1. CISE CAREER Case Study
Lucy Dunne

2. Agenda Caveats/context Timeline/prep My proposals/process
General advice: pre-award, proposal writing, post-award

3. My context Academic home: Background:
Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel (Apparel Design program)
College of Design
Background:
BS/MA Apparel Design (Cornell University, 2002/2004)
AAS Electronic Technology (Tompkins-Cortland Community College, 2004)
PhD Computer Science (University College Dublin, 2007)
PostDoc Computer Science (University College Dublin, )
Visiting Assistant Professor (Olin College of Engineering, Spring 2008)
Started at UMN Fall 2008

4. Timeline 5/2009: Visit to NSF to meet with program officers
7/2009: First CAREER submission
12/2009: Human-Centered Computing small submission (declined - competitive)
3/2010: Cyber-Physical Systems medium submission (declined – competitive)
7/2010: Second CAREER submission
9/2010: HCC re-submission (as medium) (declined – not competitive)
12/2010: Smart and Connected Health EXP submission (awarded!)
3/2011: CPS medium re-submission (declined – competitive)
12/2011: HCC re-submission (as small) (declined – competitive)
5/2011: ITEST Strategies submission (awarded!)
7/2012: Third CAREER submission (awarded!)

5. Visit to NSF/Program Officer discussions
Scheduled in-person meetings in advance
CNS, HCC (now CHS), ENG EECS
1-day trip to DC
A little like Goldilocks
Discussed a concrete topic/set of topics with each PO
Goal: finding a fit for interdisciplinary work
Outcome: a home for CAREER proposal and an additional topic

6. Submission 1
Topic: Overcoming the Comfort/Accuracy Tradeoff in Wearable Systems for Ubiquitous Sensing
Collaboration letters: Nike, Bakken Museum of Electricity, UMN med school lab
Ratings: G/F; VG/G; G; E/VG
Panel summary: Competitive.
Strengths: vision and “preparedness for career”, broad impacts of the topic area
Weaknesses: technical depth
Consulted with program officer following reviews – helped to understand panel summary ratings, how the proposal rated relative to other submissions

7. Submission 2
Worked to develop the original proposal (emphasis on technical depth) – same title/similar scope
Collaborators: Nike, local STEM magnet school
Ratings: G/F; G; G; G
Panel summary: Low competitive
Strengths: interdisciplinarity, originality/creativity,
Weaknesses: technical depth 
Pretty discouraged!
Took a break from CAREER for a while.

8. Submission 3
Last year of eligibility (submitted concurrent with my tenure package)
Pressure off, try for the long shot!
New topic: “Toward Pervasive Wearable Technology: A Cut-and-Sewn, Textile-integrated Smart Clothing Platform”
Collaborators: NASA (*but, coordinates with concurrent education/outreach grant)
Ratings: G/F; VG; VG/G; VG
Panel summary: Competitive (but panel divided)
Strengths: Unique, human-centered approach, “potentially transformative”
Weaknesses: Technical depth  
…BUT…

9. ….2 months of obsessive FastLane refreshing……
Submission 3
10/17/2012: contacted by program officer with request for more information (to be sent to POs and division director)
Divided reviewers: POs recommend funding, division director not convinced.
10/31/2012: Submitted response to supplemental questions
1/22/2012:
….2 months of obsessive FastLane refreshing……

10. General Thoughts: pre-proposal
Take a grantwriting short course
Try for a CRII grant!
Ask a mentor for an example
Read through the awards made by your target programs
(especially if you are interdisciplinary/tangential to the core domain!)
(know your audience)
Talk to program officers
Be on all the panels you can
Build relationships: industry, community, education
Plan to include budget to support these relationships

11. General Thoughts: writing your proposal
CAREER (and larger-scale awards) are perhaps the most fun – be excited!
If you’re excited, a reviewer may be too! (Win a champion, you’ll need one!)
CAREER scope: 5 years  rest of career (don’t write a “regular” proposal)
Find someone to poke holes in your arguments before reviewers do
Early results help a lot, otherwise make a strong case with contingency plans!
Don’t discount broader impacts, outreach, and engagement – NSF funds well- integrated careers
If your research topic is important, outreach/translation of that is equally important
And don’t fake it for the grant!
Develop and document your broader impacts just as you do your research
Make it as beautiful as you can (consult/hire a graphic designer if visual thinking isn’t in your skill set)
Other people signing up to your project (collaborators): social proof?
And can patch holes in your expertise/background
If your university/grants office is not expert on NSF and/or CAREER, make sure you’ve reviewed the whole GPG

12. General Thoughts: Post-Award
**Find a research/project management mentor
Plenty of institutional support for learning to teach – little support for learning to manage a lab!
Plan for re-submissions in your funding timeline
Being a good citizen helps in more ways than you may think (PI meetings, panels, things your PO asks you to do)
Work “pipeline” activities into your future funding
Recruitment can be a huge hurdle!
Keep your community relationships strong
Encourage trainees to get involved

13. The Rest of My Timeline 7/2009: First CAREER submission
12/2009: Human-Centered Computing small submission (declined - competitive)
3/2010: Cyber-Physical Systems medium submission (declined – competitive)
7/2010: Second CAREER submission
9/2010: HCC re-submission (as medium) (declined – not competitive)
12/2010: Smart and Connected Health EXP submission (awarded!)
3/2011: CPS medium re-submission (declined – competitive)
12/2011: HCC re-re-submission (as small) (declined – competitive)
5/2011: ITEST Strategies submission (awarded!)
7/2012: Third CAREER submission (awarded!)
9/2015: Computer Systems Research large submission (declined – low competitive not competitive)
11/2015: ITEST SPrEaD submission (declined – low competitive)
12/2015: SCH INT submission (declined – low competitive)
6/2016: CPS submission (awarded!)
8/2016: ITEST SPrEaD re-submission (declined – not competitive)
11/2016: HCC (now CHS) re-re-RE-submission (awarded!)
12/2016: SCH INT re-submission (awarded!)
2 proposals currently under review

14. Stay in touch: ldunne@umn.edu; @lucyedunne; wtl.umn.edu
Good luck!
Stay in wtl.umn.edu