Research Design: Grant Writing

1. Research Design: Grant Writing Jeffrey C. Johnson

2. Getting Your First proposal Funded is Like Getting Your First Large Loan Its hard to get credit without having a history of having credit! Its hard to get funding without having a track record of funding!

3. Somehow we all manage to get credit! Somehow you’ll manage to get funded!!!

4. 2014-17 J.C. Johnson (PI) ad C. McCarty. National Science Foundation. “Summer Course in Research Design in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences.” $157,00. 2010-15 J.C. Johnson , Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation. “Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology.” $324,293. 2008-14 J.C, Johnson (PI). A Structural Approach to the Incorporation of Cultural Knowledge in Adaptive Adversary Models. Office of Naval Research and Carnegie Melon University. $1,016,119. 2006-09 RENCI@East Carolina University, Coastal Systems Informatics and Modeling (CSIM) Cooperative Agreement with the Renaissance Computing Institute. Project Leader for Hazards and Human Dynamics,(approx. $200,000 from total support of $1.7 million). 2007 B. Christian, J.C. Johnson and B. Waide. Characterizing the Nature of the Long Term Ecological Research Network. (LTER) NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program. $6,626. 2006-08 J.C. Johnson (PI), J.J. Luczkovich, L. J. Clough, D. Griffith, and B. Cheuvront (CoPIs), Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Incorporating Humans in Ecosystem-Based Models of Fishery Management.” $121,694. 2006-08 C. Avenarius (PI) and J.C. Johnson (Co-PI). National Science Foundation. “China and the Rule of Law: Conceptions of Fairness and Justice in Times of Change”. $110,004. 2005-09 J.C. Johnson , Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation. “Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology.” $426,333 . 2004-06 D.C Griffith and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Developing Best Practices for Coastal Communities Experiencing High Levels of Immigration”. $93,742. 2002-05 J.C. Johnson, L.M. Clough, D.C. Griffith , A.V. Whiting, W. Ambrose and S. Jewett, Principal Investigators, National Science Foundation. "Investigating Ecological Change in the Nearshore Kotzebue Sound Ecosystem: Simultaneous Application of Traditional and Scientific Ecological Knowledge". $836,091.(Collaborative: ECU lead institution) 2002-04 D.C Griffith and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Stakeholder Perceptions of Water Quality". $75,835. 2002-05 J.C. Johnson , Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation. “Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology.” $199,908. 2002 J.C. Johnson and H. Vogelsong. UNC Sea Grant. Survey of Catch/Effort Data of Blue Crabs from the NC Coastal and Esturarine Landowners. $26,684. 2001-02 J.C. Johnson and H. Vogelsong. UNC Sea Grant. Survey of Catch/Effort Data from the Recreational Blue Crab Fishery. $4,521. 2000-01 J.C. Johnson, J.Luczkovich, R.Christian , and S. Borgatti. National Science Foundation. "Networking the “Invisible Colleges”: Applications of Network Theory to Biocomplexity". $54,000 2000-01 J.C. Johnson, D.C. Griffith, and L. Clough. National Science Foundation. "Relations Between Traditional and Scientific Knowledge of the Kotzebue Sound Ecosystem: Exploratory Research." $24,598 . 2000-02 D.C. Griffith and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant. "Local Knowledge and Scientific Resource Management in Changing Coastal Communities." $60,484. 2000-02 J.C. Johnson and D.C. Griffith, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant. "The Role of Social, Personal, and Institutional Resources in Understanding the Impact of Hurricane Floyd on the People of Eastern North Carolina". $6,500. 1999-02 J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation. “Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology.” $179,096. 1997-02 J.C. Johnson, L. Palinkas, and J.S. Boster, Principal Investigators, National Science Foundation. “Social Structure, Agreement, and Conflict in Extreme and Isolated Environments: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” $474,499. 1998-99 L. Palinkas, J.C. Johnson, E.E.K. Gunderson, and A.W. Holland, Principal Investigators, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Antarctic Space Analog Program.” $98,000. 1998- D.C. Griffith and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant/NOAA. 2000 “Assessing Coastal Population Growth: Project Needs and Management Issues.” $101,411. 1998- J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant/NOAA. 2000 “The Evolution of Marine Fisheries Policy in NC: The Implementation Phase.” $28,194. 1996-98 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant/NOAA. “Longitudinal Analysis of Emerging Fisheries Policy.” $46,973. 1996-98 D.C. Griffith, J.C. Johnson, and B. Garrity-Blake, Principal Investigators, UNC Sea Grant/NOAA. “Managing the Social Health of North Carolina Fisheries in a Context of Conflict.” $48,717. 1995-98 J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation. “Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology.” $108,000. 1995-96 J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigator, UNC Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Effort Management in North Carolina Fisheries: A Total Systems Approach.” $74,561. 1994-95 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Social Network Analysis of Emerging Fisheries Policy.” $43,873. 1994-95 D.C. Griffith, J.C. Johnson, and W. Clark, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Property Rights and Conflicts Over Access to Coastal Zone Resources.” $36,274. 1993-94 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, National Marine Fisheries Service, “Limited Entry in the Stone Crab Fishery: A Multi-Species Approach .” $87,007. 1992-94 D.C. Griffith and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Conflicts Between Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Over Limited Coastal Resources.” $34,210. 1992-94 M.K. Orbach and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Multi-Fishing Direct Effort Management: Development of Techniques.” $41,671. 1991-96 J.C. Johnson, L.A. Palinkas, and J.S. Boster, Principal Investigators, National Science Foundation, “Social Structure, Agreement and Conflict in Groups in Extreme and Isolated Environments.” $283,869. 1991-92 M.K. Orbach and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, National Marine Fisheries Service, “Limited Entry in the Stone Crab Fishery: A Multi-Species Approach.” $100,000. 1990-91 D.C. Griffith, J.C. Johnson, M.L. Gallagher, and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant, “Human Behavioral Responses to Perceptions of Coastal Pollution and Seafood Safety.” $93,703. 1989 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, National Marine Fisheries Service, “An IndustryDerived Limited Entry Framework for the Florida Spiny Lobster Fishery.” $100,699. 1988-89 J.C. Johnson, D.C. Griffith, and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Social and Cultural Dimensions Among Seafood Consumers: Implications for Consumer Education.” $42,324. 1988-89 D.C. Griffith, M. Pizzini, and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, National Science Foundation, “Wage Labor and Small-Scale Fishing in Puerto Rico.” $52,000. 1988 J.C. Johnson, D.C. Griffith, M. Pizzini, and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, “A Program to Increase Demand for Underutilized Species Among Recreational Fishermen in the Southeast IV.” $39,994. 1988 J.C. Johnson, D.C. Griffith, J.D. Murray, and J.S. Boster, Principal Investigators, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, “A Program to Increase Demand for Underutilized Species in North Atlantic and MidAtlantic Waters.” $62,446. 1987-88 J.C. Johnson, D.C. Griffith, and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, “Social and Cultural Dimensions of Consumer Knowledge Among Seafood and Seafood Analog Consumers in the Southeast: Implications for Consumer Education.” $25,000. 1987 J.C. Johnson, Project Leader, South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, “Communication Networks in the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery.” $8,000. 1987 D.C. Griffith, J.C. Johnson, M.V. Pizzini, and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, “Developing Marine Recreational Fishing in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” $54,000. 1986 M.K. Orbach and J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, “Socio-Cultural and Economic Research on the Spiny Lobster Fishery in Florida for Application in the Development of Limited Entry Alternatives.” $65,000. 1985 J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigator, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Marine Recreational Fishing, Marine Recreational Manufacturers, and Marinas in North Carolina: An Economic Characterization.” $6,500. 1985-87 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “The Movement of Commercial Fishermen and Vessels Among Atlantic Coast States: Management and Policy Implications.” $86,974. 1984 J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach, Principal Investigators, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “The Movement of Commercial Fishermen and Vessels Among Atlantic Coast States: Management and Policy Implications.” $86,974. 1984-85 J.C. Johnson and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, “A Program to Increase Demand for Underutilized Species Among Recreational Fishermen II.” $66,000. 1983-84 J.C. Johnson and J.D. Murray, Principal Investigators, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, “A Program to Increase Demand for Underutilized Species Among Recreational Fishermen I.” $99,959. 1983 J.C. Johnson, Principal Investigator, Sea Grant/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Social Networks, Information Flow, and the Adoption of Technology Among North Carolina Commercial Fishermen.” $16,527.

5. My Grant getting Experience: Total of 54 Grants NSF – 15 ONR-1 Sea Grant - 26 NOAA/NMFS - 6 NASA - 2 SAFMC - 1 Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation - 1 Other – 2 But I submitted significantly more and some up to 4 times!

6. So How Do You Do It • Find a funding agency that is appropriate • Initially you may need a cosigner, team up with a senior researcher • There is no substitute for a good idea • You need to know what the funding agency wants--You need to do an ethnography of the agency • Get examples of good proposals funded by the agency of interest • You need to write a good proposal • If you don’t succeed at first, try again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7. So Why Seek Funding?Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations • Extrinsic rewards include, for example, money, prestige, awards, recognition, perks • Intrinsic rewards include, for example, individual satisfaction, self-confidence, pride, freedom

9. Positive Aspects • Freedom to carry out research with adequate resources • Excitement of discovery • In a team setting, excitement of exchanging ideas and perspectives • Increase available departmental resources(administrators like this!) • Greater visibility for researcher and department

10. Positive Aspects (cont.) • Student support and opportunities for student involvement • Increase chances for attracting better graduate students • More resources available for attending conferences and meetings to present study results • Chances for more publications • Better opportunities for communication, release time, and equipment

11. Possible Negatives • Finding time to do the research • Putting in the effort of writing a proposal and getting turned down • Further demands on time due to grant management • Possible problems with recruitment and retention of research assistants

12. The Relationship Between Ideas and Sources of Funding • Should the idea drive where to seek funding or should the agency determine what it is you study? • Or, which comes first, the idea or the sponsor?

13. When Sources Drive the Ideas • Many federal, state and private funding sources seek investigators to put together proposals that address issues viewed as important to them • You can seek such sources of funding by reviewing various RFP’s (Request For Proposals), RFA’s (Request for Applications), or Program Announcements

14. Where to Find Such Sources • These days there are all kinds of tools available to find funding sources • Most major sponsors are on the web • Your university office of sponsored programs (OSP) should have access to whole range of traditional (Federal Register) as well as electronic databases (SPIN, IRIS, The Foundation Center, FEDIX, etc.)

16. If You Choose to Have the Agency Drive the Idea • Pick a topic in which you have expertise • If you lack the expertise, team up with those that do • Pursue funding under such circumstances only if you have a true interest in the potential topic of study • Be aware of restrictions and reporting requirements of the agency

17. Grants versus Contracts • Contracts generally involve specific reporting requirements and deliverables • Grants generally involve fewer specifics, but expect the project to produce various academic and applied products (this is the place where ideas generally determine the funding source)

18. When the Idea Drives the Source • Idea may be better--based on your experience, expertise, and interests • May involve a higher level of sustained motivation • Better fit • May provide more flexibility in carrying out the project • Higher likelihood of project success

19. Either Approach is Legitimate However, my preference is having the idea first, although I have been influenced by interesting program announcements to find an idea that fits.

20. Reflection on Strategies for Funding: Getting Known • You may need to start small (Small contracts with state agencies). • Solve others’ problems (contracts with state or federal agencies). • Seek exploratory funding (agency small grant programs like the SGER grants at NSF).

21. There are Multiple Stages to Any Good Idea • The original idea • Discussions of the idea with close colleagues and/or mentors--the idea should now have some form and substance • Is the idea novel? • Is it grounded in the literature? • Is it doable--logistically and financially? • Will it lead to significant accomplishments? • Will it solve a problem or contribute to some body of knowledge? • Are there any ethical concerns?

22. Further, Depending on the Source of Funding • Can you generalize from the expected findings? • Is it doable--from a methodological standpoint? • Do you have contingency planning--there will be some results even if the original idea is risky?(some agencies have programs for potentially risky research efforts)

23. Now That You Have A Well Thought Out Idea

24. Do An Ethnography of Any Potential Funding Agency • Check out the agency’s web site • Read the pages carefully • Look for special programs that might give you an edge in competition (e.g, programs for women and minorities, first-timers, faculty from smaller universities) • Read the agency’s guidelines • Read the guidelines again! • Seek guidance or advice from others who have been successfully funded by the agency of interest

25. Given you have a good idea you can discuss and have an understanding of the agency of interest • Contact the appropriate program manager/officer!

26. Things to know about Program Managers/Officers • They are in the business of seeking good ideas • If you have a good idea they are there to help you • They know and understand agency mission and priorities and will help determine how well your idea fits • They have all the most recent information (special programs, changes in submission dates, etc.) • They can give advice that may make you proposal more competitive

27. Ask For • Examples of funded proposals--if it is a federal agency examples should be readily available • Any letters produced by panels or other review committees(these may also be available on the agency web site) • Guidelines sent to reviewers

28. If At All Possible Establish Face-To-Face Contact With Program Managers/Officers! This can be done by scheduling meetings at the agency, discovering when they may be at universities in your area, or contacting them at conferences.

29. Side Note: Familiarity with program officers may get your name on a list of potential reviewers The more proposals you review the more you will get a feel for how the review process works and just what constitutes a good proposal!

30. Now you are ready to write!

31. Two Basic Parts of A good Proposal • Translating your ideas into an understandable,well integrated, theoretically and technically competent, and highly readable proposal • Crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s (fonts, page requirements, CV’s, etc.)

32. Who to send a proposal to in anthropology is particularly challenging! One’s epistemological stance will largely determine sources of funding and just what constitutes a good proposal

34. Most funding opportunities are in the systematic or applied side We will concentrate our efforts in this realm

35. Any proposal will eventually go through a peer review process of some type You should be aware of what that process entails! Although the agency makes the final decision, you must satisfy reviewers!

37. So what do reviewers look for?

38. NSF Criterion • What is the intellectual merit of the 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? • 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 the necessary resources?

39. NSF Criterion (cont.) • What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? • How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? • What may the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

40. Wenner-Gren 5 Questions • What is your research question or objective? • How does your research question relate to the work of other anthropologists? • What evidence will you need to collect to answer your research question? • How have you prepared to do this research? • What contribution will your project make to basic research in anthropology?

41. Given this degree of competition, the foundation advises applicantsto follow closely all the procedures for completing the application. For example, the research question or objective shouldbe clearly and succinctly stated on the first page in nomore than one sentence. A short sentence usually communicatesbetter than a long one. Applicants should also follow thedirections about font size (it must be 11 point or larger). Thefoundation reserves the right to return applications using smallerfont sizes unread.

42. In evaluating applications, the foundation pays very closeattention to the answers to the five Project Description Questionsand to the bibliography that accompanies these answers. The fivequestions, given here in their simplest form, are: What is your research question or objective? How does your research question relate to the work of otheranthropologists? What evidence will you need to collect to answer your researchquestion? How have you prepared to do this research? What contribution will your project make to basic research inanthropology?

43. Through these five questions, the foundation evaluates the qualityof the proposed research. In making this evaluation, thefoundation looks for four essential characteristics in theproposal: the formulation of a research question, an appreciation forappropriate evidence, a feasible plan for gathering evidence, and aconcern for the contribution of the research. The formulation of a developed research question is the single mostimportant characteristic of a successful proposal. Aresearch question should ask "why," "how," or "what" questionsabout a phenomenon of significance to anthropology.Applications are denied funding when they present a vast researchtopic as the object of investigation instead of a researchquestion developed from that topic. The proposed research shouldnot be presented as if applicants know in advance exactlywhat they will find. Such applications do not allow for"falsification," and there is a risk that the research problem willnot reallybe investigated. Applications also fail when they assert that theresearch will answer such a wide variety of questions that theinvestigation may not answer any single one fully and carefully. A well-developed research question also means that applicantsshould state how the research fits into and elaborates onexisting knowledge in anthropology. In what way is this researchoriginal? How will it add substantially to knowledge on thisproblem?

44. Appropriate evidence refers to the evidence needed to answer theresearch question or problem. The foundation welcomesall the methods of collecting evidence commonly used inanthropology: from quantitative to qualitative, from laboratoryanalysis to fieldwork, from survey to study site. Whatever themethods used, they should be appropriate for answering theresearch question. The application therefore should communicate aclose fit between the evidence to be collected and theresearch question. Too often in applications, it is unclear why orhow the particular evidence to be collected will answer theresearch objective. The result is a gap between the research goalsexpressed and the actual investigation to be undertaken.Applicants should make very clear what evidence they will collectand how it serves to investigate or to "measure“fundamental aspects of the research question. A feasible plan of research means that the research can beaccomplished. One measure of an application's feasibility is thepreparation made by the researcher. Has the required language skillbeen acquired? Have official permits and research visasbeen obtained? Have local contacts or academic affiliations been made? Feasibility also means that the plan for conducting the researchcan be managed in the allotted time. It requires that the fieldor laboratory site chosen for the research be suitable for the timeand funds available. Too often, applicants promise toamass so much evidence or to generate evidence in such a shortperiod that they seem highly unlikely to fulfill their promises.A feasible research plan with clearly defined procedures is muchbetter than one so encompassing that it seems impossible toaccomplish within the limits of the time and funding available.

45. Contribution of the research has to do with the mission of thefoundation and how closely the research fulfills that mission.The commitment of the Wenner-Gren Foundation is to support basicresearch in anthropology, and all applications thereforeshould indicate their significance for that mission. It is notenough for the research to "fill in" knowledge about a culture, asite,or a primate species. Applicants should show how their researchaddresses important theoretical and methodological issuesor debates in anthropology. They need to suggest how their researchfindings might clarify or even help resolve such issues.Often, however, applicants claim significance for their research interms of applied goals, such as helping to solve ecologicalproblems or to alleviate social conflicts. Although worthy in mostcases, these applied goals are outside the foundation'spriorities in funding. Similarly outside the foundation's scope areapplications whose research questions are not directlyrelevant to anthropological theory and methods. Applicants should not assume the foundation can intuit the contribution of their research to anthropology; they should make that significanceexplicit. The bibliography should list sources that are directly relevant tothe research and, in so far as possible, these sources shouldbe utilized in the body of the application. An enormous list ofsources not directly pertinent to the research and not used inthe application serves no purpose.

46. Some of Their Concerns • Does it Address a Specific, Well-developed Question Rather Than a Broad Topic? • Falsification • Originality of Research • How it Contributes to the Literature • Appropriate Evidence • Appropriate Methods • Relationship Between Evidence and Measurement • Feasibility • Contribution to Foundation Mission

47. NIH’s eight basic questions reviewers ask • How high are the intellectual quality and merit of the study? • What is the potential impact? • How novel is the proposal?(Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts or confirm existing hypotheses?) • Is the hypothesis valid and have presented evidence supporting it? • Are the aims logical?

48. Eight questions continued • Are the procedures appropriate, adequate, and feasible for the research? • Are the investigators qualified? • Are the facilities adequate and the environment conducive to the research?

49. This is the formal stuff, but what do reviewers really think and say?