Title: Office of Proposal Development a unit of Office of Vice President for Research
1Office of Proposal Developmenta unit of Office
of Vice President for Research
- Supports faculty in the development and writing
of research and educational proposals - Supports center-level initiatives, research
teams, affinity groups, new and junior faculty,
and diversity in the research enterprise - Helps develop research partnerships at Texas AM
and among System institutions, including the
Health Science Center - Offers a comprehensive suite of training programs
to help new faculty, faculty expanding into new
program areas, and graduate students acquire the
skills and knowledge they need to write more
competitive proposals.
2OPD Listing
- Jean Ann Bowman, ecological, environmental,
geo-sciences/ agriculture-related proposals and
centers, jbowman_at_tamu.edu - Libby Childress, Scheduling, resources, training
workshop management, project coordination,
libbyc_at_tamu.edu - Mike Cronan, Center-level proposals, AM System
partnerships, new proposal and training
initiatives, mikecronan_at_tamu.edu - Lucy Deckard, New faculty initiative,
fellowships, physical science-related proposals,
equipment and instrumentation, interdisciplinary
materials group, OPD web management
l-deckard_at_tamu.edu - John Ivy, HSC/AM NIH biomedical and biological
science initiatives, johnivy_at_tamu.edu - Phyllis McBride, craft of proposal writing
training, NIH and related agency initiatives in
the biomedical, social and behavioral sciences
editing and rewriting, p-mcbride_at_tamu.edu - Robyn Pearson, Education, liberal arts, social
behavioral sciences, and humanities-related
proposals, support for interdisciplinary research
group development, educational proposals, editing
and rewriting, rlpearson_at_tamu.edu
3Breakout session rooms
- NSF, DoD, and National Labs, 601
- NIH, 301
- Earth, environmental, ecological, agricultural,
292A - Social, Behavioral Education, 401
- Research in the Humanities, 701
4Presentation topics
- Generic competitive strategies
- Identifying funding solicitations
- Analyzing the solicitation
- Analyzing the funding agency
- Understanding the review process
- Writing the proposal narrative
5If you dont write grants, you wont get any
- Target the proposal at the intersection where
- research dollars are available
- your research interests are met
- a competitive proposal can be written within the
time available.
6OPD-Web Funding Opportunities
7http//www.grants.gov/
8Receive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts
9Search Browse Grant Opportunities
- http//www.grants.gov/applicants/search_opportunit
ies.jsp - http//www.grants.gov/search/agency.do
10Search Grants.gov Opportunities
11(No Transcript)
12(No Transcript)
13(No Transcript)
14http//foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/
15(No Transcript)
16(No Transcript)
17http//www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
18http//listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0edinfoD1H
0ODT0
19http//cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
20Reading the proposal solicitation
- The Request for Proposals (RFP) also called
the Program Announcement (PA), Request for
Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement
(BAA) is one common starting point of the
proposal writing process.
21Reading the proposal solicitation
- Other starting points to the proposal process
include investigator-initiated (unsolicited)
proposals, or, common to the defense agencies,
white papers and quad charts.
22Reading the proposal solicitation
- The generic program solicitation or RFP
represents an invitation by a funding agency for
applicants to submit requests for funding in
research areas of interest to the agency or
foundation.
23Program Solicitation
- It is used continuously throughout proposal
development and writing as a reference point to
ensure that an evolving proposal narrative fully
addresses and accurately reflects the goals and
objectives of the funding agency, including the
review criteria.
24Program Solicitation
- The RFP contains most of the essential
information the researcher needs to develop and
write a competitive proposal that is fully
responsive to the agencys funding objectives and
review criteria.
25Program Solicitation
- The RFP is not a menu or smorgasbord offering the
applicant a choice of addressing some topics but
not others, depending on interest, or some review
criteria but not others. - The RFP is a non-negotiable listing of
performance expectations reflecting the stated
goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the
agency.
26Map your expertise to the RFP
- Is it a fit?
- Is it really a fit?
- No partial fits allowed
- No wishful thinking
- Close doesnt count
- If you look like thisdont submit
27You and the RFP need to be
28Contents of the RFP
- Agency research goals, objectives, and
performance expectations - Statement and scope of work
- Proposal topics to be addressed by the applicant
- Deliverables or other outcomes
- Review criteria and process
29Contents of the RFP
- Research plan
- Key personnel, evaluation, management
- Eligibility, due dates, available funding,
funding limits, anticipated number of awards,
performance period, proposal formatting
requirements, budget and other process
requirements, and reference documents.
30Reviewing the RFP
- It is not a document to skim quickly, read
lightly, or read only once. - It defines a very detailed set of research
expectations the applicant must meet in order to
be competitive for funding. - It needs to be read and re-read and fully
understood, both in very discrete detail and as
an integrated whole.
31Reviewing the RFP
- The RFP sets the direction and defines the
performance parameters of every aspect of
proposal development and writing. - Read it word by word sentence by sentence
paragraph by paragraph and page by page. - Know it well, both at the macro and micro level
32Reviewing the RFP
- Clarify ambiguities if unresolved--
- Get clarification from a program officer.
- Ambiguities needs to be resolved prior to
proposal writing so the proposal narrative maps
to the guidelines with informed certainty.
33Reviewing the RFP
- A well-written RFP clearly states the funding
agencys research objectives in a concise and
comprehensive fashion, and is devoid of
wordiness, repetition, and vaguely contradictory
re-phasing of program requirements.
34Reviewing the RFP
- Not all RFPs are clearly written. Sometimes the
funding agency itself is unclear about specific
objectives, particularly in cutting-edge research
areas. - Therefore, never be timid about calling a program
officer for clarification. - Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive
grant process. - Where there is ambiguity, keep asking questions
converge on clarity.
35Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization
- The RFP provides the key instructions for the
construction of a competitive proposal. - It defines the expectations of the funding agency
and the domain of research performance.
36Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization
- Use the RFP to develop the structure, order, and
detail of the proposal narrative. - Use the RFP as an organizational template during
proposal development to help ensure every RFP
requirement is addressed fully.
37Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization
- Copy the requirements in each section of the RFP
into the draft text, including the review
criteria, as a template for the proposal. - This template provides initial section and
subsection headings to guide preliminary
responses that mirror the program solicitation
requirements.
38Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization
- Reviewers will expect to see the narrative
text in the same general order as presented in
the RFP, along with the review criteria, since
that ordering conforms to instructions given to
reviewers by program officers.
39Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization
- Using the RFP as a template to create a
proposal outline makes it easy for reviewers to
compare the proposal to the program objectives
and review criteria.
40Analyzing the funding agency
- Analyzing the mission, strategic plan,
investment priorities, and culture of a funding
agency provides information key to enhancing
proposal competitiveness.
41Analyzing the funding agency
- Competitiveness depends on a series of
well-informed decision points made throughout the
writing of a proposal related to arguing the
merit of the research and culminating in a
well-integrated document that convinces the
reviewers to recommend funding.
42Analyzing the funding agency
- Funding agencies have a clearly defined agenda
and mission. - Funded grants are those that best advance the
mission of the funding agency. - If a proposal does not meet an agency's mission,
it will not be funded.
43Analyzing the funding agency
- Having a "good idea" by itself is not enough.
- Good ideas must be clearly connected and
integrated with a specific solicitation. - The funding agency is not interested in your
mission or objectives--they fund work that
supports their mission.
44Analyzing the agency mission
- Funding agencies are not passive funders of
programs, but see themselves as leaders of a
national dialogue on scientific issues, research
directions, and driving the national agenda
through research solicitations.
45Analyzing the agency mission
- A strong proposal allows the funding agency to
form a partnership with the submitting
institution that will carry out the agency's
vision and mission. - The applicant must understand the nature of this
partnership and the expectations of the funding
agency, both during proposal development and
throughout a funded project.
46Analyzing the funding agency
- Knowledge about a funding agency helps the
applicant make good decisions throughout the
entire proposal development and writing process
by better understanding the relationship of the
research to the broader context of the funding
agencys mission, strategic plan, and research
investment priorities.
47Analyzing the funding agency
- Who is the audience (e.g., program officers,
reviewers) and what is the best way to address
them? - What is a fundable idea and how is it best
characterized within the context of the agency
solicitation?
48Analyzing the funding agency
- How are claims of research uniqueness and
innovation best supported in the proposal text
and reflective of agency research objectives? - How does the applicant best communicate his or
her passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity
to perform the proposed research to review
panels?
49Analyzing the funding agency
- Mission
- Culture
- Language
- Investment s
- Strategic plan
- Org chart
- Management
- Program officers
- Reports, pubs
- Web speeches
- Public testimony
- Review criteria
- Review process
- Review panels
- Project abstracts
- Current funding
- Solicitations
50Analyzing the funding agency
- Differentiate between funding agencies by
mission, strategic plan, investment priorities,
culture, etc. - Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences
and the physical, computational, and biological
sciences may have research opportunities at
several agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, EPA, but
these agencies are dissimilar in many ways.
51Analyzing the funding agency
- Research focus within disciplines
- Research that is basic, applied, or applications
driven - Research scope and performance time horizon
- Exploratory, open-ended research, or targeted to
technology develop
- Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
- Classified, non-classified
- Proprietary, non-proprietary
- Independent research, or dependent linkages to
the agency mission, e.g., health care, education
52Analyzing the funding agency
- Differentiate between basic research agencies
(e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies
(e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA). - Differentiate between hypothesis-driven research
and need- or applications driven research. - Differentiate research at disciplinary
boundaries, e.g., social sciences
53Basic research agency
- Independent agency and management
- Independent research vision, mission, and
objectives - Award criteria based on intellectual and
scientific excellence - Peer reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit
- Focus on fundamental or basic research at the
frontiers of science, innovation, and creation
of new knowledge - Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon
- Non-classified, non-proprietary
54Mission-oriented agencies
- Scope of work tightly defines research
tasks/deliverables - Predominately applied research for meeting
near-term objectives, technology development and
transfer, policy goals - Predominately internal review by program officers
- Awards based on mix of merit, geographic
distribution, political distribution, long term
relationship with agency, Legislative, and
Executive branch policies - Classified and non-classified research
55Analyzing the funding agency
- Agencies often speak in a dialect unique to them.
- Echo the language of the funding agency back to
them. - This is important in writing the proposal
narrative, and helps to frame arguments more
clearly and make them more easily understood by
program managers and reviewers.
56Addressing Review Criteria
- The description of review criteria is an
especially important part of the RFP and the
proposal template. - A competitive proposal must clearly address each
review criterion, and the proposal should be
structured so that these discussions are easy for
reviewers to find, compare, and contrast. - Subject headings, graphics, bullets, and bolded
statements using language similar to that used in
the RFP can all be used to make the reviewers
jobs easier as they assess how well the proposal
meets review criteria.
57Reading Material Referenced in the RFP
- If the RFP refers to any publications, reports,
or workshops, it is important to read those
materials, analyze how that work has influenced
the agencys vision of the program, and cite
those publications in the proposal in a way that
illustrates the topics are acknowledged and
understood.
58A stepwise process for developing proposals
- Preparing to write
- Developing the hypothesis research plan
- Preliminary data research readiness
- Writing the proposal
- Post review process
- Competitive resubmissions
59Preparing to write
- Understanding the program guidelines in planning,
developing, and writing the proposal. - What should be your relationship with program
officers? - Developing a sound, testable hypothesis.
- Asking senior faculty to review assess
competitiveness of ideas and research,
particularly appropriateness to agency research
agenda. - What do you need to know about funding agency
culture, language, mission, strategic plan,
research investment priorities? - What do you need to know about agency review
criteria, review process, review panels?
60Developing the hypothesis research plan
- Who is your audience (e.g., agency, program
officers and reviewers) and how do you best
address them? - What is a fundable idea and how is it best
characterized? - How are claims of research uniqueness and
innovation best supported in the proposal text? - Can research plans be overly ambitious?
- What are important distinctions to note between
mission focused agencies (NASA, USDA) and basic
research agencies (NSF, NIH) in proposing
research plans? - Differentiating between hypothesis driven
research application driven at basic research
and mission agencies? - How do you best communicate your passion,
excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform
your research to review panels?
61Preliminary data research readiness
- What evidence needs to be presented to show the
proposed work can be accomplished? - What evidence of institutional support for the
research, e.g., facilities, equipment
instrumentation, is important to demonstrate? - What counts as preliminary data and how much is
sufficient? - How do you best map your research directions and
interests to funding agency research priorities? - What do you need to know about research currently
funded by a particular agency within your
research domain, e.g., through reports,
publications, journals?
62Writing the proposal
- Who do you need to impress with your research?
- How do you tell a good story grounded in good
science that excites the reviewers and program
officers? - The successful proposal represents an
accumulation of marginal advantage accrued at
decision points over a period of weeks or months
to ensure the proposal is competitive for
funding - What are key decision points in proposal
development? - How do you best plan and schedule proposal
writing? - How do you use program guidelines as a proposal
template? - Importance of good writing, clear arguments, and
reviewer friendly text, structure, and
organization in proposals - What are other core competitive characteristics
of a successful proposal needed to complement
research merit?
63Post review process
- Respecting views of peers
- Response to reviewer comments
- Discussion of reviews with program officers
- Discussion of reviews with senior faculty
- Reviewing the reviews
- How do you make an assessment of reviews as a
reliable guide for the next funding cycle?
64Competitive resubmissions
- How do you best plan and position for a
competitive resubmission? - How do you conduct a reassessment of the
intellectual merit and excellence of your
research based on reviews? - How to you assess if a research direction should
be abandoned, or the research submitted to
another agency? - What are strategies for identifying more
appropriate research directions and funding
opportunities?
65Understanding the review process
- When evaluating a grant application, reviewers
will not only consider the quality of the ideas,
but also the extent to which the application
addresses the funding agencys review criteria. - Therefore, it is important to identify these
review criteria, understand exactly how the
agency defines them, and determine the relative
weight (if any) that the agency assigns to each
of them. - This information can then be used to develop an
application that clearly addresses these criteria
and that is therefore much more competitive.
66Identify the review criteria
- Most agencies publish standard review criteria on
their web pages and in each solicitation. - Some programs will have additional review
criteria specific to the solicitation.
67(No Transcript)
68Understand the review process
- The review process varies from agency to agency
- The review process may include a peer review of
outside experts from related fields an internal
review by agency personnel or a combination of
both. - Most agency review processes share some common
features. At most agencies, for instance, an
application will first undergo a merit review
and, depending upon the results, an
administrative review.
69Difference between NSF NIH
- This is a fundamental difference between NIH's
and NSF's selection methods--by the end of the
NIH review, applications are ranked alongside
other entries according to an overall numerical
priority score. At NSF, proposals are not given a
numerical rating but are classified according to
written "recommendations." - Fred Stollnitz, program director at NSF explains
further "When panels review, the reviewers put
each proposal into categories such as
'outstanding,' 'good and should be funded,' 'not
ready in its present form,' or 'decline.' " - A particularly vocal reviewer could influence the
final rating of the panel or where the proposal
should be classified, but because there is no
absolute score, only opinions are noted in the
review analysis report--not actual decisions. An
opinionated NIH reviewer on the other hand could
affect the scores an application receives and so
alter its ranking. - Source http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten
t/full/1999/10/06/3
70NSF review panelists
- NSF panelists convey their opinions and
recommendations in a panel summary. They
compose an overall analysis of review for each
proposal that incorporate factors such as the
panel summary, subject area, available resources,
and the potential impact of the research. They
then make final award decisions with the division
director. - Proposals that receive lower classifications by
the panel can sometimes be funded over "higher
rated research proposals because their overall
assessment by the program officer is more
favorable.
71NSF review panelists
- The budgetary consideration also plays a key role
in the decision-making process. The program
officer doesn't just make 'yes' or 'no'
decisions, explains Stollnitz. They have to
balance all those proposals that should be funded
with the actual funds that are available. - Sometimes a proposal classified as good and
should be funded submitted by an investigator
with minimal existing funds may be given the edge
over an outstanding proposal submitted by an
established and well-funded candidate. - Source http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten
t/full/1999/10/06/3
72NSF proposal process and timelines
73NSF example review criterion 1
- What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
activity? - How important is the proposed activity to
advancing knowledge and understanding within its
own field or across different fields? - How well qualified is the proposer (individual or
team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate,
the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior
work.) - To what extent does the proposed activity suggest
and explore creative and original concepts? - How well conceived and organized is the proposed
activity? - Is there sufficient access to resources?
74NIH review criteria
- Significance. Does the study address an important
problem? - Approach. Are the methods appropriate to the aims
of the project? - Innovation. Does the project employ novel
concepts or methods? - Investigator. Is the investigator well trained to
do the work? - Environment. Does the environment contribute to
success?
75Write for the reviewers
- Reviewers are typically given multiple proposals
to review, and often tight timelines for
completion - While you may be viewing your grant application
as the magnum opus of your life's ambitions and
plans--for the next 5 years anyway--a reviewer
sees it as one of six to 12 other "magnum opii"
projects to evaluate. (Source
http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/20
03/12/10/6) - The proposal needs to clearly present everything
the reviewers will need to read, understand, and
evaluate the proposed research project
76Write for the reviewers
- Synthesize key concepts and articulate the
links-- - between the overarching goal and the specific
objectives, - between the specific objectives and the
hypotheses, - between the hypotheses and the approach, between
the approach and the expected outcomes, and, - between the expected outcomes and the
significance and broader impacts of the project.
77Create reviewer-friendly text
- Divide the proposal into the required sections.
- Place the sections in the required order.
- Use parallel structure at both the section and
sentence levels. - Incorporate logical paragraph breaks.
- Open paragraphs with clear topic sentences.
- Discuss important items first.
- Avoid the use of inflated language.
- Use declarative sentences.
- Define potentially unfamiliar terms.
- Spell out acronyms and abbreviations.
- Employ appropriate style and usage.
- Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
- Run a spell-check and proofread the application.
78Finding information on funded projects
- NSF Award Search Site
- http//www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp
- NIH Award Search Site
- http//crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generat
e_screen - Dept. of Ed. Awards Search
- http//wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start
.cfm - USDA Awards Search
- http//cris.csrees.usda.gov/
- NEH Awards Search
- http//www.neh.gov/news/recentawards.html
79Craft of writing
- Good writing lies at the core of the competitive
proposal. It is the framework for crafting and
structuring the arguments, ideas, concepts,
goals, performance commitments, and the logical,
internal connectedness and balance of the
proposal.
80The proposal is the only reality
- In its final form, a proposal is not unlike a
novel or a movie. It creates its own,
self-contained reality. The proposal contains all
the funding agency and review panel will know
about your capabilities and your capacity to
perform. With few exceptions, an agency bases its
decision to fund or not fund entirely on the
proposal and the persuasive reality it creates.
81Good writing is more than mechanics
- Strong, comprehensive, integrated knowledge base
- Organizational clarity (stepwise
logic/connections sequencing) - Structural clarity (integrative logic logical
transitions) - Argumentative clarity (reasoning ordering
synthesis) - Capacity for synthesis
- Connect, connect, connect
82Good writing is more than mechanics
- Descriptive clarity (who, what, how, when, why,
results) - Clear, consistent vision sustained throughout
text - Comprehensive problem definition corresponding
innovative solutions - Confidence in performance and excitement for your
ideas must be instilled in reviewers
83Internal consistency synthesis
- A competitive proposal must be internally
consistent by language, structure, and argument - All internal ambiguities must be resolved.
- The competitiveness of a proposal increases
exponentially with the capacity of the author to
synthesize information.
84Internal consistency synthesis
- Synthesis represents the relational framework and
conceptual balance of the proposal. - It is the synaptic connections among concepts,
ideas, arguments, goals, objectives, and
performance.
85Ideas matter (Slogans are not Ideas)
- Shaping ideas by language is hard work.
- Do not confuse slogans, effusive exuberance, and
clichés with substantive ideas. - Show the reviewers something new by developing
ideas that are clear, concise, coherent,
contextually logical, and insightful. - Capitalize on every opportunity you have to
define, link, relate, expand, synthesize,
connect, or illuminate ideas as you write the
narrative. - Connect, connect, connect! (E.M. Forrester).
86Introductory writing tips
- The abstract, proposal summary, and introduction
are keythat may be all many reviewers read and
it is here you must excite and grab the attention
of the reviewers - Reviewers will assume errors in language and
usage will translate into errors in the research - Dont be overly ambitious in what you propose,
but convey credibility and capacity to perform
87Introductory writing tips
- Sell your proposal to a good scientist but not an
expert - Some review panels may not have an expert in your
field, or panels may be blended for
multidisciplinary initiatives - Agencies reviewers fund compelling, exciting
science, not just correct science - Proposals are not journal articlesproposals must
be user friendly and offer a narrative that tells
a story that is memorable to reviewers
88The proposal introduction
- Serves as reviewers road map to the full text
- Opportunity to make most important points up
front and organizes the conceptual framework of
ideas - States vision, concepts, goals, objectives,
outcomes, and deliverables - Briefly tells who you are what you are going to
do how you are going to do it who is going to
do it why you are going to do it and
demonstrates your capacity to perform
89Beware of boiler plate dont copy paste
- Boiler plate refers only to the application forms
required by the agency, not the narrative - Thinking of the proposal narrative as boiler
plate will result in a mediocre proposal - Begin each proposal as a new effort, not a copy
paste be cautious integrating text inserts - Strong proposals clearly reflect a coherent,
sustained, and integrated argument grounded on
good ideas