Writing Competitive Grants: A Guide for the Perplexed

Avrom Caplan PhDAssociate Provost for Research

&Joan Walker PhD

Assistant Provost for Research

Pace University Office of ResearchFall 2019

Overview

1. Description of Office resources 2. Behind the scenes of a federal funding agency:

NSF• What happens on a review panel?

• The Merit review process• Characteristics of strong proposals

• What happens after panel? The program officer’s role in funding decisions

• Developing a relationship with NSF

Teaching Research

Scholarship Research GrantsEducation Grants

Institutional GrantsTraining Grants

Student successPromoting Pace

Stronger community

Pace University Office of Research

Pace University Office of Research

GrantsPre-Award

ResearchCompliance

Pivot

IRB

IACUC

CITI

Nigel Yarlett (NYC)Aaron Steiner (PLV)

Co-ChairsLisa Rosenthal Sharon Wexler

IRB Committee

Online TrainingResponsible Conduct in Research

Human SubjectsAnimal Use and Care

Online Grants OpportunitySearch Tool

https://pivot.proquest.com/funding_main

Proposal Development

Submissions

Grant Clearance

Form

Events

Budget

Pace University Office of Research – Research Compliance

ResearchCompliance

IRB

IACUC

CITI

Co-ChairsLisa Rosenthal Sharon Wexler

IRB CommitteeOnline TrainingResponsible Conduct in Research

Human SubjectsAnimal Use and Care

https://www.pace.edu/office-of-research/research-protections-IRB-IACUC

Pace University Office of Research – IRBNet

ResearchCompliance

IRB

IACUC

CITI Co-ChairsLisa Rosenthal Sharon Wexler

IRB CommitteeOnline Training

Responsible Conduct in ResearchHuman Subjects

Animal Use and Care

https://www.pace.edu/office-of-research/research-protections-IRB-IACUC

http://blog.our-research.org/impact-challenge-day-3-google-scholar/

Google Scholar

Pace University Office of Research – Pivot

GrantsPre-AwardPivot

Online Grants OpportunitySearch Tool

https://pivot.proquest.com/funding_main

Proposal Development

Submissions

Events

Twin Merit Review Criteria

• Intellectual Merit: The potential to advance knowledge and transform the field(s) of inquiry

• Broader Impacts: The potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

• For both criteria, 5 questions must be addressed.

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); andb. benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?

5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Who reviews?Experts in:• Discipline • Research methodology• Interdisciplinary science• “Mosaic”

What do reviewers look at?The entire proposal.

• Project Summary

• Project Description

• References

• Biographical Sketches

• Current & Pending Support

• Budget and Budget Justification

• Letters of Collaboration

• Data Management Plan

11

In addition to panels, two other kinds of review:1. Ad hoc2. Internal

Organization submits

viaFastLane NSF

ProgramProgramOfficers

DivisionDirectorConcur

DGA

Organization

Ad hoc

Panel

Award

Proposal Review Processand Timeline

Decline

6 Months 30 Days

Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur

DGAAward

AwardAdvise

The Proposer Receives…

Reviews Panel Summary(if applicable)

Context statement &

Award/Declination letter

$

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia 22230

Dear Dr. Doe,

The National Science Foundation hereby awards a grant of...

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia 22230

Dear Dr. Doe,

I regret to inform you that the National Science Foundation is unable to support your proposal referenced above...&

13

What happens after an NSF review panel?*

• Program officers use panel recommendations• Ratings: Highly Competitive, Competitive, Not Competitive and Did

Not Discuss• Deliberate which proposals to recommended

• Competition budget constrains # of awards• Program priorities, informed by portfolio analysis • Characteristics of PIs and those being served (Broader Impacts)

• EPSCOR, new investigators• Quality of proposal, sometimes ask for second read from PO peers

• Likelies meetings• Negotiation/clarification• Division Director concurrence

*NSF directorates, divisions and programs may vary in their post-panel procedures.

Why proposals are declined

• NSF Program Officers make recommendations to fund or decline a proposal

• Merit Review criteria (Alignment)• Budgetary constraints• Portfolio balancing

• Principal Investigators submit on average about 2.3 proposals for every award they receive

• Most proposals that are awarded do not receive all "Excellents“

• NSF Program Officers are encouraged to recommend high risk science and engineering projects for funding

Advice

• Start EARLY• Get acquainted with FastLane (www.FastLane.nsf.gov) • Get familiar with the Program Solicitation• Contact a program officer (e-mail is best).

• Useful feedback and information• May prevent you from applying to the wrong program.

• Become an NSF reviewer. (And then become an NSF rotator!)

• Subscribe to Custom News Services at NSF http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/

16

Which funding source fits my idea?

Recent Awards Made Through This ProgramMap of Recent AwardsNewsDiscoveries

17

Each program has a website. Links to the types of research supported by each program are available.

Preparing a competitive proposal – 1• Start with a good idea.• Communicate clearly

• Address Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts• State research objectives and questions• Layout clear plans for carrying out the proposed work• Ground the project in relevant and appropriate

literature (perhaps outside of STEM education!)• Get appropriate expertise on board.• Ask colleagues to critique your proposal.

18

• Strong arguments for importance of the problem

• Content clearly articulated (include examples!)

• Research design and methodology appropriate and sufficiently discussed

• Sensible chain of reasoning links literature review, process for development, research questions, data, and analyses

• Impacts of the research and development addressed

Preparing a competitive proposal – 2

19

Common reasons for proposals deemed non-competitive – 1

Importance• Proposed problem not nationally important• Weak, vague, or no connection to STEM content• Missing, ill-conceived or dubious method(s) of

evaluating outcomes of the proposed activities• Relevant literatures not cited (evidence-based)• Unclear plan to advance the field/contribute to

the knowledge base (evidence-generating)

20

Common reasons for proposals deemed non-competitive – 2

Methods• Inadequate or inappropriate research and/or

evaluation design(s)• Vague or inappropriate data collection & analyses• Too much data being collected • Appropriate expertise not represented• Cost at small scale prohibitive when scaled up

21

Career Opportunities

Reviewing for NSF

• Reviewers are Essential - NSF needs YOU

• Benefits to you as a reviewer

• How to become a reviewer

• Contact NSF Now

Employment

• Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Assignments

• Other opportunities