Writing More Effective Proposals III Practical aspects of proposal review

1. Writing More Effective Proposals III Practical aspects of proposal review Structure and style issues

2. Review Process -- Practical Aspects

3. NSF Proposal Review and Decision Process Mail Reviews Award (Via DGA) Declination Central Processing Program Manager Division Director Investigator/ Institution Withdrawal Panel Inap- propriate

4. Practical Aspects of the Review Reviewers have: • Many proposals • Ten or more from several areas • Limited time for your proposal • Different experiences in review process • Novices to veterans • Different levels of knowledge in proposal area • Experts to outsiders • Discussions of proposals’ merits at panel meeting • Share expertise and experience

5. Exercise: Practical Aspects of Review Process Write a list of suggestions (3-5 guidelines) that a colleague should follow to deal with these practical aspects 5 minutes

6. PD’s Response: Review Process • Use good style (clarity, organization, etc.) • Be concise, but complete • Write simply, but professionally • Avoid jargon and undefined acronyms • Check grammar and spelling • Use sections, heading, short paragraphs and bullets (avoid dense, compact text) • Reinforce your ideas • Summarize and highlight them (bolding, italics) • Provide appropriate level of detail

7. PD’s Response: Review Process • Pay special attention to the Project Summary • Summarize goals, rationale, methods and evaluation and dissemination plans • Address intellectual merit and broader impacts • Explicitly and independently • Three paragraphs with headings: • “Summary” • “Intellectual Merit” • “Broader Impacts”

8. PD’s Response: Review Process • Follow the solicitation and GPG • Adhere to page, font size, and margin limitations • Use allotted space but don’t pad the proposal • Follow suggested (or implied) organization • Use appendices sparingly (check solicitation to see if allowed) • Include letters showing commitments from others • Avoid form letters!

9. PD’s Response: Review Process • Prepare a credible budget • Consistent with the scope of project • Clearly explain and justify each item • Address prior funding when appropriate • Emphasize results • Sell your ideas, but don’t over promote • Proofread the proposal • “Tell a story” and turn a good idea into a competitive proposal

10. If You Have Questions and Concerns During Proposal Preparation • Read the solicitation and the GPG • Get advice from NSF program directors or experienced colleagues • Use an “imaginary panel”(Experts, novices, in-field/out) • How would they respond to a question? • How would they react to an idea? • How would they react to a written section? • What else would they like to see? • What questions will they have? • Don’t include a poorly developed section because someone told you that it is needed

11. Fatal Flaws What are some fatal flaws in proposals that reviewers might identify?

12. Fatal Flaw #1 “My ideas are so great I’m certain NSF won’t care whether they fit the program guidelines.” • Read the solicitation completely and carefully • Write proposal and address each area outlined in the solicitation Check each program solicitation carefully for: Additional Criteria (for example) • Integration of Research and Education • Integrating diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

13. Fatal Flaw #2 “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.” • Formulate your idea(s); clearly state what you want to do • Identify the audience(s) you want to work with • Identify specific tasks and a timeline for completing activities • Give background information; cite literature-demonstrate that you are aware of similar efforts/prior work • Address broader impacts; if diversity is one of your goals, how will you recruit and support students?

15. Fatal Flaw #3 “I’m sure they don’t actually count the pages. No one will notice I’m over the page limit. Maybe I should just use a smaller font.” • Follow page and font-size limits • Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide)

16. Fatal Flaw #4 “NSF should know what I’ve done in the past without my having to tell them. After all, they paid for it.” • Provide results from prior funding • Include a Dissemination planin your current proposal

17. Fatal Flaw #5 “Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of methods.” • Plan for formative and summative evaluation • Include evaluation plan with timelines and benchmarks

18. Fatal Flaw #6 “I’ll inflate my budget because NSF always ends up cutting it anyways” • Budget should directly reflect work plan • Provide biographical sketches for all key personnel

19. Fatal Flaw #7 “FastLane? What’s that?” • Test drive FastLane • Consult your Sponsored Research Officer (SRO) • Spell check and grammar check • Start Early

20. Conclusion Start Early Read the solicitation! Read the GPG! Start Early Read the solicitation! Read the GPG! Start Early Read the solicitation! Read the GPG!

21. How to Write a Compelling Narrative: Tone and Content

22. Need/Impact Exercise (5 minutes) Break into groups Read the Need/Impact sections from the two CCLI proposals (in folder) Which one is from the funded proposal and which is from the declined proposal? What is the focus of each? What are the strong points? Weak points?

23. Why does tone matter?(5 minutes) Break into groups Read the three “Tone paragraphs” and discuss. Which is/are from funded and which is/are from declined proposals? What are the major differences in tone between the three? Strong/weak points?

24. Qualifications of the PI Exercise(5 minutes) Break into groups Read the sections about the PIs. Which is from the funded proposal and which is from the declined proposal? What are the major differences between the two descriptions? Strong/weak points? What did the funded proposal do better?

25. Formatting and White Space • Avoid page after page of dense prose (makes reviewers crabby) • Format your proposal into sections/subsections • Use bolding/underlining appropriately (but not excessively) • Incorporate white space between sections/subsections • Use tables where possible (e.g., timeline, personnel responsibilities, evaluation plan

26. Questions and Answers