Cedric L. Williams, Ph. D. Professor Dept. of Psychology and Graduate Program in Neuroscience University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA Council on Undergraduate.

Cedric L. Williams, Ph. D.

Professor

Dept. of Psychology and Graduate Program in Neuroscience University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

Council on Undergraduate Research Dialogues Conference 2011

Understanding the Procedures Underlying Grant Writing and the

Proposal Review Process

• ““READ THIS” Before You BeginREAD THIS” Before You Begin

• Getting Started with Proposal Development:Getting Started with Proposal Development:

a) Successful Methods of addressing Merit Criteriaa) Successful Methods of addressing Merit Criteria

b) Tips for Organizing Proposals & Avoiding Pitfallsb) Tips for Organizing Proposals & Avoiding Pitfalls

• The Review/Evaluation ProcessThe Review/Evaluation Process

• Factors Influencing Funding DecisionsFactors Influencing Funding Decisions

Overview

http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg

““READ THIS” Before you begin:READ THIS” Before you begin:

NSF 11-1 January 2011

Getting Started with Getting Started with Proposal Development:Proposal Development: ( (Conceptual & EmpiricalConceptual & Empirical))

Intellectual MeritIntellectual Merit Broader ImpactsBroader Impacts

MeritMerit

Merit Review CriteriaMerit Review Criteria

Impacts Impacts

Intellectual Merit

•How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? understanding within its own field or across different fields? ((The The Project; IMPACTProject; IMPACT))

•Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)

•To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? and original concepts?

•How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

Intellectual Merit

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? and understanding within its own field or across different fields?

1.1. Are the studies developed to specifically resolve some Are the studies developed to specifically resolve some theoretical debate within a your field?theoretical debate within a your field?

2.2. Will they provide new evidence to link existing findings?Will they provide new evidence to link existing findings?

3.3. Can the findings be applied to understand other disciplines, Can the findings be applied to understand other disciplines, model systems, etc.model systems, etc.

4.4. Are your questions addressing compelling “unknowns” in the Are your questions addressing compelling “unknowns” in the field or simply validating existing findings field or simply validating existing findings (“we already know this”)(“we already know this”) ? ?

Intellectual Merit

•How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? understanding within its own field or across different fields?

•Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? ( (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior workReviewer will comment on the quality of prior work..) ) ((The PI: INVESTIGATORThe PI: INVESTIGATOR))

•To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? and original concepts?

•How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

Intellectual Merit

Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior workReviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.).)

1.1. Current competitive proposals are MultidisciplinaryCurrent competitive proposals are Multidisciplinary

2.2. Assess mechanisms at several levels of analysis, from behavior Assess mechanisms at several levels of analysis, from behavior to moleculesto molecules

3.3. If you are not an expert in an area, have you assembled a If you are not an expert in an area, have you assembled a competent team of collaborators?competent team of collaborators?

4.4. Can you document evidence of functional interactions between Can you document evidence of functional interactions between your lab and collaborators your lab and collaborators (papers, diss., lab rotations, etc.)(papers, diss., lab rotations, etc.) ? ?

Intellectual Merit

•How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? understanding within its own field or across different fields?

•Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)

•To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? and original concepts? ((Potential for being Transformative; Potential for being Transformative; INNOVATIVEINNOVATIVE))

•How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

Intellectual Merit

To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? creative and original concepts?

1.1. Is this “BAND WAGON” research?Is this “BAND WAGON” research?

2.2. How does your experimental approach to the question at hand How does your experimental approach to the question at hand differ from current or traditional approaches & techniques?differ from current or traditional approaches & techniques?

3.3. Will your studies only CONFIRM rather than EXTEND current Will your studies only CONFIRM rather than EXTEND current knowledge?knowledge?

4.4. Will your project address the compelling “UNKNOWNS” in the Will your project address the compelling “UNKNOWNS” in the field?field?

Intellectual Merit

•How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? understanding within its own field or across different fields?

•Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? Is the proposer (individual or team) well qualified to conduct the project? (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) (Reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)

•To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?and original concepts?

•How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

(PROJECT PLAN/FEASIBILITY)(PROJECT PLAN/FEASIBILITY)

Intellectual Merit

•How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

1.1. Are the SPECIFIC AIMS independent of each other ?Are the SPECIFIC AIMS independent of each other ?

2.2. Are the AIMS supported by strong Pilot findings or preliminary Are the AIMS supported by strong Pilot findings or preliminary data?data?

3.3. Have you demonstrated that you and your team have expertise Have you demonstrated that you and your team have expertise in all experimental approaches associated with the project?in all experimental approaches associated with the project?

4.4. Have you clearly articulated the advantages of your approach Have you clearly articulated the advantages of your approach over currently used techniques or protocols?over currently used techniques or protocols?

Merit Review CriteriaMerit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts

Advancing know

ledge

Advancing know

ledge

qualified PI ?

qualified PI ?

creative and original concepts

creative and original concepts

well conceived and organized

well conceived and organized

?

• How well does the activity advance discovery & understanding How well does the activity advance discovery & understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?while promoting teaching, training and learning?

• How well does the activity broaden the participation of How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etce.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc ..)? )?

• Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? (and technological understanding? (Data Sharing/Management PlansData Sharing/Management Plans))

• What are the benefits of the proposed activity to society?What are the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

• Examples of BROADENING PARTICIPATION activities: Examples of BROADENING PARTICIPATION activities:

Broader ImpactsBroader Impacts

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

Merit Review CriteriaMerit Review Criteria

Broader Impacts

Advancing know

ledge

Advancing know

ledge

qualified PI ?

qualified PI ?

creative and original concepts

creative and original concepts

well conceived and organized

well conceived and organized advance discovery &

promote le

arning

advance discovery &

promote le

arning

increase participatio

n of UR groups

increase participatio

n of UR groups

broad dissemination of results

broad dissemination of results

benefits to society

benefits to society

• First page that program directors and reviewers read

• What: Clearly state the research objectives first

• Why: Is this research needed? Justification!

• How: Describe the major research tasks and how objectives will be met

• Who: Provide information on why you are the one to do this research

The Project Summary/Specific AimsThe Project Summary/Specific AimsAn Important Introduction to “Your Ideas” An Important Introduction to “Your Ideas”

• Know your audience

• Hone your specific aims/research objectives

• Address all review criteria fully

• Address all special requirements

• Choose one or more trusted colleagues to critique your proposal (devil’s advocate)

• Check for compliance issues

A Few More TipsA Few More Tips

The Evaluation ProcessThe Evaluation Process

• Types of ReviewsTypes of Reviews

• Source of ReviewersSource of Reviewers

• Role of the ReviewerRole of the Reviewer

Proposal Review and Processing•Types of ReviewsTypes of Reviews

Types of Reviews • Ad hoc: proposals sent out for review —

– Ad hoc reviewers usually have specific expertise in a field related to the proposal.

– Some proposals may undergo ad hoc review only (at least three).

– Some proposals may undergo supplemental ad hoc reviews after a panel review.

• Panel review conducted at government agency by peers– Panel reviewers usually have a broader scientific

knowledge.– Some proposals may undergo reviews by multiple panels

(especially for those proposals with cross-cutting themes).

Sources of Reviewers • Sources of Reviewers:

– Program Officer’s knowledge of the research area– References listed in proposal– Conferences, professional society programs, S&E journal

articles related to the proposal– Former reviewers’ recommendations– List of reviewers provided by PI

• About ten external panel reviewers per award are contacted.

Role of the Review Panel

• Discuss the merits of the proposal with the other panelists.

• Write a summary proposal review based on that discussion.

• Provide some indication of the relative merits of different proposals considered

(Ratings= E, VG, G, F, P or HP, MP, LP, NC)

Factors Influencing the Factors Influencing the Final Decision of Program Final Decision of Program

OfficersOfficers

Proposal Review and ProcessingFactors Influencing Funding DecisionsFactors Influencing Funding Decisions

• Is it compelling, high impact science:

(launching vs maintaining)

• Does it fit the Program’s scientific portfolio?

• Does it fit the Program’s special missions?

(CAREER; RUI; RIG; EPSCoR)

• Does it impact the institution/state?

• Are there diversity strengths?

• Is there educational impact?

Factors Considered in Developing Award Factors Considered in Developing Award RecommendationsRecommendations

• Is it compelling, high impact science:

(launching vs maintaining)

• Does it fit the Program’s scientific portfolio?

• Does it fit the Program’s special missions?

(CAREER; RUI; RIG; EPSCoR)

• Does it impact the institution/state?

• Are there diversity strengths?

• Is there educational impact?

Factors Considered in Developing Award Factors Considered in Developing Award RecommendationsRecommendations

Reasons for Declines

• The proposal was not considered to be competitive based on the merit review criteria and the program office concurred.

• The proposal had flaws or issues identified by the program office.

• The program funds were not adequate to fund all competitive proposals.

• The proposal was not a good fit for the program’s portfolio

Revisions and Resubmissions

• Points to consider:

As always, if you have questions, contact the cognizant Program Officer.

– Do the reviewers and the NSF Program Officer identify significant strengths in your proposal?

– Can you address the weaknesses that reviewers and the Program Officer identified?

– Are there other ways you or your colleagues think you can strengthen a resubmission?