Grant Writing Articles- April 1, 2009
Grant Writing Articles
Article 1:
Building MSI Partnerships, an interview with Dr. Ann Q. Gates, Associate VPR, U. Texas-El Paso
Article 2:
Navigating ARRA R&D Funds
Article 3:
Proposal Formatting
Article 4:
PostDoc Mentoring Resources
Article 1
Building Partnerships with Minority Serving Institutions:
An Interview with Dr. Ann Q. Gates, Associate Vice President for Research,
The University of Texas at El Paso
By Lucy Deckard
In addition to serving as Associate Vice President for Research at UT El Paso (a Hispanic Serving Institution), Dr. Gates leads the NSF-funded “Computing Alliance for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI)” [http://cahsi.cs.utep.edu/ ]. CAHSI brings together seven Hispanic-Serving Institutions to further Hispanics in computing through a wide range of collaborative activities and by building alliances. Their funding was recently renewed by NSF, and they are disseminating their concepts and approaches across other disciplines in sciences and engineering and to other groups (including HBCUs, women, and persons with disabilities).
Q: What advice would you give a faculty member who wants to establish a collaboration with faculty at a minority-serving (MSI) or predominantly undergraduate (PUI) institution?
A: As an MSI, we are often invited to participate on a proposal, but when the PI gets the award, we may never hear from them again. The question is: how do you make it real? It’s important to establish collaborations early in the proposal-writing process, not as an afterthought near the end of the process. If the project is focused around research, be sure the MSI partner is part of the different stages of proposal preparation -- idea-generating, writing, and editing. If the MSI partner is part of the education or outreach component of the proposal, then involve the partner in the discussion and preparation of that section. It’s imperative that the partner understands the proposed project goals and his or her contribution, and that the budget reflects those contributions.
Q: How can faculty identify potential collaborators?
A: When looking for faculty to collaborate with, you’ll want to look for a good match not only in interests and expertise regarding a research project or an education project, but also in work ethic and personality. Many times, the institution’s Office of Sponsored Research or a similar office can help you to identify possible collaborators. At UTEP, we have an “expertise system” that makes it easier to identify appropriate faculty based on their areas of expertise. You can also invite faculty from other institutions in as presenters for a workshop or seminar series. Get a recommendation if possible, and then you’ll need to have one-on-one discussions to determine level of interest in the collaboration. Involve the collaborator as you are building the team and defining the project.
Generally, there is a lot of interest among faculty at MSIs in collaborating – one of our university’s goals is to build outside collaborations, and these collaborations are valued by deans and chairs – but it does depend on the particular individual, so you’ll want to make sure that the person is truly interested in collaborating and that their goals coincide with yours.
Q: MSI and PUI faculty may have high teaching loads and may not have access to graduate students. When forming a research collaboration, how should the PI deal with those issues?
A: From the Research 1 institution’s perspective, there can be concern that they may bring in a partner, but then the partner is not able to perform the work because of workload or lack of student support. This is another reason why it is very important that the MSI partner is involved in the planning. They should be given clear direction and clear deliverables. Include the partner in regular meetings of the research group. This should be part of the management plan.
At a PUI, the workload for the faculty can be a challenge. It is important when planning the project to make sure tasks can be identified that are appropriate in scope for PUI faculty who have heavy teaching loads and no access to graduate students. For example, it may be that data collection could be incorporated into a class, or undergraduate students might be paid a stipend to help collect data. All of this is part of the negotiation process. For example, in our Computing Alliance, Miami Dade College faculty have large teaching loads during the academic year, but they have 2 months off in the summer when they can go to the host institution and conduct research. This can be planned into the project.
NSF has the Research Opportunity Award (ROA) Supplement which will provide funds for a faculty member from a predominantly undergraduate institution or community college to conduct collaborative research as a visiting scientist at the PI’s institution (for example, over the summer). This can be a great way to help faculty to develop their expertise and to build collaborations that can be expanded in future projects.
Question: Many times a diversity goal at a research university is to recruit more diverse graduate students; however, when an MSI has a PhD program, would we appear to be “poaching” on their students if we propose collaborating in order to bring undergrads here for grad school?
A: We always encourage our students to go to the best graduate program that matches their interests. However, it often happens that for other reasons – family reasons, for example – our students elect to stay here for graduate school. In that case, what I call a “hybrid model” can work, where the PhD student works in a lab at their home institution and in a lab at a host institution during another part of the year. The PhD students from the MSI could be placed on the project budget to support this effort. This can be a great way to establish collaborations between faculty. I have used this model, and it has been effective. For example, a PhD student worked at a laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania for two consecutive summers--I had funding to pay for one summer and U Penn requested a supplement to fund the student for the second summer.
Q: Are there things the PI can do after the project is funded to help the collaboration be successful?
A: Once you’ve built your team, you need to make sure it is a real collaboration. Have an “all-hands” meeting at least once a year. Regular telephone conference calls also are important, although face-to-face meeting time is essential to build an effective team. As I said earlier, be sure expectations are clear and keep members of the team in the loop. Valuing members’ contribution is an important step in establishing a successful collaboration.
Q: Do you have any other advice?
A: I want to emphasize again how important it is to include MSI or PUI faculty early in the planning process. As a reviewer, I often ask – is the collaboration real? It should not be just the standard, “we will give an MSI faculty member access to this instrument.” This doesn’t show a real exchange. The collaboration needs to benefit both parties involved and address broadening participation.
Also, before you write a proposal, think about your core purpose. Why do you want to do the things you’re proposing? Why are you including a minority serving institution? What does broadening participation mean to you? If you are a young faculty member – where is your passion? Do something you care about, whether it’s related to building new curriculum, doing outreach to K-12, or working with the community. Reflecting on your core purpose will help guide the decisions you make and hopefully the collaborations you seek.
Article 2
Navigating Recovery Funds— Allocations, Award Mechanisms, and Award Processes
By Mike Cronan
Of the $21.5 billion in R&D funding of interest to universities under the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, aka Recovery Act, Stimulus Bill), nearly two-thirds goes to the National Institutes of Health ($10.4 B) and the National Science Foundation ($3 B). Lesser amounts go to agencies such as NOAA, NASA, DOE, and NIST, but much of that money is not specific to research, and may be used for both intramural and extramural research.
There are three key questions related to R&D funded under ARRA:
• How will the ARRA R&D money be allocated among federal agencies and programmatically within each agency?
• How will each agency award the money, e.g., solicitations, supplements, non-funded but well reviewed proposals in-house, etc.?
• Are there important competitive factors PIs need to be aware of in applying for research funding under the ARRA program, e.g., special review criteria?
On February 17, 2009, the day after ARRA was signed into law, OMB sent a Detailed Memo to agencies receiving funds from the act on meeting expectations for transparency and accountability. Since then, R&D agencies have established their own Recovery Act Web Pages and submitted initial Weekly Reports. These reports contain information on funding, major actions taken so far, and those actions planned for the near-term. Starting on Tuesday March 3rd, and each Tuesday thereafter through May 12th, agencies receiving Recovery Act funds will be submitting weekly cumulative reports detailing their latest recovery activities.
Tracking ARRA research funding solicitations and award processes at NSF and NIH is of major importance. These two agencies have over $13 billion in additional research funding available under ARRA, and the value of research funding from these two very competitive agencies is enormous.
A presentation on ARRA by the Grants Resources Center of AASCU, Aligning Funding Strategies with Federal Priorities, gives an excellent overview of this R&D environment for universities. The House Committee on Science and Technology Web posts ARRA information that comes before the committee and offers RSS feeds in several categories of information.
The NSF Recovery Web and the NSF Recovery RSS Feed are two key sources of information that are continually updated. This is where NSF will post important information on the specifics of ARRA funding opportunities and the award process at that agency. For example, the recently posted (March 18) document NSF Important Notice To Presidents Of Universities And Colleges American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 lays out the NSF plan for expenditure of the ARRA funds. On March 27 NSF described in more detail how it intends to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In these documents, NSF indicates $2 billion in ARRA funding will be awarded to proposals that are already in house.
The NIH Recovery Web and the NIH ARRA Grant Funding Opportunities web lists solicitations, notices, resources and FAQ’s specific to NIH implementation of ARRA. The ARRA also provides $1 billion to the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) to support extramural construction, repairs, and alterations in support of all NIH-funded research institutions and $300 million for shared instrumentation and other capital equipment to support all NIH activities. Web sites to support the application process and the writing of a competitive proposal are key; for example, NCRR’s Applicant Help: ARRA/Recovery Act Construction Programs.
At NIH, it is important to look at all Institute and Center web sites for more specific information on how the Recovery Act will be implemented. A comprehensive listing of NIH web sites is at: NIH Institute & Center Web Sites for Supplements and Revisions to Active NIH Grants with Recovery Act Funds. For example, NIAID Funding News and Recent Changes to the NIAID and the Economic Recovery Act Section are continually updated with new information related to ARRA. Finally, agency postings on the review process that will be used for ARRA funded initiatives is central to competitiveness: Recovery Act of 2009: NIH Review Criteria, Scoring System, and Suspension of Appeals Process.
The Grants.gov Web is a principal portal for Recovery Act solicitations and has a hotlink for listing all Recovery Act Information and Recovery Act Funding Opportunities. However, since some Recovery Act solicitations may compress the timeline between the publication of a funding opportunity and the due date, using the RSS feeds from NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices and NSF New Program Announcements and Information, as well as the Grants.gov RSS Feed by Agency and the Grants.gov RSS Feed By Category, ensures a more timely distribution of research funding opportunities available under the Recovery Act than using the Grants.gov Daily Email Alerts and other daily or weekly email alerts.
The goal of all of this ARRA information tracking is to maximize the time available for developing and writing a competitive proposal by minimizing the time a research opportunity takes to come to the attention of potential applicants. This internal urgency is amplified in the case of limited submission proposals such as the core facility renovation and research facilities solicitations from NCRR. RSS feeds are one mechanism that can capture valuable time to the benefit of principal investigators seeking Recovery Act funding, or any research or educational funding.
Once a system of RSS feeds, email notifications, and listings of key Recovery Site URLs specific to agency is set up it is a fairly easy task to track this information in real time. However, it is always helpful to calibrate any information tracking system with other university research sites that are addressing the same issues. Over the past month ARRA tracking web sites at other universities and research associations have proliferated and are too numerous to list here, but a Google search on these or some variant of “vpr arra tracking web sites “ or “osp recovery act funding opportunities” will typically give an extensive list.
Article 3
Proposal Formatting Strategies- Keeping the “Monster” in Control
by Robyn Pearson & John Ivy
Computers allow us to create professional, polished proposals, complete with photographs, graphics, and tables, as well as specialized fonts and symbols. However, this advantage can sometimes become a disadvantage, especially if you are writing a complex grant with multiple investigators. A multi-investigator proposal typically involves multiple writers – each with their own style of writing and sometimes using different computing platforms or software. In particular, center-level grant proposals may be quite lengthy; when chock-full of tables and graphics, these documents can be very user-UNfriendly, slowing down your computer or bouncing back when e-mailed. Whether a proposal is large or small, the document can still grow out of control when several people are asked to review it and add comments or suggest changes. It’s useful to have a single person serve as the document master-keeper; this person is responsible for assembling the document and incorporating all revisions and insertions from the whole team. Below are some additional strategies to help keep the “monster” in control, while still producing a sharp, professional, and competitive grant application.
Headings and subheadings. Use headings and subheadings wisely; keep them simple, yet descriptive, and consistently formatted throughout. Some writers have a preference for numerical headings, but it can be distracting when a section or paragraph begins with 3.1.a.ii.b and is indented halfway across the page. It’s easier on the eyes and easier for reviewers to locate a particular section when headings are on the left, flush with or close to the margin, and formatted to stand out by using all caps, boldface, italics, or underlining.
Formatting. For a multi-authored proposal, send each writer a “style guide” or template. Based on the agency’s formatting requirements, make sure your team knows what the margins are, what font and font size to use, and how to format their headings and subheadings. A style guide might also be used to identify a minimal set of acronyms and abbreviations that you know you will use. While using too many acronyms or abbreviations can be distracting, it can be even worse if these are used incorrectly or inconsistently. As a team, you should agree early in the writing process on how to cite references in the narrative and how they will be formatted in the References Cited section. Also, decide how figures and tables will be numbered and referenced (i.e., sequentially or by section, 2.1, 2.2, etc.). Having a few simple guidelines in place that are consistently followed by each writer from one draft to the next can make the final document assembly much more efficient. It can also be extremely helpful to junior faculty who may not have as much grant writing experience as other team members.
Figures and graphics. A picture may be worth a thousand words, or in this computer age, one or more megabytes. Insertion of images or graphics that dramatically increase the overall file size of your proposal can easily contribute to an out-of-control monster document. Pay close attention to the resolution of photographs and do a comparison; if a lower resolution is just as effective in your document, then use the lower resolution, especially if your proposal includes numerous figures. For example, a large, high-resolution photograph, when displayed as a 2”x3” figure within your proposal, may contribute significantly to file size, but much of the fine detail will not be displayed. Consider reducing the image size of the photograph with image manipulation software before inserting it into your proposal document. Also, many people use PowerPoint to create flow charts and other graphics without realizing that their beautiful slide will have to be reduced to perhaps a 3”x5” figure, thus rendering it illegible. Even when reduced in size, these images can still use a lot of memory.
Sometimes, your document file size becomes unavoidably immense in spite of your best efforts to reduce graphic image sizes. To avoid having to transmit files that are scores of megabytes in size (which some computer systems will automatically block due to their size), one suggestion is to pull figures and tables out of the document and save them in a separate file. Then, send the narrative in one document, and the figures, etc., in a separate document, perhaps as a .pdf file which can be considerably smaller in terms of file size. This will allow your collaborators simple access to a user-friendly narrative, while still being able to view the graphics. It also lets them add comments or new sections to the narrative without the hassle of figures or tables jumping from one page to the next. When all sections are received, comments addressed, and you have a nearly final document, it’s much easier at that point to insert figures and tables where they belong in the document.
Tables. It’s rare for a proposal not to include a table or two, but a sloppy table or one with ambiguous column or row headings can be very ineffective in communicating with your reviewers. Make sure your tables are neat and concise. Some tables call for the same data to be presented in different categories; for example, student enrollment by year, gender, and ethnicity across multiple departments. Here, breaking the departments out by section and using colors or gray shading to highlight the separate departments can result in a visually appealing table with easy-to-find data. Often, proposal writers want to reduce the font size in tables, which is perfectly acceptable to most granting agencies as long as it is still easily read. When you have to use a smaller font in a table or graphic, and if it’s within the agency’s guidelines, use a sans serif font such as Arial or Helvetica. This will be much easier to read, for example, in an 8- or 9-point font than Times New Roman or other serif fonts.
Meeting page length requirements. How many times have you reached that point of declaring your proposal finished, except for that extra half page you need to cut in order to meet the agency’s page limit? In this all-too-frequent scenario, using a few simple formatting strategies before you start deleting sentences or paragraphs can save you time and frustration. Start by using search-and-replace to change double spaces following periods to single spaces. You may have been taught to follow a period with two spaces when you learned to type on a typewriter, but with modern proportional fonts commonly used with computers today, two spaces really aren’t necessary. In a 15-page proposal, this technique can sometimes shorten the document by as much as 4-5 lines of text.
We’ve all heard that leaving plenty of white space in a proposal makes it visually appealing and easier to read, so many proposal writers insert a blank line between paragraphs using the Enter key. A blank line inserted this way varies from 1-2 points greater than the font size you are using (other factors come into play, including which font you are using). For example, if you’re using Arial 12 pt, blank lines made with the Enter key really measure about 14.4 pt. You can reduce spacing between paragraphs by removing those blank lines and formatting the paragraphs to specify the blank space before (or after) each paragraph. Instead of a blank line using up ~14 pt, you can change it to 6 pt, 3 pt, or whatever value you want to assign. There will still be a break between paragraphs, but it won’t take up as much room. You can even estimate how many lines of text you can save using this technique. For example, if your proposal is 10 pages and you average 5 paragraphs per page, you will have 4 blank lines per page. By reducing the space between paragraphs from 14 point to 6 point, you gain about 2 lines per page, or about 20 lines of text for the 10 page document. In those situations when you’re over the page limit by a page or more, you may want to totally eliminate spacing between paragraphs and indent the first line of each paragraph. Then, rather than using 0.5-inch indentation for paragraphs, try 0.25-inch instead.
Last but not least, reread your text for unnecessary articles of speech – e.g., “the” or “in order to” are frequently overused. Many sentences start with “The” when it’s totally unnecessary. Your goal is to look for paragraphs with just a few words of text on the bottom line. Instead of writing, “The goal of our proposed research is to…” or “The use of…”, try a shorter version: “Our goal is to ….” or “Use of…”, respectively. Sometimes, just changing a few words can bring those straggling words up and save you a line of text. While some of these methods may take a little time to implement, they’re not nearly as painful or time consuming as cutting your already carefully worded and reviewed proposal.
In today’s competitive funding environment, producing a professional, multi-investigator proposal can be quite an undertaking. Establishing formatting guidelines early in the drafting process and using strategies designed to “control the monster” can make the final document assembly proceed much more smoothly, while helping your team produce a stronger proposal with a greater chance of success.
Article 4
Resources for Developing a Mentoring Plan for Postdoctoral Researchers
By Lucy Deckard
When the US Congress passed the America COMPETES act in 2007, one requirement of that law was that NSF require all grant applications that request funding for postdoctoral researchers include a description of activities planned to mentor those postdocs. This requirement was incorporated into the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) that went into effect on January 1st, 2009. Therefore, if you include funding for a postdoc in your NSF proposal budget, you must also submit a postdoc mentoring plan, not to exceed one page, which, effective April 6, 2009, should be uploaded under Supplementary Documents. If you include a postdoc in your budget, and this mentoring plan is not included, the proposal will be returned without review.
According to the GPG, examples of components that might be included under this plan are:
• Career counseling
• Training in how to prepare grant proposals, publications and presentations
• Guidance on how to improve teaching and mentoring skills
• Guidance on how to collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and from other disciplines
• Training in responsible mentoring practices
NSF has in recent years placed an increasing emphasis on improving training of graduate students in order to more effectively prepare them to be successful in their chosen careers by teaching skills such as how to teach, how to communicate effectively, how to run a lab, how to communicate with the public, etc. The requirement for a postdoc mentoring plan follows a similar line of thinking and is one step in addressing concerns about the postdoctoral experience that were discussed in the National Academy of Sciences Report, “Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies." At the heart of the Academy report’s recommendations are the principles that postdocs should be treated fairly, and the postdoc experience should be educational and should help to advance the postdoc’s career. A mentoring plan should be developed with those principles in mind.
Each postdoc mentoring plan should be tailored to the goals of the specific project, the advisor and the postdoctoral researcher. It should provide structure to promote communication between the postdoc and the researcher and to help ensure that the postdoc receives the skills and mentoring she will need to meet her career goals. One way to do that is to develop an Individual Development Plan (IDP) jointly with the postdoc, specifically detailing the postdoc’s goals, the skills he will need to achieve those skills, and plans to develop those skills. The IDP also includes a process for regularly assessing progress. A mentoring plan can also leverage infrastructure available at your institution, such as workshops and seminars on teaching, grant writing, career skills, etc., departmental seminar series that promote networking, and postdoc organizations.
Resources for PIs developing a postdoc mentoring plan are posted on the OPD website at http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources/resources-for-postdoc-requirement/resources-for-addressing-nsfs-postdoctoral-mentoring-requirement#new-nsf-grant-proposal-1 , including links to information on Individual Development Plans, articles on mentoring of postdocs, and an example mentoring plan.
