Download Writing Successful Proposals for Research Funding: A Comprehensive Guide and more Slides Career Counseling in PDF only on Docsity!
HOW TO WRITE A SUCCESSFUL
PROPOSAL
THE
FLOW
OF
RESEARCH
MONEY
Federal :NSF, NASA,
EPA, DOE, NOAA, DoDā¦
State
Industry
Foundations
Research institutes
(NCAR, EPRI. SAOā¦)
Research teams(TES, GMAOā¦)
Individual investigators
Arrow on right is most important for university investigators; arrows on leftmay be more important for scientists in national labs (or other large labs)
HOW
TO
COMPETE
FOR
MONEY
Unsolicited
proposals:
thatās
the
way
NSF
mainly
functions.
Send
in
your
proposal
anytime,
to
the
program
that
seems
to
fit
best
Solicited
proposals:
thatās
the
way
other
agencies
mainly
function.
They
issue
a
ācall
for
proposalsā
in
a
certain
area,
with
a
certain
pot
of
to
be
competed
with
a
deadline.
Programs
within
agencies
generally
issue
yearly
calls
in
order
to
maintain
a
stable
community
of
investigators
Fellowship
proposals:
encourage
young
investigators
at
the
PhD,
postdoc,
or
early
faculty
level.
Selection
is
mostly
decided
by
your
record,
reference
letters,
vision
expressed
in
proposal.
They
generally
have
low
overhead
rates.
Industry,
foundation:
funding
is
more
ad
hoc,
often
uncompeted;
need
to
develop
relationships
HOW
PROPOSALS
GET
REVIEWED
Proposals
are
sent
to
program
manager;
at
least
for
all
govt
funding
the
proposals
go
for
peer
review
NSF
solely
uses
mail
āin
reviews
ā^6
reviewers);
decision
to
fund
is
largely
based
on
reviewersā
ratings.
Other
agencies
and
fellowship
programs
use
review
panels,
sometimes
in
combination
with
mail
āin
reviews;
idea
is
to
have
a
cohesive
program,
calibrate
across
reviewers,
make
the
best
of
a
fixed
pot
of
money.
Review
panels
typically
have
primary/secondary
reviewers
assigned
to
individual
proposals;
These
primary/secondary
reviewers
any
mail
āin
reviewers)
are
the
ones
who
will
actually
read
your
proposal;
others
on
the
panel
may
only
read
abstract
and
check
out
your
CV
for
evidence
of
quality.
First
round
of
discussion
categorizes
proposals
as
ādefinitely
fundā,
ātry
to
fundā,
ādonāt
fundā.
Add
up
costs
of
ādefinitely
fundā
proposals,
compare
to
total
pot
of
money
available.
If
extra
money
is
available,
bring
in
ātry
āto
āfundā
proposals;
consider
breadth
of
program,
cost
ācutting
opportunitiesā¦This
is
where
most
of
the
discussion
takes
place
Typically
of
submitted
proposals
are
funded;
of
fellowship
proposals
are
selected.
docsity.com
GENERAL
FEATURES
OF
A
GOOD
PROPOSAL
Has
clear
and
itemized
objectives:
shows
clear
vision
Generally
need
a
bullet
list
in
bold
font
of
āsentence
objectives
to
early
in
the
proposal.
Can
be
expressed
as
objectives,
questions,
or
hypotheses
Some
solicitations
require
you
to
deliver
a
specific
product;
this
ādeliverableā
is
then
an
objective
Explicitly
state
how
your
objectives
respond
to
the
solicitation
(if
appropriate
non
āobvious)
Has
clear
and
itemized
description
of
tasks,
i.e.,
the
work
to
be
done
to
achieve
these
objectives
There
should
normally
be
a
āTaskā
section
mapped
to
each
objective
Describe
your
research
tools
and
how
you
will
apply
them.
Reviewers
want
to
know
what
work
will
actually
be
done
to
justify
the
budget
Have
enough
technical
detail
to
convey
competence,
not
so
much
as
to
lose
reviewer
or
invite
pickiness.
Mention
tools
that
you
may
use,
options
if
things
donāt
work,
etc.
Oozes
with
competence:
you
need
to
convince
reviewer
that
youāre
the
right
person
for
the
job
Proposal
should
include
mini
āreview
of
literature
on
research
topic,
including
discussion
of
your
own
previous
accomplishments;
this
is
usually
the
material
that
the
reviewer
enjoys
reading
most
Nothing
beats
having
relevant
publications
to
show
that
you
know
what
youāre
doing,
that
you
can
publish.
Advertise
your
publications.
Most
proposals
are
tied
to
general
professional
development
and
reviewers
will
want
to
see
this.
Talk
about
how
the
proposed
work
fits
into
your
larger
āscale
research
plans
and
interests,
your
career
development,
your
teaching/outreach
objectives,
etc.
A
proposal
should
be
intensely
personal.
docsity.com
TYPICAL
PROPOSAL
STRUCTURE
Abstract
Should include clear statements of objectives and tasks.
I
generally use numbered lists of objectives and tasks; a proposal isnāt a literary work. It is most important to be clear. Program manager and broader review panel may only read your abstract.
Introduction/background
Start from big picture (show that you have perspective) but quickly focus on motivating what you want to do; stay focused
Review of relevant literature should be exhaustive; show that you know whatās been done and how your proposed work builds on it 2. Objectives
āsentence bullet list, followed by some explanatory text if needed; this should be at the end of intro or as a separate section right after the intro.
Previous accomplishments
Very important; advertise what youāve done that demonstrates your expertise, and show that money spent on you is well spent.
NSF
requires such a section. Include it in proposals to other agencies too.
Research tools
Tasks
One task section/subsection per objective
Expected outcome
State how knowledge will be increased and the world will be a better place as a result of your research. Why should one invest in your proposal? - This may include education/outreach 7. Schedule
Solicitations may require a certain proposal structure (which you should followscrupulously) which generally is some variant of the above.
docsity.com
SOME
MYTHS
ABOUT
PROPOSALS
You
can
only
get
funded
for
work
youāve
already
done.
Would
be
a
little
ridiculous
(not
to
mention
unethical)
and
reviewers
could
see
through
this.
But
there
is
some
truth
in
that
you
generally
canāt
get
funded
unless
you
demonstrate
previous
expertise,
i.e.,
that
you
can
do
the
work.
And
showing
preliminary
results
can
be
very
valuable
in
that
regard.
Modeling
proposals
are
cheaper
than
experimental
proposals.
In
either
case,
most
of
the
cost
is
personnel.
Itās
nearly
impossible
for
a
young
investigator
to
break
in.
Most
agencies
will
try
to
fund
young
investigators
but
you
need
to
be
low
ācost
Agencies
try
to
maintain
some
stability
in
their
programs
and
successful
past
investigators
therefore
enjoy
some
favorable
prejudice
(these
will
typically
occupy
the
āmust
āfundā
category).
But
this
leaves
room
for
low
ācost
proposals
from
young
investigators,
which
also
enjoy
some
favorable
prejudice.
Personal
contacts
with
program
managers
are
key.
The
funding
system
is
in
fact
highly
meritocratic.
What
is
really
ākeyā
in
getting
funded
are
prior
relevant
publications.