Grant Writing Articles - Oct 2008

Grant Writing Articles

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M University

 Article 1: Types of University Proposals

Article 2: How to Read the RFP

Article 3: Know your Funding Agency

Article 4:Basic vs. Mission-Oriented Agencies

Article 5:Analyze the Agency Culture

Article 6: Agency Language and Terminology 

Article 7: Intramural versus Extramural Research

Article 8: The RFP & Proposal Organization

Article 9:Tips for Exploring the NSF Website

Article 1, Types of University Proposals

University proposals are divided into two broad categories:  research and educational. Some agencies fund research grants with little or no investment in complementary educational initiatives. Other agencies, most notably the National Science Foundation, fund a broad range of university-based research and educational initiatives.  Many research agencies fund some educational initiatives that relate in some way to the research mission of the agency.  The types of research grants funded at universities vary depending on discipline. 

Research Funding in the Humanities

In the humanities and humanities-centered social sciences, research grants are often oriented toward support of scholarly work by providing funding for travel, residency at a research site, research materials, copyright payments, sabbatical salary support, and the like.  Results of the research are usually expected to be books or journal articles.  Sponsors of this research may  include federal agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, or the U.S. Department of State through the Fulbright Program, but often are libraries, collections, archives, scholarly associations, museums, or endowed humanities centers.

Research Grants in the Sciences & Engineering

Research grants to universities may be broadly categorized as either basic or applied research, although the boundary between these two types of research may be blurred at times.  It is important to understand into which of these categories a particular funding opportunity falls. For example, proposing a basic research project, where the ultimate pay-off might be ten years in the future, will doom a proposal to a funder that is looking for results to address a particular problem within the next few years.  Similarly, proposing highly applied research that does not have a theoretical underpinning to a basic research agency will be an equally futile effort.   Research projects in some disciplines may also include applications-based research and contract research, most often funded by federal mission agencies (Article 4, e.g., DoD, EPA, NOAA, DHS).

Basic & Applied Research

Basic research, sometimes called fundamental research, is typically open-ended and longer-term, perhaps three to ten years, with the objective being the creation of new knowledge by advancing the underlying theory at the frontiers of a specific discipline.  Applied research may be either a follow-on to basic research or concurrent with it, but it is more short term and focused on defined objectives that use the new knowledge gained from basic research in some way for some specific purpose, e.g., for the development of new technologies.

Applications-based Research

Applications-based research takes the results from applied research, e.g., new technologies or existing technologies, and reconfigures their use for some specific new purpose.  This reconfiguration of “off the shelf” technologies, for example, might explore the reconfiguration of existing sensors for a specific new purpose, such as what was done in the homeland security area post 911, or for new uses in environmental monitoring.

Contract research

Contract research is most often funded by a mission-focused  federal agency for a specific purpose with pre-defined, near-term deliverables (outcomes of the proposed work that must be delivered to the agency). Example projects might be research on the habitat and ecosystem of a certain species in a coastal estuary that will help guide agency policy and environmental management, or research for a federal or state educational agency to answer specific questions on how well tests assess student learning based on a specific curriculum. An important difference in contract research is that funds may be contingent on receipt of promised deliverables, whereas grants are typically not tied to specific performance outcomes.

Educational Grants

Educational proposals typically focus on achieving an educational objective at the proposing institution or on using resources and knowledge at the proposing institution to achieve an educational objective at partnering institutions such as K-12 schools or community colleges.  (Education-related research may be funded as a part of these grants but would, in general, be funded by a research grant, as discussed above.)  These types of proposals can be broadly categorized as described below.

Institutional Educational Proposals

Institutional educational proposals achieve some academic objective, typically at the department, college, or university level, and may also involve educational partnerships with community colleges and K-12 schools. For example, increasing student or faculty diversity, increasing the number of degrees granted to women and underrepresented minorities in specific disciplines, partnerships with community colleges to make it easier for their students to continue at the four-year college, or outreach partnerships with K-12 schools, museums, and science centers are all projects that might be funded by educational grants.

Hybrid Research & Education Grants

Hybrid research and education grants use faculty research as the underpinning of an educational initiative; for example, undergraduate research with faculty research mentors, course development that transfers new knowledge from the laboratory to the classroom, or development of new doctoral training programs.  Graduate training grants (such as NIH’s T-32 grants) may fall into this category since they generally require that students are involved in research as a significant part of their training.  Usually, these types of grants support the educational initiative (e.g., student stipends, enrichment activities, etc.), but expect that the project will build upon on-going research that is already funded; therefore, little or no funds are expected to be spent on the research projects.

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 2, How to Read the RFP

The funding solicitation, commonly known as a Request for Proposals (RFP) – or, depending upon the agency, Program Announcement (PA), Request for Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) – is one common starting point of the proposal writing process. Other starting points to the proposal process include investigator-initiated (unsolicited) proposals, or white (concept) papers and quad charts often common to the defense agencies, and briefly defined below.

Unsolicited or Investigator-Initiated Proposals

·        Program Description or Program Announcement instead of a solicitation

o       More general statement of interests of funding agency or program

·        Typically the main source of research funding for individual researchers funded by NSF, NIH, DoD

o       Majority of external research funded by NSF (~50%) and NIH (~80%) result from  unsolicited or investigator-initiated proposals

·        Formatting guidelines often in a separate document

o       NSF Grant Proposal Guide

o       NIH SF424 Application Guide

o       DoD long-term Broad Agency Announcements

·        If you are considering submitting an unsolicited proposal, it is important to contact the program officer to bring specificity to the often generally, or even vaguely, defined research objectives, or to determine if the development of a white paper or concept paper might be the preferred first step in the process.

Solicitations in the form of an RFP, PA, RFA, BAA

The solicitation represents an invitation by a funding agency for applicants to submit proposals that address research areas of specific interest to the agency, and it contains the key information you will need to develop and write a competitive proposal that is fully responsive to an agency’s submission process, research objectives, review criteria, and budget requirements.

The RFP is Treasure Map

The solicitation is to research funding what a will is to an heir or a treasure map to a pirate—it is a very detailed set of instructions that must be meticulously and faithfully followed to achieve the desired reward.  Moreover, in reading a solicitation, it is essential that you understand the document for what it is in its entirety—and that you not read into it what you want it to be, either by wishful thinking or selective interpretation. 

The RFP is an invitation by a funding agency for applicants to submit requests for funding in research areas of interest to the agency. This point is often overlooked by grant applicants and is worth repeating:  funding agencies fund research of interest to them.  Your role in this as the grant applicant is to provide the research capacities to meet the objectives of the funding agency. 

Moreover, the RFP is not an à la carte menu or research smorgasbord offering you a choice of addressing some research topics but not others, depending on your interests or capabilities. The RFP does not give you the choice of responding to some review criteria but not to others, nor is it an invitation to propose research only tenuously linked to the scope of research defined in the solicitation. Rather, the RFP is best viewed as a non-negotiable list of performance expectations stating the agency’s research goals, objectives, and desired outcomes that you must meet in order to be competitive for funding.

Reviewing the RFP

In your review of the RFP, the central question you must resolve is how closely your research fits the research objectives of the agency.  This requires an honest assessment of how tightly your research interests and the agency research objectives are conjoined, by asking:

•        Does my research fully fit the agency research objectives?

•        Is it really a fit?

•        No partial fits allowed

•        No wishful thinking

•        Close doesn’t count

•        If you are not a fit—don’t submit.

Unfortunately, at times it is tempting to read the RFP and be swept up in an irrational exuberance inspired by your dream of obtaining funding, so be alert to make sure you:

•        Understand the RFP for what it is…not what you want it to be.

•        Do not see it as a speculative investment.

•        Invest your time, resources, and energy wisely.

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 3, Know Your Funding Agency

The more knowledgeable you are about a funding agency’s mission, strategic plans, research culture, investment priorities, and the rationale behind them, the better you will be able to weave a compelling and competitive proposal narrative.  This agency-specific knowledge allows you to more convincingly describe how your proposed research is relevant to the research objectives spelled out in the solicitation, which, in turn, will advance the agency’s larger strategic plan.  How well you convince reviewers that your research plays a key role in advancing the agency’s research objectives, thus contributing to the success of the larger strategic plan, will be a determining factor in the decision whether to fund your proposal.

It is not uncommon, for example, for reports of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or similar associations to significantly influence funding directions at one or more agencies, and for those reports to form the underpinnings of subsequent solicitations. Understanding the origins, underpinnings, and rationale behind funding solicitations will help you better frame your arguments of research merit and thereby better position you to write a competitive proposal narrative.

Why Analyze the Funding Agency?

To better understand several key elements common to every competitive proposal narrative:

• Who is the audience (e.g., agency program officers and reviewers) and how are they best         characterized in terms of the expertise they bring to the review process?
• What is the best way to address them?
• What is a fundable idea and how does it support the agency’s research investment priorities?
• How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best supported in the proposal text and connected to the agency’s research objectives?
• How do you best communicate your passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform the proposed research to review panels and program officers?

Much of this information can be derived from analysis of background information gathered on the funding agency related to a range of topics, likely including the following available on the agency’s website:  mission statement, strategic plan, investment priorities, agency language/ technical dialect, management structure, organizational chart, program officers, reports, publications, leadership speeches, public testimony, review process, project abstracts, funded projects, and current solicitations.

Be Able to Differentiate Among Funding Agencies

It is important to understand how the various funding agencies differ based on characteristics such as mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, and culture.  Researchers in the physical, computational, biological, and social and behavioral sciences may have funding opportunities at two or more agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, and EPA, but these agencies differ in many ways, including the following: 

• Research focus within disciplines
• Research that is basic, applied, or application driven
• Research scope and performance time horizon
• Exploratory, open-ended research, or research targeted to technology development
• Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
• Classified or non-classified
• Proprietary or non-proprietary
• Independent research, or dependent linkages to the agency mission, e.g., health care, education, economic development, defense

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 4, Basic vs. Mission-Oriented Agencies

It is important to differentiate between basic research agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA), as well as to differentiate between hypothesis-driven research and needs- or applications-driven research at the agencies.  For example, agencies funding basic research would likely share the following characteristics:

• Independent agency and management
• Independent research vision, mission, and objectives
• Award criteria based on intellectual and scientific excellence
• Peer panel reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit
• Focus on fundamental or basic research at the “frontiers of science,” innovation, and creation of new knowledge
• Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon
• Non-classified, non-proprietary

Alternatively, an analysis of mission-oriented agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, ED, USDA) would show characteristics related to research and development that will serve the agencies’ immediate goals and objectives:

• Scope of work tightly defines research tasks/deliverables
• Predominately applied research for meeting near-term objectives, technology development and transfer, policy goals
• Predominately internal review by program officers
• Awards based on merit, but also on geographic distribution, political distribution, long term relationship with agency, and Legislative and Executive branch policies
• Classified and non-classified research

One of the most important differences between these types of agencies is the degree of autonomy they have in setting their investment priorities.  Basic research agencies, such as NSF and NIH, set long-term goals through a strategic plans and are not as strongly influenced by the President or U.S. Congress.  Mission-oriented agencies, such as the Department of Defense or NASA, are highly influence by the priorities of the President and Congress.  Therefore, focus and priorities can change rapidly with changes in political leadership or climate.  This means that researchers who apply to these agencies for funding are well advised to constantly monitor the priorities of these agencies for changes in direction.

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 5, Analyze the Agency Culture

It is important to understand the research culture of the funding agency in order to more knowledgably embed your proposed research plan within the research focus of the agency.  For example, while NSF and NIH both fund research in the biological sciences, they often fund research in very different areas under that broader umbrella. Sometimes the differences are clear, and in other cases more nuanced, but the distinctions are there and you need to be aware of them.

In most cases, this information can be obtained on the internet by visiting the agency web site. Perusing the web site gives the applicant a sense of how the funding agency views itself and the role it sees itself playing in the national research enterprise. This information can be found in the agency mission statement or strategic plan, for example.  In other cases, particularly with regard to private foundations, the applicant will find the annual report a source of useful information on an agency’s mission and agenda. An annual report gives the applicant a profile of funded projects, award amounts, and results.

The proposal writer needs this information for several reasons, but principally because it will allow the writer to shape the proposal from its inception to conform to the agency’s mission. It helps the grant writer keep the proposal process on track by reminding participants that the grant ultimately must reflect the funding agency’s mission.

By Mike Cronan & Lucy Deckard; edited by Robyn Pearson

 Article 6, Agency Language and Terminology 

Learning to echo the language and terminology of the funding agency is another factor that will enhance the overall competitiveness of a proposal. Funding agencies, like most institutions, often develop a unique phraseology to define and describe common, recurrent components of their mission and research agenda, e.g., “broader impacts” or “research and education integration” at NSF, or “bench to bedside” at NIH. Learning the language of the funding agency is important in writing the narrative section of a proposal; it helps to frame arguments more clearly and communicate more effectively with program managers and reviewers.

Once the funding agency’s language is learned, it allows the appropriate translation to occur between the language of the funding agency and that of the applicant. It often helps the clarity of the narrative text to translate the applicant’s institutional language into that used by the agency’s program officers and reviewers. This is not an onerous or difficult task, but involves being alert to any preferred or repeated terms, usages, and meanings favored by the funding agency.  Learned fluency in the use of funding agency language and terminology is yet another factor that can enhance competitiveness.

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 7, Intramural versus Extramural Research

Some agencies fund only research by outside scientists (extramural research), while many also hire researchers who conduct research from within the agency (intramural research).  NSF and DARPA are examples of agencies that fund only extramural research, while NIH, NASA, the National Labs, DOE, and many other agencies fund both extramural and intramural research.  Furthermore, the proportion of intramural versus extramural research funding varies significantly by agency.  The National Labs and NIST primarily fund intramural research, while NIH mostly funds extramural research. 

For mission-oriented agencies that fund both intramural and extramural research, it is extremely important for external researchers hoping to be funded by the agency to be familiar with relevant intramural research being conducted at the agency and to network with those intramural researchers.   Those researchers are likely to be reviewers on external proposals in their research areas, and it is often expected that external researchers collaborate with agency researchers.  The degree of expected collaboration varies by agency and is one aspect of the agency culture that proposers must understand in order to be competitive.

By Lucy Deckard & Mike Cronan; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 8, The RFP & Proposal Organization

The RFP plays a key role in proposal organization by establishing the order, required level of detail, and focus of the proposal narrative. A simple copy and paste of the RFP’s key sections, research objectives, and review criteria into a beginning draft narrative allows the RFP to serve as an organizational template for the full proposal and a reference point to ensure that subsequent draft iterations of the narrative are continuously calibrated to the guidelines. 

For example, an RFP will often contain a detailed description defining the agency’s objectives for the program (e.g., goals, objectives, performance timeline, outcomes, research management, evaluation, etc.) that must be addressed in the proposal narrative. This detail, including review criteria, can be selectively copied and pasted into the first draft of the proposal itself.  This process provides initial section and subsection headings under which the applicant can draft out preliminary written responses to every requested item in the guidelines, ensuring that the first draft of the proposal fully mirrors the program solicitation requirements in every way.

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 RFP can also serve as a guide as you develop the ideas that will be at the core of your proposal, and then help you flesh out the narrative with details on what you propose to do and why.  It is important that you fully understand the sponsor’s research objectives to avoid wasting valuable development time on discussions and directions that do not clearly reflect the funding agency’s research objectives.  This is particularly important on larger research proposals that often involve multiple investigators, each bringing a specialized research expertise to the overall effort.

Also, although funding agencies vary on the required detail and organization of the narrative text, in many cases reviewers will expect to see the text organized in the same general order as the RFP and the review criteria. In fact, many agencies require reviewers to fill out evaluation forms that list review criteria in the order given by the RFP.  Therefore, using the RFP as a guide for your proposal outline will make it easier for reviewers to compare your proposal to the program guidelines and review criteria without having to search around in a long narrative to find out if each required topic has been addressed.

By Mike Cronan & Lucy Deckard; edited by Robyn Pearson

Article 9, Tips for Exploring the NSF Website: Unsolicited Proposals

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 first in a series of short articles about where to look on the NSF website for those nuggets of information that can help you as you prepare a proposal to NSF.

Submitting an Unsolicited Proposal

Trying to figure out which program at NSF fits your research?  If you’re interested in submitting an unsolicited proposal to a disciplinary program (as opposed to responding to a solicitation), it can sometimes be tough to figure out which part of NSF funds research in your area.  This is further complicated by the fact that many of the “Program” pages now list all solicitations issued by the program, including NSF-wide solicitations, making it hard to find the program description for unsolicited proposals.  Also, keep in mind that different directorates and divisions within NSF act like semi-autonomous organizations with different procedures and requirements.  This is one reason why it’s important to pinpoint which program or programs you would like to apply to for funding and then learn as much as you can about that program.

Here’s One Way to Find These Programs:

• Go to the “NSF Organization List” (http://www.nsf.gov/staff/orglist.jsp ).  This list provides links to each Division, organized under its Directorate. 
• Click on the link for a Division you think might be interested in your research.
• Example: If you’re interested atmospheric chemistry, click on “Division of Atmospheric Sciences” under “Directorate of Geosciences”
• Near the top of the page, there will be one or more links to Disciplinary Programs funded by that Division (below that, you’ll usually see links to Solicitations).
• Click on the Disciplinary Program that looks most promising, and you should see a synopsis of the program. This is a relatively broad description of the types of research that will be considered for funding under this Program.
• Example: Click on “Atmospheric Chemistry;” a one-paragraph description of the type of research this program supports is given under the title, “Synopsis.”
• Just as importantly, at the bottom of the page, there will usually be a link entitled “Abstracts of Recent Awards Made Through This Program.”  You have found treasure! Click on this link, and you will find a list of funded projects with information on each project.  By clicking on the title of any of these projects, you’ll find an abstract, the name and contact information for the PI, the PI’s organization, and lots of other useful information.  By going through these awards, you can get a good idea of the types of projects that have been funded by the program. 
• Caveats: This list includes all grants that receive funds from the program, including solicited proposals, SGER (Small Grants for Exploratory Research) grants, and grants jointly funded by more than one program. You will need to sift through this list to find grants that were likely submitted as unsolicited proposals. Also, be wary of the figure listed under “Awarded Amount to Date.” This figure often does not represent the entire amount of the award since many of the grants are awarded on an incremental basis, so it may be difficult to get a good idea of typical amounts of entire grants from this database.

Example: In the database, you’ll see several projects with titles, “SGER:…” and other projects with titles, “MRI:…”.  These projects were funded through those mechanisms and would not be good examples of the types of projects funded through unsolicited proposals to the program.  However, most of the other projects listed that have only “Atmospheric Chemistry” listed in the Program column may be good example projects.

Programs handle deadlines for submitting unsolicited proposals in different ways. Some programs list “target dates,” indicating that the deadline is somewhat flexible.  If you think you will miss the date by a day or two, contact the program director, and he or she may still agree to accept the proposal. Other programs list “proposal windows,” which means they will accept unsolicited proposals only during the time interval listed.  Some programs provide links to a “Program Announcement” that looks just like a solicitation, where the “Synopsis” can be found.  Some programs don’t list any deadlines or Announcements at all.  In this case, it is wise to contact one of the program managers to find out what their policy is for accepting proposals.

Finally, especially in the case of unsolicited proposals it is wise to contact the program director to discuss your research idea and whether it fits that particular program. 

Next month: More about navigating NSF’s Awards Database

By Lucy Deckard; edited by Robyn Pearson