• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
 

Funding Your Research

on

  • 6,083 views

Regular MIT Informatics Workshop; Also presented at APSA; Harvard IQSS

Regular MIT Informatics Workshop; Also presented at APSA; Harvard IQSS

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,083
Views on SlideShare
5,261
Embed Views
822

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
44
Comments
0

6 Embeds 822

http://drmaltman.wordpress.com 657
http://informatics.mit.edu 128
http://informatics-dev.mit.edu 34
http://a0.twimg.com 1
http://flavors.me 1
http://www.rinkworks.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This work. Getting Started, Getting Funded, by Micah Altman (http://redistricting.info) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
  • - Research grants have a lot of stuff.- Competitive – but conditional on doing your homework, you’re well ahead.

Funding Your Research Funding Your Research Presentation Transcript

  • Getting Started, Getting Funded Micah Altman Director of Research, MIT LibrariesNon-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
  • Outline for this talk Background Research Grants  Planning  Targeting  Writing and Submission  Review  Management Source: Wikimedia Commons Other Types of Funding Resources [1/29/2013] 2
  • 4 Steps Develop an original idea for a research project that solves some part of an important problem (bonus points for cleverness) Do your homework – target a funder who is interested in that problem State the problem clearly for the reviewers:  How it is important  What you intend to do  Why you chose to do that Be persistent, meticulous and systematic in writing submission and review 3 [1/29/2013]
  • The MIT libraries provide support for all researchers at MIT: Research consulting, including: bibliographic information management; literature searches; subject-specific consultation Data management, including: data management plan consulting; data archiving; metadata creation Data acquisition and analysis, including: database licensing; statistical software training; GIS consulting, analysis & data collection Scholarly publishing: open access publication & licensing libraries.mit.edu 4 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingBackground Review Management Other Resources Sponsored Activities Characteristics of Research Grants Common Myths Guiding Principles 5 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Sponsored Activities Review Management Other Resources Supported Activities Sponsorship Types Endowment General Operations Award/Grant Challenge Money Employer matching Collaborative Agreement Annual funds Donation Naming Events Cash In-kind Research Seed/Pilot Projects Contract Community Services Fellowships & Scholarships Corporate Sponsorship Consulting Evaluation Cash In-kind Licensing“ „What‟s on second?” 6 Direct Services [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingResearch Grant Features Review Management Other Resources Primary goal is scientific understanding Peer-reviewed (in some way) Wide discretion over objectives, methods Judged retrospectively Most technical Most competitive* 7 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingThe “Secret Handshake”* Review Management Other Resources Develop Professional Networks Networks of colleagues to review proposals Networks of collaborators for better projects Networks of program officers  Referrals to other funders  Insights into peer review  Insights into funding priorities  Comments and feedback * Credit to Stu Shulman for this term. 8 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCommon Myths Review Management Other Resources Myth: Grants are something for nothing. Myth: Writing proposals is a trial by fire. Myth: You need to know someone to get a grant. Myth: You need to be at a big prestigious institution. Myth: Collaborating gives you more time. Myth: One size fits all. Myth: Grants are few and huge. 9 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingGuiding Principles Review Management Other Resources "Less than 10% of the proposals my foundation receives fits our guidelines – and the ones that dont fit are rejected" [Karsh & Fox 2006, pg. 81] Grants are rational agreements  Harmonize funder mission, program goals, and project goals A successful proposal makes a compelling argument  Reaching goals will make a great difference in areas about which the funders care deeply  Project plan to each these goals is clear, thoughtful, firmly grounded: scientifically, financially, organizationally  Project proposer (individual, group, institution) is well-prepared to carry out the plan Get Organized  A successful proposal has many “working parts”, track each one  Watch the calendar  Collaboration requires extra time Write to facilitate review  Above all, write clearly  Address your writing to the reviewers: peer reviewer, program officer, and board 10 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingA Preview of Review Review Management Other Resources The purpose of planning is to make a good project The purpose of writing a proposal is to communicate to reviewers effectively. Reviewers may include:  Peers in your sub-field  Peers in your field  Peers in other fields  Methodological specialists  Program officers  Executives  Boards After reading your proposal a reviewer should be able to explain to others the answers to questions like these:  How do you know there is a need for what you propose?  Who or what would be affected, how much, in what ways?  How urgent, in relationship to what communities?  What other ways of addressing problem have been tried?  What happens if project is not implemented now?  Why are you best suited to do work?  What insight makes this solvable?  What is innovative about it?  How will the project be used in the future? Will it be of lasting value? 11 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWarm-Up Review Management Other ResourcesConsider the following scenarios: You propose to [pick one]… … create a database measuring international conflict … to develop method for applying voice stress analysis to measure attitudes … conduct a survey on the voting behavior of bloggers … develop a measure of industrialization based on satellite imagery … add your own idea Answer the following:  Describe a proposal in two sentences…  Think of 2 different sectors (federal government, state government, foundation, corporation, individual) or substantive areas (education, policy, science, etc.) to whom you could propose these ideas  How would an abstract of your proposal differ for each sector?HOMEWORK [Source: http://andreymath.wikidot.com/ . Creative Commons Sharealike Licensnce] Locate 2-3 funders in each of these sectors who seem most likely to be receptive. Write a 1-2 paragraph abstract for each funder. 12 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPlanning Review Management Other Resources Timeline of the proposal process Taking Stock Ongoing Readiness Preliminary Research 13 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Timeline of Proposal Review Management Other Resources Taking Stock [days-weeks] Projects Institution Preliminary research [months-year] Collaborations Literature Pilots Targeting [days-months] Identifying Funding Identifying Funders Networking Reading RFP Opportunities Submission [month++] Personnel Administrative Scientific InternalCollaboration Title, Abstract Rewriting Budget Approvals Portion Review Review [1-2 weeks + Funder Program OfficerInternal Review Administrative Individual Review Panel Review Recommendation Board Approval (Internal)] Check s [6 mths + (Funder)] Funding [Start: weeks-months] Initial Budget [Project: up to 5 years] 14announcement adjustment Account Setup HR Annual Reports Extensions [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingTimeline @MIT Review Management Other Resources1. Proposal must be created in COEUS prior to submission2. Proposals should be reviewed with admin/financial officer – plan time for review.3. Proposals must be approved by DLC (Departmental/Laboratory/Center Administration) – Allow time for review.4. Proposal must be submitted to OSP 5 Business Days prior to official deadlineNote: Occasionally, funder will limit the number of submissions toan RFP per institution. In this case MIT VP of research & Deansdetermine an internal review process and deadlines. If you aretargeting a limited opportunity, contact OSP as far in advance aspossible to learn the internal submission dates. 15 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview Your Research Program Review Management Other Resources  SWOT:  Strengths  Weaknesses  Threats  Opportunities  Readiness  Literature reviews  Pilot projects/data collection 16 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingDo You need Money? Review Management Other Resources Need for funding…  What projects need funding to test feasibility?  What projects need funding to launch?  What ongoing projects need funding to continue in future?  Can funding dramatically change impact of ongoing projects? Could you accomplish your goal with in-kind resources? Special support may be available for…  Computing?  Surveys?  Publicity?  Research design & statistical help? Advantages  No indirect cost  Low administrative cost  Easier to obtain  Sometimes allows grants to individual directly Disadvantages  Has to be what you would have bought anyway  Can‟t be used for your time/RA time, etc.  Smaller, less prestigious 17 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIn-Kind Research Support Review Management Other Resources Supercomputing  Amazon EC2 Grants aws.amazon.com/education/  XSEDE www.xsede.org/how-to-get-an- allocation Data Archiving  IQSS DVN dvn.iq.harvard.edu  ICPSR www.icpsr.org  SDSC www.sdsc.edu Survey time  Protogenie www.protogenie.com  Tess www.tessexperiments.org Ads  Google Grants (AdWords) www.google.com/grants Commercial Software  Techsoup www.techsoup.org 18 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingYour Status Review Management Other Resources Educational Requirements  Ph.D. in hand (usually) Faculty Status (usually) Term of Employment  Award typically made to university  What happens if you move? Ownership of Intellectual Property New/Early Investigator Status Diversity Status 19 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPI-Authority Review Management Other Resources “Principal Investigator” (PI) Authority = authority to take ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the research for the institution A PI may or may not be  Primary author of the proposal  Primary author of the resulting publications  Primary person managing the project Other paid roles in a sponsored project  Co-PI - responsible for some portion, usually paid  Senior staff, paid  Technical staff  Student  Postdoc Co-authorship is orthogonal  Co-author on proposal and/or publications is possible w/out pay  Co-authorship does not necessarily imply responsibility for conduct of project 20 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPI Status @MIT Review Management Other Resources At MIT three categories of people have automatic PI Status: Faculty, Senior Research Scientists (SRS), and Principal Research Scientist (PRS). In order to be a PI when holding any other appointment at MIT, the individuals Department Head must request and receive permission from the relevant Dean for that individual to be a PI on a specific project. MIT requires that anyone beyond faculty, SRS, or PRS must provide confirmation of approval from their Dean for PI status for each protocol application (there is no blanket PI Status). http://web.mit.edu/policies/5/index.html 21 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingConflict of Interest @MIT Review Management Other Resources MIT REQUIRES disclosure of outside activities and interests to designated Institute officers, including financial interests, that might give rise to conflicts Conflict of interest statements must be entered in COEUS prior to submission coi.it.edu 22 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingYour Institutional Eligibility Review Management Other Resources Status: 501(c)3, public/private, Carnegie classification. Special programs eligibility:  NSF: EPSCOR, RUI, ROA, “Broadening Participation” Grants  DOE- FaST (Faculty and Student Teams)  NIH IDEA Federal Compliance:  Human subjects,Vertebrate animals, Inventions and patents, Debarments and suspension, Drug-free workplace, Lobbying, Delinquent federal debt, Misconduct in science, Civil Rights, Handicapped Individuals, Sex discrimination, Age discrimination, … 23 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingInstitutional Positioning Review Management Other Resources Competitive advantages Stakeholders Collaborations with other institutions Policies:  Sponsored research: approvals, permitted sponsors, P.I. authority  Space & time  Human Resources  Financials and Indirect costs  Publication and intellectual property policies Decision Makers: Chairs, Deans, Sponsored Research Office (S.R.O.), Human Resources H.R., etc. 24 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingInstitutional Support Review Management Other Resources Types of support for sponsored research  Sponsored research office  Financial, H.R. Support  Training and review  Development and targeting  Culture: seed money, tenure and promotion, course load Support resources  Level 1  Who: Chair, Finance officer/Business officer, Statistical Consultant, Research Coordinators/Assistants  What: space, time, research funds, pilot funds, approval , editing , review, logistics, information tech, statistical expertise  Level 2  Who: dean, financial officer, development, office of sponsored research, IRB, HR, IAUC  What: contract negotiations, indirect costs, application forms and checks, funding prospects, approve human protocols, job description, pay ranges, rules and policies, training 25 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingAward Support @ MIT Review Management Other Resources  OSP Department Contacts: osp.mit.edu/about-osp/staff/by-department  MIT Office of Foundation Relations foundations.mit.edu  Department Admin/Financial Officer 26 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingActive Preparations Review Management Other Resources “Chance favors the prepared mind.” -- Louis Pasteur Ongoing Readiness Action Research Preliminary Results 27 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingOngoing Readiness Review Management Other Resources "Nothing new that is really interesting comes without collaboration" -- James Watson Organization  Maintain calendar of project & sponsor deadlines  Review opportunities regularly Materials  Bios up to date, in funders formats  Keep up to date on facilities Collaboration  Should be integrated into your research, not a response to an RFP  Networking: with colleagues, funders, decision makers, stakeholders  Familiarize yourself with support staff: OSP, staff, counsel  Build support: other communities served 28 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing“Action Research” Review Management Other Resources Action research is…  an iterative inquiry process: planning, action, evaluation  integrated in engaging in the practice of an activity (teaching, politics, writing, etc.)  incorporates problem solving and empirical measurement of problem solving methods  collaborates with community of practice Can be used to jump start proposals  Research conducted in course of teaching, etc  Questionnaires  Informal in-class experiments  Market surveys 29 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPreliminary Results Review Management Other Resources Presentation of some smaller set of data  A prototype  A pilot experiment  A sub-sample  The proposed approach applied to a different population  … Why?  Establish working collaborations  Publish articles explaining and/or vetting methods, data, approaches  Show capability to do research  Show feasibility of approach  Show competence with required methods  Review literature, understand competing approaches  Reveal interesting puzzles for investigation 30 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingExercise: Planning Review Management Other Resources IN CLASS What are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for your:  Organization?  Research program?  Proposed project? HOMEWORK: What resources are available to you to support your funding search from:  Your university? [Source: http://andreymath.wikidot.com/ . Creative Commons Sharealike Licensnce]  Your department?  Yourself?  Other sources? 31 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Planning Review Management Other Resources Start now! You need time to…  Engage collaborators  Structure proposal for review  Prepare submission materials  Obtain internal approvals Examine your research portfolio  Strengths, weaknesses, threats, opportunities  Identify where funding will have the most impact Identify institutional resources Prepare as well as plan  Cogent summaries of your research projects  Data! … Anecdotes, action research, scientific puzzles, pilots, and preliminary results 32 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingTargeting Review Management Other Resources Types of sponsors Finding Sponsors Finding Opportunities 33 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Sponsors Review Management Other Resources “ „Who‟s on first?” Sponsor TypesSponsors Government Federal State and Local Foreign Foundation Public Community Family Private Corporate Corporate Sponsorship Office Community Relations Individual 34 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPhilanthropic Giving Review Management Other Resources Source: Frumkin 200635 [1/29/2013]
  • Major Science Research Background Review Planning Management Targeting Other Writing ResourcesFunding  Sources for funding statistics and trends:  Foundation Center: foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/  American Academy for Advancement of Science (AAAS) Reports: aaas.org/spp/rd/fy09.htm  Consortium of Social Science Organizations (COSSA) Reports: cossa.org/advocacy/budgets.shtml 36 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFunding Sources @MIT Review Management Other Resources Source: Institutional Research, Office of the Provost web.mit.edu/ir/financia l/re.html 37 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSelected Sci Sponsors Review Management Other Resources Major Federal Funders of Science Research  National Science Foundation (NSF):  National Institutes of Health (NIH):  Department of Energy:  Depart of Defense:  NASA Federal Funders of Social Science, Education, Humanities  Dept of Education (social sci, education)  NEH (small funder, but large proportion of humanities funding)  NIJ  See http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-administration/sponsor- information 38 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSelected Sci Sponsors Review Management Other Resources Top Foundations Funding Science in 2010 See: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/ 39 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSelected Soc Sci Sponsors Review Management Other Resources Top Seven Foundations Funding Social Science in 2010 See: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/ 40 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFoundation Trends Review Management Other Resources Funding Distribution 2009 Patterns  Large foundations more likely to fund science, public policy  Science more likely to be funded if policy relevant  8 out of 10 fields experienced foundation fund decline 2008-9 Source: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/ 41 [1/29/2013]
  • Foundation Funding Background Planning Targeting WritingDistribution Review Management Other Resources Average/Median Foundation Grant in related fields 2008  Social Science $197K/$50K  Education $171K/$30K  Public Affairs $137K/$30K Large100 Foundation Funders in related fields 2008  Social science: $181M, 709 awards  Higher education: $1087M, 2792 awards  Public affairs: $1259M, 6665 awards Medium 1200 + Foundation Funders in related fields 2008  Social science: $304M, 4126 awards  Higher education: $1297M, 6888 awards  Public affairs: $1255M, 11664 awards See: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/ 42 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingNSF Profile Review Management Other ResourcesTotal Research Budget $6.5 Billion (FY 10 est.)Focus Basic Research in Sciences and EngineeringEligibility U.S. Nonprofit Academic Institutions, (SBIR only Small Businesses)Submission process Open programs. Open request for proposals. Fixed and variable deadline schedules. Main description = 15 pages.Review process • Mixed & extensive peer reviewed. • Usually ad+hoc, panel, and P.O. review • Reviewers score proposal. Score‟s assign broad categories (e.g. highly competitive, competitive, non-competitive). Program officers have discretion inside categories. Budget for program fixed in advance. • 6 month review timePrograms of interest for soc sci FY08 actuals: Social Behavior and Economic ($223M), Education and Human Resources ($845M), Office of Cyberinfrastructure ($185M) RAPID (quick response), EAGER (small highly innovative/high risk)Overall success rate Varies by program 18-40%. Many programs ~ 20%.Award length • Up to five years in most programs • Most programs average 3-4 years, Median 2.66 Years (Ry10)Median award $108K (FY 09 , includes dissertations awards & indirect costs)Useful URL‟s • Grants: nsf.gov/funding • Award Statistics: dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov • Award Database: nsf.gov/awardsearch 43 [1/29/2013]
  • NSF By the Numbers Background Planning Targeting Writing (FY2010) Review Management Other Resources Median award $: ~123,391 Average award duration, in years: 2.9 Proposals: 55542 Awards: 12996 Rejections reconsidered: 37 Proposals funded after formal reconsideration : 2 Proposals informally revised and resubmitted: (a lot  ) Average number of proposals per pi before award: 2.3 Percentage of awards to top 10 research universities: ~12% Percentage of awards to top 100 research universities: 75% Proposal funding rate: 23% (Top 100 Universities: 26% , 17% for other PHD ranting institutions) Percentage of NSF PI‟s with more than one grant: 20% Overall funding rate % of PI‟s over 3 years: 37 Average months of salary support for PI‟s: ~1.1[Source: NSB FY2010 Report on NSF’s Merit Review Process] 44 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing NIH Profile Review Management Other ResourcesTotal Research Budget $ 31 Billion (FY 10 est.) (not including ARRA)Focus Health & MedicineEligibility U.S., Small business, Non-profit, GovernmentsSubmission process Open program announcements (PA‟s). Open special initiatives (RFA‟s). Fixed deadline cycles. Main description = 13 pages. (for R01, shorter for some other proposals)Review process • Uniform & extensive peer reviewed. • Standing panels + ad hoc reviewers + triage + institute approval. • Panel scores proposal. Institute determines fundable threshold. Funding awards made at different times during fiscal year (may receive award later, if funding available)Programs of interest for soc sci $10 Billion for Behavioral/Social Science Methodology and Measurement in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Sociobehavioral Analysis in Aging, NIH/HHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); NIH/HHS: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI); Retirement Economics; y; Information Technologies and the Internet in Health Services and Intervention Delivery; Research on Research IntegrityOverall success rate 22% (FY10 – R01‟s )Award length • Up to five years • Most programs average 3-4 yearsAverage award $419K (FY 10, research projects – R01, direct costs only)Useful URL‟s • Grants: grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm • Contracts: oamp.od.nih.gov/ContractOpportunity/ContractOpportunity.asp 45 • Award Statistics/Abstracts: report.nih.gov [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingNIH/NSF Tips Review Management Other Resources- Submit to individual institute/program- Multiple/parallel submission usually ok within one organization – as long as you notify program officers- Keep to the letter on all guidelines for length (i.e.. maximum length=minimum length), deadlines, headings, etc.- Research program officer/panelists- Inquire with program officer for clarification on submissions after reading the RFP thoroughly 46 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFoundations as Sponsors Review Management Other Resources 56000 Foundations* Many are small, no website Proposals are similar in structure, but generally briefer Alignment of project with foundation interest is critical Proposals are shorter  Typically a proposal acts as the capstone to a series of discussions with the foundation  3-10 Pages not unusual Review varies E.g. – at a larger foundation  Very small grants are within discretion of program officer  Small grants require review by multiple program officers  Large grants require program officer to invite (ad-hoc) peer review, then review by foundation board * National Center for Charitable Statistics, based on IRS Businees Master File 47 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingApproaching Foundations Review Management Other Resources Use foundation directories to locate Work to get a referral to a program officer or board member  From someone on your board  Sponsored development officer  Another foundation officer If no referral …  The very largest foundations will issue RFP‟s  Or send a letter of inquiry prior to proposal  If letter of inquiry is not desired  Then don‟t inquire about funding, but  Do send a related publication and a summary of your work  Do offer to discuss your work with them Network, network, network  Discuss plans with program officer  Proposal is culmination of these repeated discussions (typically short) 48 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFoundation Alignment Review Management Other Resources Source: Frumkin 200649 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIndustrial Sponsors Review Management Other Resources Mutually beneficial when fundamental research can rapidly translated to commercial products Special issues:  intellectual property  communication & culture  agreement negotiation  establishing peer-to-peer relationship  Publications See:  http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract- administration/information-for-industrial-sponsors  http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-administration/industrial- collaborations-and-agreements 50 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCrowd Funding Review Management Other Resources Advantages : Low overhead, direct-to-researcher Disadvantages: Smaller, Less prestigious, Less generaltheopensourcescienceproject.com peer reviewed, science researchfundscience.org science researchspot.us journalism researchkickstarter.com any cause except charitysponsume.com any causeindiegogo.com any causerockethub.com any causejustgiving.com charity only 51 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFinding Sponsors Review Management Other Resources Professional Organizations  Chronicle of Philanthropy  Professional Societies  Sponsored Research Offices  Academic/Scientific Lobbying Groups Foundation Directories  The Foundation Center  Guidestar Sponsor Websites  For Example:  Nsf.gov,  NIH.gov,  www.fordfound.org (These and many more are listed in the resources section) 52 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFinding Opportunities Review Management Other Resources Subscribe to funder and association mailing lists Funder Website Special Programs Read Chronicle of Philanthropy, Association newsletters Targeted search of databases  Geographic area  Funding amount  Award type  Awardee eligibility Past Awards  Funders Sites  FOIA (freedom of information act)  Foundation Tax Forms Funding Databases 53 [1/29/2013]
  • Graduate and Postdoc Background Planning Targeting WritingOpportunities Review Management Other Resources Limitations and Opportunities  Cannot be the principal investigator of most grants as a PI/Grad student  May be a Co-PI on a dissertation improvement grant  May still co-author with a more senior colleague and be paid as grad, postdoc, staff, or consultant  Co-authorship is not an official status, but may be very practical Many fellowship/postdoc opportunities linked to career stage:  First and 2nd year graduate students  Summer funding  Dissertation improvement  Postdoctoral fellowships How to find…  Foundations, federal funding sources  Often obtained through social networks – sponsored by particular departments, research centers  Others are announced through bulletins (website, email list, newsletters) sponsored by professional associations (APSA, AER, ASA, etc.) Writing  Same overall structure as a grant proposal, similar strategies apply  Different expectations on length, formatting, level of detail 54 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingInternal Funding @MIT Review Management Other Resources Graduate/Undergraduate Public Service Grants web.mit.edu/mitpsc/whatwedo/grants MISTI – International Science and Technology Initiatives web.mit.edu/misti/ Alumni Supported Education/Teaching Funding web.mit.edu/alumnifunds/ web.mit.edu/darbeloff/ Graduate Fellowships odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/odgefellowships/ International Fellowships and Grants (Starr, Luce, Carnegie) web.mit.edu/cis/fo_cisfg.html Department/School Funds/Fellowships Examples: CAMIT, SHASS, Aero 55 [1/29/2013]
  • Seeking Foundation Background Planning Targeting WritingFunding @MIT Review Management Other Resources MIT Office of Foundation Relations foundations.mit.edu Be aware:  Some large foundations are managed, should consult with foundation relation office before contacting: foundations.mit.edu/for-grant-seekers/portfolios/  Indirect cost underecovery  Foundations typically pay no or little overhead,  Funds for "underrecovery" must be identified from internal sources and committed before submission  Faculty should work with department heads, administrative officers, Foundation Relations staff, and school development officers 56 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFunding Information @MIT Review Management Other Resources OSP-Licensed External Funding Database: www.researchprofessional.com Foundation Relation Office Licensed External Funding (Contact the Foundation Relations Office for Access) granstation.com External Graduate Fellowships: odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/external/ CIS Fellowship Database (includes postdoctoral) web.mit.edu/cis/dbsearch.html MIT Venture Mentoring Service http://web.mit.edu/vms/ 57 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSome Notable Fellowships Review Management Other Resources Early Graduate Work  Javits (D.O.E.), Soros, NSF Graduate Research Fellowships, Ford Foundation, See: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/fellowships_for_1st_or_2nd_year_of_graduate_study.php Mid-Late Graduate Career  Fulbrights: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/fulbrights.php  Harvard summer funding: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/graduate_summer_standard_application_2.php  Internal Harvard funding: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/dissertation_completion_standard_application_2.php  NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement:http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf01113/nsf01113.htm  Separate applications through each NSF program  NIH Support for Individual‟s doing Doctorates: http://grants.nih.gov/training/F_files_nrsa.htm  Also see the HU graduate support database and others on my site: http://gsasgrants.fas.harvard.edu/ggg.cgi Postdoctoral fellowships  Most postdocs are administered and awarded through individual institutions and research groups…  NSF postdoctoral opportunities: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/education.jsp?fund_type=3  NIH Postdoc for Individual Applicants http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/IndivPostdoc/  Also see the HU postdoc database and others on my site: http://gsasgrants.fas.harvard.edu/pdg.cgi 58 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReading RFP‟s Review Management Other Resources First Reading: Eligibility Requirements  Project objectives  Eligibility  Deadlines  Award levels Second Reading: Structure and content  Outline of proposal  Special requirements  Additional Technical Requirements Third Reading: Search for intellectual foundations & referent  Referenced theories, reports  Key ideas, terminology 59 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingUnstated requirements Review Management Other Resources Meta-Requirements:  Effectiveness  Accountability  Legitimacy Grey Zones:  How program serves both the founder and recipient interests  Hot-button issues at funder  Amount of in-kind cost-sharing  Reputation of your organization and staff  Reasonable salaries on budget  Percentages of secretarial, support personnel  Things may hide in the boilerplate  Simultaneous submissions What to do:  Talk to colleagues  Talk to program officers  Examine previous projects funded by the same program 60 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingExercise: Reading an RFP Review Management Other Resources Read the RFP included in the handout. (Also available here: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_ke y=nsf08550) Identify the following  Eligibility requirements  Structure and content requirement  Intellectual foundations, key ideas  Domains/expertise of likely reviewers Draft a generic outline of a response to the RFPHOMEWORK Read background information about NSF and the directorates sponsoring this program at the NSF website What are the core missions of these organizations? What are the key stakeholders? What are some likely unwritten requirements? 61 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Targeting Review Management Other Resources- Use online sources to identify… - The top funders in your area - Smaller funders with a special interest in “your” problem - Monitor - Funder mailing list and web sites - Professional associations and aggregated funding databases- Analyze particular programs and “RFP‟s” - - What are eligibility requirements? - - What is expected structure and content of proposal? [Source: http://andreymath.wikidot.com/ . - What are intellectual foundations? Creative Commons Sharealike Licensnce] - Examine previous funded projects, and talk with colleagues and funders to find “unstated” requirements 62 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWriting & Submission Review Management Other Resources What to write  Outlines of Proposals  Writing Strategies Nuts and bolts  Materials and Special Sections  Managing the Submission Process 63 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingProposal Components Review Management Other Resources Main Description & Summary  Titles  Abstracts  Executive Summaries  Description (Main) Supporting Material  Budgets  Management Plans  Data Management Plans  Appendices [Source: NIH] Collaboration Support  Budgeting  Letters & Memoranda of Endorsement, Support, Agreement 64 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingMain Description Review Management Other Resources The Main Project Description  Organization  General Writing Strategies  Writing Tips  Outline 65 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingProposal Organization Review Management Other Resources In most cases organize around outcomes When outcome may be small compared to method, organize around method If for general operating support, etc. organize around recent accomplishments, awards, present and future programs For awards, some fellowships, focus around accomplishments and future promise Know your disciplinary approach:[Lamont 2009]  Comprehensive – attention to details, context  “knowledge for knowledge’s sake”  Constructivist – giving voice, reflexivity  “knowledge for social change”  Positivist – generalization, hypothesis testing  Utilitarian – positivist focused on instrumental knowledge 66 [1/29/2013]
  • What we‟d like reviewers to think…67 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSimple Proposal Outline Review Management Other Resources State your central research question Explain how it is important Say what you plan to do (be realistic) Say why you plan to do it (and how the literature supports it)Other materials support this:  References – support importance & the “why” of your plans  Bio – supports your ability to carry out the “what”  Budget, Timeline – supports the “what” 68 [1/29/2013]
  • Heilmeiers Catechism Background Planning Targeting Writing(yeah! Wikipedia) Review Management Other Resources What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? Whats new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful? Who cares? If youre successful, what difference will it make? What are the risks and the payoffs? How much will it cost? How long will it take? What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success? 69 [1/29/2013]
  • More detailed proposal Background Planning Targeting Writingoutline Review Management Other Resources1. Introduction (Specific Aims) - 1 page 1. Broad long term objectives: broadest use of findings, vision 2. Objectives (specific aims): problems to be addressed 3. Hypotheses/research questions: testable/answerable 4. Research rationale: why do this research now?2. Background and Significance (literature review, conceptual framework) – 2-3 pages 1. Establish importance of objectives 2. Put hypotheses in coherent context 3. Highlight intellectual merits 4. Justify research design and methods3. Preliminary Studies 1. Relationship between this project and your prior research 2. Demonstrate mastery of required methods 3. Use pilot data to highlight interesting puzzles, preliminary results4. Research design and methods 1. Explains completely how each hypothesis/question will be tested 2. Should be naturally connected to background and significance, preliminary studies 3. Most detailed/painstaking section 4. Important to note alternative designs, procedures, methods, etc. and justify why current one chosen 70 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other ResourcesDetailed Research & Methods Project design  Type of design  Enough information to determine appropriateness  Simpler designs and quantitative designs preferred Subjects/Case  Characteristics of sample population  Selection mechanism  Amelioration of attrition and nonresponse  Benefits to subjects Instruments  Instruments to be used  Reliability and validity  Measurement levels Procedures  Sufficient detail for replication of major aspects…  Alternatives con  Measurement levels  Data cleaning and correction Methods of analysis  Relate to hypotheses  Statistical methods and models  Effect size, power and significance  Expected results  How will data be interepeted 71 [1/29/2013]
  • Qualitative ResearchMethods Careful attention to:  Connection between theory, data, and constructs  Alternative explanations  Negative cases and falsifiability  Operationalization of constructs  Expected findings  What counts as data; how it will be analyzed; how it will be collected  Generalizability beyond selected cases  Required: cultural fluency, language skill, contextual knowledge, methodological proficiency Some potential advantages of qualitative approach  Behavior and opinions that are not well understood my be difficult to quantify  Theory and hypothesis formation  May be more appropriate for sensitive/vulnerable populations  Process tracing can be used to expand set of observable implications of theory  Investigation of substantively/theoretically significant cases[See: Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research Report, http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf ] 72 [1/29/2013]
  • Variation: Dissertation Background Review Planning Management Targeting Other Writing ResourcesProposal Typically same structure, review as other research grants Reflects smaller projects than faculty proposals:  Often shorter duration  Smaller $$: e.g.,  Shorter proposal: e.g. 10 pages  Tend to ask for resource not available at the university, such as: travel for field work, data collection, data purchase, specialized analysis services, special equipment  Programs vary widely – check details of the individual program  Does not require PI status  Some are awarded to individuals, not institutions  Others are awarded to faculty advisor, with student as CO-PI 73 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingGeneral Reviewer Questions Review Management Other Resources How do you know there is a need for what you propose? Who or what would be affected, how much, in what ways? How urgent, in relationship to what communities? Is this a priority for your institution/research program? Who else is working on issue locally/nationally? What other ways of addressing problem have been tried? Why should these particular needs/population receive attention now? What happens if project is not implemented now? Why are you best suited to do work? How you have capacity to initiate this effort? How do you know this is feasible? What insight makes this solvable? Synergies – complements other work Stakeholders, critical communities, incentives to involvement? Relationship to literature? Does the literature support the approach taken? How will the project be used in the future? Will it be of lasting value? 74 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingOn Originality/Innovation* Review Management Other Resources Innovation is sometime required, always helpful Reviewers are often open to different forms of innovation:  New approach  New question  New data  New perspective  New connections  New argument  New synthesis  New importation into a discipline Your proposal should state clearly what is original. *Credit to Lamont 2009 for highlighting these 75 [1/29/2013]
  • How to be original Background Review Planning Management Targeting Other Writing Resources(like everyone else…)(According to Ayres and Nalebuff 2003) Imagine the unconstrained solution – what if you had unlimited time, brains and $? Look at how similar problem is solved in other domains Look for applications of a solution in your domain to other problems Identify the fundamental constraints that any solution would satisfy Identify externalities Try flipping portions of earlier approaches (According to Ron Hale Evans 2006)  Permute ideas: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse  Impose artificial constraints on solution  Identify analogies and systematically list correspondences 76 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWriting Organization Review Management Other Resources Outline format  Organize outline in exact form as implied by RFP  Answer every question in the RFP, address every topic.  Keep order of answers the same as in RFP. Topic Outline Paragraph  First line of each paragraph summarizes single topic  Collection of first lines coherently summarizes section  Sections summarize argument Be consistent in style, terminology Answer possible objections Customize for every funder 77 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWriting for Reviewers Review Management Other ResourcesWrite to make it easy for reviewers… Funnel, Focus, and Highlight*  Funnel from general to specific  Focus on your proposed research  Highlight innovations, key decisions, and answers to RFP questions Inverted pyramid summarization  Title summarizes project  Lead sentence summarizes project  Abstract summarizes  Executive summary Outline & Topic Sentence Structure  Section headings and sub-headings follow logical outline  Use expected headings and ordering  Short summary paragraphs at end  Topic sentences  First sentence in paragraph summarizes paragraph  Topic sentences form outline of section  Highlight key points*[Writing Successful Science Proposals by A. J. Friedland, C.L. Folt] 78 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWriting Style Goals Review Management Other Resources Clarity  The Common Prerequisite. Concision Force Positivity Inclusion  Include reviewers as audience  Include community as beneficiaries  Invite funders to become part of solution … but do not assume common knowledge 79 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingWriting Style Tips Review Management Other Resources Use active & specific language (not passive & vague) "Vigorous writing is concise" Avoid negativity about project ("will" not "would", – Strunk & White "expect" not "hope") Use strong action words Groups of three adjectives. Then support them with facts. Avoid first person singular/plural (where possible) Topic sentence structure Simple sentences – only one dependent clause Avoid unnecessary synonyms Avoid unnecessary jargon Lots of headings Numbered and bulleted lists Short paragraphs Write as you should speak Dont exaggerate Keep value judgments, political views, humor, controversial issues out Italics/bold to highlight key issues Avoid abbreviations, acronyms Do not assume common knowledge [Source: Library of Congress] 80 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIncluding Figures Review Management Other ResourcesUse images, pictures, & charts for… Clarity – show things that are hard to describe Concision – images portray complex structure Demonstrate Preliminary Results  Proof of concept  Inter-ocular impactBeware of… Clip-art “Chartjunk” Unfaithful reproduction (color, fine detail, formats, …) 81 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSupporting Materials Review Management Other Resources References and citations Titles and Abstracts Pre-proposals Other supporting materials Project Plans 82 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReferences and Citations Review Management Other ResourcesReferences support significance and rationale. Citations  Use citation to establish background, significance, methods, approach, etc.  Usually 1-3 citations are sufficient to establish a point  Usually citations should be < ~10 years old  On controversial topics, cite opposing views as well  Generally appropriate to cite reviewers‟ related work Use a consistent format in both citations and references Read all work referenced Reference items should include:  all authors in publication sequence  article and journal title or book title  volume number & page numbers  year of publication  URL, if available, including access date References should not include:  parenthetical remarks/annotations  works not cited (Note: Follow the RFP, even if it differs from this.) 83 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingTitles and Abstracts Review Management Other ResourcesTitles and abstracts summarize your proposal for different forms of review. Titles  Specific – guide choice of reviewers  Active – set reviewer expectation  Avoid cute titles & politically sensitive words Abstract  May be the only thing read at some stages of review  Capture:  Problem being solved, and why its importance  Essence of approach, and why its clever  Research rationale, and why its timely  [If possible] Comparative advantage of investigators  NSF: Should address intellectual merits and broader impacts explicitly. (in separate paragraphs, with italics…) Executive Summary  Usually not included. Longer version of abstract. 84 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPre-Proposals Review Management Other ResourcesPre-proposals summarize your project for different reviewers. Letter of intent  Usually quite short < page.  Guides program officer in creating the reviewer pool in advance. Pre-proposal  Part of a multi-stage competition  Establish eligibility, vision, preparedness  Detailed rationale and approach should be put in full proposal 85 [1/29/2013]
  • Other supporting materials Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other Resources Letters Bios/CV‟s Facilities Appendices 86 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingBios Review Management Other Resources Establish qualifications Establish preparedness for the research Clearly distinguish education, publications, positions held, projects/grants completed Where space is limited -- avoid padding with conference activity, editorial responsibility (etc.), minor honors, unless directly relevant Stick to requested format of RFP 87 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingLetters Review Management Other Resources Reference  Positive evaluation of your past work / promise of future work  Most appropriate for fellowships/awards  Not appropriate for research projects Endorsement  General positive evaluation of proposed project  Most useful when it shows acceptance from perceived rivals, or broad-based community acceptance Support  Makes commitment to provide some service or resource  Can be very useful (more than endorsement) when the supporter is not funded by the grant Agreement (also called Letter/Memorandum of Understanding)  From partners, consultants, contractors funded on the grant  Confirms availability, pricing, scope of work Logistics  On letterhead  Line up early  Consider supplying supporting writer with a proposed outline for their letter 88 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingBudgeting Process @MIT Review Management Other ResourcesSee: osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-administration/preparing-and-submitting-a-proposal/budget-development1. Faculty/Research Staff effort: 1. Adhere to NIH caps 2. Special language for AY effort of less than 10%2. Graduate Students/Postdocs: 1. Salaries and tuition subsidies (if any) set by school/DLC 2. Restrictions on use of Federal research grants for Postdoc funding 3. GRA tuition subsidy may be used as cost sharing (within limits)3. F&A Rate 1. Annually negotiated 2. Excludes tuition, capital expenditures, major equipment and subaward expenses over $25K 3. Non-Research activities carry separate rate 4. Research F&A rate is not reduced for any funder.4. Underrecovery 1. If funder will not support F&A rate, PI must identify & commit internal funding to recover difference 89 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingAppendices Review Management Other Resources Put in what RFP asks for Minimize other material Reviewers might not read 90 [1/29/2013]
  • Project PlansProject plans are your project from different participants/stakeholders points of view… Budgets/Budget Justification Dissemination Plan Project Management Plan Data Management Plan Evaluation Plan Human subjects Postdoc mentoring plans Animal Use 91 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingBudgets Review Management Other ResourcesA budget is your project from the financial perspective. Basic Categories:  Internal People & benefits people costs (health insurance, etc.)  PI  Staff  Grad/Ugrad/Postdoc  Consultants  Participants  Big equipment (over $5K)  Other “direct” costs (laptops, staples, travel)  Supplies  Travel  Etc  “indirect” costs/overhead 92 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingHow Much to Budget? Review Management Other Resources Budget what you need to carry out the science  Budget what you need  Make it clear how each budget item supports the scientific plan Do‟s and Don‟ts  Do estimate costs based on current typical costs  Don‟t cut corners  Do talk to the program officer about unusual expenses or exceeding suggested limits  Do prepare for budget reduction  What would you leave out or scale down?  How would the results be diminished?  Would the project still be feasible? 93 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingBudget Tips Review Management Other Resources What staff? Experience, education, training? Market salaries? Major Categories – May be limited flexibility to move between categories  Staff  Consultants  Equipment  Travel  Stipends Indirect  not easily traceable to a specific costing object  Indirect policies vary – accountant vs. foundation vs. federal Disallowed – personal entertainment, alcohol, bribes, development staff (fundraising), and other foundation specific disallowables Avoid miscellaneous categories (even if labeled "contingency") Dont round numbers very much Multiple institution Logistics  Collaborative budget – each institution manages their part  Subaward – all money flows (and is taxed) through one institution, other institutions have sub-budgets  Consultant/contract – limited fee-for-service payment to individual or institution 94 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingDissemination Review Management Other ResourcesDissemination is your project from the community stakeholder perspective. Articles/books Reviews Web site Conferences Training/short courses Learning modules Community involvementSponsors may have additional requirements Particular forms or forums Open access 95 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingManagement Plan Review Management Other ResourcesA management plan is your project from the operational perspective. Who  Staffing  Scientific and project management  Org chart When (typically year by year, maybe quarterly)  Major milestones:  objectives, evaluations, milestones  Deliverables  External deadlines  Staff recruitment  Participant recruitment  Marketing/dissemination (Occasionally) Risk Management  How will milestones/deliverables be measured  Major risks to schedule  Amelioration and contingency 96 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingEvaluation Plan Review Management Other Resources Involve evaluator from beginning. May need to write this part Basics:  Who will conduct? What/who will be evaluated? How will evaluation data be collected? Who will interpret? When How will it be distributed? Standards: Accuracy; Feasibility (realistic/frugal/prudent; Propriety (legal/ethical); Utility (participants/end user) Formative vs. summative Qualitative vs. summative Internal vs. external Measurement tools / instruments Document everything Periodic reports See: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/start.htm 97 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingData Management Plan Review Management Other Resources When is it required?  Any NIH request over $500K  All NSF proposals after 12/31/2010  NIJ  Wellcome Trust  Any proposal where collected data will be a resource beyond the project Safeguarding data during collection  Documentation  Backup and recovery  Review Treatment of confidential information  Overview: http://www.icpsr.org/DATAPASS/pdf/confidentiality.pdf  Separation of identifying and sensitive information  Obtain certificate of confidentiality, other legal safeguards  De-identification and public use files Dissemination  Archiving commitment (include letter of support)  Archiving timeline  Access procedures  Documentation  User vetting, tracking, and support One size does not fit all projects. 98 [1/29/2013]
  • Data Management Plan Background Planning Targeting WritingOutline Review Management Other Resources Data description  Quality Assurance [if not described in main proposal]  Requirements for data destruction, if applicable  nature of data {generated, observed, experimental  Procedures for ensuring data quality in collections, and  Procedures for long term preservation information; amples; publications; physical collections; expected measurement error software; models}  Institution responsible for long-term costs of data  Cleaning and editing procedures preservation  scale of data  Validation methods  Succession plans for data should archiving entity go out of Access and Sharing existence  Storage, backup, replication, and versioning  Plans for depositing in an existing public database  Ethics and privacy  Facilities  Access procedures  Informed consent  Methods  Embargo periods  Protection of privacy  Procedures  Access charges  Other ethical issues  Frequency  Timeframe for access  Adherence  Replication  Technical access methods  When will adherence to data management plan be  Version management checked or demonstrated  Restrictions on access  Recovery guarantees  Who is responsible for managing data in the project Audience  Security  Who is responsible for checking adherence to data  Potential secondary users management plan  Procedural controls  Potential scope or scale of use  Technical Controls  Reasons not to share or reuse  Confidentiality concerns Existing Data [ If applicable ]  Access control rules  description of existing data relevant to the project  Restrictions on use  plans for integration with data collection  Responsibility  added value of collection, need to collect/create new data  Individual or project team role responsible for data Formats management  Generation and dissemination formats and procedural  Budget justification  Cost of preparing data and documentation  Storage format and archival justification  Cost of permanent archiving Metadata and documentation  Intellectual Property Rights  Metadata to be provided  Entities who hold property rights  Metadata standards used  Types of IP rights in data  Treatment of field notes, and collection records  Protections provided  Planned documentation and supporting materials  Dispute resolution process  Quality assurance procedures for metadata and documentation  Legal Requirements Data Organization [if complex]  Provider requirements and plans to meet them  File organization  Institutional requirements and plans to meet them  Naming conventions  Archiving and Preservation 99 [1/29/2013]
  • Data Management Plans Examples Background Planning Targeting Writing(Summaries) Review Management Other Resources Example 1 The proposed research will involve a small sample (less than 20 subjects) recruited from clinical facilities in the New York City area with Williams syndrome. This rare craniofacial disorder is associated with distinguishing facial features, as well as mental retardation. Even with the removal of all identifiers, we believe that it would be difficult if not impossible to protect the identities of subjects given the physical characteristics of subjects, the type of clinical data (including imaging) that we will be collecting, and the relatively restricted area from which we are recruiting subjects. Therefore, we are not planning to share the data. Example 2 The proposed research will include data from approximately 500 subjects being screened for three bacterial sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at an inner city STD clinic. The final dataset will include self-reported demographic and behavioral data from interviews with the subjects and laboratory data from urine specimens provided. Because the STDs being studied are reportable diseases, we will be collecting identifying information. Even though the final dataset will be stripped of identifiers prior to release for sharing, we believe that there remains the possibility of deductive disclosure of subjects with unusual characteristics. Thus, we will make the data and associated documentation available to users only under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: (1) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes and not to identify any individual participant; (2) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate computer technology; and (3) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed. Example 3 This application requests support to collect public-use data from a survey of more than 22,000 Americans over the age of 50 every 2 years. Data products from this study will be made available without cost to researchers and analysts. https://ssl.isr.umich.edu/hrs/ User registration is required in order to access or download files. As part of the registration process, users must agree to the conditions of use governing access to the public release data, including restrictions against attempting to identify study participants, destruction of the data after analyses are completed, reporting responsibilities, restrictions on redistribution of the data to third parties, and proper acknowledgement of the data resource. Registered users will receive user support, as well as information related to errors in the data, future releases, workshops, and publication lists. The information provided to users will not be used for commercial purposes, and will not be redistributed to third parties. FROM NIH, [grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#ex] 100 [1/29/2013]
  • Data Management Consulting: Background Planning Targeting WritingLibraries @MIT Review Management Other Resources  The libraries can help:  Assist with data management plans  Individual consultation/collaboration with researchers  General workshops & guides  Dissemination of public data through  DSpace@MIT  Referrals to subject-based repositories For more information: libraries.mit.edu/guides/subjects/data-management/ <data-management@mit.edu> 101 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPostdoc Mentoring Plan Review Management Other Resources NSF Requirements:  Separate section  “mentoring activities”  May include: “career counseling; training in preparation of grant proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplinary areas; and training in responsible professional practices.” Recommended (based on HU HMS)  Training/initiation provided  Frequency/duration of advisor meetings (to discuss research/career)  Opportunities for scientific/community development  Travel support details  Mentored grant writing/article writing opportunities  Performance evaluation 102 [1/29/2013]
  • Human Subjects Background Planning Targeting WritingBackground Review Management Other Resources Fundamental goals: beneficence, respect for persons, justice Fundamental procedures:  Informed consent  Systematic assessment of the benefits and risks to the subject  Fair procedure for subject selection  Institutional Review Board (IRB) review prior to start of research Elements of informed consents  Consent is a process, not a form  Document is teaching tool, not legal instrument  Describe overall experience, benefits  No waivers of rights Special Classes of Subjects  Women, Minorities, Children representativeness -- should be included if no scientific basis for exclusion  Prisoners, Children, Fetuses, Cognitively Impaired – additional informed consent considerations 103 [1/29/2013]
  • Human Subjects Background Planning Targeting WritingManagement Plan Review Management Other Resources Human subjects  General Involvement of humans  Does research involve humans?  Is it exempt?  Recruitment  Methods  Population  Representativeness (gender, age, ethnicity)  Treatment of special populations  Risks  Types of risks & justification  Consent  Amelioration  Monitoring Status of IRB Review 104 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIRB Review - Scope Review Management Other Resources Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval needed for all human subjects research if:  Federally-funder  Or at an institution receiving federal funding and giving a “general assurance” (almost all Universities) Human subject: individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains  (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or  (2) Identifiable private information. Human subjects research includes many social science methods:  Surveys  Behavioral experiments  Educational tests and evaluations  Analysis of private information from human behavior (even e-mail, logs of web-browsing activity… ) See www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ 105 [1/29/2013]
  • Research not requiring IRB Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other Resourcesreview: Non-research: non generalizable, no publishable results intended Non-funded: institution receives no federal funds for research Not human subject:  Historical information – no living people described  Observation only AND no private identifiable information is obtained Human Subjects, but “exempt” under 45 CFR 46  use of existing, publicly-available data  use of existing non-public data, if data is individuals cannot be directly or indirectly identified  research conducted in educational settings, involving normal educational practices  taste & food quality evaluation  federal program evaluation approved by agency head  observational, survey, test & interview of public officials and candidates (in their formal capacity, or not identified) Caution not all exempt is exempt…  Some universities require review of “exempt” research  Some research on prisoners, children, not exemptable See: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance /decisioncharts.htm 106 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIRB Review Process Review Management Other Resources Working with IRB  Decentralized process -- IRB develops its own set of rules, procedures, precedents  Do not argue with IRB -- work with them  Use standard forms if available from IRB – otherwise find from large medical school  Much social science project review can be expedited (not the same as “exempt”):  Non invasive data collection: documents, records, voice, video, other observational data  Much behavioral and opinion data  However, judgment up to IRB, must still be reviewed Most funders …  Do not require full review and approval of submitted proposals, however… occasionally reviewers may have significant doubts about whether IRB review could be granted to proposal without major changes – in which case they may reject  Do require relevant issues to be addressed in proposal  Will require IRB approval before awarding grant money  May require a statement from IRB that proposal is under review/will be reviewed if funded Your institution may choose to require IRB review prior to submission 107 [1/29/2013]
  • Human Subjects @MIT: Background Planning Targeting WritingCOUHES Review Management Other ResourcesSee:web.mit.edu/committees/couhes/ Proposal must be approved before any human subjects research project begins PI and all people working on research project require human subjects training – available online Must apply for exempt status – do not assume Applications for full review must be submitted approximately 3 weeks prior to committee meeting:  COUHES meets approximately monthly.  Expedited review available for specified classes of researchweb.mit.edu/committees/couhes/dates.shtml 108 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFreedom of Information @MIT Review Management Other Resources Provost Approval for Classified Research Separate policy for Lincoln labhttp://web.mit.edu/policies/14/14.2.html 109 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingAnimal Use Review Management Other Resources Use of vertebrate animals (with some exceptions) requires approval and separate plan Should include Animal Experimentation Protocol in proposal Approval from Standing Committee on the Use of Animals in Research and Teaching (IACUC) 110 [1/29/2013]
  • Animal Use @MIT: Background Planning Targeting WritingCAC Review Management Other ResourcesSee:web.mit.edu/comp-med/restrict/cac/ Proposal must be approved before any research project involving vertebrate animals begins begins PI and all people working on research project require human subjects training – training course available Applications for full review must be submitted approximately 4 weeks prior to committee meeting:  CAC meets approximately monthly. 111 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingManaging the Process Review Management Other Resources  Create a checklist & Timeline  Include  Things you need to write/prepare  Things you need others to prepare or assist with (e.g. letters of support, budget details)  Approvals from administrators, sponsored research office, IRB, etc.  Contact collaborators and approvers early112 [1/29/2013]
  • Timelines and approvals Background Planning Targeting Writing@MIT Review Management Other ResourcesSubmission Approvals financial commitments, such as F&A underrecovery and cost sharing DLC Administration  Contact the Development office or any other MIT office that needs to approve a proposal before  Reviews: Space/Equipment submission  Reviews: PI status/policy  Submits proposal  Confirms: Office of Foundation Relation Approval  Submits to OSP through COEUS Project Initiation Approvals School Administration (Dean‟s Office)  COUHES (IRB) Approval  Reviews: space/cost sharing/ undereovery  Must be obtained before research begins for new  Assures PI status projects – not generally required for submission of new  Reviews request for 5-day internal deadline projects waiver  Required before submission for continuing research project involving human subjects Office of the Provost  Required for any “human subjects” research even if  Approvals for classified research “exempt” OSP  Training requirements  Reviews proposal, budgets, and supporting documentation  Best practice to seek guidance before submission for compliance with sponsor solicitation, federal and MIT policies  CAC Approval  Works with the PI and DLC in preparing the Small Business  Must be obtained before research begins using Subcontracting Plan, if required vertebrates  Reviews Conflict of Interest Disclosure  Training requirements  Prepares and executes Non-disclosure Agreements (NDAs),  Best practice to seek guidance before submission Memorandum(a) of Understanding (MOUs), Teaming and Collaboration Agreements (consulting with other MIT offices  HR as appropriate), if necessary 113  Reviews position descriptions [1/29/2013]  Ensures proper institutional sign-offs on proposals and
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingExercise: Authorship Review Management Other Resources What are your expectations of authorship in the following situations? When and how would you communicate these?  You develop a hypothesis that you present at an informal seminar. A colleague suggests that:  (a) you propose a grant on it,  (b) refers you to an article with a method that could be used to test the hypothesis,  (c) provides data they produced for you to test the hypotheses,  (d) outlines a novel method to test it, which you eventually adopt 114 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Writing Review Management Other Resources Aim to WOW reviewers:  Significant problem  Clever idea  Capable team Focus, Funnel, and Highlight  Focus on your proposed solution  Funnel from general to specific  Highlight key facts, ideas, answers In writing, strive for clarity above all Organize using outline, topic sentences  State your central research question  Explain how it is important  Say what you plan to do  Say why you plan to do it All other parts of the proposal support or summarize  Bios, letters – support your capacity to carry it out  Budgets, management plans – supports what you plan to do  Titles, abstracts, letters of intent – summarize your proposal 115 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview Overview Review Management Other Resources Forms of Review Reviewers as Audience Researcher, Review Thyself Dealing with Rejection Revision 116 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingForms of Review Review Management Other Resources Program officer  Usually some amount of discretion to give small awards  May act as “tie-breaker” for awards in “competitive middle”  May select reviewers  May act to balance awards across subject areas, geographic regions, etc. Peer Review  Study Sections – medium-term (several years) reviewers for a program  Ad Hoc Panels – panels formed for that RFP round only  Ad Hoc Reviewers – individual written reviews, separate from panel, additional subject matter experts Board  Review program officer and/or peer reviewers  Often review based on abstracts of proposals, summary reviewer reports 117 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCriteria Review Management Other Resources Explicit  Significance (to discipline, to scholarship, to society)  Originality/Innovation (approach, question, data, perspective, connections, argument, synthesis, interdisciplinarity)  Approach/Methods (Quality, Cleverness, Feasibility, Scholarship, Rationale)  Investigator (Publication record, comparative advantage, mastery of methods)  Environment/facilities (adequacy, unique advantages)  Broader impact (education, infrastructure, societal impact, dissemination) Implicit  Clarity  Scholarly dissemination/publication  Alignment with program goals, institutional goals  Factual Accuracy/correctness  Proper role of theory  Awareness of theoretical background of program, reviewer where these intersect proposal  Evanescent Criteria [Lamont 2009] (Cleverness/Elegance/”Hot” Topics & Approaches/Flair/Excitingness/Humility/Determination/Authenticity) 118 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReviewers as Audience Review Management Other Resources A panel review process 1. Primary reviewers (on panel) and ad-hoc reviewers: read proposals, write reviews, score proposals 2. Remaining panelists may read proposal, reviews 3. Proposals receiving preliminary scores below threshold may be streamlined/screened (e.g., NIH) 4. Primary reviewers summarizes reviews for panelists; discuss; adjust their score; establish recommended range for scores 5. Panelists ask clarifying questions, may skim reviews, assign scores 6. Score‟s are based on sum or all panelists 7. Panel chair/p.o. summarizes panel discussion 8. Scores used to broadly categorize proposals (e.g. not noncompetitive/competitive/highly competitive) 9. Program officer may select in middle category 10. Board/directors may set funding thresholds 11. Board/directors may approve proposals based on abstracts and review summaries Dynamics  Mix of backgrounds: subject specialists, generalists, other fields, methodologists, maybe applied/educators  Most of your scores may come from reviewers who have not read proposal  Much reading is during discussion – skimming quickly for clarification  Unanimity of reviewers on excellent proposals is usually sufficient for panel recommendation, but is rare  Very important to have at least one primary reviewer excited/champion proposal  Very important to not have a reviewer or panelist identify what they believe to be fatal flaws 119 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingResearcher, Review Thyself Review Management Other Resources Self Review  Think like a reviewer  Use question lists Collegial Review  Find representative reviewers  Reciprocate  Share question list 120 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSpecific Sample Questions Review Management Other Resources Are project‟s broad objectives precisely stated and appropriately restricted? Are goals stated, and relation to objectives clear? Are project aims stated as objectives rather than methods? Are research hypotheses or research questions relevant to each aim? Do aims & hypotheses foretell data collection, and give clues to project design? Does background and significance provide a good argument for project? Does it establish significance of area? Significance of the problem being solved by project? Does it establish the viability/need for approach chosen? Methods: Is this clearly connected to aims and supported by background? Participants: generalizability, sample size, recruitment proc, inclusion/exclusion , assignment , reimbursement, other agreements, demographics? Apparatus/questionnaire/instrumentation – is it described in complete detail? Setting – is this described enough to provide replicability? Procedure – are participants, project experience, randomization, controls explained? Data management: management, entry, reliability techniques, storage, backps, archiving Are descriptive stats, transforms, models and how these address hypothesis explained? Is it clear what results are expected and how they will be interpreted? Has significance, effect size and power been explained? Is revised proposal responsive to reviewers? If you are building a resource – how will that be sustained after the funding runs out? 121 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingNIH Reviewer Questions Review Management Other ResourcesRestatement of significance, preparedness, originality rationale! 1. Significance. Does the proposed project have commercial potential to lead to a marketable product, process or service? Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? 2. Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? 3. Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? 4. Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? 122 [1/29/2013]
  • NSF – Intellectual Merits Background Planning Targeting WritingReview Review Management Other ResourcesThese are restatements of significance, preparedness, innovation, rationale! How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? 123 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingNSF – Broader Impacts Review Management Other ResourcesThese are societal, educational and other “community” impacts: How the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large 124 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Dealing with Rejection Review Management Other Resources Put aside for a few days If no specific review comments, or very unclear:  Arrange call with program officer  Information only – do not argue, rebut, or clarify your proposal  Ask for clarification of reviewer judgment  Check again – meet organizational and proposal goals?  Reviewer variability  Reviewer comments – champion, pivotal issues?  Is there a problem with proposal, or just couldnt fund for other reasons?  Did proposal address guidelines? Can this be stronger?  Would you suggest we apply again? Time frame?  Any other suggestions for improvements?  Thank program officer Read Comments Ask Colleague to Read 125 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReading Reviews Review Management Other Resources Identify Most Common Issues  not strongly connected to sponsor/program goals  not addressing significant piece of problem  unoriginal research  unfocused research plan  unacceptable scientific rationale  insufficient experimental detail  unrealistic approach  overly ambitious  not aware of relevant work  not experienced in essential methods  uncertain future Be wary of faint praise 126 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingDo you resubmit? Review Management Other Resources Resubmission Practices  Some funders have no official resubmission  often ok to submit a revised proposal  no need to submit formal response  likely to get different reviewers  NIH – allows a formal revision  formal response needed  likely, but not guaranteed to get same reviewers  can still submit a “new” proposal after, re-titled and revised Evaluate  Other opportunities  Importance to funders  Irreparable flaws Decisions:  Irreparable flaws (been done or won‟t work)  RETHINK  Problem is important to funder + program open  RESUBMIT  Problem not important to funder  SUBMIT ELSEWHERE 127 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingHow to Resubmit Review Management Other Resources Respond to every comment  Reinforce each positive comment  Correct all errors  Add any suggested citations  Address each miscommunication Be specific  Quote verbatim reviewer comments in response  Use change tracking to show all changes  For more general responses, note page numbers Reviewer is always right  Formal dispute process sometimes exists -- but resubmitting always more successful  Don‟t rebut -- arguing in response is not productive  Reviewer remains right if they change comments after resubmission (!)  Treat reviewer errors as miscommunication  In response acknowledge miscommunication  Address communication from new angle  Generally best to address both in comments and in text 128 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingExercise: Critiquing Review Management Other Resources Identify who will review before submitting (peers, program officers, a board of directors) Write so that a reviewer can sell your proposals to others (his colleagues, her board…, congress) Review yourself first!  Use a checklist of reviewing questions  Ask colleagues for review Respond to critiques systematically  Identify whether retargeting is needed  Respond to all comments  Act as if all critiques can be resolved – perhaps as miscommunications 129 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Review (Review) Review Management Other Resources Homework: Critique a sample proposal... There are many sample proposals available from the resource listing at:Pick one, and work to identify:  How can the proposal be better organized?  What should be highlighted?  How can the proposal be better focused?  Are there essential elements missing?  Is the language effective? 130 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingManaging Funded Projects Review Management Other Resources " But of a good leader, who talks little, When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, They will all say, We did this ourselves. " – Tao Funded! – What to do. Project Management Overview Reports and Responsibilities 131 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFunded! Review Management Other Resources Re-read your proposal!  Identify all deliverables, timelines, milestones  Identify new risks Notify all decision makers and collaborators “Thank you”s and press releases… Award is to the institution! Don‟t Spend Yet  Re-budgeting  Arrival of funds  Accounts and record keeping The fun begins  Financial  Personnel  Space [Source: Ellen Weber, Creative Commons] 132 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPost Award Support @MIT Review Management Other ResourcesFollow up with … Chairs & Deans: space, resource commitments Department finance officer DLC OSP Human Resources: hiring on the grantChecklist  Account setup  Pre-award spending  Charges to the award  Rebudgeting  Financial Auditing  Submission of substantive reports 133 [1/29/2013]
  • Project Management Background Planning Targeting WritingOverview Review Management Other Resources Preparing  Staffing – HR Tips:  Space – HR/Deans  Financial – Financial Office/OSR  Get a book (Re)-Planning  Risks Analysis  Constant  Timeline communication  Milestones  Deliverables – including dissemination activities  Active risk management Ongoing Management  Continuous integration  Live by milestones  Constant communication  Project data collection  Continuous project data   Quantitative Performance Estimation Active Risk management collection and  Expense / Cost Sharing / Effort Reports estimation  Substantive reporting Finalizing  Back up everything  Extensions  Spending down budget  Never return money Data   Reporting  Get to know HR, OSP, finance, etc. 134 [1/29/2013]
  • Reports and Background Planning Targeting WritingResponsibilities Review Management Other Resources Financial Reports  To funder  Usually required to be through office of sponsored research  – spending by time/categories  -- personnel effort reporting  To you – spending vs. targets  – “burn rate”  -- category balance Substantive Reports  Progress reports – usually annually  Final report – usually end of project What you should track  Acknowledgement of award in publications, presentations  Citations to research  Press/media coverage General responsibilities  Financial  Research conduct & directions  Correct effort reporting  Human subjects and ethics 135 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Management Review Management Other Resources Review your proposal Communicate immediately but don‟t spend Track and measure your project progress Actively manage risks to your project 136 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingOther Types of Proposals Review Management Other Resources In-Kind Research Support Research Infrastructure Grants  Center Grants  Instrumentation Grants  Construction Grants Non-Research Grants Non Grant Support  Cooperative Agreements  SBIR/STTR  Corporate Sponsorship  Individual Gifts  Contracts 137 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIn-Kind Research Support Review Management Other Resources Supercomputing  Amazon EC2 Grants aws.amazon.com/education/  Teragrid www.teragrid.org  SDSC www.sdsc.edu Data Archiving  DVN dvn.iq.harvard.edu  ICPSR www.icpsr.org  SDSC www.sdsc.edu Survey time  Protogenie www.protogenie.com  Tess www.experimentcentral.org  British Election Studypolmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=790 Ads  Google Grants (AdWords) www.google.com/grants Commercial Software  Techsoup www.techsoup.org 138 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingResearch Infrastructure Review Management Other Resources “How the rich get richer” Build research infrastructure to produce more research indirectly Requires a significant number of already sponsored funded users and projects In practice, usually requires a demonstrable and significant institutional commitment Instrumentation grants  Difficult to fit in typical grant -- need for instrument, return of borrowed instrument is not compelling  Include: training, quality control, external review, maintenance  Sometimes better luck approaching foundations Construction grants  Official cost estimates required  Expansion of research capacity required Program project grants  Group of productive funded researchers  Share common research goals  Different experimental approaches  Benefit from share resources, group interaction Center grants  Benefits of common infrastructure  Benefits of collaboration 139 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingNon-Research Funding Review Management Other Resources Differ in funder / funder goals  Funder interested in problems/service to particular communities  Proposal must address community needs/problems Differ in reviewers  Non-academic/less academic  Practitioners  Foundation philanthropists Proposal in structure to research grants, but …  Describe program rather than hypothesis & methods  Stronger emphasis on sustainability 140 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other ResourcesOutline - non-research grant Need Evaluation  Description of problem Formative  Quantitative measures of problem Summative  Inadequacy of current solutions Budget Narrative  Goals and Objectives Personnel Other direct Goals Cost-share  Objectives Indirect  Timeline Sustainability  Measurement Organizational Capacity Program Description Facilities/resources  Target population Reputation/awards  Activities Results of past programs/evals Staffing/resources  Partnership  Who  What 141 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingContracts Review Management Other Resources Requires investment of time, expense Much more constrained in terms of methods, objectives Funder likely to own work product and data Often requires continuous reporting Requires more active management Establish connections  local officials who can vouch for your organization  individual & institutional collaborators & consultants  supply expertise, track records, familiarity with funder processes Finding Contracts  Check fedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov)  Check federal register (can monitor through tgci.com)  Attend bidders conferences Warning: should have officer of university sign/approve contracts -- otherwise you may be bound, but not have the authority to carry out contract 142 [1/29/2013]
  • Outline – Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other Resourcesproposal to individual donor Short 3-6 page proposals Still contain all major elements of a proposal May put in business terms: description of business (project); marketing plan (outreach); competition (other approaches); personnel (staff); financials (budgets); metrics (evaluation) Avoid: giving away too much (naming right, control of project decisions) 143 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCooperative Agreements Review Management Other Resources Elements of grant and contract; closer to grant Scope and flexibility more limited than research grant Substantial sponsor financial involvement Provide assistance/establish relationships Often involved doing research with sponsor staff scientists 144 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSBIR/STTR Review Management Other Resources "Greed is, for lack of a better word, good"– Gordon Gekko Grants to commercialize research ideas by small business concerns (SBC‟s) Eleven federal agencies participate, including NIH, NSF, and DOD Generally less competition than for research grants, more freedom than contracts. A well prepared proposal is a significant advantage. Not limited to your own research inventions –as long as intellectual property issues dealt with. SBIR = “Small Business Innovation Research”  PI required to be > 50% employed by small business concern STTR = “Small Business Technology Transfer Research”  PI must have a formal appointment/commitment to business; not required to be employed by SBC  PI at least 10% effort on project  Part of research must be conducted in SBC controlled space Phases  Submit phase I first., then phase II -- combined Phase I/Phase II proposals favorably received.  Phase II requires business plans, commercial commitments are helpful. www.sbir.gov 145 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingVenture Funding @MIT Review Management Other Resources MIT Venture Mentoring Service http://web.mit.edu/vms/ Matches MIT entrepreneurs with skilled volunteer members Assistance for broad range of business activity, including product development, marketing, intellectual property law, finance, human resources, and founders issues. Offered without charge to MIT students, alumni, faculty and staff in the Boston area. 146 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCorporate Sponsorship Review Management Other Resources Why  Corporate sponsorship ~ $10B annually  Old-school corporate sponsorship – establish positive associations  New-school corporate sponsorship = targeted marketing Your sponsorship policy  How much  Who needs to sign off  Which sponsors are kosher What audience can you deliver?  Demographics and psychographics of audience you can deliver  Broad audience vs. "intensely interested" narrowcasting What is your price?  Dont cut prices  Take in-kind only if you would have bought it regardless  For media time – only time that fits your target demographic is useful. Control Schedule.  Pay no more than volume rate, if associated with purchase Where to find  Foundation center online and printed directories: foundationcenter.org  IEG Sourcebook www.sponsorship.com 147 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting Writing Review Management Other ResourcesOutline – Corporate Sponsorship Outline  Cover letter: benefits to corporation, project, price range  One page summary of benefits  One page summary of sponsorship opportunity  Sample of press and reports about past events  Sample brochures from past events showing sponsorship credit Opportunities to consider offering  Naming rights: event, section, area, entry, team, day, time period, event, award,  Sponsorship categories: major, supporting, presenting, official product, preferred supplier  Exclusivity: for event, sponsorship level, promotions, supplies  Endorsements: use of logos, images, trademarks; product endorsement,  Venue: input in venue; use of sponsor venue  On-site sampling opportunities; demo/display; opportunity to sell; coupons; merchandising  Signage  Hospitality: tickets; celebrity/participant meet and greets  IT: web sight signage, branding, links, promotion on site  Database marketing: data generated by event; affiliate data; contest or drawing  Public relations, inclusion in: press releases; media activities; sponsor campaign Harvard Policies Apply to which corporations may be approached, and what branding may be used -- Coordinate Through OSP 148 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIndividual Gifts Review Management Other Resources Individuals make majority share of all philanthropic donations*:  6 % foundation  4% corporate  90% individual Many individual contributions are gifts  unencumbered by specific outcome requirements Slightly more than half of individual donations are for non-religious purposes Motivated by pride of association, philanthropy, sense of continuity Network with family, board, alumni contacts Harvard policies apply  – coordinate through development office  -- plan for a 15% tax * Source, http://www.futureofphilanthropy.org/us_phil.asp 149 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingResources Review Management Other ResourcesTypes of Resources MIT Policies & Procedures MIT Resources Books and Guides Tutorials, Help, & „Meta‟ Sample Proposals Directories & Databases Special Programs 150 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingPolicies @MIT Review Management Other Resources Research Submission, Management & Conduct osp.mit.edu/policies Animal Care Policies web.mit.edu/comp-med/restrict/cac/assist.htm Conflict of Interest web.mit.edu/policies/4/4.4.html Human Subjects web.mit.edu/committees/couhes/policies.shtml 151 [1/29/2013]
  • Office of Sponsored Research Background Review Planning Management Targeting Other Writing Resources@MIT  Opportunities  Access to ResearchGatecoverage of non-federal opportunities  Alerts PI‟s to invitational/limited opportunities  Policies & Institutional information  General approval policies  Budget information (overhead rates, allowable expenses)  MIT Forms  Review & Approval  Completeness, compliance with sponsor & Harvard rules  Work with sponsor to clarify proposal rules, requirements  Help in negotiating terms  Coordinate submission  Plan at least 5 Business Days for review  Contact http://osp.mit.edu/ 152 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingReview: Other Funding Review Management Other Resources Basic outline of proposal is the same, but …  Funder may judge different problems significant  Solution metrics are different: profit, audience, people served, … Contracts and collaborative agreements  May look like “research”  Less autonomy & flexibility  Funder values deliverables, not publications Corporate sponsors value marketing opportunities Individual sponsors value connection, continuity, sense of participation & ownership 153 [1/29/2013]
  • Recommended Articles & Background Planning Targeting WritingPresentations Review Management Other Resources Altman, M., 2009, Funding, Funding, Political Science and Politics, Forthcoming. Altman, M. 2009, Funding Your ResearchAvailable from:http://maltman.hmdc.harvard.edu/funding/[This website also provides all the links and resources listed in the rest of this presentation, and more… ] 154 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingRecommended Books Review Management Other Resources Research Proposal Preparation  Otto Yang, Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, Springer 2005.  Waddy Thompson, 2007, Complete Idiot‟s Guide to Grant Writing, Alpha 2007.  Cynthia Verba, Scholarly Pursuits http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/scholarly_pursuits_6.php General Writing  Joseph M. Williams, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, Longman, 2005. Project Management  Jim Highsmith. Agile Project Management, Addison-Wesley, 2004.  Ken Schwaber, Agile Project Management with Scrum, Microsoft Press, 2004. Other quoted sources:  R. Evans. 2006. Mind Performance Hacks, O‟Reilly Publications.  B. Nalebuff and I. Ayres, 2003. Why Not?, Harvard Business School Press.  M. Lamont, 2009, How Professors Think, Harvard U. Press.  P. Frumkin, 2006, Strategic Giving, University of Chicago Press. 155 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingTutorials, Help & „Meta‟ Review Management Other Resources Good library “pathfinders”  www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/grants  grants.library.wisc.edu Help and training  The Grantsmanship Center: tgci.com  The Foundation Center: www.foundationcenter.org NSF  Guide to proposal writing:  www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04016/  Grant Proposal Guide (technical):  www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg NIH Tutorials  grants.nih.gov/grants/grants_process.htm 156 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSample Proposals Review Management Other Resources Ed, K-12: www.Schoolgrants.org A variety of different proposals: www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/grants/4acfrais.htm Sponsor sites Freedom of Information Act (Successful proposals for federal grants only) 157 [1/29/2013]
  • Seeking Foundation Background Planning Targeting WritingFunding @MIT Review Management Other Resources MIT Office of Foundation Relations foundations.mit.edu Be aware:  Some large foundations are managed, should consult with foundation relation office before contacting: foundations.mit.edu/for-grant-seekers/portfolios/  Indirect cost underecovery  Foundations typically pay no or little overhead,  Funds for "underrecovery" must be identified from internal sources and committed before submission  Faculty should work with department heads, administrative officers, Foundation Relations staff, and school development officers 158 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFunding Information @MIT Review Management Other Resources OSP-Licensed External Funding Database: www.researchprofessional.com Foundation Relation Office Licensed External Funding (Contact the Foundation Relations Office for Access) granstation.com External Graduate Fellowships: odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/external/ CIS Fellowship Database (includes postdoctoral) web.mit.edu/cis/dbsearch.html MIT Venture Mentoring Service http://web.mit.edu/vms/ 159 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingInternal Funding @MIT Review Management Other Resources Graduate/Undergraduate Public Service Grants web.mit.edu/mitpsc/whatwedo/grants MISTI – International Science and Technology Initiatives web.mit.edu/misti/ Alumni Supported Education/Teaching Funding web.mit.edu/alumnifunds/ web.mit.edu/darbeloff/ Graduate Fellowships odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/odgefellowships/ International Fellowships and Grants (Starr, Luce, Carnegie) web.mit.edu/cis/fo_cisfg.html UROP Funding mit.edu/urop/modes/directfunds.html Department/School Funds/Fellowships Examples: CAMIT, SHASS, Aero 160 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingIn-Kind Research Support Review Management Other Resources Supercomputing  Amazon EC2 Grants aws.amazon.com/education/  XSEDE www.xsede.org/how-to-get-an- allocation Data Archiving  IQSS DVN dvn.iq.harvard.edu  ICPSR www.icpsr.org  SDSC www.sdsc.edu Survey time  Protogenie www.protogenie.com  Tess www.tessexperiments.org Ads  Google Grants (AdWords) www.google.com/grants Commercial Software  Techsoup www.techsoup.org 161 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingSponsor Directories Review Management Other Resources Selected Social Science Sources – International, Foundations, Federal  Decade of Behavior project decadeofbehavior.org/fundsource/dob_fdn_list.cfm Foundations Directories  Guidestar: guidestar.org  The Foundation Center: foundationcenter.org  Chronicle of Philanthropy: philanthropy.com International Foundations  European Independent Funders: fundersonline.org  European Foundation Center: www.efc.be Corporate sponsors  Foundation center online and printed directories: foundationcenter.org  IEG Sourcebook sponsorship.com 162 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCrowd Funding Review Management Other Resourcestheopensourcescienceproject.com peer reviewed, science researchfundscience.org science researchspot.us journalism researchkickstarter.com any cause except charitysponsume.com any causeindiegogo.com any causerockethub.com any causejustgiving.com charity only163 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingOpportunities Databases Review Management Other Resources Federal Clearinghouses  Mostly Grants: grants.gov  Other federal assistance: www.cfda.gov  Federal contracts: www.fbo.gov  Federal Register Monitoring tgci.com Professional Associations  COSSA (newsletter, member directory): www.cossa.org/index.shtml  APSA: www.apsanet.org/section_191.cfm  AERA: www.aera.net/fellowships/Default.aspx?menu_id=48&id=57  ASA: www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/funding/funding_overview  AAG: www.aag.org/Grantsawards/index.cfm Aggregators  Community of science (licensed): www.cos.com  Spin (licensed): www.infoed.org/new_spin/spinmain.asp  Research Profesional (licensed): www.researchresearch.com  Grantsnet sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/funding  GrantStation ,granstation.com  H-Net www.h-net.org/announce/group.cgi?type=Funding 164 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingScholarships & Fellowships Review Management Other Resources Health Policy at NIH and Elsewhere  NIH for students: www.training.nih.gov/student/  NIH support through other institutions: grants.nih.gov/training/T_Table.htm  NIH list of internal and external fellowships: www.training.nih.gov/careers/careercenter/fellow.html  NIH training support for individuals: grants.nih.gov/training/F_files_nrsa.htm  Robert Wood Johnson: www.healthpolicyscholars.org/ Foundations (Examples)  Harry F Guggenheim www.hfg.org/df/guidelines.htm  Social Science Research Council programs.ssrc.org/dpdf/  AAS/NIH (science policy) fellowships.aaas.org/02_Areas/02_NIH.shtm  Rotary Society (international) www.rotary.org/en/StudentsAndYouth/EducationalPrograms/Pages/ridefault.aspx Federal  NSF SBE www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13453  NSF General Graduate www.nsf.gov/funding/education.jsp?org=NSF&fund_type=2  NSF International Postdoc: nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5179&org=NSFNSF  Dept. of Ed., Javits www.ed.gov/programs/jacobjavits/index.html  Fulbright us.fulbrightonline.org/home.html 165 [1/29/2013]
  • Scholarships/Fellowships Background Review Planning Management Targeting Other Writing ResourcesDatabases Financial Aid (scholarships): www.finaid.org/scholarships/ Internships, Fellowships, +++ www.studentjobs.gov/e-scholar.asp Petersons Scholarship Database www.petersons.com/finaid/landing.asp?id=806&path=ug.pfs.scholarships Edupass Scholarship Database www.edupass.org/finaid/databases.phtml Grantsnet (science/med fellowships)  sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/funding University Postdoc/Fellowship Databases:  Harvard www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/graduate_guide_to_grants.php  Cornell www.gradschool.cornell.edu/?p=132  Notre Dame www.grad.nd.edu/gfd/  Simon Fraser cgi.sfu.ca/~dgsit/cgi-bin/Award1.php  UCLA: www.gdnet.ucla.edu/grpinst.htm 166 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingScholarships for Diversity Review Management Other Resources Professional Organization Fellowships (examples): APA www.apa.org/mfp/ ASA www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Funding&name=Minority+Fellowship+Program APSA www.apsanet.org/content_3284.cfm AERA www.aera.net/fellowships/?id=88 AAUW www.aauw.org/education/fga//fellowships_grants/index.cfm Foundation Fellowships (examples): UNCF –ME www.uncf.org/portal/seimerck/Home/tabid/115/Default.aspx Ford Foundation www7.nationalacademies.org/fordfellowships/index.html Soros www.pdsoros.org/ Commonwealth Fund www.commonwealthfund.org/fellowships/fellowships_list.htm?attrib_id=9156 NIH  Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/MARC/FAQs.htm  Biomedical Research Support (MBRS) www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Mechanisms/MBRSAwards.htm  Drug Abuse Research Development (MIDARP) grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-05-069.html  Kirschtein National Research Service Award grants.nih.gov/training/nrsa.htm NSF Alliances for Broadening Participation (ABP) nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08545/nsf08545.htm NSF Minority Postdocs nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13454&org=NSF 167 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingOther Diversity Support Review Management Other Resources PI Research Support  NSF ADVANCE nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf07582  NIH Supplements for P.I.‟s with active grants: grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-190.html Institutional Support  NIH Research Centers in Minority Institutions www.ncrr.nih.gov/research_infrastructure/research_centers_in_mino rity_institutions/ Multi-Category  NIH Special Initiatives www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/Special/  Open Society Institute www.soros.org/grants 168 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingFor New/Early Investigators Review Management Other Resources NIH FIRST Awards NIH Independent Scientist Awards NSF Career/PECase Awards Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Teacher-Scholar Award dreyfus.org/tc.shtml Sloan Research Fellowships sloan.org/programs/fellowship_brochure.shtml( And Most Federal Applications Indicate First-Time Status of PI ) 169 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingCrowd Funding Review Management Other Resources Advantages : Low overhead, direct-to-researcher Disadvantages: Smaller, Less prestigious, Less generaltheopensourcescienceproject.com peer reviewed, science researchfundscience.org science researchspot.us journalism researchkickstarter.com any cause except charitysponsume.com any causeindiegogo.com any causerockethub.com any causejustgiving.com charity only 170 [1/29/2013]
  • Background Planning Targeting WritingExercise: Homework Review Management Other Resources Prepare an “elevator talk”, a 2- minute oral summary of your proposal for impromptu delivery Prepare a 5-minute summary … Prepare a 15-minute presentation on your proposal  Intended audience = potential reviewers  Include 3-4 key slides, summarizing the project visually as much as possible  Include a 2-3 paragraph written abstract as a handout 171 [1/29/2013]
  • 4 Steps - Review Develop an original idea for a research project that solves some part of an important problem (bonus points for cleverness) Do your homework – target a funder who is interested in that problem State the problem clearly for the reviewers:  How it is important  What you intend to do  Why you chose to do that Be persistent, meticulous and systematic in writing submission and review 172 [1/29/2013]
  • Consultation & QuestionsContact Me: http://micahaltman.com <micah_altman@alumni.brown.edu> “They say the best things in life are free…” 173 [1/29/2013]