Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 1. Gap/Match
• Match field’s gap in knowledge, training,
partnering, etc with what your project can do to
bridge the gap
• Know the literature, current techniques, state of
your field.
Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 2. Internal consistency within your
proposal
•
•
•
•
Literature review leads to Aims
Aims lead to Hypotheses
Hypotheses lead to methods
Methods lead to analyses
Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 3. Match project idea to the agency’s
priority
• Correct branch, agency and program
• High program relevance
• Do they target this area for discretionary
funding?
Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 4. Persistence
•
•
•
•
Develop a relationship with the program officer
Use email
Track them down at conferences
Obtain PILOT DATA to show you can do the
project
Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 5. Match made in heaven doesn’t exist
• Take criticism to heart
• Good ideas will get funded, not poor science from
“known researchers/universities/pretty faces”
• Get feedback and clarify, revise, justify and/or
add consultants, literature, data, measures
Six Most Important Tips To
Obtain Grant Funding
• 6. Buy a Ticket
• Must apply
• Best way to get a grant is to write a proposal
Barriers to Success
(another list)
1. "Trust me, I'm the expert”
2. “Give me the money, then I’ll design my
project”
3. “I'm going to develop a scale”
4. Camouflaging the real intention of the
proposal
Barriers To Success
(another list)
• 4. "Is this a problem?" "Is this
important?”
– Where’s the beef?
• 5. Inappropriate tests or measures
• 6. Avoiding input from others
Why Bother Writing A
Proposal?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interest and/or ambition
A researchable problem or need exists
Resources are needed
Plan can be developed
Environment will support the project
Professional stature
Material gains
Liabilities are less than benefits
Proposal Fundamentals
• Major steps in proposal writing
• Commonalities Across Agencies
Major steps in proposal writing
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
Abstract
Project Description or Narrative
Preliminary Studies / Results
Procedures / Methodology
Evaluation Plan
Dissemination Plan
Major steps in proposal writing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- Facilities and Equipment
- Personnel
- Budget and budget justification
- Special Agency Requirements
- Appendices / Attachments
- References
- Title
The Abstract
• Lays out the project
• The proposal builds from the
abstract
• Watch number of words/amount of
space
• Abstract must be consistent with the
proposal - write this section last
Abstract
• Include:
• Problem, issue or need to be
addressed
• Statement of the significance
• Listing of the objectives or goals
• Brief summary of the method and
expected outcomes
Project Description
The MAJOR Section
• Introduction
• Summary of what is proposed and
why?
• Define the Who, What, Why, Where,
When, and How
Project Description
The MAJOR Section
• Text should address:
– Theoretical framework and rationale
– Goals, objectives, or aims
– Current status of the field
– The innovation or improvement
proposed by the project
Project Description
The MAJOR Section
• Significance --
• Why do this?
• What will it do the field?
• How will it be better?
Project Description
• Establishes
– importance of problem or issue
– parameters & limitations
– credibility and competence of the
principal investigator
– novelty of the approach
– "Why?" for giving PI the money
Preliminary Studies /
Results
• Include for all proposals -– Pilot data and preliminary work is
essential for showing that the design
will work
– Include tables and graphs if necessary
Procedures / Methods
• Include design, participants, procedures
• Aim by aim, experiment by experiment,
tasks by task
• Be VERY specific
• Provide DETAILS
– only routine tests, assessments, procedures
may be noted without details
Methods/Procedures
• Include statistical analyses, if appropriate
• Link hypotheses to specific analyses
• Have “escape” options if your hypotheses
NOT supported
• Project time line must show how parts fit
together
• Future studies or long range implications
Evaluation
• Measures of success for the project
design
• Specifics on various evaluation or
testing models
Dissemination Plan
How to communicate results & why?
NSF looks at:
Spread - large dissemination
Choice - alternative products or
procedures
Exchange - sharing information
Implementation - use of new processes or
procedures
Facilities and Equipment
• What do you have already?
• Describe research space, equipment,
materials available
• Describe laboratory specific &
general University facilities
• Make this description consistent with
budget request
Personnel
Establish the credibility of the PI &
other personnel:
Publications
Prior work
Pilot data work
Personnel
• Get connected with others though:
– Conferences, seminars, & professional
meetings
– Correspondence, phone calls, lab visits
– Reviewers of manuscripts or grant
proposals (these are public knowledge)
Personnel
• Include updated vita or biological
sketch in proposal
• Check all entries - include most
recent / most relevant to fit page
limits
• Length & content guidelines
• Be accurate, DO NOT inflate
Personnel
• What if key personnel are
inexperienced or lacking in
credentials?
• How do we get a grant if we haven’t
had a grant?
Budget and Budget
Justification
Review budget elements & justification
carefully:
What do you need for the project?
What is needed for the life of the
project?
Be realistic and as accurate as possible
Carefully justify any unusual items
Special Agency
Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partnerships
Compliances
Plans for continuation after grant ends
Other / Pending Support (related work)
Reviewers to &/or reviewers not to include
Matching Funds
Countries eligible to apply
References
•
•
•
•
List all references cited in text
Be accurate in spelling, citations
Be complete
Consider how references are cited in
text
• By author & date or by number
Appendices/attachments
•
•
•
•
-
Letters
Articles and manuscripts
Reviewers discretion
Employ a Table of Contents
Title
– Clear, Concise, Communicative
– Real World Understanding
– Golden Fleece Award
The Final Step in Proposal
Preparation
• CHECK EVERYTHING CAREFULLY
Final Step
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proof & Reproof-read the entire proposal
Check pagination
Recheck the budget
Recheck agency instructions
Obtain required signatures
Make perfect copies
Mail to meet deadline (postmarked or
receipt)
Commonalities Across Agencies
• They are more alike than they are different
in proposal elements, review process, and in
wanting to fund the best work
Comparison of Review Criteria for Five Major Federal Agencies
US Dept. of
Ed.
Need for
Project/
Significance
Quality of
Project
Personnel/
Services
NSF
Importance
to
Advancement
of
Knowledge
Societal
Impact*
Qualification
s of
Personnel
Quality of
Project
Design
Quality of
Management
Plan/
Evaluation
Creativity &
Originality
Adequacy of
Resources
Sufficiency
of Resources
Organization
of Activity
NEH1
NIH
NEA2
Significance
to Field and
Humanities
in General
Significance
of ProblemAdvancement
of
Knowledge
Impact—Pot
ential to
Enhance
Public
Knowledge
and
Appreciation
Quality or
Promise of
Quality of
Applicant’s
Work
Suitability
and Training
of
Investigator
Conception,
Definition &
Description
Organization
Innovation &
Originality
Artistic
MeritQuality of
Artists
& Payment
to Artists
Quality and
Clarity of
Project Plans
Quality and
Clarity of
Project Plans
Likelihood of
Project’s
Success
Adequacy of
Approach
(Design,
Method, and
Analysis)
Environment
Contributes
to Probability
of Success
Appropriate
Facilities,
Equipment &
Site
Prepared by Pam Miller, Office of Research development and Administration, S outhern Illinois University at Carbondale.
1
2
NEH Summer Stipend Program
NEA Creation and Presentation Program
Understanding Different
Agency Cultures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How are reviewers chosen?
Where does review take place?
How many reviewers?
How many proposals?
What happens at proposal reviews?
How much time is involved for each proposal?
What is the role of the program officers?
Triage
Overview of Reviewer's Pet
Peeves
•
•
•
•
•
Time-wasting hunt for information
Unconventional proposal organization
Writing to impress, not inform
Lack of specificity
Hard to read proposals – sloppy, dense,
boring, not scholarly
Overview of Reviewer's Pet
Peeves
•
•
•
•
•
Inconsistency
Dated materials
Excessive support material
Over or under ambitious project
Budget is not cost effective
Visual Appearance
• Who can read it? Baby Boomers’ Biggest
Lament -- Presbyopia
• Layout
• Use of figures and other graphics
Dealing With Rejection
• - Obtain feedback from program
officers
• - Consider programmatic reasons
• - Consider proposal issues
• - Look for missing or confusing
elements
• - ALWAYS Revise & Resubmit
Rare Possibility
• Proposal reviewer - inexperienced or
poor reviewer
• Be nice – Assertive but not aggressive
– Inform without lecturing
– Tone comes through in words
Watch Out What You Ask
For……
• If it does get funded, you really do have
to do the work!!
QUESTIONS ???