National Science Foundation

1. National Science Foundation Creating and Writing Successful Proposals James E. Hamos Directorate for Education & Human Resources November 2009

2. Funded! Declined & Revise What next? Write Try again Conceptualize Life Cycle of a Proposal

3. Research proposal preparation A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity.

4. Step 1: Getting started • There is no substitute for a cutting-edge idea! • But you also have to write a proposal!

5. Helpful Hint:Carefully read the Grant Proposal Guide, Program Announcements, and Solicitations

6. Proposal Development Key Questions for Prospective Investigators • What do you intend to do? • Why is the work important? • What has already been done? • How are you going to do the work?

7. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator • Determine your long-term research/education goals or plan • Develop your great idea • Survey the literature • Talk with others in your field • Prepare to do the project • Determine available resources • Realistically assess needs • Develop preliminary data • Present to colleagues/mentors/students • Determine possible funding sources

8. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d) • Ascertain overall scope and mission • Carefully read solicitation instructions • Determine where your project fits • Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria • Talk with NSF Program Director: • Your proposed project • Specific program requirements/limitations • Current program patterns • Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office

10. Step 2: The Proposal Major resource: The Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)

11. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) • Provides guidance for preparation and submission of proposals to NSF • Specifies process for deviations including: • individual program solicitations; and • written approval of cognizant Assistant Director or designee • Describes process -- and criteria -- by which proposals will be reviewed • Outlines reasons why a proposal may be returned without review

12. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) • Describes process for withdrawals, returns & declinations • Describes the award process and procedures for requesting continued support • Identifies significant award and administration processes

13. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) • Details process for submission of collaborative proposals via: • Subaward • Separate proposals for collaborating organizations • Note: contact with cognizant NSF Program Director is strongly encouraged prior to submission

14. Parts of a Proposal • Cover sheet and certifications • Project summary • Both intellectual merit and broader impacts described!!! • Table of contents • Project description • References cited • Biographical sketches

15. Parts of a Proposal • Budgets and justification • Current and pending support • Facilities, equipment and other resources • Special information/documentation • What is allowed may vary by programs and directorates • Single Copy Documents: • Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential information, etc.

16. Project Summary • This one page is critical because it: • It may affect which program or panel will review your proposal. • It mustinclude a statement addressing both review criteria • andproposals that do not separately address both criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.

17. Project Summary • Intellectual Merit • Describe the scientific/engineering/education problem and why it is important • State the overall objective of the project • State the specific aims • Describe how the aims will be achieved • Broader Impacts • Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure; dissemination of results; underrepresented groups; benefit to society

18. Proposal Writing Tips1. Get help with proposal writing • Read: • NSF publications • Successful proposals • Look before you leap: • Serve as a reviewer or panelist • Talk with people: • Program officers • Current or former “rotators” • Successful colleagues • University sponsored projects office

19. Proposal Writing Tips2. Start early and ask for feedback • Write: • Rewrite and rewrite again • Get critiques from: • Mentors and colleagues • Previous members of review panels

20. Proposal Writing Tips3. Be reasonable • Be aware of the scope: • “too ambitious” vs. “too narrow” • Anticipate problems • Address possible difficulties • Acknowledge possible experimental problems and have alternatives

21. Proposal Writing Tips4. Make it easy for the reviewers • Know your audience: • The reviewer might not be an expert in your specific field • Simplify and streamline: • Make sure you get your overall idea across! • Pay attention to details: • Run a spell checker and proof-read • Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc. • Make the font size as big as you can – there is now a list of fonts from which you must choose

22. What Makes a Proposal Competitive? • Original ideas that go beyond the commonplace • Succinct, focused project plan • Realistic amount of work • Sufficient detail provided • Strength of the leadership team • Solid evaluation plan • Rationale and evidence of potential effectiveness • Potential contribution to knowledge • Likelihood of sustainability • Capacity to disseminate findings

23. Tips for Success • Read the program solicitation and GPG • Test drive FastLane • Alert the Sponsored Research Office • Follow page and font size limits • Discuss other projects, advances in the field and related literature • Provide details • Discuss relevant priorresults from work funded by NSF • Have a strong evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

24. Tips for Success • Put yourself in the reviewers’ place • Have someone else read the proposal • Spell check; grammar check • Meet deadlines • Follow NSF requirements for proposals involving Human Subjects • Call or e-mail NSF Program Officers

25. Why are some proposals declined? • Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis • Will provide only an incremental advance • Not exciting or cutting edge • Errors • Unclear or incomplete expression of aims • Faulty logic or experimental design • Less than rigorous presentation • Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete • Resources and facilities not in place • PI qualifications/expertise not evident • Necessary collaborations not documented

26. Return Without Review • Submitted after deadline • Failure in separately and explicitly addressingintellectual merit and broader impacts in the Project Summary • Failure in following formatting (e. g. page limitation, font size and margin limits) requirements • Failure to include mentoring component for postdoctoral fellows if they are part of project • Failure to respond to solicitation requirements (e.g., PI and institutional eligibility)

27. Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation (NSB 07-32) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/tr_report.pdf

28. Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation Science progresses in two fundamental and equally valuable ways. The vast majority of scientific understanding advances incrementally, with new projects building upon the results of previous studies or testing long-standing hypotheses and theories. This progress is evolutionary—it extends or shifts prevailing paradigms over time. The vast majority of research conducted in scientific laboratories around the world fuels this form of innovative scientific progress. Less frequently, scientific understanding advances dramatically, through the application of radically different approaches or interpretations that result in the creation of new paradigms or new scientific fields. This progress is revolutionary, for it transforms science by overthrowing entrenched paradigms and generating new ones.

29. Transformative Research – Notice No. 130 Endeavors which have the potential to change the way we address challenges in science, engineering, and innovation. Those endeavors which promise extraordinary outcomes, such as: revolutionizing entire disciplines; creating entirely new fields; or disrupting accepted theories and perspectives. Director Arden Bement, Notice No. 130, September 24, 2007, Important Notice To Presidents of Universities and Colleges and Heads Of Other National Science Foundation Awardee Organizations http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/in130/in130.jsp

30. EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) • Replaces part of the Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) program • Supports high-risk, exploratory and potentially transformative research • Requests may be for up to $300K and of up to two years duration • Further guidelines in Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 09-1, January 2009), Chapter II, Section D (Special Guidelines), Subsection 2