TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop

1
TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop

• Presenter
• Mike Cronan, PE (inactive)
• Director, Office of Proposal Development, Office
  of the Vice President for Research, Texas AM
  University

2
AM System Coordination

• Dr. K. Lee Peddicord, Vice Chancellor for
  Research Federal Relations
• Tami Davis Sayko, Associate Vice Chancellor for
  Research Federal Relations

3
Office of Proposal Development

• Supports faculty in the development and writing
  of proposals
• Supports center-level initiatives,
  interdisciplinary research teams, junior faculty,
  and diversity initiatives
• Helps develop research partnerships at Texas AM
  and among System institutions and the Health
  Science Center
• Offers a full suite of training programs to help
  faculty develop and write more competitive
  proposals.

4
OPD Member List

• Jean Ann Bowman, PhD (Physical Geography/Hydrology
  ), earth ecological, and environmental sciences,
  jbowman_at_tamu.edu
• Libby Childress, Scheduling, workshop management,
  project coordination, libbyc_at_tamu.edu
• Mike Cronan, PE, BSCE, BA, MFA, Center-level
  proposals, AM System partnerships, new proposal
  and training initiatives, mikecronan_at_tamu.edu
• Lucy Deckard, BSMS, MSMSE, New faculty
  initiative, fellowships, engineering and physical
  science proposals, equipment and instrumentation,
  OPD web management l-deckard_at_tamu.edu
• John Ivy, PhD (Molecular Biology), NIH biomedical
  and biological science initiatives,
  johnivy_at_tamu.edu
• Phyllis McBride, PhD (English), proposal writing
  training, biomedical, social and behavioral
  sciences editing, p-mcbride_at_tamu.edu
• Robyn Pearson, BA, MA, social behavioral
  sciences and humanities proposals, support for
  research group development, editing and
  rewriting, rlpearson_at_tamu.edu

5
Presenter Background

• Mike Cronan 17 years experience at Texas AM
  planning, developing, and writing successful
  research and educational proposals to federal
  agencies.
• Authored over 60 million in System-wide
  proposals funded by NSF Texas AMP, Texas RSI,
  South Texas RSI, Texas CETP , CREST Environmental
  Research Center, Information Technology in
  Science.
• Named Regents Fellow (2000-04) by the Board of
  Regents for leading and developing System
  partnerships and writing NSF funded grants to
  support them.
• B.S., Civil/Structural Engineering, University of
  Michigan, 1983
• M.F.A., English, University of California,
  Irvine, 1972
• B.A., Political Science, Michigan State
  University, 1968
• Registered Professional Engineer (Texas 063512,
  inactive)
• http//opd.tamu.edu/people

6
Open Forum, QA Format

• Curious? Please ask questions
• Questions will help direct, guide, and focus the
  discussion on proposal topics.

7
Presentation topics

• Generic competitive strategies
• Identifying funding solicitations
• Analyzing the solicitation
• Analyzing the funding agency
• Understanding the review process
• Writing the proposal narrative
• Checklist for writing the proposal

8
If you dont write grants, you wont get any

• Target the proposal at the intersection where
• research dollars are available
• your research interests are met
• a competitive proposal can be written within the
  time available.

9
Searching for funding

• Develop search protocols to fit research
  interests
• Know relevant agencies
• Learn grant cycles.

10
OPD-Web Funding Opportunities
11
http//www.grants.gov/
12
Receive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts
13
Search Browse Grant Opportunities

• http//www.grants.gov/applicants/search_opportunit
  ies.jsp
• http//www.grants.gov/search/agency.do

14
Search Grants.gov Opportunities
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
http//foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
http//www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
22
http//listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0edinfoD1H
0ODT0
23
http//cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
24
Reading the proposal solicitation

• The Request for Proposals (RFP) also called
  the Program Announcement (PA), Request for
  Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement
  (BAA) is one common starting point of the
  proposal writing process.

25
Reading the proposal solicitation

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

26
Reading the proposal solicitation

• The solicitation represents an invitation by a
  funding agency for applicants to submit requests
  for funding in research areas of interest to the
  agency or foundation.

27
Program Solicitation

• It is used continuously throughout proposal
  development and writing as a reference point to
  ensure that an evolving proposal narrative fully
  addresses and accurately reflects the goals and
  objectives of the funding agency, including the
  review criteria.

28
Program Solicitation

• The RFP contains most of the essential
  information the researcher needs to develop and
  write a competitive proposal that is fully
  responsive to the agencys funding objectives and
  review criteria.

29
Program Solicitation

• The RFP is not a menu or smorgasbord offering the
  applicant a choice of addressing some topics but
  not others, depending on interest, or some review
  criteria but not others.
• The RFP is a non-negotiable listing of
  performance expectations reflecting the stated
  goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the
  agency.

30
Map your expertise to the RFP

• Is it a fit?
• Is it really a fit?
• No partial fits allowed
• No wishful thinking
• Close doesnt count
• If you are not a fitdont submit

31
You and the RFP need to be like
32
The RFP as Treasure Map

• Follow directions
• Review step by step
• Understand it
• Understood by all PIs
• Keep focused
• Dont wander off path

33
No irrational exuberance!!

• Understand the RFP for what it isnot what you
  want it to be
• It is not a speculative investment
• Invest your time, resources, and energy wisely

34
Contents of the RFP

• Agency research goals, objectives, and
  performance expectations
• Statement and scope of work
• Proposal topics to be addressed by the applicant
• Deliverables or other outcomes
• Review criteria and process

35
Contents of the RFP

• Research plan
• Key personnel, evaluation, management
• Eligibility, due dates, available funding,
  funding limits, anticipated number of awards,
  performance period, proposal formatting
  requirements, budget and other process
  requirements, and reference documents.

36
Reviewing the RFP

• It is not a document to skim quickly, read
  lightly, or read only once.
• It defines a very detailed set of research
  expectations the applicant must meet in order to
  be competitive for funding.
• It needs to be read and re-read and fully
  understood, both in very discrete detail and as
  an integrated whole.

37
Reviewing the RFP

• The RFP sets the direction and defines the
  performance parameters of every aspect of
  proposal development and writing.
• Read it word by word sentence by sentence
  paragraph by paragraph and page by page.
• Know it well, both at the macro and micro level

38
Reviewing the RFP

• Clarify ambiguities if unresolved--
• Get clarification from a program officer.
• Ambiguities needs to be resolved prior to
  proposal writing so the proposal narrative maps
  to the guidelines with informed certainty.

39
Reviewing the RFP

• A well-written RFP clearly states the funding
  agencys research objectives in a concise and
  comprehensive fashion, and is devoid of
  wordiness, repetition, and vaguely contradictory
  re-phasing of program requirements.

40
Reviewing the RFP

• Not all RFPs are clearly written.
• Sometimes the funding agency itself is unclear
  about specific objectives, particularly in
  cutting-edge research areas.
• Where there is ambiguity, keep asking questions
  converge on clarity.

41
Never be timid about contacting a program officer
for clarification

• Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive
  grant process.

42
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• The RFP provides the key instructions for the
  construction of a competitive proposal.
• It defines the expectations of the funding agency
  and the domain of research performance.

43
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Use the RFP to develop the structure, order, and
  detail of the proposal narrative.
• Use the RFP as an organizational template during
  proposal development to help ensure every RFP
  requirement is addressed fully.

44
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Copy the requirements in each section of the RFP
  into the draft text, including the review
  criteria, as a template for the proposal.
• This template provides initial section and
  subsection headings to guide preliminary
  responses that mirror the program solicitation
  requirements.

45
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Reviewers will expect to see the narrative
  text in the same general order as presented in
  the RFP, along with the review criteria, since
  that ordering conforms to instructions given to
  reviewers by program officers.

46
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Using the RFP as a template to create a
  proposal outline makes it easy for reviewers to
  compare the proposal to the program objectives
  and review criteria.

47
Reading Material Referenced in the RFP

• If the RFP refers to any publications, reports,
  or workshops, it is important to read those
  materials, analyze how that work has influenced
  the agencys vision of the program, and cite
  those publications in the proposal in a way that
  illustrates the topics are acknowledged and
  understood.

48
Analyzing the funding agency

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

49
Analyzing the funding agency

• Competitiveness depends on a series of
  well-informed decision points made throughout the
  writing of a proposal related to arguing the
  merit of the research and culminating in a
  well-integrated document that convinces the
  reviewers to recommend funding.

50
Analyzing the funding agency

• Funding agencies have a clearly defined agenda
  and mission.
• Funded grants are those that best advance the
  mission of the funding agency.
• If a proposal does not meet an agency's mission,
  it will not be funded.

51
Analyzing the funding agency

• Having a "good idea" by itself is not enough.
• Good ideas must be clearly connected and
  integrated with a specific solicitation.
• The funding agency funds research that supports
  their mission.

52
Finding information on funded projects

• NSF Award Search Site
• http//www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp
• NIH Award Search Site
• http//crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generat
  e_screen
• Dept. of Ed. Awards Search
• http//wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start
  .cfm
• USDA Awards Search
• http//cris.csrees.usda.gov/
• NEH Awards Search
• http//www.neh.gov/news/recentawards.html

53
Analyzing the agency mission

• Funding agencies are not passive funders of
  programs, but see themselves as leaders of a
  national dialogue on scientific issues, research
  directions, and driving the national agenda
  through research solicitations.

54
Analyzing the agency mission

• A strong proposal allows the funding agency to
  form a partnership with the submitting
  institution that will carry out the agency's
  vision and mission.
• The applicant must understand the nature of this
  partnership and the expectations of the funding
  agency, both during proposal development and
  throughout a funded project.

55
Analyzing the funding agency

• Knowledge about a funding agency helps the
  applicant make good decisions throughout the
  entire proposal development and writing process
  by better understanding the relationship of the
  research to the broader context of the funding
  agencys mission, strategic plan, and research
  investment priorities.

56
Analyzing the funding agency

• Who is the audience (e.g., program officers,
  reviewers) and what is the best way to address
  them?
• What is a fundable idea and how is it best
  characterized within the context of the agency
  solicitation?

57
Analyzing the funding agency

• How are claims of research uniqueness and
  innovation best supported in the proposal text
  and reflective of agency research objectives?
• How does the applicant best communicate his or
  her passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity
  to perform the proposed research to review
  panels?

58
Analyzing the funding agency

• Mission
• Culture
• Language
• Investment s
• Strategic plan
• Org chart
• Management
• Program officers
• Reports, pubs

• Web speeches
• Public testimony
• Review criteria
• Review process
• Review panels
• Project abstracts
• Current funding
• Solicitations

59
Analyzing the funding agency

• Differentiate between funding agencies by
  mission, strategic plan, investment priorities,
  culture, etc.
• Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences
  and the physical, computational, and biological
  sciences may have research opportunities at
  several agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, EPA, but
  these agencies are dissimilar in many ways.

60
Analyzing the funding agency

• Research focus within disciplines
• Research that is basic, applied, or applications
  driven
• Research scope and performance time horizon
• Exploratory, open-ended research, or targeted to
  technology develop

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

61
Analyzing the funding agency

• Differentiate between basic research agencies
  (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies
  (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA).
• Differentiate between hypothesis-driven research
  and need- or applications driven research.
• Differentiate research at disciplinary
  boundaries, e.g., social sciences

62
Basic research agency

• Independent agency and management
• Independent research vision, mission, and
  objectives
• Award criteria based on intellectual and
  scientific excellence
• Peer reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit

• Focus on fundamental or basic research at the
  frontiers of science, innovation, and creation
  of new knowledge
• Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon
• Non-classified, non-proprietary

63
Mission-oriented agencies

• Scope of work tightly defines research
  tasks/deliverables
• Predominately applied research for meeting
  near-term objectives, technology development and
  transfer, policy goals
• Predominately internal review by program officers
• Awards based on mix of merit, geographic
  distribution, political distribution, long term
  relationship with agency, Legislative, and
  Executive branch policies
• Classified and non-classified research

64
Analyzing the funding agency

• Agencies often speak in a dialect unique to them.
• Echo the language of the funding agency back to
  them.
• This is important in writing the proposal
  narrative, and helps to frame arguments more
  clearly and make them more easily understood by
  program managers and reviewers.

65
Addressing Review Criteria

• A competitive proposal must clearly address each
  review criterion, and the proposal should be
  structured so that these discussions are easy for
  reviewers to find, compare, and contrast.

66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
Addressing Review Criteria

• The description of review criteria is a key part
  of the solicitation.
• The description of review criteria is a key part
  and the proposal template.
• Make the reviewers job easier by using language
  similar to that used in the solicitation.

69
(No Transcript)
70
Understanding the review process

• When evaluating a grant application, reviewers
  will not only consider the quality of the ideas,
  but also the extent to which the application
  addresses the funding agencys review criteria.
• Therefore, it is important to identify these
  review criteria, understand exactly how the
  agency defines them, and determine the relative
  weight (if any) that the agency assigns to each
  of them.
• This information can then be used to develop an
  application that clearly addresses these criteria
  and that is therefore much more competitive.

71
Identify the review criteria

• Most agencies publish standard review criteria on
  their web pages and in each solicitation.
• Some programs will have additional review
  criteria specific to the solicitation.

72
DHHS (NIH) DHHS (NIH) DHHS (NIH)
Center for Scientific Review ? http//cms.csr.nih.gov/
NIH review criteria ? http//www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/basics/basics_b3.htm
NIH peer review process ? http//cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm
NIH review groups ? http//cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/
NIH study section rosters ? http//www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp
NSF NSF NSF
NSF review process, criteria Sec. 3 http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/3.jsp
DOD DOD DOD
AFOSR review process, criteria Sec. 2.14 http//www.afosr.af.mil/pdfs/proguide.PDF
ARO review process, criteria Sec. 3 http//www.aro.army.mil/research/arl/arobaa06a.pdf
DARPA review process, criteria ? http//www.darpa.mil/body/information/proposal.html
ONR review process, criteria Sec. 5 http//www.onr.navy.mil/02/baa/docs/baa_05_024.pdf
USDA USDA USDA
NRI review process, criteria ? http//www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/pdfs/nri_review_guidelines.pdf
NASA NASA NASA
NASA review process, criteria App. C http//www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/proposer2005.doc
Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Energy
DOE review process, criteria ? http//www.sc.doe.gov/grants/process.html
US Department of Education US Department of Education US Department of Education
ED review process, criteria Sec. 5 http//www.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/grantmaking/pt504.html
73
Understand the review process

• The review process varies from agency to agency
• The review process may include a peer review of
  outside experts from related fields an internal
  review by agency personnel or a combination of
  both.
• Most agency review processes share some common
  features. At most agencies, for instance, an
  application will first undergo a merit review
  and, depending upon the results, an
  administrative review.

74
Difference between NSF NIH

• This is a fundamental difference between NIH's
  and NSF's selection methods--by the end of the
  NIH review, applications are ranked alongside
  other entries according to an overall numerical
  priority score. At NSF, proposals are not given a
  numerical rating but are classified according to
  written "recommendations."
• Fred Stollnitz, program director at NSF explains
  further "When panels review, the reviewers put
  each proposal into categories such as
  'outstanding,' 'good and should be funded,' 'not
  ready in its present form,' or 'decline.' "
• A particularly vocal reviewer could influence the
  final rating of the panel or where the proposal
  should be classified, but because there is no
  absolute score, only opinions are noted in the
  review analysis report--not actual decisions. An
  opinionated NIH reviewer on the other hand could
  affect the scores an application receives and so
  alter its ranking.
• Source http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten
  t/full/1999/10/06/3

75
NSF review panelists

• NSF panelists convey their opinions and
  recommendations in a panel summary. They
  compose an overall analysis of review for each
  proposal that incorporate factors such as the
  panel summary, subject area, available resources,
  and the potential impact of the research. They
  then make final award decisions with the division
  director.
• Proposals that receive lower classifications by
  the panel can sometimes be funded over "higher
  rated research proposals because their overall
  assessment by the program officer is more
  favorable.

76
NSF review panelists

• The budgetary consideration also plays a key role
  in the decision-making process. The program
  officer doesn't just make 'yes' or 'no'
  decisions, explains Stollnitz. They have to
  balance all those proposals that should be funded
  with the actual funds that are available.
• Sometimes a proposal classified as good and
  should be funded submitted by an investigator
  with minimal existing funds may be given the edge
  over an outstanding proposal submitted by an
  established and well-funded candidate.
• Source http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten
  t/full/1999/10/06/3

77
NSF proposal process and timelines
78
NSF example review criterion 1

• What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
  activity?
• How important is the proposed activity to
  advancing knowledge and understanding within its
  own field or across different fields?
• How well qualified is the proposer (individual or
  team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate,
  the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior
  work.)
• To what extent does the proposed activity suggest
  and explore creative and original concepts?
• How well conceived and organized is the proposed
  activity?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?

79
NIH review criteria

• Significance. Does the study address an important
  problem?
• Approach. Are the methods appropriate to the aims
  of the project?
• Innovation. Does the project employ novel
  concepts or methods?
• Investigator. Is the investigator well trained to
  do the work?
• Environment. Does the environment contribute to
  success?

80
Developing the proposal narrative

• Contrary to what some people seem to believe,
  simple writing is not the product of simple
  minds. A simple, unpretentious style has both
  grace and power. By not calling attention to
  itself, it allows the reader to focus on the
  message.--Richard Lederer and Richards Dowis,
  Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay, 1999.

81
Craft of writing

• Good writing lies at the core of the competitive
  proposal. It is the framework for crafting and
  structuring the arguments, ideas, concepts,
  goals, performance commitments, and the logical,
  internal connectedness and balance of the
  proposal.

82
Charles Mingus on Grant Writing

• Making the simple complicated is commonplace
  making the complicated simple, awesomely simple,
  that's creativity.

83
Albert Einstein on Grant Writing

• If you can't explain something simply, you don't
  understand it well."
• Most of the fundamental ideas of science are
  essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be
  expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.
• Any fool can make things bigger, more complex,
  and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and
  a lot of courage--to move in the opposite
  direction.

84
The proposal is the only reality

• A proposal is not unlike a novel or a movie. It
  creates its own, self-contained reality. The
  proposal contains all the funding agency and
  review panel will know about your capabilities
  and your capacity to perform. With few
  exceptions, an agency bases its decision to fund
  or not fund entirely on the proposal and the
  persuasive reality it creates.

85
Good writing is more than mechanics

• Strong, comprehensive, integrated knowledge base
• Organizational clarity (stepwise
  logic/connections sequencing)
• Structural clarity (integrative logic logical
  transitions)
• Argumentative clarity (reasoning ordering
  synthesis)
• Capacity for synthesis
• Connect, connect, connect

86
Good writing is more than mechanics

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

87
Internal consistency synthesis

• A competitive proposal must be internally
  consistent by language, structure, and argument
• All internal ambiguities must be resolved.
• The competitiveness of a proposal increases
  exponentially with the capacity of the author to
  synthesize information.

88
Internal consistency synthesis

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

89
Ideas matter (Slogans are not Ideas)

• Shaping ideas by language is hard work.
• Do not confuse slogans, effusive exuberance, and
  clichés with substantive ideas.
• Show the reviewers something new by developing
  ideas that are clear, concise, coherent,
  contextually logical, and insightful.
• Capitalize on every opportunity you have to
  define, link, relate, expand, synthesize,
  connect, or illuminate ideas as you write the
  narrative.
• Connect, connect, connect! (E.M. Forrester).

90
Positioning to submit

• Find an appropriate solicitation
• Review the solicitation in detail
• Assess your capacity to perform
• Map your expertise to the RFP
• Assess your capacity to write a competitive
  proposal

91
Poor planningEverybody has a plan--until they
are shot at, Colin Powell

• Match the RFP
• Schedule a timeline
• Start proposal early
• Partnerships take more time
• Collaborator compatibility
• Let ideas develop slowly
• No midnight warriors
• Periodic calibration to RFP
• Define and schedule development tasks
• Anticipate the unexpected

92
Poor Process Planning

• What do you control?
• Proposal narrative
• Collaborators
• Budget
• What do others control?
• Routing signatures
• Budget approvals
• Submission
• Data requests
• Institutional support

93
Keep focused on development tasks

• Define and develop goals objectives
• Plan narrative iterations
• Who does what and when
• Review and assess progress of goals objectives
• Budget process by task

94
Anticipate the unexpected

• Some ideas dont work out
• Some partnerships dont work out
• Some budgets dont work out
• Some proposals dont work out

95
Project Summary/Abstract

• May be the only section read by some reviewers
• Use it to give a clear, concise, and complete
  overview of the proposal
• Start with the global vision of the proposal
• Provide finer grain detail goals, objectives
• Emphasize significance
• Describes expected outcomes
• Hook the reviewers

96
Proposal Introduction

• Compressed version of proposal
• Summary overview of response to RFP
• Vision/global response
• Performance details linked to objectives
• Integrate ideas and concepts
• Connect multiple research strands
• Explain how
• Explain synergy
• Explain outcomes and importance
• Roadmap to entire proposal

97
Resubmitting proposals

• Take reviewers comments to heart, but not
  necessarily as inerrant
• Assess next step
• Start over
• Major renovation
• Minor renovation
• Re-conceptualize

98
Write for the reviewers

• Reviewers are typically given multiple proposals
  to review, and often tight timelines for
  completion
• While you may be viewing your grant application
  as the magnum opus of your life's ambitions and
  plans--for the next 5 years anyway--a reviewer
  sees it as one of six to 12 other "magnum opii"
  projects to evaluate. (Source
  http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/20
  03/12/10/6)
• The proposal needs to clearly present everything
  the reviewers will need to read, understand, and
  evaluate the proposed research project

99
Intrigue the Reviewers
100
Write for the reviewers

• Synthesize key concepts and articulate the
  links--
• between the overarching goal and the specific
  objectives,
• between the specific objectives and the
  hypotheses,
• between the hypotheses and the approach,
• between the approach and the expected outcomes,
  and
• between the expected outcomes and the
  significance and broader impacts of the project.

101
Create reviewer-friendly text

• Divide the proposal into the required sections.
• Place the sections in the required order.
• Use parallel structure at both the section and
  sentence levels.
• Incorporate logical paragraph breaks.
• Open paragraphs with clear topic sentences.
• Discuss important items first.

102
Create reviewer-friendly text

• Avoid the use of inflated language.
• Use declarative sentences.
• Define potentially unfamiliar terms.
• Spell out acronyms and abbreviations.
• Employ appropriate style and usage.
• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
• Run a spell-check and proofread the application.

103
Introductory writing tips

• The abstract, proposal summary, and introduction
  are keythat may be all many reviewers read and
  it is here you must excite and grab the attention
  of the reviewers
• Reviewers will assume errors in language and
  usage will translate into errors in the research
• Dont be overly ambitious in what you propose,
  but convey credibility and capacity to perform

104
Introductory writing tips

• Sell your proposal to a good scientist but not an
  expert
• Some review panels may not have an expert in your
  field, or panels may be blended for
  multidisciplinary initiatives
• Agencies reviewers fund compelling, exciting
  science, not just correct science
• Proposals are not journal articlesproposals must
  be user friendly and offer a narrative that tells
  a story that is memorable to reviewers

105
The proposal introduction

• Serves as reviewers road map to the full text
• Opportunity to make most important points up
  front and organizes the conceptual framework of
  ideas
• States vision, concepts, goals, objectives,
  outcomes, and deliverables
• Briefly tells who you are what you are going to
  do how you are going to do it who is going to
  do it why you are going to do it and
  demonstrates your capacity to perform

106
Beware of boiler plate dont copy paste

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

107
(No Transcript)
108
Checklist for writing proposals

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

109
Preparing to write

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

110
Developing the hypothesis research plan

• Who is your audience (e.g., agency, program
  officers and reviewers) and how do you best
  address them?
• What is a fundable idea and how is it best
  characterized?
• How are claims of research uniqueness and
  innovation best supported in the proposal text?
• Can research plans be overly ambitious?
• What are important distinctions to note between
  mission focused agencies and basic research
  agencies in proposing research plans?
• Differentiate between hypothesis driven research
  application driven at basic research and
  mission agencies?
• How do you best communicate your passion,
  excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform
  your research to review panels?

111
Preliminary data research readiness

• What evidence needs to be presented to show the
  proposed work can be accomplished?
• What evidence of institutional support for the
  research, e.g., facilities, equipment
  instrumentation, is important to demonstrate?
• What counts as preliminary data and how much is
  sufficient?
• How do you best map your research directions and
  interests to funding agency research priorities?
• What do you need to know about research currently
  funded by a particular agency within your
  research domain, e.g., through reports,
  publications, journals?

112
Writing the proposal

• Who do you need to impress with your research?
• How do you tell a good story grounded in good
  science that excites the reviewers and program
  officers?
• The successful proposal represents an
  accumulation of marginal advantage accrued at
  decision points over a period of weeks or months
  to ensure the proposal is competitive for
  funding
• What are key decision points in proposal
  development?
• How do you best plan and schedule proposal
  writing?
• How do you use program guidelines as a proposal
  template?
• Importance of good writing, clear arguments, and
  reviewer friendly text, structure, and
  organization in proposals
• What are other core competitive characteristics
  of a successful proposal needed to complement
  research merit?

113
Post review process

• Respecting views of peers
• Response to reviewer comments
• Discussion of reviews with program officers
• Discussion of reviews with senior faculty
• Reviewing the reviews
• How do you make an assessment of reviews as a
  reliable guide for the next funding cycle?

114
Competitive resubmissions

• How do you best plan and position for a
  competitive resubmission?
• How do you conduct a reassessment of the
  intellectual merit and excellence of your
  research based on reviews?
• How to you assess if a research direction should
  be abandoned, or the research submitted to
  another agency?
• What are strategies for identifying more
  appropriate research directions and funding
  opportunities?

115
FinallyBe confident