Writing Successful Proposals for Research Funding: A Comprehensive Guide, Slides of Career Counseling

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, DoD…

State

Industry

Foundations

Research institutes

(NCAR, EPRI. SAO…)

Research teams(TES, GMAO…)

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:

that’s

the

way

NSF

mainly

functions.

Send

in

your

proposal

anytime,

to

the

program

that

seems

to

fit

best

Solicited

proposals:

that’s

the

way

other

agencies

mainly

function.

They

issue

a

‘call

for

proposals’

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

‐in

reviews

‐^6

reviewers);

decision

to

fund

is

largely

based

on

reviewers’

ratings.

Other

agencies

and

fellowship

programs

use

review

panels,

sometimes

in

combination

with

mail

‐in

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

‐in

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

‘definitely

fund’,

‘try

to

fund’,

‘don’t

fund’.

Add

up

costs

of

‘definitely

fund’

proposals,

compare

to

total

pot

of

money

available.

If

extra

money

is

available,

bring

in

‘try

‐to

‐fund’

proposals;

consider

breadth

of

program,

cost

‐cutting

opportunities…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

‐sentence

objectives

to

early

in

the

proposal.

Can

be

expressed

as

objectives,

questions,

or

hypotheses

Some

solicitations

require

you

to

deliver

a

specific

product;

this

‘deliverable’

is

then

an

objective

Explicitly

state

how

your

objectives

respond

to

the

solicitation

(if

appropriate

non

‐obvious)

Has

clear

and

itemized

description

of

tasks,

i.e.,

the

work

to

be

done

to

achieve

these

objectives

There

should

normally

be

a

‘Task’

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

don’t

work,

etc.

Oozes

with

competence:

you

need

to

convince

reviewer

that

you’re

the

right

person

for

the

job

Proposal

should

include

mini

‐review

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

you’re

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

‐scale

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 isn’t 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 what’s been done and how your proposed work builds on it 2. Objectives

‐sentence 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 you’ve 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

you’ve

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

can’t

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.

It’s

nearly

impossible

for

a

young

investigator

to

break

in.

Most

agencies

will

try

to

fund

young

investigators

but

you

need

to

be

low

‐cost

Agencies

try

to

maintain

some

stability

in

their

programs

and

successful

past

investigators

therefore

enjoy

some

favorable

prejudice

(these

will

typically

occupy

the

‘must

‐fund’

category).

But

this

leaves

room

for

low

‐cost

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

‘key’

in

getting

funded

are

prior

relevant

publications.