1. 1 Grant Applications Rachel Croson, PhD Dean, College of Business UT Arlington (formerly DD SES/SBE NSF)

2. Grants are growing in importance Each granting organization has a mission NSF: basic research (transformative) with broader impact Each granting program has a unique audience Economics, DRMS, interdisciplinary Each granting unit has a process for evaluation Ad-hoc reviews, panel reviews, program officer recommendation Successful grants contribute to the mission of the organization, are written to be compelling to the unique audience and are in a format that enables them to be processed appropriately Granting Context

3. Money comes from Congress (political issues) Allocated to the various Directorates (SBE) Allocated to the various Divisions (SES) Allocated to the standing programs (Econ, DRMS, …) Percentage raked off at each level for new initiatives (sometimes via mandatory contributions instead) When budget grows, (almost) all the new money When budget is flat, standing programs’ budgets decrease “Getting our share” (back) Historically, standing programs becoming more competitive NSF Context

4. SaTC: Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace Social, Behavioral and Economic Science of Cybersecurity Proposals joint between computer scientists and SBE scientists Single panel evaluation, including scholars of both types IBSS: Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science Across SBE disciplines; must be a team (300K/$1M) Population Change, Sources and Consequences of Disparities, Technology, New Media and Social Networks Single panel, multiple disciplines Constantly changing; keep an eye out Interdisciplinary Initiatives

5. Proposals are submitted, “compliance-checked” POs solicit and receive ad-hoc reviews POs assign proposals to panelists; receive reviews Panel meets, looks at reviews, discusses proposals, provides recommendations to POs (co-review) POs construct recommended funding portfolios (may involve budget negotiations) DD concurs, grant is made to institution (not to PI) Grants office works with SRO to implement The Review Process (6 moz)

6. Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. 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); and b. 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 organization to conduct the proposed activities? 5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Review Criteria

7. 1. Start early (as much work as a paper). 2. Read the program solicitation first (they change). 3. Communicate with your program officer. 4. Read others’ proposals (review, benchmark, …). 5. Identify projects at the “right” stage. 6. Know your audience and write for that audience. 7. Ask for what you need, not more and not less. 8. Follow the rules. 9. Submit; you can’t win if you don’t try. 10. Don’t be discouraged (not R&R). Rachel’s Top 10 List

8. IRB International collaborations Collaborative proposals vs. subawards Data management plan REU and other supplements Working with your SRO “Moving” a grant Annual reports and other communications RAPID/EAGER/INSPIRE Other Topics

9. croson@uta.edu Thanks!