Starting your career as a researcher How to write research proposals

1
Starting your career as a researcher How to write
research proposals
2
How to Write Competitive Proposals for Research
Funding Strategies for Starting your Career as
a Researcher Thursday, November 17, 2005, 1-5 PM,
601 Rudder A seminar for graduate students and
post-docs planning to enter research-related
careers requiring the writing of proposals to
federal agencies, foundations, and other granting
agencies, presented by the Office of Proposal
Development
3
Presentation topics

• Overview of Office of Proposal Development
• Generic competitive proposal writing strategies
  Identifying Funding Analyzing the funding
  agency Reading the proposal solicitation
  Understanding the review process Craft of
  Proposal Writing
• Breakout topics NSF Defense Agencies
  National Institutes of Health Earth and
  Environmental Sciences Social Behavioral
  Science and Education Funding Opportunities in
  the Humanities
• Craft of Proposal Writing
• 3-5 PM, 601 Rudder

4
Breakout session rooms
5
Office of proposal development

• A unit of the Office of Vice President for
  Research at Texas AM University, partnered with
• Office of Vice Chancellor for Research and
  Federal Relations,
• Office of Vice Chancellor for Academic and
  Student Affairs, and the
• Health Science Center

6
Office of proposal development

• Supports faculty in the development and writing
  of large and small research grants to federal
  agencies and foundations.
• Focuses on support of center-level initiatives,
  multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research
  teams, research affinity groups, new and junior
  faculty research, diversity in the research
  enterprise, and long-term proposal planning.
• Helps develop partnership initiatives at Texas
  AM, across the AM System universities, and HSC.
• Supports proposal development activities and
  training programs to help new faculty write more
  competitive proposals.

7
Office of proposal development

• Jean Ann Bowman, Research Scientist
  (jbowman_at_tamu.edu)
• B.S., Journalism M.S., Ph.D., Hydrology and
  Physical Geography
• Focuses on proposals dealing with earth,
  ecological, and environmental sciences, as well
  as those dealing with agriculture.
• Libby Childress, Administrative Assistant
  (libbyc_at_tamu.edu)
• Scheduling, resources, and project coordination.
• Mike Cronan, Director (mikecronan_at_tamu.edu)
• B.S., Civil Engineering (Structures) B.A.,
  Political Science M.F.A., English
• Registered Professional Engineer, Texas (063512)
• Lucy Deckard, Associate Director
  (l-deckard_at_tamu.edu)
• B.S. and M.S., Materials Science and Engineering
  
• Leads the new faculty initiatives. Focuses on
  proposals dealing with the physical sciences,
  interdisciplinary materials group, and equipment
  and instrumentation. Leads training seminars on
  graduate and postdoctoral fellowships,
  undergraduate research, and CAREER awards.

8
Office of proposal development

• Susan Maier, Research Development Officer
• B.A., M.A., and Ph.D., Psychology
  (SMaier_at_vprmail.tamu.edu)
• Focuses on the Health Science Centers NIH
  biomedical science initiatives, as well as on the
  HSCs University partnership initiatives. Leads
  training seminars on NIH.
• Phyllis McBride, Assistant Director
  (p-mcbride_at_tamu.edu)
• B.A., Journalism and English M.A. and Ph.D.,
  English
• Leads the one-day Craft of Grant Writing Seminars
  and the fifteen-week Craft of Grant Writing
  Workshops. Focuses on DHS and NIH initiatives,
  and provides editing and rewriting.
• Robyn Pearson, Research Development Officer
• B.A. and M.A., Anthropology (rlpearson_at_tamu.edu)
• Focuses on proposals dealing with the humanities,
  liberal arts, and social and behavioral sciences,
  and education. Provides support for the
  development of interdisciplinary research groups
  and provides editing and rewriting.

9
Presentation topics

• Generic competitive proposal writing strategies
• Identifying external funding
• Analyzing the funding agency
• Reading the proposal solicitation
• Understanding the review process
• Craft of Proposal Writing

10
Six major funders for TAMU-System
11
Grants.gov

• Home page http//www.grants.gov
• To receive automated funding alerts tailored to
  your research interests, visit http//www.grants.g
  ov/Findreceive.
• Select one of four automated funding alert
  options Selected Notices Based on Funding
  Opportunity Number, Selected Agencies and
  Categories of Funding Activities, Selected
  Interest and Eligibility Groups, or All Grants
  Notices.
• Click on the link for the option that best suits
  your needs, enter the required information, and
  click on the Submit to Mailing List button.

12
Grants.gov
13
(No Transcript)
14
Fedgrants.gov

• One of the best portals to funding opportunities
• Tabular listing current funding opportunities and
  URLs for 45 research funding agencies (see
  following slide)
• FedGrants
• http//www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/index.html
• FedGrants Grants Synopsis Search
• http//www.fedgrants.gov/grants/servlet/SearchServ
  let/
• FedGrants Notification Service
• http//www.fedgrants.gov/ApplicantRegistration.htm
  l

15
FedGrants
16
Federal Grants Notification Service
17
(No Transcript)
18
Electronic Funding Alert Services/ Email

• NSF, National Science Foundation
• http//www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
• MyNSF, formerly the Custom News Service, allows
  you to receive notifications about new content
  posted on the NSF website.
• Notification can be received via email or RSS.

19
MyNSF
20
(No Transcript)
21
Electronic Funding Alert Services/ Email

• NIH National Institutes of Health Listserv
• http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/listserv.htm
• Each week (usually on Friday afternoon), the NIH
  transmits an e-mail with Table of Contents (TOC)
  information for that week's issue of the NIH
  Guide, via the NIH LISTSERV.
• The TOC includes a link to the Current NIH Guide
  Weekly Publication as well as links to each NIH
  Guide RFA, PA and Notice published for that week.

22
NIH Guide LISTSERV
23
(No Transcript)
24
Electronic Funding Alert Services/ Email

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• http//research.hq.nasa.gov/subs.cfm
• Once you are registered for this service you can
  receive email notification of the release of
  research announcements pertaining to any or all
  of NASA offices.
• National Center for Environmental Research,
  Environmental Protection Agency
• http//cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
• Use this page to subscribe or unsubscribe to the
  NCER e-mail mailing list. NCER periodically sends
  out emails to our subscribers announcing new
  grant and/or funding opportunities or highlight
  new documents in specific subject areas.

25
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
26
NCER E-mail Lists
27
Electronic Funding Alert Services/ Email

• U.S. Dept. of Education, EDINFO
• http//listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1ind05Ledinf
  o
• Information from about the U.S. Department of
  Education publications, funding opportunities
  more.
• NEH Connect, National Endowment for the
  Humanities
• http//www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
• Stay connected to the humanities with NEH
  Connect! Each month NEH Connect! delivers the
  latest news, projects, upcoming events, and grant
  deadlines from NEH.

28
EDInfo Archives
29
(No Transcript)
30
NEH Connect!
31
Centers for Disease Control Prevention

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  (CDC) allows users to subscribe to several
  mailing lists via the CDC World Wide Web site.
• To subscribe, go to http//www.cdc.gov/subscribe.h
  tml and fill out the on-line form.

32
Subscribe to a CDC Mailing List
33
DOE Pulse JUST INFO

• Department of Energy. DOE Pulse, a bimonthy
  newsletter, highlights work being done at the
  Department of Energy's national laboratories.
  Each issue will include research highlights,
  updates on collaborations among laboratories, and
  profiles of individual researchers. To subscribe,
  go to http//www.ornl.gov/news/pulse/pulse_home.ht
  m.
• Department of Justice. JUST INFO, sponsored by
  the U.S. Department of Justice National Criminal
  Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is a biweekly
  e-mail newsletter that reports on a wide variety
  of criminal justice topics. To subscribe, send a
  message to listproc_at_aspensys.com . In the body of
  the message, type subscribe JUSTINFO ltyour full
  namegt.

34
Here's What's New at the National Labs
35
National Institute for Standards and Technology

• NIST Update is a bimonthly report that highlights
  research, activities and services at National
  Institute for Standards and Technology.
• To begin receiving e-mail copies, sign up at
  http//www.nist.gov/public_affairs/mailform.htm

36
National Institute of Standards Technology
37
NCHRP

• Transit Cooperative Research Program and the
  National Cooperative Highway Research Program
• To register to receive e-mail notification that
  Requests for Proposals have been published on the
  NCHRP and TCRP Homepage, just complete the form
  on web at http//www4.nas.edu/trb/crpmail.nsf/regi
  stration.

38
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
39
(No Transcript)
40
Leveraging the internet in funding search

• Office of Proposal Development, Texas AM
• OPD Funding Opportunities Table
• http//anthropology.tamu.edu/downloads/ResearchFun
  ding.pdf
• Monthly compilation of upcoming funding
  opportunities in all academic disciplines
  distributed System-wide by email
• Subscribe mikecronan_at_tamu.edu

41
Analyzing the funding agency

• Analyzing the mission, strategic plan, investment
  priorities, and culture of a funding agency
  provides information key to enhancing proposal
  competitiveness.
• 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.

42
Analyzing the funding agency mission

• Funding agencies have a clearly defined agenda
  and mission.
• Funded grants are those that best meet that
  agenda and advance the mission of the funding
  agency. If a proposal does not meet an agency's
  mission, it will not be funded. This is perhaps
  the most difficult adjustment to be made in
  proposal development and writing.
• Having a "good idea" by itself is not enough.
  Good ideas have to be clearly connected and
  integrated with a funding agencys mission and
  agenda.
• The proposal must fit the mission and strategic
  plans of the funding agency.

43
Analyzing the funding agency mission

• Funding agencies are not passive funders of
  programs, but see themselves as leaders in a
  national dialogue on scientific issues, and as
  part of the community defining the national
  agenda.
• 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.

44
Analyzing 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.

45
Analyzing the funding agency

• Who is the audience (e.g., agency, program
  officers, and 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
  research investment priorities?
• How are claims of research uniqueness and
  innovation best supported in the proposal text
  and reflective of agency strategic research
  plans?
• How does the applicant best communicate his or
  her passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity
  to perform the proposed research to review panels?

46
Analyzing the funding agency

• Mission
• Culture
• Language
• Investment priorities
• Strategic plan
• Organizational chart
• Management
• Program officers
• Reports, publications

• Leadership speeches
• Public testimony
• Review criteria
• Review process
• Review panels
• Project abstracts
• Current funded projects
• Funded researchers

47
Analyzing the funding agency

• It is important to differentiate between and
  among various funding agencies by mission,
  strategic plan, investment priorities, culture,
  etc.
• For example, researchers in the social and
  behavioral sciences and the physical,
  computational, and biological sciences may have
  relevant research opportunities at two or more
  agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, EPA, but these
  agencies are very dissimilar in many wayssee
  following slide

48
Analyzing 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 development

• Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
• Classified, non-classified
• Proprietary, non-proprietary
• Independent research, or dependent linkages to
  the agency mission, e.g., health care, education,
  economic development, defense

49
Analyzing the funding agency

• It is important for the applicant to
  differentiate between basic research agencies
  (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies
  (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA), as well as to
  differentiate between hypothesis-driven research
  and need- or applications driven research at the
  agencies.
• Agencies funding basic research would likely
  share the following characteristics

50
Analyzing the funding agency

• Independent agency and management
• Independent research vision, mission, and
  objectives
• Award criteria based on intellectual and
  scientific excellence
• Peer panel 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

51
Analyzing the funding agency

• Alternatively, an analysis of mission-oriented
  agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, ED, USDA) would show
  characteristics related to research and
  development that will serve the agencys
  immediate goals and objectives, as seen on
  following slide

52
Analyzing the funding agency

• 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 merit, but also on geographic
  distribution, political distribution, long term
  relationship with agency, Legislative, and
  Executive branch policies
• Classified and non-classified research

53
Analyzing the funding agency

• Learn to echo the language and usage of the
  funding agency is another factor that may enhance
  the overall competitiveness of a proposal.
• Funding agencies, like most institutions, often
  develop a unique phraseology to define and
  describe common, recurrent components of their
  mission and research agenda, e.g., broader
  impacts or research and education integration
  at NSF.
• Learning the language of the funding agency is
  important for writing the narrative section of a
  proposal, and helps in framing arguments more
  clearly and in better communicating them to
  program managers and reviewers.

54
Reading 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.
• Other starting points to the proposal process
  include investigator-initiated (unsolicited)
  proposals, or white papers and quad charts common
  to the defense agencies.

55
Reading 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.
• 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
  review criteria listed in the document.

56
Reading the proposal solicitation

• The RFP contains most of the essential
  information the researcher needs in order to
  develop and write a competitive proposal that is
  fully responsive to the agencys funding
  objectives and review criteria.
• The RFP is not a menu or smorgasbord offering the
  applicant a choice of addressing some research
  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.

57
Identifying the Contents 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
• 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.

58
Reviewing the RFP

• The RFP is not a document to skim quickly, read
  lightly, or read only once.
• The RFP 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.
• 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.

59
Reviewing the RFP

• Clarify any ambiguity by repeated readings of the
  RFP.
• If these ambiguities cannot be resolved, call the
  funding agency and ask for clarification from a
  program officer.
• As much as possible, all ambiguity needs to be
  resolved prior to the proposal writing process so
  that ideas and arguments are clearly and tightly
  aligned with the scope and intent of the funding
  agency.

60
Reviewing the RFP

• A well-written RFP clearly states the funding
  agencys research objectives in a concise and
  comprehensive fashion, devoid of wordiness,
  repetition, and vaguely contradictory re-phasing
  of program requirements.
• However, not all RFPs are clearly written. In
  some cases, the funding agency itself is unclear
  about specific research objectives, particularly
  in more cutting-edge or exploratory 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
  in order to converge on clarity.

61
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• In addition to presenting information about an
  agencys research agenda and culture, the RFP
  provides key instructions regarding the
  presentation and organizational structure of a
  proposal.
• The RFP can be used to develop the structure of
  the proposal narrative and as a template for
  developing the sequence and required detail of
  each section.
• Using the RFP as a proposal template during
  initial proposal outlining helps ensure that
  every RFP item is fully addressed.

62
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Major section headings within an RFP often have
  very detailed descriptive text defining the
  objectives of the program (goals, objectives,
  performance timeline, outcomes, research
  management, evaluation, etc.) that must be
  addressed in the proposal narrative.
• The detail in each section of the RFP, including
  the review criteria, can be selectively copied
  and pasted into the first draft of the proposal
  itself.
• This process provides initial section and
  subsection headings under which the applicant
  drafts out preliminary written responses to every
  requested item in the guidelines, thereby
  ensuring that the first draft of the proposal
  fully mirrors the program solicitation
  requirements in every way.

63
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Reviewers will expect to see the text in the same
  general order as the RFP and the review criteria
  since that ordering conforms to instructions
  given to reviewers by the program officers.
• Using the RFP as a guide to create a proposal
  outline also has the advantage of making it
  easier for reviewers to compare the proposal to
  the program guidelines and review criteria,
  without having to search around in a long
  narrative to find out if each required topic has
  been addressed.

64
Addressing the Review Criteria in the RFP

• The description of review criteria is an
  especially important part of the RFP.
• 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.
• 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.

65
Reading 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 that the applicant has read and
  absorbed the ideas behind those publications.

66
A stepwise process for developing a competitive
research proposal

• Preparing to write
• Developing the hypothesis research plan
• Preliminary data research readiness
• Writing the proposal
• Post review process
• Competitive resubmissions
• Multidisciplinary research collaborations

67
Preparing to write the competitive proposal

• Understanding the program guidelines in planning,
  developing, and writing a competitive proposal.
• What should be your relationship with program
  officers?
• Developing a sound, testable hypothesis.
• Asking senior faculty to review, advise assess
  competitiveness of ideas and research,
  particularly appropriateness to agency research
  agenda.
• What do you need to know about funding agency
  culture ( sub-cultures), language, mission,
  strategic plan, research investment priorities?
• What do you need to know about agency review
  criteria, review process, review panels?

68
Developing 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?

69
Preliminary data research readiness

• What evidence needs to be presented to show that
  the proposed work can be accomplished?
• What evidence of institutional support for the
  research, e.g., facilities, equipment
  instrumentation, etc., is important to
  demonstrate and address in the proposal?
• 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?

70
Writing 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 decisions 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?

71
Post 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?

72
Competitive 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?

73
Multidisciplinary Collaborative Research
Initiatives Faculty Interdisciplinary Groups

• Role of centers and institutes in advancing
  faculty research careers and proposal success
• Role of interdisciplinary faculty research groups
  in advancing faculty research careers and
  proposal success
• How do you identify your best opportunities for
  research advancement along the continuum from
  single PI, multiple PI, multidisciplinary
  collaboratives, and center level research funding
  initiatives?

74
Understanding 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.

75
Identify the review criteria

• Most agencies publish their standard review
  criteria on their web pages and/or in their
  proposal preparation guides.
• Some agency programs will have additional review
  criteria that the program will delineate in the
  proposal solicitation therefore, it is
  important to read the list of review criteria
  presented in this document, as well.

76
Agency review criteria and review process
77
Understand the review process

• The review process varies sometimes
  significantly from one agency to the next
  (following slide).
• The review process may include a peer review,
  where outside experts from related fields are
  invited to review the proposal an internal
  review, where agency personnel evaluate the
  proposal or a combination of both.
• However, 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.

78
Difference 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 however, 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

79
NSF 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 "higherrated research proposals
  because their overall assessment by the program
  officer is more favorable.
• 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

80
NSF proposal process and timelines
81
NSF 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?

82
NIH 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?

83
Write 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
• 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, finally, between the expected
  outcomes and the significance and broader impacts
  of the project.

84
Create 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.

85
Finding 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

86
Craft of writing

• Good writing lies at the core of the competitive
  proposal.
• It is the framework upon which the competitive
  applicant crafts and structures the arguments,
  ideas, concepts, goals, performance commitments,
  and the logical, internal connectedness and
  balance of the proposal.

87
The 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.

88
Good 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)
• Descriptive clarity (who, what, how, when, why,
  results)
• Clear, consistent vision sustained throughout
  text
• Comprehensive problem definition corresponding
  innovative solutions
• Confidence in performance must and excitement for
  your ideas must be instilled in reviewers
• Capacity for synthesis

89
Internal 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.
• Synthesis represents the relational framework and
  conceptual balance of the proposal. It is the
  synaptic connections among concepts, ideas,
  arguments, goals, objectives, and performance.

90
Ideas 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.

91
Introductory 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 science
• Dont be overly ambitious in what you propose,
  but convey credibility and capacity to perform

92
Introductory 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

93
The proposal introduction

• Serves as reviewers road map to the full text
• Opportunity to make most important points up
  front
• 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

94
Beware of boiler plate dont copy paste

• Boiler plate refers only to the grant application
  forms required by the funding agency
• Thinking of proposal narrative as boiler plate
  will result in a mediocre, disjoint proposal
• Begin each proposal as a new effort, not a copy
  paste
• Be very cautious integrating text inserts
• Strong proposals clearly reflect a coherent,
  sustained, and integrated argument grounded on
  good ideas

95
Craft of grant writing web sites

• http//cpmcnet.columbia.edu/research/writing.htm
• http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/19
  99/08/27/1
• http//grants.library.wisc.edu/index.html
• http//www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgcom
  plete.html
• http//www.asru.ilstu.edu/grantwritingseries.htm
• http//grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
• http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04016/start.htm
• http//www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs/Guide/Guide.htm
• http//www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDet
  ail/assetid/23947?fulltexttrueprintyesprintye
  s
• http//www.pitt.edu/offres/proposal/propwriting/w
  ebsites.html