1. Proposals & Getting Funded Richelle M. Allen-King University at Buffalo (SUNY) June ‘10 version updated June ‘12 incorporating thoughts from Michael Wysession & Richard Yuretich, June ‘11  Morning: The big picture  After lunch: Proposals

2. Choose project(s) carefully  It takes as much time to do research on a problem of low importance/interest as one that is of high interest/importance  Cultivate interesting and important ideas Collect ideas Allow time for review, winnowing and sorting, revision and improvementAllow time for review, winnowing and sorting, revision and improvement  Consider institutional expectations  Build on institutional strengths  Consider a collaboration

3. Build a portfolio  Use smaller grants to Build your experience & capabilitiesBuild your experience & capabilities Collect preliminary dataCollect preliminary data Build confidence in your capabilitiesBuild confidence in your capabilities  Mixture of complementary sources Federal, State, Private or Industry or FoundationFederal, State, Private or Industry or Foundation  Set realistic goals for # & type of proposal submissions It worked for me to set productivity ‘rules’ and stick to themIt worked for me to set productivity ‘rules’ and stick to them

4. Sources of support are varied  Find the organization or agency with which your project goals align  In kind, barter, scavenge, etc. can help extend available funds  Ask successful senior colleagues ‘who funded it?’ Within the institution, at funding agencies, at professional meetingsWithin the institution, at funding agencies, at professional meetings  Encourage research students to apply for research funds – success is good for both of you!

5. Lay the groundwork  People (reviewers, panel members, program directors) need to know & recognize what YOU do E.g. Presentations & technical meeting sessions, publications, etc.E.g. Presentations & technical meeting sessions, publications, etc.  WAVE YOUR OWN FLAG, when appropriate  Complete key preliminary work (e.g. proof of concept) with your students – of course (ex of a two-for, see next)with your students – of course (ex of a two-for, see next)

6. Professional Synergy  Balance time spent on complementary activities of research, dissemination (pubs & presentations) & proposals  Be strategic about professional synergy Build upon previous papers when writing proposalsBuild upon previous papers when writing proposals Use parts of proposals in papersUse parts of proposals in papers Organize a graduate or senior undergraduate seminar on your topic to stay up to dateOrganize a graduate or senior undergraduate seminar on your topic to stay up to date Key preliminary work can be the subject of a student project or thesis that leads toKey preliminary work can be the subject of a student project or thesis that leads to Conference presentationConference presentation Manuscript draftManuscript draft And, new proposal!And, new proposal!  Align your advising with your research when possible  E.g., senior thesis; class assignments  People (reviewers, panel members, program directors) need to know & recognize what YOU do  WAVE YOUR OWN FLAG, when appropriate  Complete key preliminary work (e.g. proof of concept) with your students – of course!

7. Know the program  What types of projects are funded?  What is the typical project budget? new investigator budget?  Request successful proposal example(s) from senior colleague(s)  Who are the reviewers? Volunteer to review  Who makes support decisions?  Contact the program officer when it makes sense to do so.

8. A successful program officer & her/his role  Is a scholar in your field (usually) who knows everybody & is formative in directing the scholarship of your profession. May be permanent or temporary.  Coordinates & runs the review process  Executes and/or makes funding decisions, depending upon agency policies contrast ACF vs. NSFcontrast ACF vs. NSF  Oversees grants, budgets, etc.  Solicits and facilitates highly competitive proposals for new ideas  Advocates for your field in competition with other research areas and budget priorities.  Is a busy professional & IS HUMAN!

9. Questions to ask the Program Officer (After doing your homework)  Does your program fund this [previously described] type of research?  What are the program budget and success rate? How many proposals are typical in a competition?  What is the typical size of a successful ‘new investigator’ project in this program?  What is the review and decision making process in this program?  Are there special programs for which I qualify and how can I be considered for them?  Are you aware of other agencies or organizations that fund this kind of project?

10. Plan ahead (Deadlines are closer than they appear)

11. Read the instructions & review criteria  Read the instructions completely FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLYFOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY  Read the review criteria critically Address EVERY appropriate point in the criteriaAddress EVERY appropriate point in the criteria Address ‘hidden’ points in the criteriaAddress ‘hidden’ points in the criteria Create headings that make it easy to answer questions about how the proposal addresses the criteria!Create headings that make it easy to answer questions about how the proposal addresses the criteria!  If they are unclear to you, contact the program officer for clarification

12. NSF criteria: “Intellectual Merit”  How important is it to the field? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?  How well qualified is the proposer to conduct the project?  Is the work potentially transformative? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?  Feasibility? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

13. NSF Criteria: “Broader Impacts”  How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?  How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?  To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?  Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?  What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

14. Suggest Reviewers  Take this very seriously!  Choose people who know your work, but are not direct competitors.  Be aware of conflicts-of-interest (collaborators on past projects, post- doctoral advisors, etc.).  Cultivate reviewers Invite to give a department seminarInvite to give a department seminar

15. Write & submit the proposal  Proposal content=subject of this afternoon’s session.

16. NSF Review Process  Program Officer Checks to make sure it meets basic criteriaChecks to make sure it meets basic criteria  “Peer” Mail Reviews (people like you!) Numbers AND comments importantNumbers AND comments important  Program Officer Decides on which proposals to have panel consider.Decides on which proposals to have panel consider.  Panel Provides additional feedback for program.Provides additional feedback for program. Often helps rank proposals.Often helps rank proposals. Some programs (AGS in NSF) do not use panels, some do not use mail reviewsSome programs (AGS in NSF) do not use panels, some do not use mail reviews  Program Officer Makes the funding decision.Makes the funding decision.

17. MISC  Volunteer to review and learn from the experience  Ask a SUCCESSFUL senior colleague for pre-review

18. Decline (& Resubmission)  It happens to everyone except those who don’t apply  Success rates are typically 10-30% But, many of these are resubmissions, so…Resubmissions are the norm!But, many of these are resubmissions, so…Resubmissions are the norm!  Learn from it. Take reviewer comments seriously (just like a paper)Take reviewer comments seriously (just like a paper) If they don’t understand something, assume you didn’t explain it well enoughIf they don’t understand something, assume you didn’t explain it well enough  Be persistent, but know when it is time to move on