Grant Applications Rachel Croson, PhD Dean, College of Business UT Arlington

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

2. Granting Context • 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

3. NSF Context • 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

4. Interdisciplinary Initiatives • 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

5. The Review Process (6 moz) • 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

6. Review Criteria • 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?

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

8. Other Topics • 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

9. Thanks! • croson@uta.edu