Creating/Sustaining Your Research

EnterpriseStephanie G. Adams, Ph.D.

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityFormer NSF Program Officer

and Assistant Dean for Research

Said Another way. . . .

. . . .Chasing Money Strategies!!

Some Sources of Research Funding

NSF, NIH, NASA, DOD, DOE, ONR, ARMY, NAVY

State agencies Private and Public Foundations Industry, Businesses, and other agencies

NOTE: List yourself with the Community of Science Bulletin

What NSF says about ARRA

NSF portion of ARRA = $3 billion $2 billion available in Research and

Related Activities for proposals already in house and will be

reviewed and/or awarded prior to Sept. 30, 2009

Grants will be standard grants with durations of up to 5 years.

www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

ARRA Priorities Funding of new PIs and high-risk, high-return

research CAREER and IGERT awards Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)

Program and an Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program

Proposals declined on or after October 1, 2008.

www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

ARRA Priorities

Science Masters Program Robert Noyce Scholarship program

and the Math and Science Partnership program

NO supplements to existing grants

www.nsf.govFact Sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

Other Options

EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)

Supports exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches.

Work may be considered especially "high risk-high payoff"

PI(s) must contact the NSF program officer(s) whose expertise is most germane to the proposal topic prior to submission

Requests may be for up to $300K and of up to two years duration

Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID)

Used for proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and unanticipated events.

Contact the NSF program officer(s) whose expertise is most germane

Only internal merit review is required Requests may be for up to $200K and of one year

duration

Other Initiatives @ NSF

EHR DUE

CCLI, STEP, SSTEM, ATE, Noyce, SFS

REC REESE, DR-12

DGE IGERT, GK-12

HRD Advance, GSE

ENG EFRI BRIGE, IEECI, RET,

REU, NUE

CISE BPC

OISE IRES, PIRE

5 Simple Rules to Obtain Funding

1. Always write an “excellent” proposal2. Discuss your idea with someone

knowledgeable in the subject/funding area3. Think of your proposal as 5 required

sections – ALL of which are important4. Reviewers are people too 5. Prepare a credible budget

Modified from Bevlee Watford

RULE #1

Always write an “excellent” proposal Read the solicitation and formulate an outline of

the proposal, giving them what they ask for Format the proposal exactly as they tell you to

format it Write simply and professionally Get at least TWO reviews of the document

contents

RULE #2

Discuss your idea with someone knowledgeable in the subject/funding area Listen to ALL feedback Trusted experts in the field Someone who knows nothing about what you are

doing Contact someone at the funding source and get

feedback on your idea 

How Could a Meeting Help?

Your program director can: Give advice on proposal submission Help you understand a review of a previous

proposal Point you to resources you can use to help write

a better proposal next time Give general guidance on good proposal writing Give you ideas for collaborationsProgram officers look forward to

constructive meetings with PIs

Meeting the Program Officer

Send a short (1-2 pages) white paper prior to the meeting

Be prepared to listen (you don’t learn by talking)

Be prepared with questions or previous reviews

Remember, the program officer is not the panel

RULE #3

Think of your proposal as 5 required sections – ALL of which are important Goals: This is your great idea

What are you trying to accomplish? What will be the outcomes?

Rationale: The World needs your stuff Why do you believe that you have a good idea? Why is the problem important – who cares? Why is your approach promising?

What evidence can you provide that this approach will work What are the potential problems or limitations?

Rule #3 continued Project Description: Details of exactly what the “stuff“ is and how

it will be developed What are the specific project tasks? What is the timeline for each task?

Evaluation: Proof that stuff works How will you manage the project to ensure success How will you know if you succeed?

Dissemination: Describe “stuff“ using conference papers, journal articles, and web site How will others find out about your work? How will you interest them? How will you excite them?

RULE #4

Prepare a credible budget It should be consistent with the scope of the

project Each line item should be clearly explained Each line item should have clearly stated

relevance to the research 

RULE #5

Reviewers are people too Identify the target audience for the proposal –

who are the reviewers? Don’t talk down, don’t talk over Make the proposal easily readable (font,

words on a page, length of paragraphs…) 

The Reviewer

Make his/her life easier! Highlight key points Repeat things you want

them to be sure of tell em what you’re

going to say, say it, tell em what you said

Use figures/graphs where they can help make an obscure point understandable

space is limited, but this is worth it!

is in a somewhat related field, not an expert directly in your area;

serves as a reviewer over and above normal job duties;

conducts reviews in “bits-and-pieces” (evenings, weekends, etc.);

doesn’t always read the entire proposal.

A typical reviewer (on a panel) is reading a lot of similar grants in a short amount of time

21

The Reviewer

Reviewers have Many proposals

Ten or more from several areas Limited time for your proposal

20 minutes for first read Different experiences in review process

Veterans to novices Different levels of knowledge in proposal

area Experts to outsiders

Discussions of proposals’ merits at panel meeting Share expertise and experience

Strengths & Weaknesses Identified by Reviewers

Pretend you analyzed a stack of panel summaries to identify the most commonly cited strengths and weaknesses

List what you think will be The four most frequently cited strengths The four most frequently cited weaknesses

Predict the results of our analysis

Most Common Strengths Strengths Cited in More Than 20 % of the Panel Summaries

Important, timely, or responsive

PI's strong

Collaboration details

Potential for involving W&M

Dissemination, contribution to KB

Large impact

Build on prior work or products

Evaluation plan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent

Most Common WeaknessesWeaknesses Cited in More Than 20 % of the Panel Summaries

Collaboration details

Large impact

Innovative or novel

Build on prior work or products

Potential for involving W&M

Dissemination & contribution to KB

Activities doable & related to outcomes

Evaluation plan

Sufficient detail and clear plans

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent

Final Thoughts

Look for other applications of your research

Partner with the Medical School

Questions

The only dumb/stupidquestion is an unasked question!!!