NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants

1. NSF Doctoral Dissertation ImprovementGrants • Improve dissertation research • Provide funds not normally available to graduate students • significant data-gathering • field research • Not a “dissertation grant”

2. Know your reviewers

3. http://blog.vanns.com/stop-the-madness/e-reader-plane/

4. Who reviews? • 3 (relative) specialists and (potential) advocates • Many (10 or more) others reading • at the last minute • on topics outside core expertise • 25+ proposals • Proposal must be … • Catchy • Clear • Concise • Aimed at a (relatively) broad audience (but scientifically clear and sound!)

5. http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2010/04_16_2010/story7.htmhttp://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2010/04_16_2010/story7.htm

6. Substantive components • Project summary • 1 page • Needs a “hook” • 2 required paragraphs • Intellectual merit • Broader impacts • Project description • 10 or 15 pages • Use headers • Walk us through • What you will do • Why it is worth doing • How you will do it

7. Project description • Must hook reader from the beginning: catchy, broad-pitched, conceptually motived introduction • Core is clear, testable hypotheses • In context (existing knowledge) • Clearly linked to discussion of appropriate methods and data and strong argument that the proposed research will answer questions raised • Clearly thought-out plan for nuts-and-bolts of implementation • Must flow yet each section should “stand alone”

8. Context for improvement Biological (but not social and behavioral) sciences require a statement labeled Context for Improvement as a one-page Supplementary Document included with the proposal. • Details how NSF funding will substantially improve the overall dissertation project • Includes an explanation of the relation of the student’s work to that of the advisor, including how the funding requested for the proposed work will depart from funding for the advisor's own research.

9. Avoid … • Sound but uninteresting • Overemphasis on methods • A means, not an end • Great methods don’t save an uninteresting project • Poor scholarship • Lack of integration between sections • Bad writing, misspellings, poor use of headers

10. Use… • Clear, confident language • “I hope to show… • “I will show…” • “I intend to show…” • “A positive correlation will confirm my hypothesis that …” • “The proposed project aims to will … • Language to guide your reader • “As described previously (section 2a, Pilot Experiments) …” • “As noted in the introduction …” • Sharp, clearly labeled figures and tables

11. Other tips • Write ahead • Read examples of successful proposals • Get feedback from your advisor and others, including outside your core specialty • Use available help • Expect getting the proposal into Fastlane to take time

12. Know what NSF asks reviewers • Intellectual merit 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 what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? • Broader impacts How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does it broaden participation of underrepresented groups? To what extent will it enhance infrastructure for research and education, (facilities, instrumentation, networks, partnerships)? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?