Grant Writing Articles Nov 2008
List of Articles in this November Issue:
Grant Writing Articles
By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson
Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M University
Article 1: Role of the Evolving Proposal Narrative
Article 2: Writing the Proposal Introduction
Article 3: OPD “Quick Tips” on Grants
Article 4: Why Read Abstracts of Funded Projects
Article 5: Know the Research Context
Article 6: Obtaining DoD Funding
Article 1, Role of the Evolving Proposal Narrative (Top)
The fundamental requirement of the proposal narrative at the time of submittal is that it be a well written document that responds fully, clearly, and persuasively to the research goals and objectives and review criteria defined by the sponsor in the funding solicitation. However, long before the proposal narrative is submitted to a funding agency it plays a key role in the conceptual development of the proposed research.
The proposal development process itself is often somewhat akin to a slowly lifting fog whereby a continuous and relentless process of draft text iterations is necessary to gradually transform initially diffuse ideas into a tightly crafted proposal narrative. An equally important role of the evolving proposal narrative is that it serves as an incubator of ideas, particularly in the early stages of proposal development, and acts as a structure that imposes rigor, clarity, and simplicity on evolving ideas and concepts and their connectedness to operational and performance details. At the beginning of the proposal process there is often a significant amount of (pick your adjective) chaos, uncertainty, vagueness, ambiguity, false starts, and indecision, among many other indeterminacies of one kind or the other, about how to best meet the funding agency research objectives.
In much the same way as mathematics, or a computer program, help impose rigor, clarity, sequence, and simplicity on our understanding of the behavior of the physical world, language plays a similar role in the evolving proposal narrative. The key point is that ideas evolve, and do not appear magically fully and perfectly formed in the project description. Most often the ideas that evolve during the development and writing of a proposal originate in discussions among researchers at research development meetings. Sometimes these “brainstorming” discussions are predicated on and informed by a thorough understanding of the research solicitation by all participants, and sometimes they are not. Regardless, if it is determined that a solicitation is appropriate for the research interests of potential proposers and that a competitive proposal can be written in the time available, the path to the end product, a competitive proposal narrative, is often far from clear at this early stage of proposal development.
Bringing clarity to the proposal development process typically starts with ideas, concepts, and directions expressed verbally among researchers related to meeting the research objectives of the solicitation. Depending on the type of proposal, initial discussions, or even “brainstorming,” resulting in ideas expressed verbally can range from somewhat to very illusive, and become a real challenge when it comes time to translate ideas expressed verbally into language by a principal author, particularly since verbal “understandings” among participants can be both illusive and transitory. In fact, in the initial stages of drafting the proposal narrative there are often many uncertainties about the form the final proposal will take, thereby making the proposal writing process itself a one of iterative exploration that hopefully converges on a competitive narrative over time, i.e., before the due date.
What seems like a “good idea” at the start of this narrative exploration process can often be illusory. Epiphanies are deceptive because they lack connectedness and the appropriate balance and synthesis of ideas with detail. It is this conjoining of ideas with the performance details that is the real challenge in crafting a competitive proposal narrative.
However, this often painful process of translating ideas into the strict structure imposed by language in the narrative serves many important functions—
• it helps tame the conceptual excesses and unwarranted effusiveness that may occur among some members of a research team at the early stages of proposal development,
• it helps define the clear boundaries and scope of the initiative,
• it sharpens the focus and tightens the descriptions of concepts and ideas,
• and it forces connectedness among ideas, and between the ideas and operational details that transition ideas to research or educational outcomes.
In effect, the evolving proposal narrative helps transform ideas and anchor them in a common reality—the proposal narrative—a reality shared by research colleagues, program officers, and review panelists. In this regard, a proposal narrative is not unlike a novel or a movie. It creates its own, self-contained reality. It 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 narrative and the persuasive reality it creates. The construction of this common reality through a process of writing and rewriting draft after draft of text helps test ideas in a “language lab” in a way not unlike experimentalists test ideas.
Moreover, this process of defining a common reality and a common language through multiple draft iterations of the narrative is particularly important in multidisciplinary efforts and collaborations where a common structure is needed to meld disciplinary strands and make ideas accessible among collaborators of potentially synergetic but differing disciplines. One of the more common challenges in multidisciplinary research initiatives is the sponsor required vision statement, or similar integrative and synthesizing statement, that unifies the effort and makes the case to the sponsor that there are critical synergies inherent in several research strands funded under one research effort that would not be possible if the research strands were funded separately as discrete projects. The crafting of a vision statement or other unifying statement is as critical to a proposal’s competiveness as it is challenging to write.
In summary, the competitive proposal narrative:
• Synthesizes ideas and detail
• Connects ideas to performance details
• Develops order, logic, transitions, and connectedness
• Helps the timing, logistics, and collaborations of proposal development
• Integrates collaborators’ ideas
• Provides a common structure to meld disciplinary strands
• Makes ideas accessible to others
• Converges on a common language
• Requires persistence, continuous revisions, and many draft iterations to converge on perfection
Written by Mike Cronan; edited by Lucy Deckard & Robyn Pearson
Article 2, Writing the Proposal Introduction (Top)
Always take the time to craft a well-written proposal introduction. It will serve as a focal point not only for the proposal itself but also for project development and writing the proposal narrative. The proposal introduction is a means of translating into language the ideas and arguments that may as yet be unrefined and unconnected in the early stages of development, or not fully developed and structured on a logical narrative framework.
Writing and rewriting the introduction continuously refines how you think about the proposal, the arguments developed, the ideas, the goals and objectives, and the logical connectedness of it all. Start the introduction early in the grant writing process and keep coming back to it as ideas are put forth, or revised, or abandoned.
Continuously revise the introduction as a place where abstractions, concepts, and ideas are fused and sequenced with performance objectives and operational detail. The introduction needs to be a point of synthesis and clarity, that is concisely crafted during project development and grant writing. Over a period of weeks, or months on larger efforts, the introduction will start to take on a life of its own, representing a pattern of connectedness that maps to the following project description, the major part of the narrative. Return to the introduction when you have new information and revise it; return to it when you are stymied and the logic and direction of your efforts momentarily seems illusive, return to it to sharpen your vision.
The introduction gives the reviewers a "conceptual snapshot" that they will carry with them through the remaining text.
A well-written proposal introduction--
• Serves as a “mini-proposal” that concisely captures your core arguments for funding
• Serves as a roadmap to the more detailed project description
• Introduces and connects the vision, ideas, goals, research objectives, and outcomes
• Makes a compelling case for research significance and uniqueness
• Organizes the conceptual framework of the narrative
• Tells who you are; what you are going to do; why it is significant; 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
• Inspires reviewers to read closely and with interest the more detailed narrative
• Wins the reviewers’ support with a tightly crafted and compelling proposal introduction
By Mike Cronan
Article 3, “OPD Quick Tips” on Grant Writing (Top)
“If I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter.” Mark Twain
Writing to reviewers
• Sell your proposal to a good researcher 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 research, not just correct research
• Proposals are not journal articles—proposals must be user friendly and offer a narrative that tells a story that is compelling and memorable to 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
• Reviewers will assume errors in language and usage will translate into errors in the research
Role of the Project Summary
• Captures the interest of reviewers
• Defines the significance of the core idea quickly, clearly, and concisely
• Describes the connectedness of the core idea to specific research activities and outcomes
• Serves as a conceptual and relational roadmap to the proposal narrative
Charles Mingus on grant writing ;-)
• Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
The 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.
• 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.
• Agencies will not fund an idea not embedded in a convincing pattern of narrative detail and performance specificity tightly mapped to the funding agency’s research objectives.
• “There is no amount of grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but there are many ways to disguise a good one.” William Raub, former Deputy Director, NIH
• “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.
Albert 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
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
• Descriptive clarity (who, what, how, when, why, & results)
• Clear, consistent vision sustained throughout text
• Establishes confidence in your performance and excitement for your ideas by reviewers
• 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
• Synthesis represents the relational framework and conceptual balance of the proposal
• It is the synaptic connections among concepts, ideas, arguments, goals, objectives, and performance.
Why grammar is important
• Proposals are not graded on grammar. But if the grammar is not perfect, the result is ambiguities left to the reviewer to resolve
• Ambiguities make the proposal difficult to read and often impossible to understand, and often result in low ratings
• Be sure your grammar is perfect
o George A. Hazelrigg, National Science Foundation
Ideas matter (Slogans are not 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).
Beware of “boiler plate”
• 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 from prior efforts;
• Be cautious integrating text inserts
• Strong proposals clearly reflect a coherent, sustained, and integrated argument grounded on good ideas
By Mike Cronan
Article 4, Why Read Abstracts (Top)
Reviewing abstracts of recently funded projects is yet another way to gain information about the research interests of a funding agency from the perspective of what review panels and program officers viewed as successful applicant proposals. Typically, abstracts from the two most current past funding cycles are the most informative. This is particularly true when reading abstracts of research and educational initiatives funded by programs that have long running annual solicitations. The abstracts serve as an excellent complement to the program solicitation by giving examples of successful responses to the research objectives defined in the RFP. In some cases, particularly on institutional and educational initiatives, reviewing the abstracts of projects funded during the past two years reveals a core of programmatic elements and activities that are a common denominator to all successful proposals.
In some cases, abstracts include contact information on the principal investigators, including email addresses, and on educational and institutional grants in particular the PI may be willing to share observations related to developing a competitive proposal to the particular program, perhaps even sharing a copy of the funded proposal, reviewers comments, and outcomes of annual performance reviews. On educational and institutional grants PIs are more often willing to share information than they might be on a research grant. In many cases, e.g., NSF educational grants, there is an expectation by the funding agency of dissemination of results related to “best practices” in such areas as K-12 education, undergraduate research, and the like.
Finding Abstracts Hotlinks (CTRL+Click to follow link)
• NIH Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP)
• NIH Extramural Awards By State and Foreign Site
• NSF Award Data
• NASA NSPIRES Past Solicitations and Selections
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Grants On-Line Database (GOLD)
• USDA Current Research Information System
• Department of Defense (DoD): Congressionally Directed Medical Research
• Department of Defense (DoD) SBIR/STTR Awards
• Department of Education (ED) Grant Awards
• Department of Energy (DoE) Project Summaries
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grants Information and Control System
• Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Grants Awarded
• National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Recent Grant Awards
• Federal R&D Project Summaries and Awards (NIH, NSF, EPA, DoE, USDA, & SBA)
• Health Services Research Projects in Progress
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Learn About Proposals Funded By Foundations
• Foundation Center (Find Funders)
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/
• Foundation Finder
• http://lnp.foundationcenter.org/finder.html
• 990 Finder
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990pffly.pdf
• http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/tutorials/demystify/
By Mike Cronan
Article 5, Know the Context of Your Research (Top)
Successful proposals represent an accumulation of marginal advantage
Funding success occurs at the boundaries of excellence
“Good” is not good enough!
If the mantra of real estate is “location, location,” then the mantra of developing and writing a competitive proposal is “context, context.” Funding agency strategic plans and research road maps, national academy reports, agency sponsored research workshops, and similar documents all play a key role in helping frame the proposal narrative in a way that is more compelling and represents a more persuasive argument for the importance of the research, not only in the context of the specific solicitation, but in the larger context of the overall research objectives of the agency (see listing at end of this article of agency strategic plan URLs).
Moreover, reviewing strategic plans and research road maps, along with other research reports in your domain, helps you better map your research directions to the investment priorities of the funding agencies, an important competitive factor over time. Successful proposals represent an accumulation of marginal advantage that complements the core research idea in a proposal narrative. This is important because funding success at federal research agencies occurs at the boundaries of excellence, particularly in the peer review process. In this environment a good proposal is not good enough. An excellent proposal narrative that is competitive for funding requires getting everything right, including a persuasive argument on why your research advances the research objectives of the funding agency, from the fine grain context (solicitation) to the larger contexts (agency wide and national). Clearly stated and persuasive arguments placing your research in these important contexts represents just one more element needed to gain competitive advantage.
Why context is important--
• Understanding the research culture and context of the funding agency helps you to more knowledgably embed your proposed research plan within the research focus and context of the agency.
• Understanding the context of an agency’s mission, strategic plan, research culture, investment priorities, and the rationale behind them helps you weave a compelling and competitive proposal narrative.
• Understanding context helps you better describe how your research plan maps to the research goals detailed in the RFP and advances the agency’s larger research plan.
• Convincing program officers and reviewers that your research advances the agency’s research objectives is a key factor in the decision to fund or not fund your proposal.
• Understanding research context helps you better understand several key elements common to every competitive proposal narrative:
Who is the audience?
How do you best address that audience?
What is a fundable idea within the context of the agency’s research priorities?
How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best supported in the proposal text?
What arguments are likely to be most compelling in communicating your passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform the proposed research to reviewers and program officers?
• A good idea is required but alone is not sufficient--agencies only fund good ideas that are clearly developed and tightly linked to their mission, vision, and strategic plan as represented by the research objectives stated in the RFP and in the broader context of agency strategic plans and research road maps, which in turn are embedded in the context of the national research enterprise.
The following examples of agency strategic plans and research road maps represent one good starting point for developing a knowledge base that allows placing the research proposal narrative specific to a solicitation in the broader context of an agency’s strategic plan.
What’s New in Federal Research Budget: R&D Budget & Policy Updates http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/new.htm
Investing in America’s Future, NSF Strategic Plan FY 2006-2011
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/nsf0648.jsp
NSF Human Capital Strategic Plan
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/hcsp2008/nsf_humancapitalstrategicplan_0803.pdf
NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
http://nihroadmap.nih.gov:80/
NIH Workshops and Seminars
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/outreach.htm
Investing in Discovery: National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Strategic Plan 2008–2012
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/About/StrategicPlan/
NCRR Strategic Plan 2009-2013
http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/strategic_plan/online_version/initiative4.asp
National Center for Research Resources
New Strategic Plan
http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/strategic_plan/
DoD Strategic Plan
for Research and Engineering
http://www.dod.mil/ddre/doc/Strategic_Plan_Final.pdf
EPA Strategic Plan
Developing the 2009-2014 EPA Strategic Plan
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
EPA’s Office of Research and Development
Multi-Year Research Plan
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-yearplans.htm
EPA Research Strategies and Plans
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/htm/researchstrategies.htm
U.S. Department of Education
Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2007–12
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2007-12/2007-plan.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy Strategic Plan
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/strategicplan/doestrategicplan.htm
Department of Energy Office of Science
Genomics:GTL Strategic Planning
http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/strategicplan/index.shtml
USDA/CSREES
Strategic Plan for 2007-2012
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/offices/pdfs/csrees_stratic_plan.pdf
Agricultural Research Service
Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2011
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/00000000/ARSStrategicPlan2006-2011.pdf
Research Interests Air Force Office of Scientific Research
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080212-048.pdf
Defense Sciences Office Strategic Thrusts
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/index.htm
Army Research Office Basic & Applied Research Interests
FY 2007 – FY 2011
http://www.arl.army.mil/www/DownloadedInternetPages/CurrentPages/DoingBusinesswithARL/research/07r0003-02.pdf
Federal Laboratory Consortium For Technology Transfer
Strategic Plan For 2009
http://www.federallabs.org/pdf/FLC_Strategic_Plan.pdf
National Endowment for Humanities Strategic Plan
Fiscal Year 2007 – Fiscal Year 2012
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/strategicplan.html
National Endowment for the Arts
Strategic Plan: FY 2006 – 2011
http://www.nea.gov/about/Budget/StrategicPlanFY06-11.pdf
NOAA Research Strategic Plan
for FY 2003- FY 2008 and Beyond
http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/GreenBook/gb_documents/pdf_otherfiles/oar_strat_plan_062703.pdf
By Mike Cronan
Article 6, Overview of DoD Funding Agencies (Top)
The Department of Defense agencies that fund external research include--
• Air Force Office of Sponsored Research (AFOSR),
• Office of Naval Research (ONR),
• Army Research Office (ARO)
• Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
• US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command, which oversees the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP)
• Army Corps of Engineers
• National Security Agency (NSA)
• Important web sites for each of these agencies are listed at the end of this section.
Culture and Mission
All of the Department of Defense agencies are highly mission-oriented. The missions of AFOSR, ONR and ARO are related to the management of research that supports the goals and operations of their respective services (Air Force, Navy and Army, respectively). DARPA’s mission is to oversee high risk, high pay-off research that has the potential to greatly benefit any of the DoD’s branches. These DoD agencies therefore are looking for research that has a close connection to defense, and particular technologies and problems of interest are identified by the various funding agencies in Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program’s mission is to support medical research “to eradicate diseases and support the warfighter.” As such, the CDMRP differs significantly in mission, culture and procedures from the other DoD agencies and will be discussed in a separate section below.
Usually, time horizons for research to be translated into applications is relatively short. Program Officers in the various DoD agencies are given a large amount of discretion in making funding decisions, and having a relationship with the Program Officer is extremely important to potential applicants. Establishing a relationship with a Program Officer is not difficult; they are often receptive to phone calls and e-mails and are usually happy to discuss a potential applicants’ research and whether it fits the agency’s needs; they also attend professional conferences on research topics of interest to their organizations. One caveat to this is that once a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued, Program Officers are usually not allowed to discuss the program in order to avoid the appearance of giving any of the applicants an unfair advantage. This is another reason that it is important to be engaged with the Program Officer early, before the RFP is issued.
DoD Disciplinary Areas Funded (% of total research funding)--
• Physics (9%)
• Chemistry (9%)
• Mathematics (7%)
• Electronics (13%)
• Materials Science (8%)
• Mechanics (13%)
• Terrestrial Sciences (3%)
• Ocean Sciences (13%)
• Atmospheric Sciences and Space Sciences (9%)
• Biological Sciences (9%)
• Cognitive and Neural Science (4%)
Funding Opportunities (AFOSR, ONR, ARO and DARPA)--
The Department of Defense classifies research according to how basic or applied it is.
• 6.1 - the most basic research and is usually the type of research that may be funded at a university
• 6.2 - applied research and may be a continuation of 6.1 research as it comes closer to application in a defense system. This type of research is often funded at a defense company, which may partner with a university for the more basic aspects of the research.
• 6.3 - application research, where a new technology is applied to a defense system and tested. This type of research is usually performed by a defense company, perhaps in partnership with the potential user.
Like many mission agencies, ARO, AFOSR and ONR fund both intramural (internally conducted) and extramural (externally conducted) research. It is always a good idea for researchers aspiring to win funding from these agencies to get to know the internal DoD researchers who are working in their research areas. It is often expected that externally funded projects will be conducted in a collaborative fashion with DoD scientists; e.g., building on their results, utilizing specialized testing equipment at DoD labs, or designing components or systems based on criteria specified by DoD scientists. Furthermore, these DoD scientists are often involved in the proposal review process; therefore, having prior connections can enhance competitiveness of a proposal.
The defense agencies (with the exception of the CDMRP) announce funding opportunities in a variety of ways, including Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) – each agency typically issues a “Long Range BAA,” which outlines technical research interests and priorities of the agency over a several-year range covered by the BAA, as well as targeted BAAs, which address more specific competitions and other targeted solicitations. University research is often funded through unsolicited proposals based on the Long Range BAA. Web sites for the Long Range BAAs for each Research Office are given below by agency. Solicitations for programs targeted specifically or predominately for University researchers are listed in the section on targeted programs below.
DARPA differs from ARO, AFOSR and ONR in that its mission benefits all areas of defense. DARPA’s mission, according to its website, is “to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use.” DARPA does not conduct intramural research, but each of its Program Managers is given an extraordinary amount of autonomy in setting research priorities and making funding decisions. The Program Managers are often well-known researchers in the technical field they are overseeing and very often rotate into and out of their position at DARPA from academia or industry. As in dealing with the other research offices, it is extremely important to develop a relationship with the DARPA Program Manager before submitting a proposal. Furthermore, since DARPA’s interests lie in transitioning new technology into military use as quickly as possible, faculty researchers are well-advised to team with defense industry or defense lab researchers when proposing new research.
Unsolicited Proposals
Typically, a researcher who would like to propose a research project addressing research priorities outlined in the Long Range BAA contacts the Program Officer to discuss his/her project idea. If the Program Officer is interested, he or she will request a white paper (also called a preliminary proposal). White papers are short summaries of the project idea, and rules for white paper length and format can be found in the agency long range BAA or will be designated by the Program Officer. If the Program Officer likes the white paper, he or she will request a full proposal.
Targeted Programs
The programs listed below are aimed specifically or predominately at university researchers or at partnerships that may include university researchers. In competing for most of these programs, it is extremely helpful to have already developed a relationship with a DoD program officer and preferably to have been funded by the DoD on a related research project. It should be noted that one of the best ways to connect with an defense agency is to participate in a summer faculty research program at that agency, if they offer one.
Programs for universities--
• Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI)
• Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP)
• ONR Young Investigator Program (YIP)
• AFOSR Young Investigator Program
• DARPA Microsystems Technology Office Young Faculty Award
• Faculty Exchanges and Summer Facility Positions in DoD Labs
• Summer Faculty Research Program (ONR)
• University Resident Research Program (AFOSR)
• U.S. Army Summer Faculty Research and Engineering Program
• U.S. Navy –ASEE Summer Faculty Research Program
• Fellowships and Summer Research Appointments for Students
• Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) – for selected states only
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program (see also Funding Opportunities pages for each agency)
DoD Links--
• Defense Advance Research Agency (DARPA)
o www.darpa.mil
• Army Research Office (ARO)
o www.aro.army.mil
• Office of Naval Research (ONR)
o www.onr.navy.mil
• Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
o www.afosr.af.mil
• Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP)
o http://cdmrp.army.mil/default.htm
• National Security Agency
o http://www.nsa.gov/about/index.cfm
Written by Lucy Deckard
Article 7, NSF Tips by Lucy Deckard (Top)
Tips for Exploring the NSF Website (continued from Oct. 1 newsletter): Navigating NSF’s Award Database
NSF’s website is a treasure trove of helpful information for anyone planning to apply for an NSF grant, but as with most treasure, it’s helpful to know where to dig. This is the second in a series of short articles on where to look on the NSF website for those nuggets of information that can help you as you prepare a proposal to NSF.
NSF’s award search tool, which can be found on their website, can help you to identify the NSF program that fits your research, determine what types of projects have been funded by a particular program, and find out who has been funded on a particular program. To find the “award search” tool, go to http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ . Then click on the tab for “Search all Fields.”
The first field allows you to search for key words. You’ll note that you can search all abstracts for a key word, or you can search the project titles only by clicking the “Restrict to Title Only” box. This first field will accept the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” between keywords.
The second group of fields (“Awardee Information”) allow you to search for awards based on the PI’s name, a co-PI’s name, organization (e.g., the PI’s university), state, zip code or country.
The third group of fields (“Program Information”) allows you to search based on NSF Organization (e.g., Division, Directorate or Office), Program Officer, Element Code (a four digit number used to identify the funding source for the program), Reference Code (Programs by a digital reference code), by Program name, or by Field of Application (e.g., Chemistry, Climate models, etc. selected from a pull down menu). All of these fields except Field of Application provide a lookup box (to the right of the field entry box).
Finally, the “Additional Information” group allows you to search based on award date, start date, expiration date, award number, funded amount (in dollar ranges), and award instrument (standard grant, continuing grant, etc.). The toggle switches at the bottom allow you to designate whether to search in historical awards (grants funded prior to 1976), active awards (grants currently funded) or expired awards (expired grants funded after 1976).
The power of this tool lies in the fact that you can focus your search by entering search parameters in several fields simultaneously. So, for example, you could search for grants funded to Texas universities under the Major Research Instrumentation Program within the last 10 years. You could further focus that list by designating only such grants that were funded out of the Division of Earth Sciences. When you get your search results, you can then use those results as further leads. If you click on the name of a Principal Investigator listed for a program in the search results, the tool will bring up all of the grants received by that investigator. You might then notice that one of those grants is for a program that might fit your interests. Click on that program, and all grants funded under that program will be listed. Click on the title of a project of interest, and the award abstract will appear along with other information on that project. If you find a program similar to yours, look at the program reference code and field of application listed on this page, and you can use that information to conduct another search. You might also conduct a search based on the program manager’s name. The PI’s e-mail address is listed, and you might want to contact him or her for more information on the project. In this way, you can start with a very small lead (for example, the name of someone you met at a conference who does work similar to yours, or a keyword pertaining to your research), and follow that lead to the NSF program that best fits your research interests. You can also find out a lot about a specific program in order to assess if it’s the right program for you.
By Lucy Deckard
