Funding Opportunities and Practical Insights

For AoM Scholars

Kevin CrowstonCyber-Human Systemskcrowsto@nsf.gov

2

Session OutlineUnderstand the available NSF funding opps

– Outline the Key Opportunities– Explain our Reviewing and Decision Processes

Advice for developing strong proposals– Successful PI Perspective:

– Review and Panelist Perspective:

Breakouts to discuss questions/issues

CISE Organization and Core Research Programs

CISE Cross-Cutting Programs

• CHS supports research on­ Creative ideas and novel theories for

understanding:• Human-computer and human-human

interactions, collaboration, and competition.• Role of computing in how humans

communicate, work, learn, and play.• Systems that interact with people using various

modalities.

­ Innovative technologies for: • Computer supported collaboration.• Human-Computer and human-robot

interactions.• Social computing.• Affective computing.• Universal access.• Immersive environments.

Types of Opportunities

Core

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps

Cyber-Human Systems (CHS)

Applying to Core Programs

• Program Solicitations:– CCF: NSF 13-579– CNS: NSF 13-581– IIS: NSF 13-580

• Project Types:– Large: $1,200,001 to $3,000,000; up to 5 years, collaborative teams– Medium: $500,001 to $1,200,000; up to 4 years, multi-investigator teams– Small: up to $500,000; up to 3 years, one or two investigator projects

• CISE-wide Submission Windows:– Large: November 4–19, annually– Medium: September 24–October 15 (2013 only)– Small: January 2–17, annually

• PI Limit: – Participate in no more than 2 “core” proposals/year

Coordinated Solicitations

SBE Organization

7

Types of Opportunities Key Social, Behavioral and

Economics ProgramsUnsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 8

Jan/Feb and Aug/Sept due dates annually

Science of Organizations

Decision, Risk & Management Science

Economics

Law and Social Science

Methodology, Measurement & Statistics

Social Psychology

Political Science

Sociology

Science, Technology & Society

Geography and Spatial Sciences

Sept due date annually

Science of Science and Innovation Policy

Types of Opportunities Example Standing Opportunities in

Other Directorates

ENG• Service Enterprise Systems (SES)• Systems Science (SYS) • Infrastructure Management and Extreme

Events (IMEE)

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 9

Types of Opportunities Promising Current Research

Solicitations for AoM Scholars

Building Community and Capacity for Data-Intensive Research in the Social, Behavioral and Economic and in Education and Human Resources (new call expected)

Catalyzing New International Collaborations (contact the country expert in OISE)

Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability

Research Coordination Networks

Science Across Virtual Institutes

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 10

• Cross-Directorate– Cyberlearning: Transforming Education (CTE)

Designing and implementing technologies to aid and understand learning.

– Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) Securing our Nation’s cyberspace from malicious behavior, while preserving privacy and promoting usability.

• Cross-Agency– Smart and Connected Health (SCH)

Transforming healthcare knowledge and delivery, and improving quality of life through IT.

– Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIG DATA)

Developing tools to manage and analyze data in order to extract knowledge from data.

– National Robotics Initiative (NRI) Developing and using robots that work alongside, or cooperatively with, people.

Sample of CISE Cross-Cutting ProgramsTypes of Opportunities

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps

Types of Opportunities Grants for Particular Types of

Individuals

Graduate Research Fellowships

Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants (in SBE)

SBE Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program

CAREER Awards

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 12

Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER)

Program• The National Science Foundation's most

prestigious awards in support of junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through:

• outstanding research,• excellent education, and • the integration of education and

research within the context of the mission of their organizations.

Types of Opportunities

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps

Types of Opportunities Grants with Only Internal Review

RAPIDs: Grants for Rapid Response Research

EAGERs: Early concept Grants for Exploratory Research

INSPIREs: Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education

Workshops, doctoral consortia

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 14

Types of Opportunities Large Center Opportunities

Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnerships (STC)

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)

ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers  (ADVANCE)

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 15

Types of Opportunities NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps)

Supplements to current or recently expired NSF grants to catalyze commercialization of research products.

Involves mentoring and funding to develop commercialization options

The lead can be a student

Building capacity and capability for the long run.

Unsolicited

Solicited

Types of Individuals

No External Review

Large Centers

iCorps 16

Finding information: http://www.nsf.gov

Funding opportunities

Upcoming Due Dates

Subscribe to updates

Get NSF Updates by Email

CISE Updates and Announcements: http://www.cise.nsf.gov

Get CISE Updates by Email

Subscribe to receive special CISE announcements

Featured Programs

New information

Inquiries about Fit

21

E-mail 1-2 pages with:Research Question(s)

- Theory on which you are building- Methods- Major Citations

- We can identify potential fit- We can offer advice on some reviewing pitfalls

Search awards from each program page

22

Award search results

24

Types of Review

• ‘Mail’ Reviewers plus Panel Review• Panel Review• Internal Review Only• Sources of Reviewers:

– Program Officer’s knowledge– References in proposal– Web of science; SSRN; Google Scholar, etc.– Reviewer recommendations– Investigator’s suggestions– Volunteers

NSF Standard Merit Criteria

Intellectual merit• Advancing knowledge in some field of study

Broader impacts• Benefiting society • Advancing specific societal goals

– Training– Diversity– Infrastructure– Dissemination/Public Awareness

25

Merit Review Elements (effective January 2013)

1. Potential to advance knowledge or to benefit society

2. Creativity and originality (“potentially transformative”)

3. Sound plan for achieving goals (including evaluation of outcomes)

4. Qualifications of the proposers5. Sufficient access to resources

Noshir ContractorJane S. & William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences

Professor of Ind. Engg & Mgmt Sciences, McCormick School of Engineering Professor of Communication Studies, School of Communication &

Professor of Management & Organizations, Kellogg School of Management,Director, Science of Networks in Communities (SONIC) Research Laboratory

nosh@northwestern.edu

  

The Players’ Agenda, General Practices, Rules, Procedures

Supported by NSF : OCI-0753047, IIS-0729505, IIS-0535214, SBE-0555115

NSF Fundingfor Organizational Scholars

The Funders’ Agenda• Addressing grand societal challenges: Environment, Nanotechnology, Science of

Science, Complex Systems, Computational Science, Cyberinfrastructure, Virtual Organizations and Environments, Computational thinking

– Increasing proportion of budget for multi-, inter-, and trans- (MIT) disciplinary initiatives

• Intellectual Merit in terms of advancing basic knowledge and discovery

• Increasing research workforce capacity building at undergraduate (REU) and graduate level (IGERT, NSF graduate and dissertation fellowships)

• Nurturing junior faculty “stars” (NSF’s CAREER and Presidential Young Investigator awards)

• Increasing workforce diversity

• Increasing dissemination to broader academic community (Workshops)

• Increasing outreach to general public (Citizen science)

• Increasing international partnerships in research and education (NSF-PIRE)

General Practices

• Workshops or Request for Ideas

• Invited, Routine solicitations (SBE, IIS), Special Solicitations, Unsolicited (in response to “Dear Colleague” letter), EAGER/RAPID, and Supplemental (for REU, International, Workshops, Public Science)

• Range from 1 to 5 years and from $50,000 to $30 million

• Proposal preparation time: range from 4 to 12 weeks “on the street.” some require mandatory or voluntary Letter of intent and/or pre-proposal

• Review process generally anonymous (1-way), sometimes internal to agency, mostly peer-reviewed, often panel deliberation augmented by expert reviews

• Proposal review time ranges from 2 months to 1 year (site visits)

• Outcome: Not recommended, Recomended, Highly recommended, Fund, Fund at reduced level

• Award made to the Institution - not directly to the individual. Institution appropriates indirect costs (range from 0% to over 100% - generally in the 53% range)

Rules

• Modality of submission: Electronic (via Fastlane/grants.gov)

• Submitting entity: The Institution’s Sponsored Research Office (who need time to review)

• Page limit, font size, and margins

• Letters of support versus letters of partnership

• Limits to proposals per PI or per institution

• Requirements for partnerships with other constituencies (e.g., multiple disciplines, industry, international)

• Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, Management Plan, Post Doctoral training plan, Data Management plan, Education & Outreach

• Conflicts of interest lists, 2-page bio, Current & Pending Support

• List of potential reviewers (or non-reviewers)

Procedures

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval

• Establish ongoing relation ship with Program Officer

• Reporting functions: Annual reports (sometimes quarterly)

• Organize events to showcase research effort to academic audiences

• Submit “public interest” nuggets to NSF for them to relay to Congress

• Explicitly acknowledge specific grants or contracts in all publications and presentations

• Start working on future submissions (in a few cases, renewal) within months of receiving the award

• Packaging grants activity as part of performance evaluation (including tenure and promotion)

• Calibrating career stages with engagement in individual projects, small scale (2-3 PIs) collaboration projects, large scale (5-10 Pis) collaborations, research laboratories and research centers

Shopping for the right RFP • Serve as a panelist or reviewer: Whenever possible, offer to review

proposals in the program where you might like to submit in a subsequent cycle.

• Workshop proposal: When proposing in a new research area with relevance to a broader scientific community, consider talking to one or more program officers about proposing a workshop that sets an agenda for a future RFP in that area. It improves awareness about research area and advances your/NCSA leadership profile in the research area

• EAGER/RAPID: When proposing a high risk an/or time sensitive project, consider submitting an EAGER/RAPID.

Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)

• Restrictions on number of proposals submitted: In addition to restrictions about the number of proposals on which one can be a PI, check to see if there are restrictions on the number of proposals that can be submitted by one institution.

• Criteria for choosing collaboration partners: In addition to substantive domain expertise, check on requirements for proposals that require/encourage investigators from multiple disciplines, multiple universities, predominantly minority institutions, community colleges and/or participants from EPSCOR states.

Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)

• Check on page limit and formatting criteria early on in the proposal writing process. Make sure to format the document with the right font size, line spacing, and margin width. Leaving this till the "last-minute" might create formatting nightmares. Typically, NSF proposals provide 15 pages for project description (including proposed activities, timeline, and results from prior NSF support for each of the collaborators). Check to see if the page limit for project description also includes the management plan.

• Letters of support: required in some cases, not allowed in other cases. May be used to document financial support, resource support, user/community support.

• Conflict of interest list: Include list of collaborators and former advisees (their affiliations and nature of conflict) over the past 5 years for all PIs and co-PIs.

Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)

• Potential reviewers: Include suggestions for those you think are qualified and include those you do not want as reviewers.

• Management Plan: For large project proposals, make sure to include a management plan with specific details about mechanisms for coordination including, perhaps, an organization chart. If possible, include existing coordination practices as examples of past experience. Consider assembling an advisory board of experts. This might entail providing them with travel support and honoraria. If possible, get letters of acceptance/support from the members of the advisory board.

• Reference list: For collaborative proposals, if you are the PI, be sure to request bibliographic references along with the text (these might be in different formats and will require some effort to make them standardized).

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Setting the contours for the proposal: For collaborative proposals, if you are the PI, it might be worthwhile to have at least a couple of meetings (or conference calls) at the onset of the proposal preparation. On the basis of these conference calls, prepare an outline that includes placeholders for text solicited from others. Be sure to request others to provide text at least N days before the deadline. This will provide you with a buffer for those who will be late.

• Project Summary: Make sure to invest considerable time on crafting the one-page Project Summary. It is probably best to draft this after the Project Description has been written. RFPs that require interdisciplinary proposals are often reviewed by interdisciplinary review panels. Not everyone on the panel is likely to be sufficiently familiar with the technical details of the proposal. But they will all want to understand the Project Summary. It is therefore particularly important to be able to outline the proposed effort in language that will be understood by intelligent researchers in areas outside your discipline.

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Project Description: It is important to use the first few paragraphs in the introductory section of the project description to capture the attention and imagination of the reviewer. When appropriate, provide one or more use-case scenarios or “compelling anecdote or factoid” that underscores the relevance and timeliness of the project. If appropriate, cite a recent, well-known and respected report or statistic that helps justify the problem being addressed by the project proposal.

• Crafting the “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts”

statement: It is very important to carefully craft summary statements about "Intellectual Merits" and "Broader Impacts" of the proposal. Not only are these requirements for the proposal, but they are two of only a handful of criteria used by reviewers in reviewing, summarizing, and rating the proposal.

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Intellectual Merit should include statements that describe how the proposed project is specifically advancing fundamental science by developing/testing novel theories, algorithms, methodology, instrumentation, analytic, visualization, … techniques

• Broader impacts of the proposal must include two dimensions:

– (1) How would the outcome of the research have a broader impact on helping address “grand societal challenges”

– (2) How the conduct of research will help nurture diversity within the research community by making specific efforts to involve, train, and mentor undergraduates, women, and minorities. More generally, broader impacts also include education and outreach, organizing workshops for the research community, technology transfer, as well as for industry partners (if appropriate). It is not enough to say these will be done in general terms. Whenever possible identify specific programs (as well as partnerships at your institutions that will be leveraged) to pursue these activities.

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Using language from RFP criteria: Some RFPs specifically interested in high risk/high payoff proposals. If so, be sure to justify the proposal on these criteria, including using the phrase “high risk/high payoff” in instances where that is relevant.

• Underscore prior collaboration: When working on collaborative projects, whenever possible indicate history of prior collaboration within the team to demonstrate higher potential of success. This will help dispel the suspicion that this proposal was a shotgun-marriage of convenience in response to the RFP.

• Leveraging prior NSF funded research: Whenever possible, underscore the fact that the proposed research is leveraging and/or extending prior research funded by NSF or other prestigious agencies. These items can also be highlighted in the section of the project description on results from prior NSF support. Simultaneously, be as specific as possible to describe how the proposed research is adding value above and beyond previously funded research.

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Distinguishing roles and expectations: It is important to negotiate (and describe in the Management Plan) different expectations for partners as PIs, co-PIs, senior investigators, or consultants.

• Staying within budget: For collaborative proposals or proposals involving sub-contracts, if you are the PI, be sure to get the total budget requested by each collaborator or subcontractor well in advance. This will ensure that the total amount requested does not exceed the funding limit specified in the RFP.

• Budget justification: Make sure that the budget justification is aligned with work plan and proposed timeline - especially for equipment, personnel time, and travel.

Responding to an RFPProposal content checklist

• Human Subjects Approval: If the proposal involves dealing with human subjects, be sure to check if the proposal would require specific clearance from the Institutional Review Board. Even if there is no IRP approval prior to submission, be sure to indicate awareness that human subject approval would be required. If your project involves a social science collaborator, there is a good chance that human subject approval will be needed.

• Security/Privacy issues: Even if the proposal is not specifically about security/privacy issues, be sure to indicate awareness of potential problems in this area. And, indicate what steps will be taken to mitigate these problems.

• Data sharing/dissemination/curation: NSF requires description on what steps (social, organizational, and technical) the proposed project will take to share the data (using appropriate confidentiality safeguards) with the research community. They are also eager to learn what steps the project will take to curate the data.

Try to do better next time ….

NSF Funding in the Context of Accelerating Change

(Panel on Funding Opportunities for Academy of Management Scholars, from the National Science Foundation)

Joel Cutcher-GershenfeldSchool of Labor and Employment Relations (LER)

National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA)

Support from the National Science Foundation is deeply appreciated: NSF-VOSS EAGER 0956472, “Stakeholder Alignment in Socio-Technical Systems,” NSF OCI RAPID 1229928, “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube,” NSF SciSPR-STS-OCI-INSPIRE 1249607, “Enabling Transformation in the Social Sciences, Geosciences, and Cyberinfrastructure,” NSF OCI 12-56163, “Envisioning Success: A Workshop for Next Generation EarthCube Scholars and Scientists,” NSF I-CORPS 1313562 “Stakeholder Alignment for Public-Private Partnerships,”Stakeholder Alignment Visualization Patent Pending: Serial No. 13/907,291 (2013).

The Challenge . . .

“. . . We are moving towards another type of society than that to which we have become accustomed. This is sometimes referred to as a new service society, the society of the second industrial revolution or the post-industrial society. There is no guarantee of our safe arrival. Not only are the interdependencies greater – they are differently structured. . . [and] demand a new mobilization of the sciences.”

– Source: Eric L. Trist, from paper on “Social Aspects of Science Policy” (March, 1969) cited in Towards a Social Ecology: Contextual Appreciation of the Future in the Present by Fred E. Emery and Eric L. Trist (London: Plenum Press, 1973)

Accelerating rates of technological change . . . The Babysitter

of the Future

Source: Steve Diggs, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Good news and bad news. . .

. . . NSF is structured much like a university, with grants-funding divisions/offices for the various disciplines and fields of science and engineering and for science, math, engineering and technology education. NSF also uses a variety of management mechanisms to coordinate research in areas that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. . .

Source: “About the NSF” at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/index.jsp

Most important challenges of the 21st Century, as identified by NAE

• Make solar energy economical

• Provide energy from fusion

• Develop carbon sequestration methods

• Manage the nitrogen cycle

• Provide access to clean water

• Restore and improve urban infrastructure

• Advance health informatics

• Engineer better medicines

• Reverse-engineer the brain

• Prevent nuclear terror

• Secure cyberspace

• Enhance virtual reality

• Advance personalized learning

• Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

Source: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

• G. Aad48, T. Abajyan21, B. Abbott111, J. Abdallah12, S. Abdel Khalek115,.A. Abdelalim49, O. Abdinov11, R. Aben105, B. Abi112, M. Abolins88, O.S. AbouZeid158, H. Abramowicz153, H. Abreu136, B.S. Acharya164a,164b, L. Adamczyk38, D.L. Adams25,T.N. Addy56, J. Adelman176, S. Adomeit98, P. Adragna75, T. Adye129, S. Aefsky23,J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra124b,a, M. Agustoni17, M. Aharrouche81, S.P. Ahlen22, F. Ahles48,. Ahmad148, M. Ahsan41, G. Aielli133a,133b, T. Akdogan19a, T.P.A. Akesson79, G. Akimoto155, A.V. ­�Akimov94, M.S. Alam2, M.A. Alam76, J. Albert169, S. Albrand55,M. Aleksa30, I.N. Aleksandrov64, F. Alessandria89a, C. Alexa26a, G. Alexander153, G. Alexandre49, T. Alexopoulos10, M. Alhroob164a,164c, M. Aliev16, G. Alimonti89a J. Alison120, B.M.M. Allbrooke18, P.P. Allport73, S.E. Allwood-Spiers53, J. Almond82, A. Aloisio102a,102b, R. Alon172, A. Alonso79, F. Alonso70, A. Altheimer35,B. Alvarez Gonzalez88, M.G. Alviggi102a,102b, K. Amako65, C. Amelung23, V.V. Ammosov128, , S.P. Amor Dos ∗Santos124a, A. Amorim124a,b, N. Amram153, C. Anastopoulos30, L.S. Ancu17, N. Andari115, T. Andeen35, C.F. Anders58b, G. Anders58a, K.J. Anderson31, A. Andreazza89a,89b, V. Andrei58a, M-L. Andrieux55, X.S. Anduaga70, S. Angelidakis9, P. Anger44, A. Angerami35, F. Anghinolfi30, A. Anisenkov107, N. Anjos124a, A. Annovi47, A. Antonaki9, M. Antonelli47, A. Antonov96, J. Antos144b, F. Anulli132a, M. Aoki101, S. Aoun83, L. Aperio Bella5, R. Apolle118,c, G. Arabidze88, I. Aracena143, Y. Arai65, A.T.H. Arce45, S. Arfaoui148, J-F. Arguin93, E. Arik19a, , M. Arik19a, A.J. Armbruster87, O. Arnaez81, V. Arnal80, C. ∗Arnault115, A. Artamonov95,G. Artoni132a,132b, D. Arutinov21, S. Asai155, S. Ask28, B. Asman146a,146b, L. Asquith6. Assamagan25, A. Astbury169, M. Atkinson165, B. Aubert5, E. �Auge115, K. Augsten127, M. Aurousseau145a, G. Avolio163, R. Avramidou10, D. Axen168, G. Azuelos93,d, Y. Azuma155, M.A. Baak30, G. Baccaglioni89a, C. Bacci134a,134b, A.M. Bach15, H. Bachacou136, K. Bachas30, M. Backes49, M. Backhaus21, J. Backus Mayes143, E. Badescu26a,P. Bagnaia132a,132b, S. Bahinipati3, Y. Bai33a, D.C. Bailey158, T. Bain158, J.T. Baines129, O.K. Baker176, M.D. Baker25, S. Baker77, P. Balek126, E. Banas39, P. Banerjee93,Sw. Banerjee173, D. Banfi30, A. Bangert150, V. Bansal169, H.S. Bansil18, L. Barak172, S.P. Baranov94, A. Barbaro Galtieri15, T. Barber48, E.L. Barberio86, D. Barberis50a,50b, M. Barbero21, D.Y. Bardin64, T. Barillari99, M. Barisonzi175, T. Barklow143, N. Barlow28, B.M. Barnett129, R.M. Barnett15, A. Baroncelli134a, G. Barone49, A.J. Barr118, F. Barreiro80, J. Barreiro Guimara es da Costa57, P. Barrillon115, R. Bartoldus143, A.E. ­�Barton71, V. Bartsch149, A. Basye165, R.L. Bates53, L. Batkova144a, J.R. Batley28, A. Battaglia17, M. Battistin30, F. Bauer136, H.S. Bawa143,e, S. Beale98, T. Beau78, P.H. Beauchemin161, R. Beccherle50a, P. Bechtle21, H.P. Beck17, A.K. Becker175, S. Becker98, M. Beckingham138, K.H. Becks175, A.J. Beddall19c, A. Beddall19c, S. Bedikian176, V.A. Bednyakov64, C.P. Bee83, L.J. Beemster105, M. Begel25, S. Behar Harpaz152, P.K. Behera62, M. Beimforde99, C. Belanger-Champagne85, P.J. Bell49, W.H. Bell49, G. Bella153, L. Bellagamba20a, M. Bellomo30, A. Belloni57, O. Beloborodova107,f, K. Belotskiy96, O. Beltramello30, O. Benary153, D. Benchekroun135a, K. Bendtz146a,146b, N. Benekos165, Y. Benhammou153, E. Benhar Noccioli49, J.A. Benitez Garcia159b, D.P. Benjamin45, M. Benoit115, J.R. Bensinger23, K. Benslama130, S. Bentvelsen105,D. Berge30, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann42, N. Berger5, F. Berghaus169, E. Berglund105,J. Beringer15, P. Bernat77, R. Bernhard48, C. Bernius25, F.U. Bernlochner169, T. Berry76, C. Bertella83, A. Bertin20a,20b, F. Bertolucci122a,122b, M.I. Besana89a,89b, G.J. Besjes104, . . . http://ksj.mit.edu/sites/default/files/images/tracker/Higgs%20Science%20Cover2012.JPG

Atlas Collaboration

PDF – Page 1 of 12

None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to 20

More than 20

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to 20

More than 20

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

How are we doing?Could be better.

Interdisciplinary lags behind.

Maybe we don’t know how…

Projects*Papers*

RegularInterdisciplinary

Data from “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube”

* Last 5 years

Lewin’s force field analysis

Urgency of “grand challenge” science

Engaging research questions

Pos. signals from funding agencies

Strategic priorities of universities

Colleagues open to collaboration

Technical barriers to collaboration

Career development complications

Publication/translation challenges

“Birds of a feather” tendencies

Risk aversion tendencies

InterdisciplinaryScience

Engagement with NSF

• Talk with Program Officers• Be precise on "intellectual merits"

– Basic knowledge and discovery• Be bold on "broader impacts”

– “Grand challenges” for science

• Crosscutting and NSF-wide• Biological Sciences• Computer & Information Science & Engineering• Education and Human Resources• Engineering• Environmental Research & Education• Geosciences• International & Integrative Activities • Mathematical & Physical Sciences• Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences

Finding your way, Part I

SBE – Increasing Knowledge of People and Society

• Building Community and Capacity for Data-Intensive Research in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and in Education and Human Resources (BCC-SBE/EHR)

• Decision, Risk and Management Sciences (DRMS)• Economics• Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS) • Ethics Education in Science and Engineering (EESE) • Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science Research (IBSS)• Law & Social Sciences (LSS)• Metadata for Long-standing Large-Scale Social Science Surveys

(META-SSS)• Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (MMS)• Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering• Political Science• SBE Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants• Science of Organizations (SoO)• Science, Technology, and Society (STS)• Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)• Sociology• The NSF-Census Research Network (NCRN)

SBE Organizations• Behavioral and

Cognitive Sciences (BCS)

• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)

• Social and Economic Sciences (SES)

• SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (SMA)

Finding your way, Part II

CISE – Exploring the Frontiers of Computing

Division of Advanced Cyberinfrstructure (ACI)Division of Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF)• Algorithmic Foundations (AF) • Communications and Information Foundations (CIF) • Software and Hardware Foundations (SHF) • Administrative Unit Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS)• Computer Systems Research (CSR) • Research Infrastructure Program • Networking Technology and Systems (NETS) • Education and Workforce Program • Administrative Unit • Trustworthy Computing Program Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS)• Human-Centered Computing (HCC) • Information Integration and Informatics (III) • IIS Crosscutting Activities • Robust Intelligence (RI) • Administrative Unit

CISE Organizations• Advanced

Cyberinfrastructure (ACI)

• Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF)

• Computer and Network Systems (CNS)

• Information & Intelligent Systems (IIS)

•

Finding your way, Part III

Compare to a University

Engineering Departments

• Aerospace Engineering• Agricultural and Biological Engineering• Bioengineering• Chemical and Biomolecular

Engineering• Civil and Environmental Engineering• Computer Science• Electrical and Computer Engineering• Industrial & Enterprise Systems

Engineering• Materials Science and Engineering• Mechanical Science and Engineering• Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological

Engineering• Physics

Engineering Multidisciplinary Centers

• Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory (ATREL)

• Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology*

• Coordinated Science Laboratory (CSL)

• Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory (MRL)

• Information Trust Institute• Institute for Genomic Biology*• Micro and Nanotechnology

Laboratory (MNTL)• National Center for Supercomputing

Applications*

Compare to a University (cont.)

Engineering Major Research Centers

• Advanced Digital Sciences Center (ADSC)• Center for Nanoscale Chemical-Electrical-

Mechanical Manufacturing Systems (NanoCEMMS)

• Center for the Physics of Living Cells• Center of Advanced Materials for

Purification of Water with Systems (Water CAMPWS)

• Computational Science and Engineering• Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT)• Illinois-Intel Parallelism Center (I2PC)• Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for

Power (TCIPG)

. . . plus over 20 additional research and educational centers and laboratories

College of Business Research Centers

• Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership• Center for Business and Public Policy• Center for Information Technology & E-

Business Management• Center for International Business Education

and Research (CIBER)• Center for Professional Responsibility• Golder Center for Private Equity Research• Zimmerman Center for International

Education & Research in Accounting (CIERA)• Bureau of Economic & Business Research• Office of Real Estate Research• Office for Banking Research• Office of Organizational Research

Internal Alignment

• Dynamics with your colleagues (senior and junior)

• Support from your chair, director, dean• Support from your

departmental/school/academic unit budget officer and (if you have one) grants officer

• Support from your university’s grants office• Support from your university’s office of

technology management

Pulling back the curtain on the review process

Dozens of proposals before the panel (under 10% to be funded)You are writing for:

– An scholar serving on the panel who will lift out positive and negative aspects of your proposal to present to the full panel

– Another scholar who will be serving as scribe during the panel deliberations

– The full panel who will rank all the proposals– A program officer who will take into account the

deliberations and ranking in making the funding recommendation

Special Focus: I Corps

Increased priority for commercializing innovations emerging from NSF funding

– 3 person teams (PI, Ph.D. Student, Mentor)– Bootcamp for entrepreneurship– Highly valued by Congress– Incomplete match with university infrastructure

Today’s most troubling and daunting problems have common features: some of them arise from human numbers and resource exploitation; they require long-term commitments from separate sectors of society and diverse disciplines to solve; simple, unidimensional solutions are unlikely; and failure to solve them can lead to disasters.

In some ways, the scales and complexities of our current and future problems are unprecedented, and it is likely that solutions will have to be iterative . . .

Institutions can enable the ideas and energies of individuals to have more impact and to sustain efforts in ways that individuals cannot.

From “Science to Sustain Society,” by Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences, 149th Annual Meeting of the Academy (2012)

Funding Opportunities: An Early Career Perspective

Leslie A. DeChurchGeorgia Institute of Technology

Four­Types­of­Early­Career­Involvement­

1. Program aimed at junior scholars

CAREER­award­–­5­year­integrated­program­of­research­&­education­designed­to­lay­a­solid­foundation­for­a­lifetime­of­scholarship­(NIH,­DoD­also­have­similar­programs)

2. PI on a 2-4 year standard research grant

Productive,­but­entails­significant­management­responsibility­­

3. Co-PI on a 2-4 year standard research grant

Less­management­responsibility­but­typically­less­central­to­YOUR­research;­less­independence­

4. Co-PI or consultant on a grant in another area (e.g., service roles)

Little,­if­any­value,­time­consuming

What’s­in­the­Proposal?

• 15­Pages­– Write­it­longer­&­then­tighten­it

• Write­a­detailed­outline­first­– These­become­headings/subheadings;­more­structure­is­better

• Use­tables­&­figures­to­depict­complex­information­– These­need­to­be­self-explanatory;­reference­them;­use­for­

both­theory­&­method

• Three­questions­you­MUST­directly­address:– What­important­problem­(scientific,­societal)­will­you­work­on?– In­what­ways­is­your­team­uniquely­qualified­to­work­on­it?– Exactly­what­“new”­work­will­you­do?­(include­a­Gant­chart;­

who­does­what,­when,­where)

Who’s­in­the­Proposal?

• The­people­should­match­the­ideas­&­the­scope­of­work­to­be­done­(explain­the­alignment­in­the­proposal)

• Choose­your­team­carefully­–­requisite­skill­variety– The­primary­consideration:­Assemble­the­smallest­team­with­all­of­

the­expertise­&­resources­you­need­to­be­“uniquely­qualified­to­do­the­work”­

– Multi-disciplinary/multi-university­v.­single-discipline/single-university– Senior­collaborators:­

• Experience­and­know­how­to­manage­funded­research­projects­&­research­teams

• Resources­&­infrastructure• Can­be­co-PIs­or­consultants

• Include­post-doc(s),­graduate­students,­undergraduates­• Include­a­collaboration­plan

What’s­in­the­Budget?

• Summer­salary­(1­week­to­2­months)­of­each­senior­investigator­(faculty)

• Salary­(full­or­partial)­for­post-docs,­programmers,­support­staff

• Stipend­&­tuition­for­PhD­students• Funds­to­pay­for­research­participants­• Travel­to­disseminate­findings­from­your­research­• Overhead­(does­your­institution­return­any­

indirect­to­the­PI?)

Your­Frame­of­Mind

Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Grants: An applicant view. In J.M. Darley, M.P. Zanna, & H.L. Roediger III, The Compleat Academic. APA, Washington DC.

1.­Believe­in­Yourself

3.­Don’t­worry­about­having­the­greatest­idea­(but­bad­ideas­are­seldom­funded)

4.­Persist­&­Learn­from­feedback

2.­Go­for­it!5.­Thicken­your­skin

6.­Focus

7.­Find­your­right­audience

Pursuing NSF Fundingwhen, whether, and how?

Alan Meyer

University of Oregon

Should I submit a proposal?

1. Are you certain your department or college understands, values, and rewards pursuit of external funding? Do not take this for granted!

2. How much support is available for grant administration at your school? Have you met with the staff who will help you write, budget, and

administer a proposal/award?

3. Are you tenured? If not, does your research pipeline contain projects at various stages?

4. Could the research be done without a grant award? If not, don’t pursue development of a proposal. (In other words, design

research that can be bootstrapped.)

Avoiding rookie mistakes… some things I wish I’d known

Like a journal editor, but different POs are expatriate scholars: rotators and careerists Dual institutional logics: academic research and

bureaucratic politics They want to fund high quality research (academic) that

addresses program objectives (political) Ideally, prefer to fund 20 - 30% of proposals Don’t like rejecting quality proposals; don’t like funding

dodgy proposals.

Your Program Officer is your best friend.

The upshot: POs try to manage the flow of proposals

Translate the RFP into English Critique your pre-proposal Offer developmental comments Give candid advice – encouragement or redirection Meet with you in D.C., or at conferences Suggest interdisciplinary framing

Pre-award, your PO stands ready to:

Program Officers want you to succeed

Communicate often … and not just in annual reports Ask your PO’s advice, update him/her on progress and

changes Invite your PO to conference presentations based on NSF

awards Ask your PO, what could I do that would make you a

hero?

Post-award, don’t treat your PO like your Dean, treat him/her like a valued colleague:

Funding for Management Scholars?

Breakouts are for General Discussions

• Tables will be staffed with PDs, PIs and reviewers/panelists

• Raise issues of general interest: questions/issues about grant getting, rumors about NSF you’d like to check, perspective you need to advise your grad students.

• If you want to know about the potential for a particular study, please contact your PO

73