Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Timothy M....

Writing CompetitiveWriting CompetitiveResearch ProposalsResearch Proposals

UPRMUPRM

Timothy M. PinkstonTimothy M. PinkstonProfessor, Sr. Assoc. DeanProfessor, Sr. Assoc. Dean

USC Viterbi School of EngineeringUSC Viterbi School of Engineering

• ResearchResearch– Single- vs. multi-investigator research proposalsSingle- vs. multi-investigator research proposals

• Research InfrastructureResearch Infrastructure– NSF CISE CRI, NSF MRI, NSF OCI, DoD IS for HBCU/MI NSF CISE CRI, NSF MRI, NSF OCI, DoD IS for HBCU/MI

http://www.arl.army.mil/www/pages/362/08-r-0001.pdf

• Education and OutreachEducation and Outreach– Education/Curriculum Innovation: NSF CPath, IEECI Education/Curriculum Innovation: NSF CPath, IEECI

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10502/nsf10502.htm

– Broadening Participation: NSF BPC, ABP, BRIDGEBroadening Participation: NSF BPC, ABP, BRIDGE• White Paper, Special Projects, White Paper, Special Projects, RAPID, EAGERRAPID, EAGER, Travel, , Travel,

Workshops, Postdoctoral Fellowships, Faculty Fellowships Workshops, Postdoctoral Fellowships, Faculty Fellowships (industry or foundations), etc.(industry or foundations), etc.

• Supplements – standard, REU, RET, ROASupplements – standard, REU, RET, ROA• SBIR, STTRSBIR, STTR

Adapted from Bryant York, PSU

Types of ProposalsTypes of Proposals

http://www.arl.army.mil/www/pages/362/08-r-0001.pdf

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10502/nsf10502.htm

• Know the agency’s organizational structureKnow the agency’s organizational structure• Know your agency’s programsKnow your agency’s programs

– Solicited vs. unsolicited proposalsSolicited vs. unsolicited proposals

• Review the Summary of AwardsReview the Summary of Awards– Past trajectoryPast trajectory

• Know your program officer and division directorKnow your program officer and division director– Current trajectoryCurrent trajectory

• Participate in agency-sponsored workshopsParticipate in agency-sponsored workshops– Help set future trajectoriesHelp set future trajectories

• Serve on review panels and as an ad hoc reviewerServe on review panels and as an ad hoc reviewer– Sharpen proposal IQSharpen proposal IQ– Practice good citizenshipPractice good citizenship

• Develop good proposal-writing habitsDevelop good proposal-writing habitsAdapted from Bryant York, PSU

Meta-TipsMeta-Tips

Types of Proposals and Meta-TipsTypes of Proposals and Meta-Tips

• General Funding Agency InformationGeneral Funding Agency Information– DODDOD– NSFNSF

• Research Proposal Preparation and EvaluationResearch Proposal Preparation and Evaluation

• Tips for Writing Successful ProposalsTips for Writing Successful Proposals

• Some Fatal Flaws in Proposal WritingSome Fatal Flaws in Proposal Writing

OutlineOutline

5

ACA and ARRA to grow NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST

2009 DOD does not show adds Congress will insert in the appropriations bill

Service Research Offices (OXR’s) Army Research Office (ARO) www.aro.army.mil/

Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) www.afosr.af.mil/

Office of Naval Research (ONR) www.onr.navy.mil/

Defence Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Defense Science Office (DSO) www.darpa.mil/dso/

Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) www.darpa.mil/mto/

Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) www.darpa.mil/ipto/

Transformational Convergence Technology Office (TCTO) www.darpa.mil/tcto/

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) www.dtra.mil/

Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (AMRMC) https://mrmc-www.army.mil

Principal DOD Basic Research Funding Offices

Source: Jim Murday, USC

7

Defense Research Sciences Program

What: Largest source of DOD funding for University research

Majority invested in single investigator efforts

OXR DRS Broad Area Announcements (BAA) are relatively generic

OXR Program Officer (PO) key to success (presuming convincing proposal)

Each PO has focused interests, coupling science with some military need

Each Service has specifically identified program interests (websites and BRP)

How Much: typically $100 – 200K/yr for three years (with continuation possible)

OXR programs typically have ~20% turn over each year

When: Initial “white paper” useful (sometimes required)

Proposals nominally anytime, but spring/early summer to be timely

Most funding decisions processed in fall, early winter – after appropriation bill

Where: Mix of paper and electronic (grants.gov), see for instance

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Contracts-Grants.aspx

BRP: Basic Research Plan

FY10

ARO ~$173M

AFOSR ~$321M

ONR ~$414M

DARPA ~$226MSource: Jim Murday, USC

CDMRP Congressional Directed Medical Research ProgramsDMRDP Directed Medical Research and Development ProgramMURI Multidiscipline University Research InitiativeHEL MRI High Energy Laser, Multidisciplinary Research InitiativeGICUR Government-Industry Co-sponsorship of University ResearchDURIP Defense University Research Instrumentation ProgramCBDP Chemical, Biological Defense ProgramHPC High Performance ComputingYIP Young Investigator ProgramPECASE Presidential Early Career Award in Science and EngineeringNDSEG National Defense Science and Engineering GraduateNDEP National Defense Education Program STTR Small Business Technology Transfer SBIR Small Business Innovative ResearchDEPSCOR Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competition

Other DOD Science &Tech Programs


DOD Young Investigator Programs (YIP)

What: Outstanding new faculty members at institutions of higher education, to support their defense- related research (of interest to funding agency), and encourage their teaching/research careers - ARO, AFOSR, ONR: must be US citizen / permanent resident - DTRA: has no citizenship or residency requirement - DARPA: requires clearance eligibility - Services/DTRA - received Ph.D. or equivalent degrees within the last five years - DARPA – tenure track assistant/associate professors within 6 years of appointment

How Much: ARO - not to exceed $60K/yr for three years AFOSR - $120K/yr for three years ONR - up to $170K/yr for three years, additional support possible for capital equipment or collaborative research with a Navy laboratory DTRA - $100K/yr for two years DARPA - $300K for up to two years

When: Anytime for AROJuly 28, 2009 for the Air Force FY10 competitionJanuary 12, 2009 for Naval FY09 competition2 November 2009 for the DTRA period 4 competitionFeb 16, 2009 for for the DARPA FY09 competition

Where: See BAAs on OXR websites


Presidential Early Career Award Science and Engineering (PECASE)

What: White House award to recognize some of the finest scientists and engineers who, while early in their research careers, show exceptional potential for leadership at the frontiers of scientific knowledge during the twenty-first century

- Candidates must hold tenure-track positions at U.S. Univ. or College

- Have received their Ph.D. degree within the preceding 5 years

- Typically 2 nominees per Service (and nominees from NSF)

How Much: ~$200K/yr for five years (cost borne by OXRs)

When: Submitted to White House in October

Where: OXRs submit nominees from their grantees – typically YIPs


Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)www.darpa.mil

What: Research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high, and success may provide dramatic advances for military roles and missions

Defense Science Office (DSO) Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) Strategic Technology Office (STO) Transformational Convergence Technology (TCTO) Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

- Larger programs available than at OXRs (some managed by OXR POs)- Team with industrial partners- First deliverable milestone in 12-18 months; “prototype” in 3-5 years

How much: $100K – $10M/yr in DSO, as an exampleDARPA program managers often fund studies (“seedlings”) as initialresearch to determine if a more formal program is appropriate.

When: Variable—need to watch for program topic announcementsInvolvement in topic-formative workshops very helpful

Where: www.darpa.mil/funding_opportunities.html www.darpa.mil/index.html#tech

FY10

6.1 ~$226M

6.2 ~$1,235M

6.3 ~$1,640M


http://www.darpa.mil/

12

Recipients of DOD S&T Funds

*Includes non-profit institutions, State & local govt., & foreign institutionsSource: National Science Foundation Report, Volume 48 (FY 2003)

$ B

illio

ns

(F

Y0

3)

From OSD R&D Overview, Dr. Lewis Sloter

13

White Paper for Seedling

http://www.darpa.mil/MTO/solicitations/baa09-36/files/attachment2.ppt

http://www.darpa.mil/mto/programs/yfa2007/presentations/Seedlings_and_BAAs.pdf


• General Funding Agency InformationGeneral Funding Agency Information– DODDOD– NSFNSF

• Research Proposal Preparation and EvaluationResearch Proposal Preparation and Evaluation



OutlineOutline

NSF’s Origin, Mission & GoalNSF’s Origin, Mission & Goal

• NSF’s origins NSF’s origins were influenced by Vannevar Bush’s article were influenced by Vannevar Bush’s article Science—The Endless FrontierScience—The Endless Frontier, 1945 (US Printing Office):, 1945 (US Printing Office):

– ““The federal government should develop and promote a national The federal government should develop and promote a national policy for scientific research and scientific education,policy for scientific research and scientific education,

– support basic research in nonprofit organizations,support basic research in nonprofit organizations,

– develop scientific talent in American youth by means of develop scientific talent in American youth by means of scholarships and fellowships, andscholarships and fellowships, and

– support long-range research on military matters.”support long-range research on military matters.”

• Established in 1950 by the NSF Act: NSF is only federal agency Established in 1950 by the NSF Act: NSF is only federal agency authorized to authorized to fund basic research across all S&E disciplinesfund basic research across all S&E disciplines

• MissionMission: To promote progress of science and advance national : To promote progress of science and advance national health, prosperity & welfare by supporting research & education health, prosperity & welfare by supporting research & education in S&E—in S&E—fund highly meritorious/impacting researchfund highly meritorious/impacting research

• VisionVision: To enable the nation’s future through discovery, : To enable the nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation (learning, and innovation (2006 Strategic Plan: 2006 Strategic Plan: www.nsf.govwww.nsf.gov))

Source: NSF

• 42,376 proposal actions

• ~ 254,000 reviews

• ~ 58,000 reviewers

• 10,430 awards

• ~ 25% funding rate

(~ 21% for research)

NSF-9

NSF Proposal Statistics (FY’06)NSF Proposal Statistics (FY’06)

Source: NSF

Competitive research awards: 6,635

Average annual award: $134,800

Median annual award: $106,800

Average duration: 2.92 years

NSF-10

NSF Research Grant Profile (FY 2006)

Source: NSF

NSF Share of Total Federal Support for Basic Research at Academic Institutions

Computer sciences

Mathematics

Environmental sciences

Engineering

Physical sciences

Biological sciences (non-medical)

Psychology

Medical sciences

Social sciences

87%

Percent Total Funding

Source: NSF

Administrative Offices

Directorate for BiologicalSciences

Directorate for Mathematical& Physical Sciences

Directorate for Computer &Information Science & Engineering

Directorate for Social, Behavioral& Economic Sciences

Directorate for Education& Human Resources

Directorate for Engineering

Office of the Director

National ScienceBoard

Office of Cyberinfrastructure

Office ofInspector General

Office of International Science & Engineering

Directorate for Geosciences Office of Polar Programs

NSF 2011 budget request: $7.42 billion (8% increase over 2010)

CISE 2011 budget request: $684.5 million (10.6% increase)

National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation

Computing andCommunications

Foundations (CCF)

Computer andNetwork Systems

(CNS)

Information andIntelligent Systems

(IIS)

Office of theAssistant Director

for CISE

• Algorithmic Foundations (AF)

• Communications and Information Foundations (CIF)

• Software, Hardware Foundations (SHF)

• Computer System Research (CNS)

• Networking Technology and Systems (NeTS)

• Human-Centered Computing (HCC)

• Information Integration and Informatics (III)

• Robust Intelligence (RI)

Crosscutting CISE, NSF Emphasis Areas

• EiC• NetSE• MRI

• BPC• CPATH• RET

• CAREER• CDI, ADVANCE• IGERT, GK-12

• DIC• TC• REU

NSF CISE DirectorateNSF CISE Directorate

CBETChemical, Bioeng,

Environmental, andTransport Systems

CMMICivil, Mechanical,

and ManufacturingInnovation

ECCSElectrical,

Communications,and Cyber Systems

(a new divisionwithin ENG as ofOctober 1, 2006)

Office of the Director

Clusters ClustersClusters

EEC: ENG Education and Centers division

• BEEHBEEH• CBBSCBBS• EESEES• TTFPTTFP

• EISEIS• ISDEISDE• MTMMTM

• EPDTEPDT• IHCSIHCS• PCANPCAN

• ERCERC • EEPEEP

EFRIEmerging Frontiers

in Researchand Innovation

Office of theAssistant Director

for ENG

NSF ENG DirectorateNSF ENG Directorate

• Foundation-wide activity that offers the National Science Foundation’s most prestigious awards for new faculty

• NSF supports the early career development activities of those faculty members who are most likely to become the academic leaders of the 21st century

• CAREER awards have a 5-year duration• The minimum CAREER award (including indirect

costs) is $400,000 for all NSF directorates

CAREER ProgramCAREER Program


General Funding Agency InformationGeneral Funding Agency Information– DODDOD– NSFNSF

• Research Proposal Preparation and EvaluationResearch Proposal Preparation and Evaluation (some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)



OutlineOutline

A A fundable proposal fundable proposal describes a good describes a good idea and attainable goal, well expressed idea and attainable goal, well expressed and motivated, with a clear indication of and motivated, with a clear indication of

methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known and the findings, making them known and

having broad impact.having broad impact.

ScientificInquiry

TechnologicalAdvancement

SocietalChallenges

Competitive Research ProposalsCompetitive Research Proposals

Transformative ResearchTransformative Research

““Transformative Research is research driven by ideas Transformative Research is research driven by ideas that stand a reasonable chance of radically changing that stand a reasonable chance of radically changing our understanding of an important existing scientific our understanding of an important existing scientific concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science. Such research also is characterized by field of science. Such research also is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.”new frontiers.”

• See official definition given on page 10 of See official definition given on page 10 of Enhancing Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Support of Transformative Research at the National Science FoundationScience Foundation, by the National Science Board , by the National Science Board found at found at http://nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdfhttp://nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdf

Properties of a Research GoalProperties of a Research Goal

• Simple to stateSimple to state• Not obvious how to do itNot obvious how to do it• Clear benefitClear benefit• Progress and solution are testableProgress and solution are testable• Can be broken into smaller stepsCan be broken into smaller steps

– So that you can see intermediate progressSo that you can see intermediate progress

By Jim Gray, Turing Award WinnerBy Jim Gray, Turing Award Winner

http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks/Turing2.ppt http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks/Turing2.ppt

Life Cycle of a ProposalLife Cycle of a Proposal

Funded!

Conceptualize

Declined

Try again

Wh

at n

ext?

Wri

te&

Re

vise

Start

End

Source: NSF

Step 1: Carefully Read the Program Announcements and Solicitations

• Find the right program early!Find the right program early!– It’s better to do this well before you write than It’s better to do this well before you write than

after you get your reviews backafter you get your reviews back• Talk with your Program Officer to make Talk with your Program Officer to make

sure that your ideas fit in the programsure that your ideas fit in the program– If the Program Officer tells you that your ideas If the Program Officer tells you that your ideas

are too narrow or don’t fit the program, look are too narrow or don’t fit the program, look for other sourcesfor other sources

• Make sure that your project is worthwhile, Make sure that your project is worthwhile, realistic, well-planned, and innovativerealistic, well-planned, and innovative

Source: NSF

• Key QuestionsKey Questions– What do you intend to do and how will you do it?What do you intend to do and how will you do it?– Why is it important?Why is it important?– What does the literature provide?What does the literature provide?

• Make sure the idea is innovative and excitingMake sure the idea is innovative and exciting– Survey the literatureSurvey the literature– Talk with others in the fieldTalk with others in the field

• Convince people that you can do itConvince people that you can do it– Obtain preliminary data to support feasibilityObtain preliminary data to support feasibility– Determine available facilities and resourcesDetermine available facilities and resources

• What infrastructure do you have to work with?What infrastructure do you have to work with?• With whom will you work (students, collaborators, With whom will you work (students, collaborators,

industry partners)? industry partners)?

Step 2: Develop Your Good IdeaStep 2: Develop Your Good Idea

Source: NSF

• NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/gpg_index.jsp

• Get it - Read it - Follow itGet it - Read it - Follow it• Proposal preparation and submissionProposal preparation and submission• Submission of Submission of collaborativecollaborative proposals via proposals via

– SubawardSubaward– Separate, yet linked, proposalsSeparate, yet linked, proposals

• Review criteria and review processReview criteria and review process• Return without review criteriaReturn without review criteria• Withdrawal, declination, and award processesWithdrawal, declination, and award processes

Step 3: Prepare the ProposalStep 3: Prepare the Proposal

Source: NSF

Parts of a Proposal (NSF)Parts of a Proposal (NSF)

• Cover Sheet and CertificationsCover Sheet and Certifications• Project SummaryProject Summary

– Both intellectual merit and broader impacts describedBoth intellectual merit and broader impacts described

• Table of ContentsTable of Contents• Project DescriptionProject Description• References citedReferences cited• Biographical SketchesBiographical Sketches• Budget and Budget JustificationBudget and Budget Justification• Current and Pending SupportCurrent and Pending Support• Facilities, Equipment and Other ResourcesFacilities, Equipment and Other Resources• Supplemental Documentation Supplemental Documentation

– What is allowed may vary by programs and directoratesWhat is allowed may vary by programs and directorates

• Single Copy DocumentsSingle Copy Documents– Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential

information, etc.information, etc. Source: NSF

Project SummaryProject Summary

• This one page is critical becauseThis one page is critical because– It may affect which program or panel will review your proposalIt may affect which program or panel will review your proposal– It must include a statement addressing both merit review It must include a statement addressing both merit review

criteria: criteria: Intellectual MeritIntellectual Merit and and Broader ImpactsBroader Impacts• Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the

one-page Project Summary will be returned without reviewone-page Project Summary will be returned without review

• Intellectual MeritIntellectual Merit– Describe the scientific/engineering problem and its importanceDescribe the scientific/engineering problem and its importance– State the overall objective of the projectState the overall objective of the project– State the specific aimsState the specific aims– Describe how the aims will be achievedDescribe how the aims will be achieved

• Broader ImpactsBroader Impacts– Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure; dissemination Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure; dissemination

of results; underrepresented groups; benefits to societyof results; underrepresented groups; benefits to society– See See http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdfhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

Project DescriptionProject Description

• This is the key to a strong proposalThis is the key to a strong proposal• Overall concept and rationaleOverall concept and rationale• Hypothesis-driven or data-driven or innovation-Hypothesis-driven or data-driven or innovation-

drivendriven• ExecutionExecution

– CarefulCareful– ThoroughThorough– AppropriateAppropriate

• Warning:Warning: Most NSF formal proposals are limited to Most NSF formal proposals are limited to 15 pages. Some preliminary proposals and other 15 pages. Some preliminary proposals and other special cases may be limited to fewer pages. Check special cases may be limited to fewer pages. Check the program solicitation!the program solicitation!

Source: NSF

In 15 pages, you need to coverIn 15 pages, you need to cover• Objectives and expected significanceObjectives and expected significance• Relation to present state of knowledgeRelation to present state of knowledge• Experimental methods and proceduresExperimental methods and procedures• Results from prior agency-sponsored support Results from prior agency-sponsored support

(required if applicable)(required if applicable)• Relation to your (the PI’s) longer term goalsRelation to your (the PI’s) longer term goals• Optional sections: Optional sections:

– preface, background, preliminary studies, specific preface, background, preliminary studies, specific objectives, significance, experimental plan objectives, significance, experimental plan


• Know your audience – the reviewers, PO!Know your audience – the reviewers, PO!– Write accurately, concisely, and clearlyWrite accurately, concisely, and clearly– Make it easy for reviewers to like your proposalMake it easy for reviewers to like your proposal– You never get a second chance to make a first You never get a second chance to make a first

impressionimpression– First page tells it allFirst page tells it all– Figures and tables get your points across clearlyFigures and tables get your points across clearly– Some reviewers (particularly on interdisciplinary Some reviewers (particularly on interdisciplinary

proposals) may not be experts in your specific proposals) may not be experts in your specific fieldfield


Biographical SketchBiographical Sketch

• Usually limited to only two pagesUsually limited to only two pages• Professional preparationProfessional preparation• AppointmentsAppointments• PublicationsPublications

– 5 closely related5 closely related– 5 other significant publications5 other significant publications

• Synergistic activitiesSynergistic activities• Collaborators & other affiliationsCollaborators & other affiliations

– Collaborators (last 4 yrs) & co-editors (last 2yrs)Collaborators (last 4 yrs) & co-editors (last 2yrs)– Graduate and Postdoctoral AdvisorsGraduate and Postdoctoral Advisors– Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar SponsorThesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor

BudgetBudget

• Budget should beBudget should be– reasonable, but request what you needreasonable, but request what you need– for personnel, equipment, travel, participant for personnel, equipment, travel, participant

support and other direct costs (subaward, support and other direct costs (subaward, consultant, computer services, publication costs)consultant, computer services, publication costs)

– for cost of educational activities associated with for cost of educational activities associated with research, where appropriateresearch, where appropriate

• Must be accompanied by “Budget Must be accompanied by “Budget Justification” for direct cost line itemsJustification” for direct cost line items

Current and Pending SupportCurrent and Pending Support

• List everything, including the proposal List everything, including the proposal being submittedbeing submitted– current, pending and anticipatedcurrent, pending and anticipated

• Be careful of overlapBe careful of overlap– Perception of overlap could be detrimental Perception of overlap could be detrimental

in the reviewin the review

• Multiple submissionsMultiple submissions– when they are allowed to same programwhen they are allowed to same program

• A A minimum ofminimum of 3 reviews/proposal3 reviews/proposal (typically 4 or more) (typically 4 or more) • A A scorescore of of EE, , VV, , GG, , FF, , PP is given by each reviewer is given by each reviewer

• CommentsComments on intellectual merit and broader impacts on intellectual merit and broader impacts

• Typically, a Typically, a recommendationrecommendation to fund (or not) is given to fund (or not) is given

• Panel Review:Panel Review:• Proposals are discussed and Proposals are discussed and evaluated collectivelyevaluated collectively

• Proposal summaryProposal summary is written—couple of sentences is written—couple of sentences

• Intellectual merits are described: Intellectual merits are described: strengths and strengths and weaknessesweaknesses

• Broader impacts are described: Broader impacts are described: strengths, weaknesses strengths, weaknesses

• ImprovementsImprovements may be suggested (optional) may be suggested (optional)

• Panel recommendationPanel recommendation: : CompetitiveCompetitive or or Not CompetitiveNot Competitive

• Comments are intended to helpComments are intended to help unsuccessful PIs unsuccessful PIs improve their proposals for the next competitionimprove their proposals for the next competition

Evaluation: Ad Hoc and Panel ReviewsEvaluation: Ad Hoc and Panel Reviews

NSF Proposal Merit Review CriteriaNSF Proposal Merit Review Criteria

The The Intellectual MeritIntellectual Merit of the proposed activity of the proposed activity– Creativity, originality, Creativity, originality, and potentially transformativeand potentially transformative– Potential to advancing knowledge and understanding within and Potential to advancing knowledge and understanding within and

across fieldsacross fields– Conceptualization and organizationConceptualization and organization– Qualifications of investigatorsQualifications of investigators– Access to resourcesAccess to resources

• The The Broader ImpactsBroader Impacts of the proposed activity of the proposed activity– Discovery while promoting teaching, training and learningDiscovery while promoting teaching, training and learning– Participation of underrepresented groups Participation of underrepresented groups – Enhancement of infrastructure for research and education Enhancement of infrastructure for research and education – Dissemination of results to enhance scientific and technological Dissemination of results to enhance scientific and technological

understandingunderstanding– Benefits to societyBenefits to society

• Program-specific merit review criteriaProgram-specific merit review criteria– Some programs have additional review criteria in solicitationSome programs have additional review criteria in solicitation

• There are NSF general statements regarding intellectual merit There are NSF general statements regarding intellectual merit and broader impact, but also some programs list examples of and broader impact, but also some programs list examples of these criteria specific to the programthese criteria specific to the program– See See http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdfhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

Basis for Decisions: Reviewer InputBasis for Decisions: Reviewer Input

• ReviewsReviews– Content/justification of the reviews by reviewers Content/justification of the reviews by reviewers

oftentimes is more important than just the ratingoftentimes is more important than just the rating

• Panel RankingPanel Ranking– Proposals (competitive ones) often ranked by panelProposals (competitive ones) often ranked by panel

• Program Director uses reviews and panel Program Director uses reviews and panel summary/recommendation in award decisionssummary/recommendation in award decisions– FairnessFairness– How substantive the reviews areHow substantive the reviews are– Technical problems raised in the reviewsTechnical problems raised in the reviews

• major vs. minor issuesmajor vs. minor issues

– Reasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasmReasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasm

Basis for Decisions: Balanced PortfolioBasis for Decisions: Balanced Portfolio

• Program Director uses other information in Program Director uses other information in addition to reviewer input in making decisionsaddition to reviewer input in making decisions– Innovation and creativityInnovation and creativity

• High risk, high reward projectsHigh risk, high reward projects

– Breadth of research areasBreadth of research areas– Priority areas and systemsPriority areas and systems– Demographics and diversityDemographics and diversity– Broadening participationBroadening participation– Institutional impact: EPSCOR, MSI, PUI, etc.Institutional impact: EPSCOR, MSI, PUI, etc.– Integration of research & educationIntegration of research & education– International collaborationsInternational collaborations

Why Do Some Proposals Fail?Why Do Some Proposals Fail?

• Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesisAbsence of innovative ideas or hypothesis– Will provide only an incremental advanceWill provide only an incremental advance– Not exciting or cutting edgeNot exciting or cutting edge

• Errors Errors – Unclear or incomplete expression of aimsUnclear or incomplete expression of aims– Faulty logic or experimental designFaulty logic or experimental design– Less than rigorous presentation Less than rigorous presentation

• Unrealistic, sloppy or incompleteUnrealistic, sloppy or incomplete• Resources and facilities not in placeResources and facilities not in place

– PI qualifications/expertise not evidentPI qualifications/expertise not evident– Necessary collaborations not documentedNecessary collaborations not documented

If You Have to Resubmit…If You Have to Resubmit…

• Stay calm!Stay calm!– Take ten… breaths, hours, daysTake ten… breaths, hours, days– Examine the criticisms carefully Examine the criticisms carefully

• Get in touch: Get in touch: – Call, email, or visit your Program OfficerCall, email, or visit your Program Officer

• Think carefully about too rapid of a Think carefully about too rapid of a resubmission:resubmission:– Take time to self-evaluate the proposal/projectTake time to self-evaluate the proposal/project

Funding and Post-awardFunding and Post-award

• FundingFunding– Budget and scope adjustment may be part of Budget and scope adjustment may be part of

negotiations prior to an award recommendationnegotiations prior to an award recommendation– Funding options: standard grant (all $ at once) or Funding options: standard grant (all $ at once) or

continuing grant ($ released annually)continuing grant ($ released annually)• Post-awardPost-award

– Do what you promisedDo what you promised– NSF notifications & requests via FastLaneNSF notifications & requests via FastLane– Supplement opportunitiesSupplement opportunities

• REU - Research Experience for UndergraduatesREU - Research Experience for Undergraduates• ROA - Research Opportunity AwardsROA - Research Opportunity Awards• RET - Research Experience for TeachersRET - Research Experience for Teachers

– Submit annual and final reports (a must!)Submit annual and final reports (a must!)– Warning! Overdue annual and final reports will Warning! Overdue annual and final reports will

hold up recommendations of all NSF actions (e.g., hold up recommendations of all NSF actions (e.g., additional funding, incremental funding, PI additional funding, incremental funding, PI changes, extensions, etc.)changes, extensions, etc.)

Merit R

eviewAdministra

tive

Review

Research &

Education

Communities

Proposal Preparation and

Submission

Organization

submits

via

FastLane

NSF

Program

Director

Program

Director

Analysis

&

Recom..

Division

Director

Concur

Via

DGA

Organization

Minimum

of 3

Reviews

Required

DGA Review & Processing

of Award

Proposal Review and Decisions

NSF

Proposal

Generating

Document

Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn

Mail

Panel

Both

Award

NSF Proposal Review and Award Process & Timeline

Decline

90 Days 6 Months 30 Days

Proposal Receipt

at NSFDD Concur Award

Proposal

Processing

Unit

NSFNSF

Source: NSF



Research Proposal Preparation and EvaluationResearch Proposal Preparation and Evaluation (some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)

• Tips for Writing Successful ProposalsTips for Writing Successful Proposals(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)


OutlineOutline

Get Support in Proposal WritingGet Support in Proposal Writing

• Agency PublicationsAgency Publications

– Program SolicitationsProgram Solicitations

– Grant Proposal GuideGrant Proposal Guide

– Web PagesWeb Pages

– Funded Project Funded Project AbstractsAbstracts

– Reports, Special Reports, Special PublicationsPublications

• Program DirectorsProgram Directors– IncumbentsIncumbents– Former “Rotators”, “IPAs”Former “Rotators”, “IPAs”

• Mentors on CampusMentors on Campus

• Previous PanelistsPrevious Panelists

• Serving As A ReviewerServing As A Reviewer

• Sponsored Research OfficeSponsored Research Office

• Successful ProposalsSuccessful Proposals

• FY 2011 NSF Budget RequestFY 2011 NSF Budget Request– http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011

• FY 2010 NSF BudgetFY 2010 NSF Budget– http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2010 http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2010

• Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-23)Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-23)– http://www.nsf.gov/publications/http://www.nsf.gov/publications/

pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=GPGpub_summ.jsp?ods_key=GPG

• Science and Engineering StatisticsScience and Engineering Statistics– http:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/http:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/

• General Information General Information – http://www.nsf.gov/http://www.nsf.gov/

Useful NSF On-line DocumentsUseful NSF On-line Documents

Start Early and Get FeedbackStart Early and Get Feedback

• Write:Write:– Rewrite and rewrite again…Rewrite and rewrite again…

• Get critiques from:Get critiques from:– Mentors and colleaguesMentors and colleagues– Previous members of review panelsPrevious members of review panels

Be ReasonableBe Reasonable

• Be aware of the scope: Be aware of the scope: – ““Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow”Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow”

• Be honest and up-front: Be honest and up-front: – Address issues instead of trying to hide themAddress issues instead of trying to hide them– Acknowledge possible experimental problems and Acknowledge possible experimental problems and

have alternativeshave alternatives

Make It Easy for ReviewersMake It Easy for Reviewers

• Know your audience:Know your audience:– All reviewers may not be experts in your specific All reviewers may not be experts in your specific

fieldfield

• Simplify and streamline: Simplify and streamline: – Make sure you get your overall idea acrossMake sure you get your overall idea across

• Pay attention to details:Pay attention to details:– Run the spell checker and proof-readRun the spell checker and proof-read– Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.– Make the font size as big as you canMake the font size as big as you can

Seven Deadly Sins of Proposal WritingSeven Deadly Sins of Proposal Writing

1.1. Failure to focus on the key problems and payoffsFailure to focus on the key problems and payoffs

2.2. No persuasive structure: No persuasive structure: poorly organizedpoorly organized

3.3. No clear differentiation: No clear differentiation: competitive analysiscompetitive analysis

4.4. Failure to offer a compelling value proposition: Failure to offer a compelling value proposition: potential impactpotential impact

5.5. Key points are buried: Key points are buried: no highlights, impact is lostno highlights, impact is lost

6.6. Difficult to read or appreciate: Difficult to read or appreciate: full of jargon, too many full of jargon, too many low-level technical details or not enough detailslow-level technical details or not enough details

7.7. Credibility killers: Credibility killers: misspellings, grammatical errors, misspellings, grammatical errors, wrong technical terms, inconsistent format, …wrong technical terms, inconsistent format, …

Funding Criteria: Intellectual MeritFunding Criteria: Intellectual Merit

• How important is the activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the field or across different fields?

• Significance of expected results: incremental? high impact? high-risk but high-gain?

• How well qualified are you to conduct the research?• Not necessary to have track record on specific topic, but quality of

prior work usually a consideration, as are preliminary results

• How creative, original are the concepts and ideas?• Should be ground-breaking in some aspect

• How well conceived, organized is the proposed activity?• Well-articulated problem and well-structured research plan

• Is there sufficient access to resources?• Ownership is not necessary, only access to equipment, facilities, human

capital, …

• Does the activity advance discovery and understanding Does the activity advance discovery and understanding while while promoting teaching, training and learningpromoting teaching, training and learning??

• Does the activity Does the activity broaden the participationbroaden the participation of of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? disability, geographic, etc.)?

• Will it Will it enhance the infrastructure for research and enhance the infrastructure for research and educationeducation, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks , such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?and partnerships?

• Will the Will the results results be be disseminated broadlydisseminated broadly to enhance to enhance scientific and technological understanding? scientific and technological understanding?

• What may be the What may be the benefitsbenefits of the proposed activity of the proposed activity to to other disciplines and societyother disciplines and society as a whole? as a whole?

(See (See www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdfwww.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf))

Funding Criteria: Broader ImpactsFunding Criteria: Broader Impacts

Baseball Analogy: How to make a “successful” pitch?Baseball Analogy: How to make a “successful” pitch?

Writing a “Successful” ProposalWriting a “Successful” Proposal

• PitcherPitcher: you are the one who has “goods” that need : you are the one who has “goods” that need to be pitched (conveyed or put across) “home plate”to be pitched (conveyed or put across) “home plate”

• GoodsGoods: : project (research ideas) you propose for fundingproject (research ideas) you propose for funding

• Home PlateHome Plate: : the collective body of reviewers and the collective body of reviewers and program officer who decide if pitch “strikes” the targetprogram officer who decide if pitch “strikes” the target

• OppositionOpposition: : the problem space in your area of researchthe problem space in your area of research

Your taskYour task:: Successfully Successfully pitchpitch your ideas and your ideas and strike outstrike out the opposition, as judged by the umpire (reviewers, PO)the opposition, as judged by the umpire (reviewers, PO)


• Three phasesThree phases: : set-upset-up, delivery, follow-through, delivery, follow-through• Set-up phaseSet-up phase: set the stage for the “appropriate” pitch: set the stage for the “appropriate” pitch

• Take into account previous events leading to current stateTake into account previous events leading to current state• Convince home plate thatConvince home plate that

• you have sufficiently assessed and can “take down” opponentyou have sufficiently assessed and can “take down” opponent• your pitch is worthwhile and significant to accomplish thisyour pitch is worthwhile and significant to accomplish this• you have identified where your pitch is headed (the target)you have identified where your pitch is headed (the target)

• If no set-up phase, who knows where your pitch is going or if If no set-up phase, who knows where your pitch is going or if it is the right pitch to make at this time for this opponent?it is the right pitch to make at this time for this opponent?

• Set-up phase in Set-up phase in proposal writingproposal writing: place research in : place research in context, giving current state-of-the-art and key challengescontext, giving current state-of-the-art and key challenges

• Clearly articulate Clearly articulate problemproblem, your mastery of understanding it, , your mastery of understanding it, and why solving it is important and why solving it is important importanceimportance, , significancesignificance

• Discuss how prior work fails to sufficiently address itDiscuss how prior work fails to sufficiently address it• Clearly frame your proposed Clearly frame your proposed ideaidea & approach & approach originalityoriginality


• Three phasesThree phases: set-up, : set-up, deliverydelivery, follow-through, follow-through• Delivery phaseDelivery phase: mechanics that go into executing the pitch: mechanics that go into executing the pitch

• The pitcher is channeled, focused, directedThe pitcher is channeled, focused, directed• Best effort is put forth to structure the delivery of the pitchBest effort is put forth to structure the delivery of the pitch• Mechanics are followed for “delivering the goods”Mechanics are followed for “delivering the goods”

• preciseprecise• targetedtargeted• accurateaccurate

• Delivery phase in Delivery phase in proposal writingproposal writing: provide a detailed : provide a detailed description of various components of the proposed researchdescription of various components of the proposed research

• Should provide substance (“mass”) to substantiate the validity Should provide substance (“mass”) to substantiate the validity and promise of the proposed idea and promise of the proposed idea preliminary resultspreliminary results

• Discuss tradeoffs and possible new problems that may ariseDiscuss tradeoffs and possible new problems that may arise• Stay focused; don’t deviate too far in morass of uncertaintiesStay focused; don’t deviate too far in morass of uncertainties• Write to the level that an expert on the topic would appreciate Write to the level that an expert on the topic would appreciate

and assess that you are and assess that you are qualifiedqualified to perform the research to perform the research


• Three phasesThree phases: set-up, delivery, : set-up, delivery, follow-throughfollow-through

• Follow-through phaseFollow-through phase: without follow-through, the pitch : without follow-through, the pitch will never reach home platewill never reach home plate

• Must see the pitch all the way through: from the fingertips to Must see the pitch all the way through: from the fingertips to the point at which it reaches the target at home platethe point at which it reaches the target at home plate

• Follow-through phase in Follow-through phase in proposal writingproposal writing: provide a : provide a planplan for seeing the research through to completion for seeing the research through to completion

• Devise an Devise an organizedorganized plan of attack for carrying out research plan of attack for carrying out research• The research plan may includeThe research plan may include

• methods/tools for analysis, simulation, evaluation, experimentsmethods/tools for analysis, simulation, evaluation, experiments• descriptions of your prior work, effectiveness, qualificationsdescriptions of your prior work, effectiveness, qualifications• required required resourcesresources, personnel, collaborations, facilities, personnel, collaborations, facilities• expected timelines, milestones, results, artifacts, prototypes, expected timelines, milestones, results, artifacts, prototypes,

implementations, contributions, dissemination, opportunitiesimplementations, contributions, dissemination, opportunities• broader impactsbroader impacts: training, education, outreach, development: training, education, outreach, development



Research Proposal Preparation and EvaluationResearch Proposal Preparation and Evaluation (some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)

Tips for Writing Successful ProposalsTips for Writing Successful Proposals(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)(some slides adapted from Don Ethlon, NSF)


OutlineOutline

Top Ten Ways To Write a Good Top Ten Ways To Write a Good Proposal…Proposal…

That Won’t Get Funded!

Source: NSF

Inflate the budget to allow for negotiationsInflate the budget to allow for negotiations

Instead…Instead… Make the budget reflect the work plan directlyMake the budget reflect the work plan directly

Provide a budget explanation that ties your budget Provide a budget explanation that ties your budget

request to project personnel and activitiesrequest to project personnel and activities

Make it clear who is responsible for whatMake it clear who is responsible for what

Provide biographical sketches for all key personnelProvide biographical sketches for all key personnel

Source: NSF

Flaw #10Flaw #10

Provide a template letter of commitment for your Provide a template letter of commitment for your (genuine) supporters to use. (They will!)(genuine) supporters to use. (They will!)

Instead…Instead…

• Ask for original letters of support that detail what your Ask for original letters of support that detail what your collaborators will do and why involvement in your project collaborators will do and why involvement in your project will help themwill help them

• Letters from administrators are stronger if they Letters from administrators are stronger if they demonstrate real commitment, e.g. release time, faculty demonstrate real commitment, e.g. release time, faculty development funds, new course approvals, etc.development funds, new course approvals, etc.

• Make sure the program to which you are submitting allows Make sure the program to which you are submitting allows letters of support or commitment and if they do, what type letters of support or commitment and if they do, what type are allowed. Read the program solicitation!are allowed. Read the program solicitation!

Source: NSF

Flaw #9Flaw #9

Assume your past accomplishments are well known – after

all, the agency probably funded them

Instead…

Provide results from prior funding – this includes

quantitative data and information on impact

Describe how new efforts build on this previous work, and

how it has contributed to the broader knowledge base

about educational improvement

Recognize that the review panelists are diverse and not all

familiar with your institutional context

Source: NSF

Flaw #8Flaw #8

Assume a project website is sufficient for dissemination

Instead…

A website may be necessary, but who will maintain it and how in the

long run?

Engage others; “early adopters” can serve as natural dissemination

channels

Plan workshops and mini-courses; identify similar projects and

propose sessions at regional and national meetings

Visit high schools, other colleges and universities

Present in other public forums

Source: NSF

Flaw #7Flaw #7

Assert: “Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of

methods”

Instead…

Plan for formative and comprehensive evaluation

Include an evaluation plan with specific timelines and projected

benchmarks

Engage an objective evaluator

Use an Advisory Committee or team or a small Visiting

Committee

Source: NSF

Flaw #6Flaw #6

Assume the program guidelines have not changed; or better yet,

ignore them!

Instead…

Read the solicitation completely and carefully

Address each area outlined in the solicitation that is relevant to

your project

Check the program solicitation carefully for any additional

criteria, e.g. the Integration of Research and Education,

potentially transformative, or integrating diversity into NSF

Programs, Projects, and Activities

Source: NSF

Flaw #5Flaw #5

Don’t check your speeling, nor you’re grammer

Instead…

Check and double check; first impressions are important to reviewers

State your good ideas clearly; ignore the bad ones

Have a trusted colleague who is not involved in the project read your

drafts and final proposal

Watch word usage. For example, don’t use “complimentary” when

you mean “complementary” or “principle investigator” when you

mean “principal investigator,” etc.

Source: NSF

Flaw #4Flaw #4

Substitute flowery rhetoric for good examples

Instead…

Minimize negatives; describe what you will do and why

Ground your project in the context of related efforts

Provide detailed examples of impact of prior work

Specify who you will work with and why

State how you plan to assess progress

Detail the tasks and timeline for completing activities

Specifically address intellectual merit and broader impacts and use

the phrases explicitly in the project summary

Source: NSF

Flaw #3Flaw #3

Assume page limits and font size restrictions are Assume page limits and font size restrictions are not enforced not enforced


• Consult the program solicitation and the GPG Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) carefully(Grant Proposal Guide) carefully

• Make sure your proposal does not exceed page Make sure your proposal does not exceed page and/or font size limits so that it is not returned and/or font size limits so that it is not returned without reviewwithout review

Source: NSF

Flaw #2Flaw #2

Assume deadlines are not enforcedAssume deadlines are not enforced


• Work early with your Sponsored Research Office Work early with your Sponsored Research Office (SRO)(SRO)

• Test drive Grants.gov or FastLane.nsf.gov to Test drive Grants.gov or FastLane.nsf.gov to make sure your SRO knows how to drive the tool. make sure your SRO knows how to drive the tool.

• Set your own final deadline several days ahead of Set your own final deadline several days ahead of the formal deadline to allow time to resolve the formal deadline to allow time to resolve unforeseen problemsunforeseen problems

Source: NSF

Flaw #1Flaw #1

Closing RemarksClosing Remarks

• There may be no There may be no “best”“best” (or only) way to write a (or only) way to write a successful proposal, but many successful ones successful proposal, but many successful ones share similar characteristicsshare similar characteristics– clearly written, well motivated, organized, original, clearly written, well motivated, organized, original,

targeted, important, accomplishable, impactful, significanttargeted, important, accomplishable, impactful, significant

• Funding dependsFunding depends on many things, some of which are on many things, some of which are beyond your controlbeyond your control– availability of funds, portfolio of existing funded research availability of funds, portfolio of existing funded research

projects, set of reviewers, timing, …projects, set of reviewers, timing, …

• Be persistent and give your Be persistent and give your best effort;best effort; success will success will come!come!

Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Timothy M....

Documents

Transcript of Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Writing Competitive Research Proposals UPRM Timothy M....