Date post: | 21-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Creating/Sustaining Your Research
EnterpriseStephanie G. Adams, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
Virginia Commonwealth UniversityFormer NSF Program Officer
and Assistant Dean for Research
Some Sources of Research Funding
NSF, NIH, NASA, DOD, DOE, ONR, ARMY, NAVY
State agencies Private and Public Foundations Industry, Businesses, and other agencies
NOTE: List yourself with the Community of Science Bulletin
What NSF says about ARRA
NSF portion of ARRA = $3 billion $2 billion available in Research and
Related Activities for proposals already in house and will be
reviewed and/or awarded prior to Sept. 30, 2009
Grants will be standard grants with durations of up to 5 years.
www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
ARRA Priorities Funding of new PIs and high-risk, high-return
research CAREER and IGERT awards Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)
Program and an Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program
Proposals declined on or after October 1, 2008.
www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
ARRA Priorities
Science Masters Program Robert Noyce Scholarship program
and the Math and Science Partnership program
NO supplements to existing grants
www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)
Supports exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches.
Work may be considered especially "high risk-high payoff"
PI(s) must contact the NSF program officer(s) whose expertise is most germane to the proposal topic prior to submission
Requests may be for up to $300K and of up to two years duration
Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID)
Used for proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and unanticipated events.
Contact the NSF program officer(s) whose expertise is most germane
Only internal merit review is required Requests may be for up to $200K and of one year
duration
Other Initiatives @ NSF
EHR DUE
CCLI, STEP, SSTEM, ATE, Noyce, SFS
REC REESE, DR-12
DGE IGERT, GK-12
HRD Advance, GSE
ENG EFRI BRIGE, IEECI, RET,
REU, NUE
CISE BPC
OISE IRES, PIRE
5 Simple Rules to Obtain Funding
1. Always write an “excellent” proposal2. Discuss your idea with someone
knowledgeable in the subject/funding area3. Think of your proposal as 5 required
sections – ALL of which are important4. Reviewers are people too 5. Prepare a credible budget
Modified from Bevlee Watford
RULE #1
Always write an “excellent” proposal Read the solicitation and formulate an outline of
the proposal, giving them what they ask for Format the proposal exactly as they tell you to
format it Write simply and professionally Get at least TWO reviews of the document
contents
RULE #2
Discuss your idea with someone knowledgeable in the subject/funding area Listen to ALL feedback Trusted experts in the field Someone who knows nothing about what you are
doing Contact someone at the funding source and get
feedback on your idea
How Could a Meeting Help?
Your program director can: Give advice on proposal submission Help you understand a review of a previous
proposal Point you to resources you can use to help write
a better proposal next time Give general guidance on good proposal writing Give you ideas for collaborationsProgram officers look forward to
constructive meetings with PIs
Meeting the Program Officer
Send a short (1-2 pages) white paper prior to the meeting
Be prepared to listen (you don’t learn by talking)
Be prepared with questions or previous reviews
Remember, the program officer is not the panel
RULE #3
Think of your proposal as 5 required sections – ALL of which are important Goals: This is your great idea
What are you trying to accomplish? What will be the outcomes?
Rationale: The World needs your stuff Why do you believe that you have a good idea? Why is the problem important – who cares? Why is your approach promising?
What evidence can you provide that this approach will work What are the potential problems or limitations?
Rule #3 continued Project Description: Details of exactly what the “stuff“ is and how
it will be developed What are the specific project tasks? What is the timeline for each task?
Evaluation: Proof that stuff works How will you manage the project to ensure success How will you know if you succeed?
Dissemination: Describe “stuff“ using conference papers, journal articles, and web site How will others find out about your work? How will you interest them? How will you excite them?
RULE #4
Prepare a credible budget It should be consistent with the scope of the
project Each line item should be clearly explained Each line item should have clearly stated
relevance to the research
RULE #5
Reviewers are people too Identify the target audience for the proposal –
who are the reviewers? Don’t talk down, don’t talk over Make the proposal easily readable (font,
words on a page, length of paragraphs…)
The Reviewer
Make his/her life easier! Highlight key points Repeat things you want
them to be sure of tell em what you’re
going to say, say it, tell em what you said
Use figures/graphs where they can help make an obscure point understandable
space is limited, but this is worth it!
is in a somewhat related field, not an expert directly in your area;
serves as a reviewer over and above normal job duties;
conducts reviews in “bits-and-pieces” (evenings, weekends, etc.);
doesn’t always read the entire proposal.
A typical reviewer (on a panel) is reading a lot of similar grants in a short amount of time
21
The Reviewer
Reviewers have Many proposals
Ten or more from several areas Limited time for your proposal
20 minutes for first read Different experiences in review process
Veterans to novices Different levels of knowledge in proposal
area Experts to outsiders
Discussions of proposals’ merits at panel meeting Share expertise and experience
Strengths & Weaknesses Identified by Reviewers
Pretend you analyzed a stack of panel summaries to identify the most commonly cited strengths and weaknesses
List what you think will be The four most frequently cited strengths The four most frequently cited weaknesses
Predict the results of our analysis
Most Common Strengths Strengths Cited in More Than 20 % of the Panel Summaries
Important, timely, or responsive
PI's strong
Collaboration details
Potential for involving W&M
Dissemination, contribution to KB
Large impact
Build on prior work or products
Evaluation plan
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent
Most Common WeaknessesWeaknesses Cited in More Than 20 % of the Panel Summaries
Collaboration details
Large impact
Innovative or novel
Build on prior work or products
Potential for involving W&M
Dissemination & contribution to KB
Activities doable & related to outcomes
Evaluation plan
Sufficient detail and clear plans
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent