearly in proposal: : 6. State research objective clearly in proposal: A good research proposal includes a clear statement of the research objective. Early in the proposal is better than later in the proposal. The first sentence of the proposal is a good place. A good first sentence might be, “The research objective of this proposal is...” Do not use the word “develop” in the statement of your research objective. It is, after all, supposed to be a research objective, not a development objective.
Many proposals include no statement of the research objective whatsoever. The vast majority of these are not funded. Remember that a research proposal is not a research paper.
Do not spend the first 10 pages building up suspense over what is the research objective.
7. Frame project around the work of others: : 7. Frame project around the work of others: Remember that research builds on the extant knowledge base, that is, upon the work of others. Be sure to frame your project appropriately, acknowledging the current limits of knowledge and making clear your contribution to the extension of these limits.
Be sure that you include references to the extant work of others. Proposals that include references only to the work of the principal investigator stand a negligible probability of success.
Also frame your project in terms of its broader impact to the field and to society. Describe the benefit to society if your project is successful. A good statement is, “If successful, the benefits of this research will be...”
8. Grammar and spelling count: : 8. Grammar and spelling count: Proposals are not graded on grammar. But if the grammar is not perfect, the result is ambiguities left to the reviewer to resolve.
Ambiguities make the proposal difficult to read and often impossible to understand, and often result in low ratings. Be sure your grammar is perfect.
Also be sure every word is correctly spelled. If the word you want to use is not in the spell checker, consider carefully its use. Not in the spell checker usually means that most people won’t understand it. With only very special exceptions, it is not advisable to use words that are not in the spell checker. Reviewers used to say, “He’s just an engineer. Don’t mind the fact that he can’t spell.” Now they say, “He’s proposing to do complex computer modeling, but he doesn’t know how to use the spell checker...”
9. Format and brevity are important: : 9. Format and brevity are important: Do not feel that your proposal is rated based on its weight.
Do not do your best to be as verbose as possible, to cover every conceivable detail, to use the smallest permissible fonts, and to get the absolute most out of each sheet of paper.
Reviewers hate being challenged to read densely prepared text or to read obtusely prepared matter. Use 12 point fonts, use easily legible fonts, use generous margins. Take pity on the reviewers. Make your proposal a pleasant reading experience that puts important concepts up front and makes them clear. Use figures appropriately to make and clarify points, but not as filler.
Remember, you are writing this proposal to the reviewers, not to yourself. Remember that exceeding page limits or other format criteria, even marginally, can disqualify your proposal from consideration.
10. Know the review process: : 10. Know the review process: Know how your proposal will be reviewed before you write it. Proposals that are reviewed by panels must be written to a broader audience than proposals that will be reviewed by mail. Mail review can seek out reviewers with very specific expertise in very narrow disciplines. This is not possible in panels. Know approximately how many proposals will be reviewed with yours and plan not to overburden the reviewers with minutia. Keep in mind that, the more proposals a panel considers, the more difficult it will be for panelists to remember specific details of your proposal.
Remember, the main objective here is to write your proposal to get it through the review process successfully. It is not the objective of your proposal to brag about yourself or your research, nor is it the objective to seek to publish your proposal.
Again, your proposal is a proposal, it is not a research paper.
11. Proof read your proposal before it is sent: : 11. Proof read your proposal before it is sent: Many proposals are sent out with idiotic mistakes, omissions, and errors of all sorts.
NSF program managers have seen proposals come in with research schedules pasted in from other proposals unchanged, with dates referring to the stone age and irrelevant research tasks. Proposals have been submitted with the list of references omitted and with the references not referred to. Proposals have been submitted to the wrong program. Proposals have been submitted with misspellings in the title.
These proposals were not successful. Stupid things like this kill a proposal. It is easy to catch them with a simple, but careful, proof reading. Don’t spend six or eight weeks writing a proposal just to kill it with stupid mistakes that are easily prevented.
12. Submit your proposal on time: : 12. Submit your proposal on time: Duh? Why work for two months on a proposal just to have it disqualified for being late? Remember, fairness dictates that proposal submission rules must apply to everyone. It is not up to the discretion of the program officer to grant you dispensation on deadlines. That would be unfair to everyone else, and it could invalidate the entire competition. Equipment failures, power outages, hurricanes and tornadoes, and even internal problems at your institution are not valid excuses. As adults, you are responsible for getting your proposal in on time. If misfortune befalls you, it’s tough luck. Don’t take chances. Get your proposal in two or three days before the deadline.
Improve your prospects for success as an academic researcher (by George A. Hazelrigg, NSF) : Improve your prospects for success as an academic researcher (by George A. Hazelrigg, NSF) There are two more things that you can do to vastly improve your prospects for success as an academic researcher.
First, you have to know yourself as well as you can. Who are you? Where are you going? Where do you want to go? I strongly urge people, especially young faculty just starting their careers, to write a strategic plan for their life. Where are you today? Where do you want to be in five years, ten years, twenty years?
Then create a roadmap of how to get from where you are to where you want to be in the future. The focus of this roadmap should be the things over which you have control, and it should acknowledge the things over which you have no control. If you can’t write such a plan, then your goals for the future are not realistic. You can revise the plan as often as you wish. But the fact that the plan exists will influence your proposal in a very positive way, as it will place the research project you propose into the broad context of your life plan.
Resources for Junior Faculty : Resources for Junior Faculty Resources for Junior Faculty
http://opd.tamu.edu/resources-for-junior-faculty
Funding for Junior Faculty
http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/funding-opportunities-by-category/programs-for-junior-faculty.html
Early Career Programs for Faculty (Back) : Early Career Programs for Faculty (Back) NSF CAREER
DoD
Young Investigator (ONR, ARL)
Congressionally Mandated Directed Medical Research Programs Young Investigator
NASA New Investigator Program in Earth-Sun Systems
NIH
Scientist Development Award for New Minority Faculty
Career Development Awards (K-awards)
Esp. Career Transition (K22) Award
NIAMS Small Grants Program for New Investigators
Early Career Programs for Faculty : Early Career Programs for Faculty Foundations
Burroughs Wellcome Fund
PhRMA Foundation
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Early Career Fellowship in Economic Studies
Kellogg Forum Rising Stars, etc.
Professional organization “early career” or “young investigator” programs
American Philosophical Society – Franklin Research Grants
Listing of Programs
http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/newfaculty.html
NSF CAREER Program : NSF CAREER Program Duration: 5 years
Funding level: “minimum” $400K total (except min. $500K total for BIO directorate)
Eligibility:
Have a PhD
Untenured, holding tenure-track Asst. Prof. position or equivalent
Have not competed in CAREER more than two times previously
Have not won a CAREER award
Due: July 19 – 21 depending on directorate
Typical 10 – 20% success rate
Solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf05579
Key Points for CAREER : Key Points for CAREER Career Development Plan to “build a firm foundation for a lifetime of integrated contributions to research and education”
Where is your field going over the next 20 years?
What will help you become established at national level?
Establish that you have the experience and resources to accomplish what you propose
Key Points (cont’d) : Key Points (cont’d) Integrated Education Plan
Along with Broader Impacts, often the discriminator among many technically good proposals
Looking for innovative approaches to integrating education and research
Use strategic approach; don’t overburden yourself with unreasonable education workload
Do what interests you, makes sense for your project
Be sure to address diversity issues
Key Points (cont’d) : Key Points (cont’d) Outreach and Broader Impacts
Broaden participation of under-rep. groups
Dissemination
Societal benefits
Improve infrastructure for research
Discuss throughout proposal AND in separate section in both Project Summary and Description
Connect to existing programs (ITS Center, Research Experiences for Teachers, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, Rural Systemic Initiatives, etc. - more later)
Review Criteria : Review Criteria Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts equally weighted
Must show you have the skills to carry out the project
Collaboration helpful, especially if moving into new area; need letter saying you are collaborating (no co-PIs)
If moving into new area explain why this area should be investigated
Data from your prior work good idea
Publications in area greatly improves competitiveness
Review Criteria : Review Criteria Support from your department is critical
Highlight benefits of your project to the department (does it add important capabilities, fit in with department’s strategic plan, bring in new infrastructure?)
Discuss any connections to NSF priority areas, even if peripheral
State benefits of your research clearly
Why is it important?
How will it advance knowledge in field?
Societal benefits
Be sure to emphasize integration of education and research
“Strengths of Successful Proposals : “Strengths of Successful Proposals Novel or high-impact research focus
Innovative research plan
Education plan is well-developed, integrated with research and includes some consideration of evaluating its success
Education plan goes beyond routine course development expected of all assistant professors”
Quoted from J. Tornow presentation at QEM Workshop http://qemnetwork.qem.org:16080/tornow_presentation/Joanne.htm
“Weaknesses of Unsuccessful CAREER Proposals : “Weaknesses of Unsuccessful CAREER Proposals Research is either too ambitious or too narrowly focused
Proposed methods do not address the stated research goals
Educational component is either limited to routine courses or is unrealistically overambitious
Integration of research and education is weak or uninspired”
Quoted from J. Tornow presentation at QEM Workshop
http://qemnetwork.qem.org:16080/tornow_presentation/Joanne.htm
Typical CAREER Review Process : Typical CAREER Review Process Program director identifies 3 to 6 reviewers with expertise in technical area
Note: PI can suggest reviewers
Advantage if reviewers are familiar with PI or PI’s advisor
Proposal mailed to reviewers, who focus on technical merit
Does research address an important question in the field?
Is research innovative and exciting?
Is it likely that the researcher will be successful in reaching her/his goals
Are researcher’s goals and methods clear?
May evaluate education, broader impacts but not main focus
Typical Review Process : Typical Review Process After mail reviews, proposal reviewed by panel at NSF
How well does proposed work integrate education with research?
Is education plan innovative and does it make sense for project?
What are broader impacts?
How well does project promote diversity?
Balance of topics of funded projects (i.e., won’t fund 10 projects in same area)
Process varies by directorate
For example, Physics directorate does not have mail reviews
Coming up with a Research Idea : Coming up with a Research Idea What do you want to do?
Does it address important questions in your field?
Is it novel and cutting-edge
Not incremental improvement or refinement of established research
Where is your field going in the next 20 years?
Do you have the background and resources to accomplish your goals?
If you are moving into a new but related area, be sure you discuss collaborations with researchers who will fill any gaps
Will it contribute to your career goals?
Will it contribute to your department’s goals?
Important: Talk to your department head and research departmental goals!
Next Step – Strategic Info Gathering : Next Step – Strategic Info Gathering Determine which NSF program to submit your proposal to.
Extremely important! Submitting to wrong program can doom good proposal.
Do this by e-mailing or calling program director.
Have a paragraph summary of your proposed research prepared.
Use NSF web site
Search awarded CAREER projects in directorate
Check program goals
Talk to senior researchers in the area: where are they funded?
General Writing Advice : General Writing Advice Follow directions! (See solicitation, Grant Proposal Guide)
Make it easy to read and understand
Reviewer may be scanning your proposal on an airplane
Use bullets, tables, graphs, illustrations as much as possible – this is what they will look at first
Watch your font; the Grant Proposal Guide gives rules on minimum font size. Best to stay at 12 pt for readability
General Writing Advice (cont’d) : General Writing Advice (cont’d) Make the main points easy to find
Put them at the beginning of the paragraph
Use underline, bold, white space, etc.
Specifically state all benefits of your project
Even if it’s obvious to you, may not be obvious to reviewer outside your area
Communicate your excitement!
Project Summary (1 page) : Project Summary (1 page) Clearly address intellectual merit and broader impacts separately (and label them) – if you don’t , your proposal will be returned without review!
This is a sales document and may be the only thing the reviewer will read
Must pique the reviewer’s interest
State up front the advantages of your project (technical, societal, diversity, etc.) – don’t be shy!
Summary should be clear and easy to read; spend a lot of time on this!
Project Description (15 pages) : Project Description (15 pages) Description of proposed research project
Description of proposed educational activities
Description of how research and educational activites are integrated
Results of Prior NSF support, if applicable (5 pgs max)
Last 5 years
Report on only one program (most closely related)
Project Description : Project Description Objectives and Significance
Relation of research to current state of knowledge
Outline of Plan of Work including evaluation of education activities
Relation of plan to career goals and responsibilities
Relation of plan to department goals
Prior Research and Education Accomplishments
Project Description : Project Description Objectives and Significance of Plan
State your objectives clearly and at the beginning; include education goals
Describe briefly how your plan will advance knowledge in the field, improve education, provide societal benefits, etc.
Background – relationship of research to current state of knowledge in the field
Provide enough background to bring non-expert in field up to speed and demonstrate your knowledge
Give plenty of references, particularly of experts in field (who may be reviewing your proposal)
Do not be dismissive of previous work
Relationship of education activities to research on effective teaching and learning in your field
Project Description (cont’d) : Project Description (cont’d) Your Prior Work
Describe what you have done to date in area
Cite publications
Present any data you have generated
Establish your expertise in the area (or in related area)
Use graphs, figures, etc. where possible
Avoid too dense text
Describe any directly related education experience
Project Description : Project Description Plan of Work
Measurable goals and objectives (research, education, diversity, outreach, etc.)
Methods and Procedures (include education evaluation methods)
Be sure to discuss broader impact, diversity, outreach, etc.
Include activity and milestone chart by year (both research and education included in each year)
Project Description : Project Description Examples of Education Components
Go more than would be expected as part of your job
Develop a course related to your research
Must be innovative (e.g., active learning approach, technology assisted learning, interdisciplinary outlook, connection with industry, communication, ethics or sociology component, etc.; refer to NSF-funded Foundation Coalition)
Involve undergraduates in research
What is your goal?
Encourage them to continue to grad school? Then include mentoring, info on application process
Prepare them for industry? Then connect them with industrial representatives, potential internships
Innovative graduate student education
Interdisciplinary focus, international component, etc.
Treat Education as a Scholarly Enterprise : Treat Education as a Scholarly Enterprise Cite research and publications on best education practices, suggested reforms
1999 National Research Council report; How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School
NRC report: Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment.
NSF report: SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, REINVENTING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities
Discipline-specific pubs: e.g., BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (2003), Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press.
Pilot Study to Establish the Nature and Impact of Effective Undergraduate Research Experiences on Learning, Attitude, and Career Choice, Research on Learning and Education (ROLE), David E. Lopatto, Principal Investigator, Grinnell
Education Component : Education Component Goals should be specific and measurable
Evaluation should measure how well your approach is working
E.g., percentage of undergrads mentored continuing to grad school, improvement in test scores, etc.
See NSF Handbook on Evaluation at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf02057
Plans should include details to make them “real”
E.g., Number of students served, need being addressed with statistics
Check with your College for statistics on enrollment, etc.
Broader Impacts and Outreach : Broader Impacts and Outreach Address diversity issues!
Examples (choose what interests you and make sense for your project)
Work with K-12 teachers
Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) supplement
Connect with PEER Program
Work with pre-service teachers
Work with undergrads from other schools (e.g., minority serving)
Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplement (is there an REU site in your department?)
Broader Impacts – More Examples : Broader Impacts – More Examples Work with high school students on Science Fair projects
Work with Community College teachers
Collaborate with faculty from smaller and/or minority serving institutions
Give them summer access to your facilities
Connect to student chapters of minority professional organizations (e.g., Society of Women Engineers, Society of Mexican American Engineers and Scientists) – look for natural connections
Career goals : Career goals Relation of PI’s Career goals to goals of department/organization
Talk to your Department Head!
Check planning documents for department and reference
Reference Vision 2020 and how you will contribute to these goals
http://www.tamu.edu/vision2020/
Departmental Endorsement (load under Supplementary Docs) : Departmental Endorsement (load under Supplementary Docs) Letter from Dept Head
Must be signed by Head with name, title, date printed below signature
Proposed activities supported by and integrated into goals of department and department will support the development of the PI
Mentoring, Facilities, Summer salary (can list components from your start-up package), etc.
Description of:
Relationship between project, PIs career goals and responsibilities and department goals
Ways in which DH will ensure mentoring of PI
Verification PI is eligible
Other Documents (cont’d) : Other Documents (cont’d) Supplementary Documents
PI self-certification of eligibility (on Fastlane)
Letters of commitment from collaborators
No reference letters allowed
2-page bio
see Grant Proposal Guide for format and follow it (some directorates very picky!)
Current and Pending
Lists currently funded project (from any source, not just NSF) and any pending proposal for external funding
See Grant Proposal Guide
Facilities
Budget and Budget Justification : Budget and Budget Justification No support of other Senior Personnel (faculty, etc.)
Be sure to fund your educational activities also
Budget Justification
Another way to sell your ideas
Make sure it’s easy to follow and supports the stated work plan
Resubmissions : Resubmissions Read and address reviews from last submission
Reviewers will have access to your last submission
Call your program officer for input
Best soon after receiving reviews
But if you have questions about some reviews, call him/her now
ONR Young Investigator Program (Office of Naval Research) : ONR Young Investigator Program (Office of Naval Research) $100,000 per year for three years
FY 05 proposal was due 12 January 2006.
FY07 announcement usually posted in September
http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/archive_to_dvd/industrial/363/docs/baa_06_002.doc
U.S. citizens, nationals, and permanent residents earned PhD within last 5 years
Approx. 24 awards
ONR Young Investigator : ONR Young Investigator “The objectives of this program are to attract outstanding faculty members of Institutions of Higher Education (hereafter also called "universities") to the Department of the Navy's research program, to support their research, and to encourage their teaching and research careers.”
“Proposals falling within the broad scope of naval research interests will be considered.”
ONR Areas of Research Interest http://www.onr.navy.mil/ : ONR Areas of Research Interest http://www.onr.navy.mil/ Information, Electronics & Surveillance (Code 31)
Electr