Grant Writing Articles - February 1, 2009 Newsletter
Grant Writing Articles
Article 1 - Red Teaming Proposals
Article 2- Creating Letters of Support
Article 3 - Writing an NSF Career
Article 5 - Writing an NSF IGERT
Article 1, (Top)
Red Teaming Proposals
By Mike Cronan
In the October 2008 issue of this newsletter, we included an article “The RFP & Proposal Organization.” It described using the solicitation as a template for the proposal narrative:
Use the RFP as a Narrative Template
This copy and paste process of transforming the RFP into a narrative template helps ensure that several elements key to a successful proposal are addressed at the beginning and adhered to throughout the writing process, even though ideas and approaches may change as they mature during the proposal development process. Using this approach, you will ensure that the proposal narrative:
• is fully responsive to all requested information
• is written in the order requested
• provides the required detail
• integrates review criteria into the narrative
• does not drift off topic or sequence
The solicitation plays an equally important role in the process known as red teaming. Red teaming is essentially a very thorough review and evaluation of a proposal. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that successful proposals converge on excellence through an iterative process that eradicates ambiguities and achieves excellence through continuous revisions that bring focus and clarity to the narrative. Narratives comprised of excessive generalities and unsupported claims not grounded in compelling detail that advances a research vision quickly will lose the attention of the reviewers. The worst response a reviewer can have to a proposal is the one H.L. Mencken had reviewing a book that he described as “an army of words marching across the page in search of an idea.” The red teaming process can help assure this does not happen to a major proposal.
(NOTES: (1) The term “red team” is derived from government and industrial evaluations that use a group—a red team—to review, assess, test, or vet plans, operations, concepts, capabilities, proposals, etc. (2) The red teaming process is scalable. While most often used for larger proposals, the stepwise red team review process can be adapted to smaller proposals as well.)
Why conduct a red team review?
Red teaming a proposal is particularly helpful on large efforts that represent a significant institutional investment of resources, time, and effort to develop and write, e.g., center-level initiatives. These large, multi-million dollar proposals are typically responding to solicitations that are complex and multifaceted in their research and/or educational objectives. These proposals are evaluated under agency review criteria that are extensive, detailed, and probe in depth the applicant’s capacity to meet the performance goals and objectives of the funding agency.
A project narrative for a large proposal is correspondingly complex to develop and write, and often has page limits in excess of the typical research proposal. To be competitive the applicant must present a clear, integrated vision of the rationale, goals, and focus of the proposed project. Almost always this requires articulating the benefits of funding a large center structure that supports multiple research strands over funding discrete research projects to multiple PIs through multiple smaller awards. Writing an integrative research vision statement and supporting narrative is very challenging. Moreover, the narrative of these larger proposals needs to be flawless to be competitive since only a few awards may be made in a competition that is national in scope.
Too often, the first – and final – substantive outside review of these large proposals is the one conducted by the funding agency while making the funding decision. It is here that the red team review can play an important role in giving an “outsiders perspective” on the quality of the proposal prior to its submission – when it is still possible to go though another iteration of the proposal text in order to better converge upon excellence.
What are the goals of a red team?
The goal of the proposal red team is to conduct a comprehensive, exhaustive, and extremely fine-grain review and evaluation of the proposal narrative prior to submission, including, for example, to:
- find weaknesses, deficiencies, and ambiguities in the proposal text,
- identify inconsistencies and omissions between the proposal narrative and the requirements of the solicitation and review criteria,
- play the devil’s advocate when necessary,
- challenge the vision, assumptions, and other statements in the text that are not well supported or clearly stated, or are poorly argued,
- make observations on the persuasiveness of the arguments put forward by the author(s) describing the uniqueness of their research and how compelling they make the case for funding, and
- offer suggestions that both correct identified deficiencies and better amplify identified strengths.
Red team members are advocates for enhancing the competitiveness of a proposal, and their ultimate goal is to help the author(s) submit a more competitive proposal than would otherwise occur without a red team process. Members of the red team must not be reluctant to criticize a proposal out of a misdirected sense of kindness or sensitivity to the authors’ ideas and the presentation of those ideas. The red teaming process needs to be unflinchingly objective and conducted mindful of Tom Hank’s comment to right-fielder Bitty Schram in A League of Their Own: “Are you crying? Are you crying?! There’s no crying in baseball!” The same admonition needs to apply to the red team review process when giving feedback to proposal authors.
The ability of the red team to offer an informed and intelligent “outsiders perspective” by reviewing the document from a fresh and/or different vantage point is a key factor in the success of the process. Typically, the authors of large proposals work for months developing ideas and drafting text. In the process, they become so familiar with their own writing and their own descriptions of research vision, rationale, goals, and objectives that it can be difficult for them to judge how others might perceive what they have written. Multiple authors invariably have multiple writing styles; this can result in a proposal that lacks cohesion and consistency. These authors may have difficulty understanding how a reviewer could possibly view the proposal narrative without the same clarity and understanding that the authors bring to it. It is also possible that at the end of proposal writing the authors are simply too weary to face more additional challenges that might require significant revisions.
How do you form a red team…Who should be on the red team?
Typically a red team will consist of three to six members, but this number can vary and is best determined by the kinds of expertise that would most benefit the review process. Therefore, red team composition should be a function of the proposal itself. For example, some proposals, while large, may focus upon a narrow set of research objectives, while other large proposals, e.g., from the National Science Foundation, may have multiple research strands and require a constellation of activities that complement the research core, including such activities as K-12 educational outreach, undergraduate research, graduate training, post-doctoral mentoring, curriculum development, diversity initiatives, societal impacts, and the like.
In general, a mix of expertise is helpful on a red team, but the fundamental requirement is that the reviewers be experienced, intelligent readers, thereby reflecting what typically characterizes an agency review panel. Universities have multiple pools to draw from in forming a proposal red team: faculty who have served as reviewers or program officers, successful researchers, faculty serving as research administrators, experienced proposal writers and editors, among others. The team may include, when needed, faculty and staff with expertise in specific domains, e.g., educational components, evaluation and assessment, dissemination, project management, societal impacts, or other areas defined as key programmatic elements in the solicitation.
When should the red team conduct the review?
The timing of the red team review is important in order to optimize the benefits of the process. There are four key factors to consider in scheduling a red team review: 1) the proposal narrative needs too be sufficiently complete and as close to final as possible to allow a through, substantive review; 2) the red team must have time to conduct a very fine grain and exhaustive reading of the solicitation, supporting documents, and the narrative, and then generate a detailed review document reflecting red team recommendations; 3) the red team must have sufficient time to meet with the proposal author(s) and present their recommendations; and 4) sufficient time is needed for the author(s) to consider the recommendations of the red team and make those changes to the proposal they agree with.
How long does it take to conduct a red team review?
The time required for a red team review will vary and will reflect the complexity of the solicitation and the length and complexity of the proposal. In general it may take three to five days to complete the red team review process described in items 2 and 3 above. The first day may be devoted to red team members independently reading the solicitation, proposal narrative, and supporting documents in depth. Two more days may be required for a sequestered red team to meet as a group and review the proposal section by section, paragraph by paragraph, and line by line while concurrently recording comments that reflect the observations of each red team member, particularly as such comments relate to strengthening the proposal and reflecting all the details in the solicitation. Another day may be required for the red team members to meet as a group and generate a final report that documents in detail their critique of the proposal. Typically another full day may be needed for the red team members to debrief the proposal author(s) by meeting with them and going through the proposal and the red team review report, here again line by line, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, so there is a verbal discussion of the written critique and an exchange between the red team members and the proposal team members about ways to strengthen the proposal.
What is the role of red team members? What are key factors red team members need to address in the review?
The role of the red team members is to access the competitiveness of the proposal by a very probing review of the narrative from the viewpoint of intelligent readers with relevant expertise. It is important for red team members to reach a consensus on those factors that characterize a successful, competitive proposal, and then apply those competitive factors as markers during the review for a competitive benchmarking of the proposal. Competitive factors used in the assessment by the red team may include the following, among others:
· Is the research vision clearly stated?
· Is a compelling case made for the significance of the research?
· Is the narrative fully responsive to all items/requirements listed in the solicitation?
· Is the proposal clearly written and accessible to the intelligent reader?
· Is there appropriate detail and examples that support the research goals and objectives?
· Is there an appropriate synthesis of ideas with performance and operational detail?
· Is a compelling case made for the capacity of the research team to perform?
· Is an institutional capacity in place to support the project?
· Is a strong case made that the management team has the expertise needed for success?
· Are the arguments made clearly stated, logical, convincing, and compelling?
· Does the project clearly contribute to the interests and objectives of the funding agency?
· Will the narrative be convincing to a review panel?
· Will the proposed project clearly advance the research objectives required by the solicitation?
What key documents are needed for a red team review?
The key documents needed are the solicitation and any documents referenced in the solicitation, a close-to-final draft of the proposal, and any supporting documents, prior proposals, and prior reviews.
What document(s) does the red team produce?
The key document red team members produce is a very detailed report of all recommendations for improving the proposal.
What is the role of the red team after the review is complete?
It is helpful for red team members to stay engaged in the process of taking the proposal though another iteration, or more, of the narrative.
Article 2,(Top)
Creating Letters of Support
It is often necessary to obtain letters of support or commitment from your institution or outside collaborators when submitting a grant application. Examples include:
- a commitment to provide services or access – an industrial company may commit to hiring a student for a summer internship, or a high school principal will convey permission to conduct an educational intervention in certain classrooms or grade levels;
- a statement of institutional support – assurance that your project aligns with institutional goals, or that adequate space and other resources will be available;
- a clarification of project roles and responsibilities – as from faculty colleagues, external project collaborators, or from members of a review board or advisory committee.
- Whatever the case may be, letters of support should be prepared on the letterhead of the letter writer and are usually addressed to the principal investigator.
Typically, letters of support will identify the project by name and briefly summarize the purpose of the project, including statements about why the project is significant and perhaps how it will benefit society. Depending upon the nature of support, the letter may indicate why the person writing believes in the project and is providing support, or specify his/her role in the project. An effective strategy is to close with a strong, substantive statement of endorsement for the PI’s leadership abilities and the strength of the research team.
As with almost every aspect of preparing a competitive grant proposal, timing is everything. Since many proposals are now submitted electronically, it is becoming more and more common for letters to be sent in pdf format. No matter how a letter is being conveyed, it’s a good idea to plan ahead when you know letters of support are required. First, ask as soon as possible to avoid creating any inconvenience for the letter writer. Request that the letters be sent to you at least a week in advance of the submission deadline – that way, you’ll have time to deal with any mail delivery problems or other delays. If there are mistakes in the letter or your project changes in some way, having it sooner rather than later can give you the needed time to request a revised letter.
Letters of support can be a means of emphasizing particular aspects of your program. If the letter writer isn’t already familiar with your research plan, they may request a copy of your abstract or project summary. An even better strategy – and certainly one appreciated by the person who’s writing the letter – is to provide him/her with a draft. If you need more than one letter of support, sending the writers draft letters can help you ensure that the most salient aspects of your project are emphasized. It is recommended that you convey to the writer that he/she is free to personalize or modify the letter as needed. Most importantly, don’t send everyone the same draft letter. Twelve letters of support that all say the same thing are ineffective and unprofessional. Give yourself enough time to craft individual draft letters. One way to do this is to include information about the writer’s organization or research interests; such information is often available on the web. And finally, be sure to thank the writer when you receive the letter.
Article 3, (Top)
Writing an NSF CAREER Proposal
The NSF Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program
By Lucy Deckard
The largest single grant program specifically for junior faculty is the National Science Foundation’s CAREER program. Over 400 CAREER grants are awarded each year. This grant provides 5 years of funding (a minimum of $500,000 total for proposals submitted to the Biology Directorate and a minimum of $400,000 for all other proposals) to tenure-track, untenured faculty in an assistant professor or equivalent position. Faculty are allowed to apply for the grant up to three times as long as they have not already won a CAREER grant. Proposals are accepted annually and are usually due in mid-July. Links to the solicitation, an FAQ page and abstracts of previously awarded CAREER projects can be found at NSF’s CAREER webpage at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503214&org=NSF&sel_org=NSF&from=fund .
PIs must submit CAREER grants to a particular directorate and program within NSF, based on the area of research addressed by the proposed project. It is very important to make sure that your proposal is submitted to the NSF program that best fits your research, because a good CAREER proposal submitted to the wrong program may be doomed.
For more information on how to find the NSF directorate and program that fits your research, see http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/grant-writing-articles#article-9-tips-for . It is a good idea to contact the Program Director when working on any NSF proposal, but it is especially important in the case of the CAREER. Program Directors can give you feedback on which NSF program best fits your research as well as advice on points to emphasize and pitfalls to be aware of. For more information on how to contact a Program Director, see http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/grant-writing-articles-2#article-4-advice-on .
Officially, NSF awards CAREER grants in any area of research that is normally supported by NSF, but in practice, some directorates fund more CAREER grants than others. The reason for this is that each directorate sets its own priorities, and some directorates place a strong emphasis on awarding CAREER grants to promising junior faculty, while others prefer to use unsolicited awards for that purpose. Also, some directorates have larger budgets than others and are therefore able to fund more CAREER grants. The graph below shows success rates for new investigators who applied to CAREER programs compared to other programs, divided by directorate (this data was presented at the Fall 2007 NSF Regional Grants Conference – the year for which the data was collected was not specified).
|
Success Rates for Proposals by New Investigators: CAREER Compared to Other Awards (for an explanation of directorate abbreviations, go to http://www.nsf.gov/staff/orglist.jsp ) |
CAREER proposals require a Career Development Plan to, in the words of NSF, “build a firm foundation for a lifetime of integrated contributions to research and education.” This means that in a CAREER proposal you must not only have a research plan, you must also have an education plan that is integrated with your research. PIs often ask how important the education plan is. The answer is that because the CAREER program is highly competitive and many good proposals are submitted, both the research and the education plans must be excellent in order to win. That does not mean that the education plan must be as extensive as the research plan. Typically, out of a 15 page project description, around 3 pages will be devoted to the education, outreach and broader impacts components of the project. However, just as the research plan will be judged based on how innovative, significant and well-thought-out it is, the education plan will be judged on the same criteria. A conventional, unoriginal education plan is unlikely to excite reviewers and will put your proposal at a disadvantage. That said, it must be remembered that no matter how good the education plan is, no CAREER proposal will be funded unless it includes an excellent research plan.
The Research Plan
The research plan should address an area of interest to NSF, it should be innovative and exciting and should hold the promise for significant impact in your field. Research that promises only incremental progress, for example, “dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s” on a well-established line of inquiry will not be competitive. On the other hand, high risk projects with little preliminary data are unlikely to be funded because reviewers want to fund projects with a good probability of success. In developing a CAREER research plan, the PI must therefore balance innovation and impact against risk. You should also keep in mind that because your track record is not as extensive as that of a senior researcher, you must make the case to the reviewers that you have the expertise and resources required to accomplish the proposed research.
There are several ways to convince reviewers of your abilities: discussing prior work and publications, describing preliminary data, and documenting collaborations. Expectations vary depending on discipline, but it is usually important to propose research in an area where you have publications, or, if you are moving into a new area, where skills demonstrated in your published research will transfer well. Including preliminary results is also extremely important in many disciplines. You can use these results to bolster your case that the proposed research is feasible and that you are capable of conducting the project. In addition, if there is a particular aspect to your research idea that reviewers may view as questionable or high risk, preliminary results may be a way to convince them that your approach is likely to be successful. Finally, if there is an aspect of your research that is somewhat outside your expertise (an increasingly common occurrence as disciplinary lines are blurred in new areas of research), it may be a good idea to recruit a collaborator who can contribute that expertise. In CAREER grants, you are not allowed to include a co-PI, but established researchers will often be happy to provide advice in the role of an off-budget collaborator. If the effort required by the collaborator will be significant, you might consider providing some support for one of the collaborator’s graduate students who might work on the project. Include a letter from your collaborator specifically stating what he or she will do and the expertise he or she can provide in your Supplemental Documents section.
When writing your research plan, be sure to answer the following questions in the first few paragraphs:
· What are the goals (the big questions you will answer) and objectives (how you will answer them) of your research plan?
· How does this research support your career plan of research (the line of inquiry you plan to pursue over the next 20 years)?
· Why is this research important?
· What is the general approach you will use? (This might be a methodology, a strategy or a list of the major tasks)
· How is this research plan innovative, novel and/or transformative? (How is what you are proposing different from what’s already being done by others, and why is it more likely to be successful?)
The sections of the research plan typically follow the format of most research proposals, with background, preliminary results and methodology/experimental plan sections, but NSF allows a lot of flexibility in writing the project description, so you can tailor it to fit your project. Some example outlines for CAREER proposals are given at http://opd.tamu.edu/seminar-materials/seminar-materials-by-date/nov.-19-2008-nsf-career-seminar/nov.-19-2008-nsf-career-seminar . Since the grants are for 5 years, it is important to propose a research plan that will take about 5 years (it is fine to be ambitious when determining the scope of your research plan, but avoid being unrealistic). Usually, reviewers expect to see quite a lot of detail for the first year of your research plan and progressively less detail in later years. If there is a possible roadblock or show-stopper in your research plan (for example, obtaining negative results in your first year would make it difficult to proceed with your plan as written), be sure to discuss how you would work around that. Reviewers will be hesitant to commit 5 years of funding for a project that could be derailed in the first or second year.
The Education Plan
Most CAREER education plans include activity to enhance undergraduate and graduate education; they also often include outreach to K-12 students or to the larger community. Typically, education plans include several activities, often aimed at different constituencies. For example, a PI might plan to: 1) develop a new undergraduate course utilizing inquiry-based learning techniques, incorporating the PIs research results; 2) act as a mentor for high school students developing science fair projects at a school with high minority enrollment; 3) host two undergraduate students from a predominantly undergraduate institution for summer research experiences using an NSF REU Supplement (you can simply state in your proposal that you plan to apply for a supplement if awarded a CAREER); and 4) develop and moderate an interdisciplinary journal club for graduate students interested in interdisciplinary topics related to the PI’s research. Other examples of CAREER education and outreach activities are listed at http://opd.tamu.edu/seminar-materials/seminar-materials-by-date/nov.-19-2008-nsf-career-seminar/Broader%20Impacts%20Examples.doc .
Successful education plans propose activities that go beyond what would be expected as a normal part of the job of being a faculty member but are not so ambitious as to impose an unreasonable burden on the PI who, after all, must still earn tenure; at least one of the proposed activities addresses diversity. Connecting with existing infrastructure on your campus, for example, an existing Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, or a science summer camp for middle schoolers, can allow significant impact without taking too much of your time on logistics. However, making at least one of your activities unusual or innovative will help your education plan stand out against the competition.
In writing your education plan, be sure to state explicitly what your goals are and how you will assess whether those goals are being met. For example, if you will be mentoring undergraduates in a research experience, is your goal to encourage them to continue to graduate school? In that case, your assessment plan might include before and after surveys of their interest in graduate school as well as a plan to track whether they do, indeed, go to graduate school. Is your goal to improve their understanding of the research process or their understanding of certain scientific concepts in your discipline? In that case, be sure to describe an assessment plan to evaluate whether those goals were met.
Just as it is a good idea to include a discussion of prior work and preliminary results in your research plan, be sure to discuss previous activities you’ve engaged in related to the education plan. For example, if you plan to work with high school students and have done so in the past, describing that work will help to convince reviewers of your commitment and of the fact that you know how to work with high school students. It is also important to include scholarly references related to education when discussing your approach. So, just as you would cite articles to provide background for your research plan, you should cite, for example, articles on inquiry-based learning if you are proposing to develop a new course utilizing inquiry-based learning. An excellent resource for finding journal articles on a particular education-related topic is the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ .
And finally, be sure that your education plan is integrated with your research plan. It is especially important to ensure that the education plan does not look like an “add-on.” It is a good idea to state explicitly how the education and research plans are related. When giving the overview of your project goals in your one-page Project Summary and in the first page of your Project Description, include your education goals along with your research goals. Some PIs even structure their Project Description to interweave the project plans for the research and education components together. Most PIs discuss the research and education plans in separate sections but describe them both in the early overview sections of the proposal.
While developing a CAREER proposal can seem daunting at first, remember that you have three tries to fine-tune your proposal, and reviewers try hard to give PIs helpful feedback so that they can improve their proposals for resubmission.
Article 4, (Top)
Online Publication Resources for Grant Writers
Many grant writing seminars stress the importance of staying informed about funding agencies’ strategic plans or roadmaps. Not only can such knowledge help you keep abreast of changing funding priorities, it can also give you a competitive edge in writing a proposal that is fully responsive to overall agency directives. Another perhaps less frequently touted strategy is to stay on top of funding agency publications. There are various online tools to keep you in-the-know.
Several web sites host publication resources that can assist grant writers when they are developing a comprehensive literature review about a topic or trying to bolster a proposal idea by demonstrating a “gap” in current research. The obvious method is to go to an agency’s “News” or “Recent Discoveries” link. Many of these have RSS feeds – really simple syndication – which notify you as a registrant when new items are posted. You can also sign up for newsletters from funding agencies that frequently include links or information about available publications. Other online resources are described below:
The Math and Science Partnership Network
This is a good resource for new reports on K-12 STEM education and it includes several RSS options. MSPnet is an electronic learning community for the NSF-funded Math and Science Partnership Program. If you are affiliated with an MSP project, you can apply for membership, but many of the site’s resources are free and available for public use. For example, you can sign up for the MSPnet Guest newsletter, or browse through online publications revolving around six major library themes: MSP Papers, MSP Key Features, Education Change & Policy, Teaching and Learning, Professional Development, and Higher Education. There are four different RSS feeds that you may subscribe to: 1) MSP News – provides a weekly overview of current events in the MSP community; 2) Project Highlights – gives you the latest project reports, press releases, and events shared by MSP projects; 3) Library – the latest MSP papers and articles of interest; and 4) Resources – the latest MSP resources for making your work more efficient, including useful websites and related programs.
The National Academies
http://www.national-academies.org/
The National Academies perform an invaluable public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. Four organizations comprise the Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. The National Academies also provide RSS feeds, including daily access to news releases, publication announcements, research updates, and public statements. These RSS feeds are hosted by The Office of News and Public Information, Institute of Medicine, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Academies Press, and Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences. Also, the Office of News and Public Information helps both news media and the general public find out about the hundreds of projects underway at the National Academies, including for example , news releases, a webcast archive, publications, and annual reports to Congress.
EurekAlert!
EurekAlert! features news and resources focused on all areas of science, medicine and technology. It is an online, global news service operated by AAAS, the science society, and it provides a central place for universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research to bring news to the media. It includes links to news pages of US Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. To search for information on their website, you can click on any topic under “News by Subject” or search through the search engine. EurekAlert! offers nineteen RSS feeds, including: Breaking news (all topics); Agriculture; Archaeology; Atmospheric Science; Biology; Science Business; Cancer; Chemistry, Physics, and Materials Sciences; Earth Science; Education; Infectious and Emerging Diseases; Mathematics; Medicine & Health; Nanotechnology; Oceanography; Science Policy; Social & Behavioral Science; Space & Planetary Science; Technology, Engineering, and Computer Science.
PubHub
http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/pubhub/
Sponsored by The Foundation Center, PubHub was created to highlight the knowledge generated or supported by foundations. With PubHub’s searchable catalog of annotated links to foundation-sponsored reports, you can easily access the latest publications on specific topics. PubHub is updated daily, and you can search the site by keywords or browse by subject, publication year, organization, and/or type of publication. Types of publications include annual reports, case studies, literature reviews, and research reports. The ten most recently uploaded reports are listed in Recent Additions, which is also updated daily.
FOLIO (Foundation Literature Online)
http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/pubhub/about_folio.html
In collaboration with the Foundation Center, the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) University Library developed FOLIO, a permanent digital archive for the long-term preservation of foundation-funded publications. To see a selected list of participating foundations, learn more about FOLIO at above URL. With the permission of publishers, this site maintains public access to digital files of publications, even when they are removed from the original web sites.
Article 5, (Top)
Writing an NSF IGERT Proposal
By Lucy Deckard
NSF recently issued a solicitation for the latest round of competitions for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program (see http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?org=NSF&ods_key=nsf09519 ). This program often attracts considerable interest because it is open to faculty teams from a wide variety of disciplines, and it is a prestigious grant that can help to establish new interdisciplinary graduate programs. The competition has two stages: a preliminary proposal due March 13, 2009 and an invitation-only full proposal due September 14, 2009. Each of these stages is extremely competitive, with a success rate of about 5%. Because the IGERT program is significantly different from most NSF grants, it is a good idea to make sure you understand what NSF is looking for before you start to plan an IGERT proposal.
The IGERT program grew out of concern that the conventional graduate educational process often provides students with narrow education and research experiences, producing students who do not have the wide range skills needed to be successful in the interdisciplinary and global 21st century workforce. The overall goal of the IGERT is to help establish interdisciplinary graduate experiences that will produce PhD scientists and engineers who are significantly better prepared to pursue careers in their chosen areas. This means not only must the trainees (NSF prefers the term “IGERT trainee” rather than “IGERT fellow”) be well-grounded in their home disciplines, but they must receive interdisciplinary education and research training, they must have the skills necessary to work in a diverse, globally engaged workforce, they must have communication skills and an understanding of ethics, and each trainee should have the specific skills necessary to excel in her or his chosen career. For example, if the trainee plans to join academe, she should have good teaching skills. If the trainee plans to work in government as a policy-maker, he should have the skills and background required to do that effectively.
IGERT is a cross-cutting program supported by all the NSF directorates. Winning IGERT proposals bring together two or more disciplines to address a particular research or technology need. For example, conservation of threatened ecosystems requires an understanding of ecology, social systems and how governance works; the new field of computational materials requires materials scientists who have a better understanding of mathematical modeling and mathematicians who understand materials; developing a deeper understanding of how the brain works requires an understanding of psychology, neuroscience, computer engineering and electrical engineering. Any IGERT proposal must be able to explain the need it is designed to fill; in other words, what is the current shortcoming in your graduate students’ training that this new program will address? It is also important to make sure that participation of students and faculty from the various disciplines in your IGERT is balanced. The project should not read like a graduate program for students in one discipline with an “add-on” from another discipline. Students and faculty from the participating disciplines should all participate in the curriculum and research experiences.
Developing an integrated graduate program like this that works within the various departmental and institutional constraints can be difficult, particularly when the disciplines involved are very different, for example, a physical science and a social science. This is why reviewers will scrutinize the management plan and the details of the training program very carefully. Only programs that are very well thought-out are likely to succeed; it is therefore necessary to convince reviewers that you have planned your program in meticulous detail, taking into account departmental and institutional barriers as well as the differences in your students’ skills and backgrounds. The project description for the preliminary proposal has a page limit of just 9 pages. This can present a challenge because reviewers will be looking for very specific descriptions of the planned curriculum (including new courses and innovative approaches), integrative research experiences (many of which should be based on existing interdisciplinary collaborations), recruitment and retention plans, institutional commitments and many other aspects of the project, which are listed in the solicitation. Developing project plans with this level of detail and then fitting them into 9 pages is a challenge and will require quite a bit of time and effort.
NSF expects that most of the IGERT funds will be used to support the IGERT trainees. Some funds are allowed to cover start-up costs of new IGERTs in the first year (for example, support of faculty developing new curricula), but reviewers will be looking closely at how many students your project will produce. Use of funds for purposes other than student support will reduce the number of IGERT trainees produced, so the budget must be considered carefully. Keep in mind that NSF likes to see additional students who are not supported by NSF IGERT funds included in the education and training experiences, thus expanding the program’s reach, so it’s a good idea to discuss how that might be accomplished in your proposal. IGERT funds cannot be used to support research costs other than support of the trainees, except for limited expenses related to Year 1 start-up costs (such as purchase of computers for trainees or similar expenses). Be sure to read the solicitation for more information on budget restrictions. Generally, NSF expects trainees to be supported on IGERT funds for two years and then to be transitioned to other research funds.
Institutional support, an important review criterion, is a good way to find resources for activities that cannot be funded by NSF IGERT funds. Examples might be support for additional students to participate in the IGERT experience, support for recruiting activities, or a commitment of funds to support IGERT trainees after their 2 years of IGERT support if research funds are not available.
For more background on the IGERT program, watch the streaming video on the NSF IGERT webpage (the link is near the top at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12759&org=NSF&sel_org=NSF&from=fund ), read abstracts of funded IGERTs (look for the link “Abstracts of Recent Awards Made Through This Program” near the bottom of the same page), and talk to PIs of current IGERTs. An easy way to look for funded IGERT programs by field or by geographic location is to go to the “Pathways to Science” IGERT webpage at http://www.pathwaystoscience.org/igert.asp .
