tamu-c grant writing workshop

10-26-06 Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)

1

TAMU-C Grant Writing WorkshopTAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop

• Presenter: Mike Cronan, PE (inactive), Director, Office of Proposal Development, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas A&M University;

• System Coordination: Dr. K. Lee Peddicord, Vice Chancellor for Research & Federal Relations, and Tami Davis Sayko, Associate Vice Chancellor R&FR, The Texas A&M University System


2

Office of Proposal DevelopmentOffice of Proposal Development

• Supports faculty in the development and writing of proposals;

• Supports center-level initiatives, interdisciplinary research teams, junior faculty, and diversity initiatives;

• Helps develop research partnerships at Texas A&M and among System institutions and the Health Science Center;

• Offers a full suite of training programs to help faculty develop and write more competitive proposals.


3

OPD Member ListOPD Member List

• Jean Ann Bowman, PhD (Physical Geography/Hydrology), earth ecological, and environmental sciences, [email protected];

• Libby Childress, Scheduling, workshop management, project coordination, [email protected];

• Mike Cronan, PE, BSCE, BA, MFA, Center-level proposals, A&M System partnerships, new proposal and training initiatives, [email protected];

• Lucy Deckard, BSMS, MSMS&E, New faculty initiative, fellowships, engineering and physical science proposals, equipment and instrumentation, OPD web management [email protected];

• John Ivy, PhD (Molecular Biology), NIH biomedical and biological science initiatives, [email protected];

• Phyllis McBride, PhD (English), proposal writing training, biomedical, social and behavioral sciences; editing, [email protected];

• Robyn Pearson, BA, MA, social & behavioral sciences and humanities proposals, support for research group development, editing and rewriting, [email protected]


4

Presenter BackgroundPresenter Background• Mike Cronan: 17 years experience at Texas A&M planning,

developing, and writing successful research and educational proposals to federal agencies.

• Authored over $60 million in System-wide proposals funded by NSF: Texas AMP, Texas RSI, South Texas RSI, Texas CETP , CREST Environmental Research Center, Information Technology in Science.

• Named Regents Fellow (2000-04) by the Board of Regents for leading and developing System partnerships and writing NSF funded grants to support them.

• B.S., Civil/Structural Engineering, University of Michigan, 1983 • M.F.A., English, University of California, Irvine, 1972• B.A., Political Science, Michigan State University, 1968• Registered Professional Engineer (Texas 063512, inactive)• http://opd.tamu.edu/people


5

Open Forum, Q&A FormatOpen Forum, Q&A Format

• Participants are encouraged to ask questions continuously;

• Participant questions will help direct, guide, and focus the discussion on proposal topics.


6

Presentation topicsPresentation topics

• Generic competitive strategies•Identifying funding solicitations•Analyzing the solicitation•Analyzing the funding agency•Understanding the review process

•Writing the proposal narrative• Checklist for writing the proposal


7

If you don’t write grants, you won’t If you don’t write grants, you won’t get anyget any

• Target the proposal at the intersection where: •research dollars are available; •your research interests are met;•a competitive proposal can be written within the time available.


8

OPD-WebOPD-Web Funding Opportunities Funding Opportunities


9

http://www.http://www.grants.govgrants.gov//


10

Receive Grants.gov Funding Email AlertsReceive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts


11

Search & Browse Grant OpportunitiesSearch & Browse Grant Opportunities

• http://www.grants.gov/applicants/search_opportunities.jsp

• http://www.grants.gov/search/agency.do


12

Search Grants.gov OpportunitiesSearch Grants.gov Opportunities


13


14


15


16

http://http://foundationcenterfoundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/.org/pnd/rfp/


17


18


19

http://www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.htmlhttp://www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html


20

http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=edinfo&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=0http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=edinfo&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=0


21

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/


22

Reading the proposal solicitationReading the proposal solicitation

The Request for Proposals (RFP) – also called the Program Announcement (PA), Request for Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) – is one common starting point of the proposal writing process.


23


Other starting points to the proposal process include investigator-initiated (unsolicited) proposals, or, common to the defense agencies, white papers and quad charts.


24


The solicitation represents an invitation by a funding agency for applicants to submit requests for funding in research areas of interest to the agency or foundation.


25

Program SolicitationProgram Solicitation

It is used continuously throughout proposal development and writing as a reference point to ensure that an evolving proposal narrative fully addresses and accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the funding agency, including the review criteria.


26

Program SolicitationProgram Solicitation

The RFP contains most of the essential information the researcher needs to develop and write a competitive proposal that is fully responsive to the agency’s funding objectives and review criteria.


27

Program SolicitationProgram Solicitation• The RFP is not a menu or

smorgasbord offering the applicant a choice of addressing some topics but not others, depending on interest, or some review criteria but not others.

• The RFP is a non-negotiable listing of performance expectations reflecting the stated goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the agency.


28

Map your expertise to the RFPMap your expertise to the RFP

• Is it a fit?• Is it really a fit?

• No partial fits allowed

• No wishful thinking

• Close doesn’t count

• If you are not a fit—don’t submit


29

You and the RFP need to be like…You and the RFP need to be like…


30

The RFP as Treasure MapThe RFP as Treasure Map

• Follow directions• Review step by step• Understand it• Understood by all PIs• Keep focused• Don’t wander off path


31

No irrational exuberance!!No irrational exuberance!!

• Understand the RFP for what it is…not what you want it to be…

• It is not a speculative investment…

• Invest your time, resources, and energy wisely


32

Contents of the RFPContents of the RFP

• Agency research goals, objectives, and performance expectations

• Statement and scope of work• Proposal topics to be addressed

by the applicant• Deliverables or other outcomes• Review criteria and process


33

Contents of the RFPContents of the RFP• Research plan• Key personnel, evaluation, &

management• Eligibility, due dates, available

funding, funding limits, anticipated number of awards, performance period, proposal formatting requirements, budget and other process requirements, and reference documents.


34

Reviewing the RFPReviewing the RFP• It is not a document to skim quickly,

read lightly, or read only once. • It defines a very detailed set of

research expectations the applicant must meet in order to be competitive for funding.

• It needs to be read and re-read and fully understood, both in very discrete detail and as an integrated whole.


35

Reviewing the RFPReviewing the RFP

• The RFP sets the direction and defines the performance parameters of every aspect of proposal development and writing.

• Read it word by word; sentence by sentence; paragraph by paragraph; and page by page.

• Know it well, both at the macro and micro level


36


• Clarify ambiguities; if unresolved-- • Get clarification from a program

officer. • Ambiguities needs to be resolved

prior to proposal writing so the proposal narrative maps to the guidelines with informed certainty.


37


A well-written RFP clearly states the funding agency’s research objectives in a concise and comprehensive fashion, and is devoid of wordiness, repetition, and vaguely contradictory re-phasing of program requirements.


38


• Not all RFPs are clearly written. • Sometimes the funding agency

itself is unclear about specific objectives, particularly in cutting-edge research areas.

• Where there is ambiguity, keep asking questions: converge on clarity.


39

Never be timid about contacting a Never be timid about contacting a program officer for clarificationprogram officer for clarification

• Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive grant process.


40

Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• The RFP provides the key instructions for the construction of a competitive proposal.

• It defines the expectations of the funding agency and the domain of research performance.


41

Role of the RFP in Proposal OrganizationRole of the RFP in Proposal Organization

• Use the RFP to develop the structure, order, and detail of the proposal narrative.

• Use the RFP as an organizational template during proposal development to help ensure every RFP requirement is addressed fully.


42


• Copy the requirements in each section of the RFP into the draft text, including the review criteria, as a template for the proposal.

• This template provides initial section and subsection headings to guide preliminary responses that mirror the program solicitation requirements.


43


Reviewers will expect to see the narrative text in the same general order as presented in the RFP, along with the review criteria, since that ordering conforms to instructions given to reviewers by program officers.


44


Using the RFP as a template to create a proposal outline makes it easy for reviewers to compare the proposal to the program objectives and review criteria.


45

Reading Material Referenced in the RFPReading Material Referenced in the RFP

If the RFP refers to any publications, reports, or workshops, it is important to read those materials, analyze how that work has influenced the agency’s vision of the program, and cite those publications in the proposal in a way that illustrates the topics are acknowledged and understood.


46

Analyzing the funding agencyAnalyzing the funding agency• Analyzing the

mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, and culture of a funding agency provides information key to enhancing proposal competitiveness.


47

Analyzing the funding agencyAnalyzing the funding agency

Competitiveness depends on a series of well-informed decision points made throughout the writing of a proposal related to arguing the merit of the research and culminating in a well-integrated document that convinces the reviewers to recommend funding.


48


• Funding agencies have a clearly defined agenda and mission.

• Funded grants are those that best advance the mission of the funding agency.

• If a proposal does not meet an agency's mission, it will not be funded.


49


• Having a "good idea" by itself is not enough.

• Good ideas must be clearly connected and integrated with a specific solicitation.

• The funding agency funds research that supports their mission.


50

Finding information on funded projectsFinding information on funded projects

• NSF Award Search Site:http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp • NIH Award Search Site:http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/

crisp_query.generate_screen • Dept. of Ed. Awards Search:http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/

grantaward/start.cfm • USDA Awards Search:http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/ • NEH Awards Search: http://www.neh.gov/news/recentawards.html


51

Analyzing the agency missionAnalyzing the agency mission

Funding agencies are not passive funders of programs, but see themselves as leaders of a national dialogue on scientific issues, research directions, and driving the national agenda through research solicitations.


52

Analyzing the agency missionAnalyzing the agency mission

• A strong proposal allows the funding agency to form a partnership with the submitting institution that will carry out the agency's vision and mission.

• The applicant must understand the nature of this partnership and the expectations of the funding agency, both during proposal development and throughout a funded project.


53


Knowledge about a funding agency helps the applicant make good decisions throughout the entire proposal development and writing process by better understanding the relationship of the research to the broader context of the funding agency’s mission, strategic plan, and research investment priorities.


54


• Who is the audience (e.g., program officers, reviewers) and what is the best way to address them?

• What is a fundable idea and how is it best characterized within the context of the agency solicitation?


55


• How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best supported in the proposal text and reflective of agency research objectives?

• How does the applicant best communicate his or her passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform the proposed research to review panels?


56

Analyzing the funding agencyAnalyzing the funding agency• Mission• Culture• Language• Investment $’s• Strategic plan• Org chart• Management• Program officers• Reports, pubs

• Web speeches• Public testimony• Review criteria• Review process• Review panels• Project abstracts• Current funding• Solicitations


57

Analyzing the funding agencyAnalyzing the funding agency• Differentiate between funding agencies

by mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, culture, etc.

• Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences and the physical, computational, and biological sciences may have research opportunities at several agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, EPA, but these agencies are dissimilar in many ways.


58

Analyzing the funding agencyAnalyzing the funding agency• Research focus

within disciplines• Research that is

basic, applied, or applications driven

• Research scope and performance time horizon

• Exploratory, open-ended research, or targeted to technology develop

• Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary

• Classified, non-classified

• Proprietary, non-proprietary

• Independent research, or dependent linkages to the agency mission, e.g., health care, education


59


• Differentiate between basic research agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA).

• Differentiate between hypothesis-driven research and need- or applications driven research.

• Differentiate research at disciplinary boundaries, e.g., social sciences


60

Basic research agencyBasic research agency• Independent agency

and management• Independent

research vision, mission, and objectives

• Award criteria based on intellectual and scientific excellence

• Peer reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit

• Focus on fundamental or basic research at the “frontiers of science,” innovation, and creation of new knowledge

• Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon

• Non-classified, non-proprietary


61

Mission-oriented agenciesMission-oriented agencies• Scope of work tightly defines research

tasks/deliverables• Predominately applied research for meeting near-

term objectives, technology development and transfer, policy goals

• Predominately internal review by program officers• Awards based on mix of merit, geographic

distribution, political distribution, long term relationship with agency, Legislative, and Executive branch policies

• Classified and non-classified research


62


• Agencies often speak in a dialect unique to them.

• Echo the language of the funding agency back to them.

• This is important in writing the proposal narrative, and helps to frame arguments more clearly and make them more easily understood by program managers and reviewers.


63

Addressing Review CriteriaAddressing Review CriteriaA competitive proposal must clearly address each review criterion, and the proposal should be structured so that these discussions are easy for reviewers to find, compare, and contrast.


64


65


66

Addressing Review CriteriaAddressing Review Criteria

• The description of review criteria is a key part of the solicitation.

• The description of review criteria is a key part and the proposal template.

• Make the reviewers job easier by using language similar to that used in the solicitation.


67


68

Understanding the review process Understanding the review process • When evaluating a grant application, reviewers

will not only consider the quality of the ideas, but also the extent to which the application addresses the funding agency’s review criteria.

• Therefore, it is important to identify these review criteria, understand exactly how the agency defines them, and determine the relative weight (if any) that the agency assigns to each of them.

• This information can then be used to develop an application that clearly addresses these criteria and that is therefore much more competitive.


69

Identify the review criteriaIdentify the review criteria

• Most agencies publish standard review criteria on their web pages and in each solicitation.

• Some programs will have additional review criteria specific to the solicitation.


70

DHHS (NIH)

Center for Scientific Review http://cms.csr.nih.gov/

NIH review criteria http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/basics/basics_b3.htm

NIH peer review process http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm

NIH review groups http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/

NIH study section rosters http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp

NSF

NSF review process, criteria Sec. 3 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/3.jsp

DOD

AFOSR review process, criteria Sec. 2.14 http://www.afosr.af.mil/pdfs/proguide.PDF

ARO review process, criteria Sec. 3 http://www.aro.army.mil/research/arl/arobaa06a.pdf

DARPA review process, criteria http://www.darpa.mil/body/information/proposal.html

ONR review process, criteria Sec. 5 http://www.onr.navy.mil/02/baa/docs/baa_05_024.pdf

USDA

NRI review process, criteria http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/pdfs/nri_review_guidelines.pdf

NASA

NASA review process, criteria App. Chttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/

proposer2005.doc

Department of Energy

DOE review process, criteria http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/process.html

US Department of Education

ED review process, criteria Sec. 5 http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/grantmaking/pt504.html


71

Understand the review process Understand the review process

• The review process varies from agency to agency

• The review process may include a peer review of outside experts from related fields; an internal review by agency personnel; or a combination of both.

• Most agency review processes share some common features. At most agencies, for instance, an application will first undergo a merit review and, depending upon the results, an administrative review.


72

Difference between NSF & NIHDifference between NSF & NIH• This is a fundamental difference between NIH's and NSF's

selection methods--by the end of the NIH review, applications are ranked alongside other entries according to an overall numerical priority score. At NSF, proposals are not given a numerical rating but are classified according to written "recommendations."

• Fred Stollnitz, program director at NSF explains further: "When panels review, [the reviewers] put each proposal into categories such as 'outstanding,' 'good and should be funded,' 'not ready in its present form,' or 'decline.' "

• A particularly vocal reviewer could influence the final rating of the panel or where the proposal should be classified, but because there is no absolute score, only opinions are noted in the review analysis report--not actual decisions. An opinionated NIH reviewer on the other hand could affect the scores an application receives and so alter its ranking.

Source: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/10/06/3


73

NSF review panelistsNSF review panelists• NSF panelists convey their opinions and

recommendations in a “panel summary.” They compose an overall analysis of review for each proposal that incorporate factors such as the panel summary, subject area, available resources, and the potential impact of the research. They then make final award decisions with the division director.

• Proposals that receive lower classifications by the panel can sometimes be funded over "higher rated“ research proposals because their overall assessment by the program officer is more favorable.


74

NSF review panelistsNSF review panelists• The budgetary consideration also plays a key

role in the decision-making process. “The program officer doesn't just make 'yes' or 'no' decisions,” explains Stollnitz. “They have to balance all those proposals that should be funded with the actual funds that are available.”

• Sometimes a proposal classified as ‘good and should be funded’ submitted by an investigator with minimal existing funds may be given the edge over an ‘outstanding’ proposal submitted by an established and well-funded candidate.

Source: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/10/06/3


75

NSF proposal process and timelinesNSF proposal process and timelines


76

NSF example review criterion 1NSF example review criterion 1• What is the intellectual merit of the proposed

activity?• 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 (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)

• To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?

• How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

• Is there sufficient access to resources?


77

NIH review criteriaNIH review criteria• Significance. Does the study address

an important problem?• Approach. Are the methods

appropriate to the aims of the project?• Innovation. Does the project employ

novel concepts or methods?• Investigator. Is the investigator well

trained to do the work?• Environment. Does the environment

contribute to success?


78

Developing the proposal narrativeDeveloping the proposal narrative

Contrary to what some people seem to believe, simple writing is not the product of simple minds. A simple, unpretentious style has both grace and power. By not calling attention to itself, it allows the reader to focus on the message.--Richard Lederer and Richards Dowis, Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay, 1999.


79

Craft of writing Good writing lies at the core of the competitive proposal. It is the framework for crafting and structuring the arguments, ideas, concepts, goals, performance commitments, and the logical, internal connectedness and balance of the proposal.


80

Charles Mingus on Grant WritingCharles Mingus on Grant Writing

Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.


81

Albert Einstein on Grant WritingAlbert Einstein on Grant Writing• If you can't explain

something simply, you don't understand it well."

• Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.

• Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.


82

The proposal is the only realityThe proposal is the only reality

A proposal is not unlike a novel or a movie. It creates its own, self-contained reality. The proposal contains all the funding agency and review panel will know about your capabilities and your capacity to perform. With few exceptions, an agency bases its decision to fund or not fund entirely on the proposal and the persuasive reality it creates.


83

Good writing is more than mechanics

• Strong, comprehensive, integrated knowledge base;

• Organizational clarity (stepwise logic/connections; sequencing);

• Structural clarity (integrative logic; logical transitions)

• Argumentative clarity (reasoning; ordering; synthesis)

• Capacity for synthesis• Connect, connect, connect


84

Good writing is more than mechanicsGood writing is more than mechanics

• Descriptive clarity (who, what, how, when, why, & results)

• Clear, consistent vision sustained throughout text

• Comprehensive problem definition; corresponding innovative solutions

• Confidence in performance and excitement for your ideas must be instilled in reviewers


85

Internal consistency & synthesisInternal consistency & synthesis

• A competitive proposal must be internally consistent by language, structure, and argument;

• All internal ambiguities must be resolved.

• The competitiveness of a proposal increases exponentially with the capacity of the author to synthesize information.


86

Internal consistency & synthesisInternal consistency & synthesis

• Synthesis represents the relational framework and conceptual balance of the proposal.

• It is the synaptic connections among concepts, ideas, arguments, goals, objectives, and performance.


87

Ideas matterIdeas matter (Slogans (Slogans are notare not Ideas) Ideas)• Shaping ideas by language is hard work.• Do not confuse slogans, effusive exuberance,

and clichés with substantive ideas.• Show the reviewers something new by

developing ideas that are clear, concise, coherent, contextually logical, and insightful.

• Capitalize on every opportunity you have to define, link, relate, expand, synthesize, connect, or illuminate ideas as you write the narrative.

• Connect, connect, connect! (E.M. Forrester).


88

Positioning to submitPositioning to submit

• Find an appropriate solicitation• Review the solicitation in detail• Assess your capacity to perform• Map your expertise to the RFP• Assess your capacity to write a

competitive proposal


89

Poor planningPoor planningEverybody has a plan--until they are shot atEverybody has a plan--until they are shot at, , Colin PowellColin Powell

• Match the RFP• Schedule a timeline• Start proposal early• Partnerships take more time• Collaborator compatibility• Let ideas develop slowly• No midnight warriors• Periodic calibration to RFP• Define and schedule

development tasks• Anticipate the unexpected


90

Poor Process PlanningPoor Process Planning• What do you control?

• Proposal narrative• Collaborators• Budget

• What do others control?• Routing & signatures• Budget approvals• Submission• Data requests• Institutional support


91

Keep focused on development tasksKeep focused on development tasks• Define and develop

goals & objectives• Plan narrative

iterations• Who does what and

when• Review and assess

progress of goals & objectives

• Budget process by task


92

Anticipate the unexpectedAnticipate the unexpected

• Some ideas don’t work out

• Some partnerships don’t work out

• Some budgets don’t work out

• Some proposals don’t work out


93

Project Summary/AbstractProject Summary/Abstract• May be the only section read by some

reviewers• Use it to give a clear, concise, and

complete overview of the proposal• Start with the global vision of the proposal • Provide finer grain detail: goals, objectives • Emphasize significance• Describes expected outcomes• Hook the reviewers


94

Proposal IntroductionProposal Introduction• Compressed version of proposal• Summary overview of response to RFP

• Vision/global response• Performance details linked to objectives• Integrate ideas and concepts• Connect multiple research strands• Explain how• Explain synergy• Explain outcomes and importance

• Roadmap to entire proposal


95

Resubmitting proposalsResubmitting proposals

• Take reviewers’ comments to heart, but not necessarily as inerrant;

• Assess next step:• Start over• Major renovation• Minor renovation

• Re-conceptualize


96

Write for the reviewersWrite for the reviewers• Reviewers are typically given multiple proposals

to review, and often tight timelines for completion;

• “While you may be viewing your grant application as the magnum opus of your life's ambitions and plans--for the next 5 years anyway--a reviewer sees it as one of six to 12 other "magnum opii" projects to evaluate.” (Source: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/12/10/6)

• The proposal needs to clearly present everything the reviewers will need to read, understand, and evaluate the proposed research project;


97

Intrigue the ReviewersIntrigue the Reviewers


98

Write for the reviewersWrite for the reviewers

• Synthesize key concepts and articulate the links-- • between the overarching goal and the

specific objectives, • between the specific objectives and the

hypotheses, • between the hypotheses and the approach, • between the approach and the expected

outcomes, and • between the expected outcomes and the

significance and broader impacts of the project.


99

Create reviewer-friendly textCreate reviewer-friendly text

• Divide the proposal into the required sections.

• Place the sections in the required order.

• Use parallel structure at both the section and sentence levels.

• Incorporate logical paragraph breaks.• Open paragraphs with clear topic

sentences.• Discuss important items first.


100

Create reviewer-friendly textCreate reviewer-friendly text

• Avoid the use of inflated language.• Use declarative sentences.• Define potentially unfamiliar terms.• Spell out acronyms and abbreviations.• Employ appropriate style and usage.• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and

spelling.• Run a spell-check and proofread the

application.


101

Introductory writing tipsIntroductory writing tips• The abstract, proposal summary, and

introduction are key—that may be all many reviewers read– and it is here you must excite and grab the attention of the reviewers;

• Reviewers will assume errors in language and usage will translate into errors in the research;

• Don’t be overly ambitious in what you propose, but convey credibility and capacity to perform;


102

Introductory writing tipsIntroductory writing tips

• Sell your proposal to a good scientist but not an expert;

• Some review panels may not have an expert in your field, or panels may be blended for multidisciplinary initiatives;

• Agencies & reviewers fund compelling, exciting science, not just correct science;

• Proposals are not journal articles—proposals must be user friendly and offer a narrative that tells a story that is memorable to reviewers;


103

The proposal introductionThe proposal introduction• Serves as reviewers’ “road map” to the full

text• Opportunity to make most important points

up front and organizes the conceptual framework of ideas

• States vision, concepts, goals, objectives, outcomes, and deliverables

• Briefly tells who you are; what you are going to do; how you are going to do it; who is going to do it; why you are going to do it; and demonstrates your capacity to perform


104

Beware of boiler Beware of boiler plateplate; don’t copy & paste; don’t copy & paste• Boiler plate refers only to the application

forms required by the agency, not the narrative

• Thinking of the proposal narrative as “boiler plate” will result in a mediocre proposal

• Begin each proposal as a new effort, not a copy & paste; be cautious integrating text inserts

• Strong proposals clearly reflect a coherent, sustained, and integrated argument grounded on good ideas


105


106

Checklist for writing proposalsChecklist for writing proposals

• Preparing to write• Developing the hypothesis &

research plan• Preliminary data & research

readiness• Writing the proposal• Post review process• Competitive resubmissions


107

Preparing to writePreparing to write• Understand the program guidelines in planning,

developing, and writing the proposal.• What should be your relationship with program officers?• Develop a sound, testable hypothesis.• Ask senior faculty to review & assess competitiveness of

ideas and research, particularly appropriateness to agency research agenda.

• What do you need to know about funding agency culture, language, mission, strategic plan, & research investment priorities?

• What do you need to know about agency review criteria, review process, & review panels?


108

Developing the hypothesis & research plan• Who is your audience (e.g., agency, program officers and

reviewers) and how do you best address them?• What is a fundable idea and how is it best characterized?• How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best

supported in the proposal text?• Can research plans be overly ambitious?• What are important distinctions to note between mission

focused agencies and basic research agencies in proposing research plans?

• Differentiate between hypothesis driven research & application driven at basic research and mission agencies?

• How do you best communicate your passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform your research to review panels?


109

Preliminary data & research readiness• What evidence needs to be presented to show the

proposed work can be accomplished?• What evidence of institutional support for the

research, e.g., facilities, equipment & instrumentation, is important to demonstrate?

• What counts as preliminary data and how much is sufficient?

• How do you best map your research directions and interests to funding agency research priorities?

• What do you need to know about research currently funded by a particular agency within your research domain, e.g., through reports, publications, journals?


110

Writing the proposalWriting the proposal• Who do you need to impress with your research?• How do you tell a good story grounded in good science that

excites the reviewers and program officers?• The successful proposal represents an accumulation of marginal

advantage accrued at decision points over a period of weeks or months to ensure the proposal is competitive for funding— • What are key decision points in proposal development?• How do you best plan and schedule proposal writing?• How do you use program guidelines as a proposal template?• Importance of good writing, clear arguments, and reviewer

friendly text, structure, and organization in proposals• What are other core competitive characteristics of a successful

proposal needed to complement research merit?


111

Post review processPost review process• Respecting views of peers• Response to reviewer comments• Discussion of reviews with program

officers• Discussion of reviews with senior faculty• Reviewing the reviews• How do you make an assessment of reviews

as a reliable guide for the next funding cycle?


112

Competitive resubmissions

• How do you best plan and position for a competitive resubmission?

• How do you conduct a reassessment of the intellectual merit and excellence of your research based on reviews?

• How to you assess if a research direction should be abandoned, or the research submitted to another agency?

• What are strategies for identifying more appropriate research directions and funding opportunities?


113

Finally…Be confidentFinally…Be confident

tamu-c grant writing workshop

Documents

new proposal

proposal narrativechecklist

proposal topics

research group development

texas cetp

texas amp

research partnerships

physical science proposals