1 / 30

Grant Writing Procedures and Proposal Review Process Overview

Learn the key aspects of grant writing and proposal review process, addressing merit criteria and funding decision factors.

duclos
Download Presentation

Grant Writing Procedures and Proposal Review Process Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Council on Undergraduate Research Dialogues Conference 2011 Understanding the Procedures Underlying Grant Writing and the Proposal Review Process Cedric L. Williams, Ph. D. Professor Dept. of Psychology and Graduate Program in Neuroscience University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA

  2. Overview • “READ THIS” Before You Begin • Getting Started with Proposal Development: • a) Successful Methods of addressing Merit Criteria • b) Tips for Organizing Proposals & Avoiding Pitfalls • The Review/Evaluation Process • Factors Influencing Funding Decisions

  3. “READ THIS” Before you begin: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg

  4. NSF 11-1 January 2011

  5. Getting Started with Proposal Development: (Conceptual & Empirical)

  6. Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts Merit Impacts

  7. Intellectual Merit • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? (The Project; IMPACT) • Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (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?

  8. Intellectual Merit How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? Are the studies developed to specifically resolve some theoretical debate within a your field? Will they provide new evidence to link existing findings? Can the findings be applied to understand other disciplines, model systems, etc. Are your questions addressing compelling “unknowns” in the field or simply validating existing findings (“we already know this”) ?

  9. Intellectual Merit • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? • Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) (The PI: INVESTIGATOR) • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

  10. Intellectual Merit Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) Current competitive proposals are Multidisciplinary Assess mechanisms at several levels of analysis, from behavior to molecules If you are not an expert in an area, have you assembled a competent team of collaborators? Can you document evidence of functional interactions between your lab and collaborators (papers, diss., lab rotations, etc.) ?

  11. Intellectual Merit • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? • Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? (Potential for being Transformative; INNOVATIVE) • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

  12. Intellectual Merit To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? Is this “BAND WAGON” research? How does your experimental approach to the question at hand differ from current or traditional approaches & techniques? Will your studies only CONFIRM rather than EXTEND current knowledge? Will your project address the compelling “UNKNOWNS” in the field?

  13. Intellectual Merit • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? • Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (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? • (PROJECT PLAN/FEASIBILITY)

  14. Intellectual Merit • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Are the SPECIFIC AIMS independent of each other ? Are the AIMS supported by strong Pilot findings or preliminary data? Have you demonstrated that you and your team have expertise in all experimental approaches associated with the project? Have you clearly articulated the advantages of your approach over currently used techniques or protocols?

  15. Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts ? Advancing knowledge qualified PI ? well conceived and organized creative and original concepts

  16. Broader Impacts • How well does the activity advance discovery & understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning? • How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? (Data Sharing/Management Plans) • What are the benefits of the proposed activity to society? • Examples of BROADENING PARTICIPATION activities: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

  17. Merit Review Criteria Broader Impacts advance discovery & promote learning Advancing knowledge qualified PI ? increase participation of UR groups well conceived and organized creative and original concepts broad dissemination of results benefits to society

  18. The Project Summary/Specific Aims An Important Introduction to “Your Ideas” • First page that program directors and reviewers read • What: Clearly state the research objectives first • Why: Is this research needed? Justification! • How: Describe the major research tasks and how objectives will be met • Who: Provide information on why you are the one to • do this research “OBSERVATION---QUESTION---APPROACH”

  19. Know your audience Hone your specific aims/research objectives Address all review criteria fully Address all special requirements Choose one or more trusted colleagues to critique your proposal (devil’s advocate) Check for compliance issues A Few More Tips

  20. The Evaluation Process • Types of Reviews • Source of Reviewers • Role of the Reviewer

  21. Proposal Review and Processing • Types of Reviews

  22. Types of Reviews • Ad hoc: proposals sent out for review — • Ad hoc reviewers usually have specific expertise in a field related to the proposal. • Some proposals may undergo ad hoc review only (at least three). • Some proposals may undergo supplemental ad hoc • reviews after a panel review. • Panel review conducted at government agency by peers • Panel reviewers usually have a broader scientific knowledge. • Some proposals may undergo reviews by multiple panels (especially for those proposals with cross-cutting themes).

  23. Sources of Reviewers • Sources of Reviewers: • Program Officer’s knowledge of the research area • References listed in proposal • Conferences, professional society programs, S&E journal articles related to the proposal • Former reviewers’ recommendations • List of reviewers provided by PI • About ten external panel reviewers per award are contacted.

  24. Role of the Review Panel • Discuss the merits of the proposal with the other panelists. • Write a summary proposal review based on that discussion. • Provide some indication of the relative merits of different proposals considered • (Ratings= E, VG, G, F, P or HP, MP, LP, NC)

  25. Factors Influencing the Final Decision of Program Officers

  26. Proposal Review and Processing Factors Influencing Funding Decisions

  27. Factors Considered in Developing Award Recommendations • Is it compelling, high impact science: • (launching vs maintaining) • Does it fit the Program’s scientific portfolio? • Does it fit the Program’s special missions? (CAREER; RUI; RIG; EPSCoR) • Does it impact the institution/state? • Are there diversity strengths? • Is there educational impact?

  28. Factors Considered in Developing Award Recommendations • Is it compelling, high impact science: • (launching vs maintaining) • Does it fit the Program’s scientific portfolio? • Does it fit the Program’s special missions? (CAREER; RUI; RIG; EPSCoR) • Does it impact the institution/state? • Are there diversity strengths? • Is there educational impact?

  29. Reasons for Declines • The proposal was not considered to be competitive based on the merit review criteria and the program office concurred. • The proposal had flaws or issues identified by the program office. • The program funds were not adequate to fund all competitive proposals. • The proposal was not a good fit for the program’s portfolio

  30. Revisions and Resubmissions • Points to consider: • Do the reviewers and the NSF Program Officer identify significant strengths in your proposal? • Can you address the weaknesses that reviewers and the Program Officer identified? • Are there other ways you or your colleagues think you can strengthen a resubmission? As always, if you have questions, contact the cognizant Program Officer.

More Related