Title: TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop
1TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop
- Presenter
- Mike Cronan, PE (inactive)
- Director, Office of Proposal Development, Office
of the Vice President for Research, Texas AM
University
2AM System Coordination
- Dr. K. Lee Peddicord, Vice Chancellor for
Research Federal Relations - Tami Davis Sayko, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Research Federal Relations
3Office 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.
4OPD 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
5Presenter 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
6Open Forum, QA Format
- Curious? Please ask questions
- Questions will help direct, guide, and focus the
discussion on proposal topics.
7Presentation 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
8If 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.
9Searching for funding
- Develop search protocols to fit research
interests - Know relevant agencies
- Learn grant cycles.
10OPD-Web Funding Opportunities
11http//www.grants.gov/
12Receive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts
13Search Browse Grant Opportunities
- http//www.grants.gov/applicants/search_opportunit
ies.jsp - http//www.grants.gov/search/agency.do
14Search Grants.gov Opportunities
15(No Transcript)
16(No Transcript)
17(No Transcript)
18http//foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/
19(No Transcript)
20(No Transcript)
21http//www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
22http//listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0edinfoD1H
0ODT0
23http//cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
24Reading 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.
25Reading 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.
26Reading 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.
27Program 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.
28Program 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.
29Program 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.
30Map 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
31You and the RFP need to be like
32The RFP as Treasure Map
- Follow directions
- Review step by step
- Understand it
- Understood by all PIs
- Keep focused
- Dont wander off path
33No 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
34Contents 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
35Contents 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.
36Reviewing 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.
37Reviewing 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
38Reviewing 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.
39Reviewing 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.
40Reviewing 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.
41Never be timid about contacting a program officer
for clarification
- Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive
grant process.
42Role 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.
43Role 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.
44Role 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.
45Role 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.
46Role 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.
47Reading 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.
48Analyzing the funding agency
- Analyzing the mission, strategic plan, investment
priorities, and culture of a funding agency
provides information key to enhancing proposal
competitiveness.
49Analyzing 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.
50Analyzing 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.
51Analyzing 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.
52Finding 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
53Analyzing 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.
54Analyzing 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.
55Analyzing 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.
56Analyzing 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?
57Analyzing 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?
58Analyzing 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
59Analyzing 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.
60Analyzing 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
61Analyzing 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
62Basic 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
63Mission-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
64Analyzing 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.
65Addressing 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)
68Addressing 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)
70Understanding 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.
71Identify 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.
72DHHS (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
73Understand 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.
74Difference 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
75NSF 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.
76NSF 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
77NSF proposal process and timelines
78NSF 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?
79NIH 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?
80Developing 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.
81Craft 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.
82Charles Mingus on Grant Writing
- Making the simple complicated is commonplace
making the complicated simple, awesomely simple,
that's creativity.
83Albert 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.
84The 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.
85Good 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
86Good 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
87Internal 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.
88Internal 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.
89Ideas 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).
90Positioning 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
91Poor 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
92Poor Process Planning
- What do you control?
- Proposal narrative
- Collaborators
- Budget
- What do others control?
- Routing signatures
- Budget approvals
- Submission
- Data requests
- Institutional support
93Keep 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
94Anticipate the unexpected
- Some ideas dont work out
- Some partnerships dont work out
- Some budgets dont work out
- Some proposals dont work out
95Project 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
96Proposal 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
97Resubmitting proposals
- Take reviewers comments to heart, but not
necessarily as inerrant - Assess next step
- Start over
- Major renovation
- Minor renovation
- Re-conceptualize
98Write 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
99Intrigue the Reviewers
100Write 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.
101Create 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.
102Create 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.
103Introductory 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
104Introductory 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
105The 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
106Beware 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)
108Checklist for writing proposals
- Preparing to write
- Developing the hypothesis research plan
- Preliminary data research readiness
- Writing the proposal
- Post review process
- Competitive resubmissions
109Preparing 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?
110Developing 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?
111Preliminary 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?
112Writing 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?
113Post 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?
114Competitive 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?
115FinallyBe confident