proposals marie desjardins ([email protected])[email protected] cmsc 601 april 18, 2012
TRANSCRIPT
4/18/12
2
Sources
Robert L. Peters, Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or Ph.D. (Revised Edition). NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1997.
Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph.D. Is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in Science. Basic Books, 1993.
Tom Dietterich, CS 519 course slides, Oregon State University.
Caroline Wardle, Obtaining Federal Funding, CRA-W Workshop Slides, 1993/1994/1999.
4/18/12
3
Outline
Proposal Contents General Advice Sources of Funding Proposal Evaluation
Proposal Contents
4/18/12
5
Know Your Goals
Dissertation proposal Convince committee you’re on the right track
Funding proposal Convince reviewers and program manager to give you
money
4/18/12
6
Proposal Strategy
Just having a good idea is not enough! Need to convince reviewers that:
The problem is important You have a good approach to solve the problem Your approach is likely to succeed You have a well developed research plan
Chicken-and-egg problem If you don’t have preliminary results and a well developed
approach, you’re not likely to make a convincing case for success If you already have preliminary results and a well developed
approach, you’re already doing the research! → By the time you get the funding, you’ll be done! ...so with the funding you get, you’ll write the journal papers, and
start developing preliminary results for the next proposal...
4/18/12
7
Topics to Cover
Long-term goals Significance Specific goals Methods and experiments Feasibility Risks Current state of knowledge Timetable Budget/budget justification Biographies
Typically 15 pages or less!
4/18/12
8
Long-Term Goals
Vision Big picture Broad focus
Motivation behind your work
4/18/12
9
Significance
Why do you want to work on this problem? Why will other people care about it?
...in the field ...in other fields ...in society ...in the program ...on your committee
4/18/12
10
Specific Goals
What part of the big picture will you focus on? What specific tasks will you accomplish?
4/18/12
11
Methods and Experiments
How will you demonstrate success? How will you test your claims?
Data sets, domains, experimental methodologies, evaluation criteria
4/18/12
12
Feasibility
Why should we believe you will be able to carry out this research plan?
4/18/12
13
Risks
What might go wrong? How will you recover? What’s your backup/contingency plan?
4/18/12
14
Current State of Knowledge
Who else has worked on this problem? Why have previous approaches been unsuccessful?
...or if this is a new problem, why are new approaches needed?
How does your method build on, or depart from, previous approaches?
4/18/12
15
Timetable
Typical research grant: 2-3 years, sometimes up to 5 Typical dissertation timeline (from proposal): 1-3
years
What are your milestones? Approximately when do you expect to complete each
milestone? Relevant deadlines (conference deadlines, program
meetings, integrated demonstrations)
4/18/12
18
References
For thesis proposal only: Annotated bibliography is very helpful Can include important/relevant papers that you plan to read,
but haven’t read yet. (should discuss these separately in Related Work section)
General Advice
4/18/12
20
General Proposal Advice
Start writing early! First impressions count:
A good introduction/summary is absolutely essential!! Be neat!
Be as specific as possible Don’t make your reviewers work too hard Keep revising Get feedback from peers and mentors Resubmit if necessary Read other people’s proposals
Proposal Evaluation
4/18/12
25
NSF Review Criteria
Intellectual Merit Increasing knowledge and understanding within a field Qualifications of proposers Creativity and originality Scope and organization of proposed research Access to resources
Broader Impact Teaching, training, and learning Participation of underrepresented groups Enhancement of research infrastructure Dissemination of results Benefits to society
4/18/12
26
NSF Ratings
Excellent Perhaps 10% of proposals; should definitely be funded
Very Good Top 1/3 of proposals; should be considered for funding if sufficient
funds are available Good
Middle 1/3 of proposals; worthy of support (but likely will not be enough funding for this category)
Fair Bottom 1/3 of proposals; not likely to be considered for funding
Poor Proposal has serious deficiencies and should not be funded
Typical funded proposal has at least one Excellent and two Very Goods
Many NSF programs have a 10% funding rate
4/18/12
27
NSF: How it Really Works
Specific areas are usually not targeted... ...but some program managers have areas they like or
dislike ...and sometimes your research won’t fit in any of the NSF
programs, especially if you’re doing interdisciplinary work It never hurts to visit and chat with the program manager(s)
Peer review panel provides primary input If you don’t get a good peer rating, you’re doomed Panelist who knows your area inside and out can shoot your
proposal down (or champion it!) Panelists who don’t know your area can shoot you proposal
down (or be intrigued by it!)