Cross-cutting refers to any program managed by more than one division, directorate, or agency as indicated.
1. Funding Opportunities
and Practical Insights
For AoM Scholars
Understand the available NSF funding opps
– Outline the Key Opportunities
– Explain our Reviewing and Decision Processes
Advice for developing strong proposals
– Successful PI Perspective:
– Review and Panelist Perspective:
Breakouts to discuss questions/issues
Office of the Assistant Director
AD: Farnam Jahanian
DAD: C. Suzanne Iacono
Computing and Communications
DD: Susanne Hambrusch
Computer and Network
DD: Keith Marzullo
DD: Howard Wactlar
DD: Alan Blatecky
CISE Cross-Cutting Programs
5. • CHS supports research on
- Creative ideas and novel theories for
• Human-computer and human-human
interactions, collaboration, and competition.
• Role of computing in how humans
communicate, work, learn, and play.
• Systems that interact with people using
- Innovative technologies for:
• Computer supported collaboration.
• Human-Computer and human-robot
• Social computing.
• Affective computing.
• Universal access.
• Immersive environments.
Cyber-Human Systems (CHS)
6. Applying to Core Programs
• Program Solicitations:
– CCF: NSF 13-579
– CNS: NSF 13-581
– IIS: NSF 13-580
• Project Types:
– Large: $1,200,001 to $3,000,000; up to 5 years, collaborative teams
– Medium: $500,001 to $1,200,000; up to 4 years, multi-investigator teams
– Small: up to $500,000; up to 3 years, one or two investigator projects
• CISE-wide Submission Windows:
– Large: November 4–19, annually
– Medium: September 24–October 15 (2013 only)
– Small: January 2–17, annually
• PI Limit:
– Participate in no more than 2 “core” proposals/year
7. SBE Organization
Division of Social and
Economic, Decision, and
Directorate, and Science
and Society Programs
Science, and Technology
Social and Political
Division of Behavioral and
and Language Sciences
Office of Multidisciplinary
Science of Science and
Innovation Policy (SciSIP)
8. Types of
Opportunities Key Social, Behavioral and
Jan/Feb and Aug/Sept due dates annually
Science of Organizations
Decision, Risk & Management Science
Law and Social Science
Methodology, Measurement & Statistics
Science, Technology & Society
Geography and Spatial Sciences
Sept due date annually
Science of Science and Innovation Policy
9. Types of
Opportunities Example Standing Opportunities in
• Service Enterprise Systems (SES)
• Systems Science (SYS)
• Infrastructure Management and Extreme
10. Types of
Opportunities Promising Current Research
Solicitations for AoM Scholars
Building Community and Capacity for Data-
Intensive Research in the Social, Behavioral
and Economic and in Education and Human
Resources (new call expected)
Catalyzing New International Collaborations
(contact the country expert in OISE)
Science, Engineering and Education for
Research Coordination Networks
Science Across Virtual Institutes
11. • Cross-Directorate
– Cyberlearning: Transforming Education (CTE)
Designing and implementing technologies to aid and understand learning.
– Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)
Securing our Nation‟s cyberspace from malicious behavior, while preserving privacy and promoting
– Smart and Connected Health (SCH)
Transforming healthcare knowledge and delivery, and improving quality of life through IT.
– Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data
Science & Engineering (BIG DATA)
Developing tools to manage and analyze data in order to extract knowledge from data.
– National Robotics Initiative (NRI)
Developing and using robots that work alongside, or cooperatively with, people.
Sample of CISE Cross-Cutting Programs
12. Types of
Opportunities Grants for Particular Types of
Graduate Research Fellowships
Doctoral Dissertation Improvement
Grants (in SBE)
SBE Postdoctoral Research
13. Faculty Early Career
Development (CAREER) Program
• The National Science Foundation's most
prestigious awards in support of junior
faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-
• outstanding research,
• excellent education, and
• the integration of education and
research within the context of the
mission of their organizations.
14. Types of
Opportunities Grants with Only Internal Review
RAPIDs: Grants for Rapid Response Research
EAGERs: Early concept Grants for Exploratory
INSPIREs: Integrated NSF Support Promoting
Interdisciplinary Research and Education
Workshops, doctoral consortia
15. Types of
Opportunities Large Center Opportunities
Science and Technology Centers: Integrative
Integrative Graduate Education and Research
ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and
Advancement of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE)
16. Types of
Opportunities NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps)
Supplements to current or recently expired NSF
grants to catalyze commercialization of
Involves mentoring and funding to develop
The lead can be a student
Building capacity and capability for the long run.
17. Finding information:
18. Funding opportunities
19. Subscribe to updates
20. CISE Updates and Announcements: http://www.cise.nsf.gov
21. Inquiries about Fit
E-mail 1-2 pages with:
-Theory on which you are building
-We can identify potential fit
-We can offer advice on some reviewing pitfalls
22. Search awards from each
23. Award search results
Types of Review
• „Mail‟ Reviewers plus Panel Review
• Panel Review
• Internal Review Only
• Sources of Reviewers:
– Program Officer‟s knowledge
– References in proposal
– Web of science; SSRN; Google Scholar, etc.
– Reviewer recommendations
– Investigator‟s suggestions
25. NSF Standard Merit Criteria
• Advancing knowledge in some field of study
• Benefiting society
• Advancing specific societal goals
– Dissemination/Public Awareness
26. Merit Review Elements
(effective January 2013)
1. Potential to advance knowledge or to
2. Creativity and originality (“potentially
3. Sound plan for achieving goals (including
evaluation of outcomes)
4. Qualifications of the proposers
5. Sufficient access to resources
27. Noshir Contractor
Jane S. & William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences
Professor of Ind. Engg& Mgmt Sciences, McCormick School of Engineering
Professor of Communication Studies, School of Communication &
Professor of Management & Organizations, Kellogg School of Management,
Director, Science of Networks in Communities (SONIC) Research Laboratory
The Players‟Agenda, General
Practices, Rules, Procedures
Supported by NSF : OCI-0753047, IIS-0729505, IIS-0535214, SBE-0555115
for Organizational Scholars
28. The Funders’Agenda
• Addressing grand societal challenges: Environment, Nanotechnology, Science of
Science, Complex Systems, Computational Science, Cyberinfrastructure, Virtual
Organizations and Environments, Computational thinking
– Increasing proportion of budget for multi-, inter-, and trans- (MIT) disciplinary initiatives
• Intellectual Merit in terms of advancing basic knowledge and discovery
• Increasing research workforce capacity building at undergraduate (REU) and graduate
level (IGERT, NSFgraduate and dissertation fellowships)
• Nurturing junior faculty “stars” (NSF’s CAREER and Presidential Young
• Increasing workforce diversity
• Increasing dissemination to broader academic community (Workshops)
• Increasing outreach to general public (Citizen science)
• Increasing international partnerships in research and education (NSF-PIRE)
29. General Practices
• Workshops or Request for Ideas
• Invited, Routine solicitations (SBE, IIS), Special Solicitations, Unsolicited (in response
to “Dear Colleague” letter), EAGER/RAPID, and Supplemental (for REU,
International, Workshops, Public Science)
• Range from 1 to 5 years and from $50,000 to $30 million
• Proposal preparation time: range from 4 to 12 weeks “on the street.” some require
mandatory or voluntary Letter of intent and/or pre-proposal
• Review process generally anonymous (1-way), sometimes internal to agency, mostly
peer-reviewed, often panel deliberation augmented by expert reviews
• Proposal review time ranges from 2 months to 1 year (site visits)
• Outcome: Not recommended, Recomended, Highly recommended, Fund, Fund at
• Award made to the Institution - not directly to the individual. Institution appropriates
indirect costs (range from 0% to over 100% - generally in the 53% range)
• Modality of submission: Electronic (via Fastlane/grants.gov)
• Submitting entity: The Institution’s Sponsored Research Office (who need time to
• Page limit, font size, and margins
• Letters of support versus letters of partnership
• Limits to proposals per PI or per institution
• Requirements for partnerships with other constituencies (e.g., multiple disciplines,
• Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, Management Plan, Post Doctoral training plan, Data
Management plan, Education & Outreach
• Conflicts of interest lists, 2-page bio, Current & Pending Support
• List of potential reviewers (or non-reviewers)
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
• Establish ongoing relation ship with Program Officer
• Reporting functions: Annual reports (sometimes quarterly)
• Organize events to showcase research effort to academic audiences
• Submit “public interest” nuggets to NSF for them to relay to Congress
• Explicitly acknowledge specific grants or contracts in all publications and presentations
• Start working on future submissions (in a few cases, renewal) within months of
receiving the award
• Packaging grants activity as part of performance evaluation (including tenure and
• Calibrating career stages with engagement in individual projects, small scale (2-3 PIs)
collaboration projects, large scale (5-10 Pis) collaborations, research laboratories and
32. Shopping for the right RFP
• Serve as a panelist or reviewer: Whenever possible, offer to review
proposals in the program where you might like to submit in a subsequent
• Workshop proposal: When proposing in a new research area with
relevance to a broader scientific community, consider talking to one or
more program officers about proposing a workshop that sets an agenda
for a future RFP in that area. It improves awareness about research area and
advances your/NCSA leadership profile in the research area
• EAGER/RAPID: When proposing a high risk an/or time sensitive
project, consider submitting an EAGER/RAPID.
33. Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might
anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)
• Restrictions on number of proposals submitted: In addition
to restrictions about the number of proposals on which one can
be a PI, check to see if there are restrictions on the number
of proposals that can be submitted by one institution.
• Criteria for choosing collaboration partners: In addition to
substantive domain expertise, check on requirements for
proposals that require/encourage investigators from multiple
disciplines, multiple universities, predominantly minority
institutions, community colleges and/or participants from
34. Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might
anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)
• Check on page limit and formatting criteria early on in the proposal
writing process. Make sure to format the document with the right font
size, line spacing, and margin width. Leaving this till the "last-minute"
might create formatting nightmares. Typically, NSF proposals provide 15
pages for project description (including proposed activities, timeline, and
results from prior NSF support for each of the collaborators). Check to see
if the page limit for project description also includes the management plan.
• Letters of support: required in some cases, not allowed in other cases.
May be used to document financial support, resource
support, user/community support.
• Conflict of interest list: Include list of collaborators and former advisees
(their affiliations and nature of conflict) over the past 5 years for all PIs and
35. Responding to an RFP (Things that take longer than you might
anticipate or might derail the proposal process at a later stage)
• Potential reviewers: Include suggestions for those you think are qualified
and include those you do not want as reviewers.
• Management Plan: For large project proposals, make sure to include a
management plan with specific details about mechanisms for coordination
including, perhaps, an organization chart. If possible, include existing
coordination practices as examples of past experience. Consider
assembling an advisory board of experts. This might entail providing
them with travel support and honoraria. If possible, get letters of
acceptance/support from the members of the advisory board.
• Reference list: For collaborative proposals, if you are the PI, be sure to
request bibliographic references along with the text (these might be in
different formats and will require some effort to make them standardized).
36. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Setting the contours for the proposal: For collaborative proposals, if you
are the PI, it might be worthwhile to have at least a couple of meetings (or
conference calls) at the onset of the proposal preparation. On the basis of
these conference calls, prepare an outline that includes placeholders for
text solicited from others. Be sure to request others to provide text at least
N days before the deadline. This will provide you with a buffer for those
who will be late.
• Project Summary: Make sure to invest considerable time on crafting the
one-page Project Summary. It is probably best to draft this after the
Project Description has been written. RFPs that require interdisciplinary
proposals are often reviewed by interdisciplinary review panels. Not
everyone on the panel is likely to be sufficiently familiar with the technical
details of the proposal. But they will all want to understand the Project
Summary. It is therefore particularly important to be able to outline the
proposed effort in language that will be understood by intelligent
researchers in areas outside your discipline.
37. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Project Description: It is important to use the first few paragraphs
in the introductory section of the project description to capture the
attention and imagination of the reviewer. When appropriate,
provide one or more use-case scenarios or “compelling anecdote or
factoid” that underscores the relevance and timeliness of the
project. If appropriate, cite a recent, well-known and respected
report or statistic that helps justify the problem being addressed by
the project proposal.
• Crafting the “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts”
statement: It is very important to carefully craft summary
statements about "Intellectual Merits" and "Broader Impacts" of
the proposal. Not only are these requirements for the proposal, but
they are two of only a handful of criteria used by reviewers in
reviewing, summarizing, and rating the proposal.
38. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Intellectual Merit should include statements that describe how the proposed
project is specifically advancing fundamental science by developing/testing
novel theories, algorithms, methodology, instrumentation, analytic,
visualization, … techniques
• Broader impacts of the proposal must include two dimensions:
– (1) How would the outcome of the research have a broader impact on helping
address “grand societal challenges”
– (2) How the conduct of research will help nurture diversity within the research
community by making specific efforts to involve, train, and mentor undergraduates,
women, and minorities. More generally, broader impacts also include education and
outreach, organizing workshops for the research community, technology transfer, as
well as for industry partners (if appropriate). It is not enough to say these will be
done in general terms. Whenever possible identify specific programs (as well as
partnerships at your institutions that will be leveraged) to pursue these activities.
39. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Using language from RFP criteria: Some RFPs specifically interested in
high risk/high payoff proposals. If so, be sure to justify the proposal on these
criteria, including using the phrase “high risk/high payoff” in instances
where that is relevant.
• Underscore prior collaboration: When working on collaborative projects,
whenever possible indicate history of prior collaboration within the team to
demonstrate higher potential of success. This will help dispel the suspicion
that this proposal was a shotgun-marriage of convenience in response to the
• Leveraging prior NSF funded research: Whenever possible, underscore the
fact that the proposed research is leveraging and/or extending prior research
funded by NSF or other prestigious agencies. These items can also be
highlighted in the section of the project description on results from prior NSF
support. Simultaneously, be as specific as possible to describe how the
proposed research is adding value above and beyond previously funded
40. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Distinguishing roles and expectations: It is important to negotiate
(and describe in the Management Plan) different expectations for
partners as PIs, co-PIs, senior investigators, or consultants.
• Staying within budget: For collaborative proposals or proposals
involving sub-contracts, if you are the PI, be sure to get the total
budget requested by each collaborator or subcontractor well in
advance. This will ensure that the total amount requested does not
exceed the funding limit specified in the RFP.
• Budget justification: Make sure that the budget justification is aligned
with work plan and proposed timeline - especially for
equipment, personnel time, and travel.
41. Responding to an RFP
Proposal content checklist
• Human Subjects Approval: If the proposal involves dealing with
human subjects, be sure to check if the proposal would require
specific clearance from the Institutional Review Board. Even if there is
no IRP approval prior to submission, be sure to indicate awareness that
human subject approval would be required. If your project involves a
social science collaborator, there is a good chance that human subject
approval will be needed.
• Security/Privacy issues: Even if the proposal is not specifically about
security/privacy issues, be sure to indicate awareness of potential
problems in this area. And, indicate what steps will be taken to
mitigate these problems.
• Data sharing/dissemination/curation:NSF requires description on
what steps (social, organizational, and technical) the proposed project
will take to share the data (using appropriate confidentiality
safeguards) with the research community. They are also eager to learn
what steps the project will take to curate the data.
42. Try to do better next time ….
43. NSF Funding in the
Context of Accelerating Change
(Panel on Funding Opportunities for Academy of Management
Scholars, from the National Science Foundation)
School of Labor and Employment Relations (LER)
National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA)
Support from the National Science Foundation is deeply appreciated:
NSF-VOSS EAGER 0956472, “Stakeholder Alignment in Socio-Technical
NSF OCI RAPID 1229928, “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube,”
NSF SciSPR-STS-OCI-INSPIRE 1249607, “Enabling Transformation in the Social
Sciences, Geosciences, and Cyberinfrastructure,”
NSF OCI 12-56163, “Envisioning Success: A Workshop for Next Generation
EarthCube Scholars and Scientists,”
NSF I-CORPS 1313562 “Stakeholder Alignment for Public-Private Partnerships,”
44. The Challenge . . .
“. . . We are moving towards another type of society
than that to which we have become accustomed.
This is sometimes referred to as a new service
society, the society of the second industrial
revolution or the post-industrial society. There is no
guarantee of our safe arrival. Not only are the
interdependencies greater – they are differently
structured. . . [and] demand a new mobilization of
– Source: Eric L. Trist, from paper on “Social Aspects of Science
Policy” (March, 1969) cited in Towards a Social Ecology:
Contextual Appreciation of the Future in the Present by Fred E.
Emery and Eric L. Trist (London: Plenum Press, 1973)
45. Accelerating rates of
technological change . . . The Babysitter
of the Future
Source: Steve Diggs, Scripps Institution of
46. Good news and bad news. . .
. . . NSF is structured much like a university, with
grants-funding divisions/offices for the various
disciplines and fields of science and engineering
and for science, math, engineering and technology
education. NSF also uses a variety of management
mechanisms to coordinate research in areas that
cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. . .
Source: “About the NSF” at:
47. Most important challenges of the
21st Century, as identified by NAE
• Make solar energy
• Provide energy from fusion
• Develop carbon
• Manage the nitrogen cycle
• Provide access to clean water
• Restore and improve urban
• Advance health informatics
• Engineer better medicines
• Reverse-engineer the
• Prevent nuclear terror
• Secure cyberspace
• Enhance virtual reality
• Advance personalized
• Engineer the tools of
48. • G. Aad48, T. Abajyan21, B. Abbott111, J. Abdallah12, S. Abdel Khalek115,.A. Abdelalim49, O.
Abdinov11, R. Aben105, B. Abi112, M. Abolins88, O.S. AbouZeid158, H. Abramowicz153, H.
Abreu136, B.S. Acharya164a,164b, L. Adamczyk38, D.L. Adams25,T.N. Addy56, J.
Adelman176, S. Adomeit98, P. Adragna75, T. Adye129, S. Aefsky23,J.A. Aguilar-
Saavedra124b,a, M. Agustoni17, M. Aharrouche81, S.P. Ahlen22, F. Ahles48,. Ahmad148, M.
Ahsan41, G. Aielli133a,133b, T. Akdogan19a, T.P.A. ̊Akesson79, G. Akimoto155, A.V.
Akimov94, M.S. Alam2, M.A. Alam76, J. Albert169, S. Albrand55,M. Aleksa30, I.N.
Aleksandrov64, F. Alessandria89a, C. Alexa26a, G. Alexander153, G. Alexandre49, T.
Alexopoulos10, M. Alhroob164a,164c, M. Aliev16, G. Alimonti89a J. Alison120, B.M.M.
Allbrooke18, P.P. Allport73, S.E. Allwood-Spiers53, J. Almond82, A. Aloisio102a,102b, R.
Alon172, A. Alonso79, F. Alonso70, A. Altheimer35,B. Alvarez Gonzalez88, M.G.
Alviggi102a,102b, K. Amako65, C. Amelung23, V.V. Ammosov128,∗, S.P. Amor Dos
Santos124a, A. Amorim124a,b, N. Amram153, C. Anastopoulos30, L.S. Ancu17, N.
Andari115, T. Andeen35, C.F. Anders58b, G. Anders58a, K.J. Anderson31, A.
Andreazza89a,89b, V. Andrei58a, M-L. Andrieux55, X.S. Anduaga70, S. Angelidakis9, P.
Anger44, A. Angerami35, F. Anghinolfi30, A. Anisenkov107, N. Anjos124a, A. Annovi47, A.
Antonaki9, M. Antonelli47, A. Antonov96, J. Antos144b, F. Anulli132a, M. Aoki101, S.
Aoun83, L. Aperio Bella5, R. Apolle118,c, G. Arabidze88, I. Aracena143, Y. Arai65, A.T.H.
Arce45, S. Arfaoui148, J-F. Arguin93, E. Arik19a,∗, M. Arik19a, A.J. Armbruster87, O.
Arnaez81, V. Arnal80, C. Arnault115, A. Artamonov95,G. Artoni132a,132b, D. Arutinov21, S.
Asai155, S. Ask28, B. ̊Asman146a,146b, L. Asquith6. Assamagan25, A. Astbury169, M.
Atkinson165, B. Aubert5, E. Auge115, K. Augsten127, M. Aurousseau145a, G. Avolio163, R.
Avramidou10, D. Axen168, G. Azuelos93,d, Y. Azuma155, M.A. Baak30, G. Baccaglioni89a, C.
Bacci134a,134b, A.M. Bach15, H. Bachacou136, K. Bachas30, M. Backes49, M. Backhaus21,
J. Backus Mayes143, E. Badescu26a,P. Bagnaia132a,132b, S. Bahinipati3, Y. Bai33a, D.C.
Bailey158, T. Bain158, J.T. Baines129, O.K. Baker176, M.D. Baker25, S. Baker77, P. Balek126,
E. Banas39, P. Banerjee93,Sw. Banerjee173, D. Banfi30, A. Bangert150, V. Bansal169, H.S.
Bansil18, L. Barak172, S.P. Baranov94, A. Barbaro Galtieri15, T. Barber48, E.L. Barberio86, D.
Barberis50a,50b, M. Barbero21, D.Y. Bardin64, T. Barillari99, M. Barisonzi175, T.
Barklow143, N. Barlow28, B.M. Barnett129, R.M. Barnett15, A. Baroncelli134a, G. Barone49,
A.J. Barr118, F. Barreiro80, J. Barreiro Guimara es da Costa57, P. Barrillon115, R.
Bartoldus143, A.E. Barton71, V. Bartsch149, A. Basye165, R.L. Bates53, L. Batkova144a, J.R.
Batley28, A. Battaglia17, M. Battistin30, F. Bauer136, H.S. Bawa143,e, S. Beale98, T. Beau78,
P.H. Beauchemin161, R. Beccherle50a, P. Bechtle21, H.P. Beck17, A.K. Becker175, S.
Becker98, M. Beckingham138, K.H. Becks175, A.J. Beddall19c, A. Beddall19c, S. Bedikian176,
V.A. Bednyakov64, C.P. Bee83, L.J. Beemster105, M. Begel25, S. Behar Harpaz152, P.K.
Behera62, M. Beimforde99, C. Belanger-Champagne85, P.J. Bell49, W.H. Bell49, G. Bella153,
L. Bellagamba20a, M. Bellomo30, A. Belloni57, O. Beloborodova107,f, K. Belotskiy96, O.
Beltramello30, O. Benary153, D. Benchekroun135a, K. Bendtz146a,146b, N. Benekos165, Y.
Benhammou153, E. Benhar Noccioli49, J.A. Benitez Garcia159b, D.P. Benjamin45, M.
Benoit115, J.R. Bensinger23, K. Benslama130, S. Bentvelsen105,
D. Berge30, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann42, N. Berger5, F. Berghaus169, E. Berglund105,J.
Beringer15, P. Bernat77, R. Bernhard48, C. Bernius25, F.U. Bernlochner169, T. Berry76, C.
Bertella83, A. Bertin20a,20b, F. Bertolucci122a,122b, M.I. Besana89a,89b, G.J. Besjes104, . .
None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to
None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to
How are we doing?
Could be better.
Interdisciplinary lags behind.
Maybe we don’t know
Data from “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube”
* Last 5 years
50. Lewin’s force field analysis
Urgency of “grand challenge” science
Engaging research questions
Pos. signals from funding agencies
Strategic priorities of universities
Colleagues open to collaboration
Technical barriers to collaboration
Career development complications
“Birds of a feather” tendencies
Risk aversion tendencies
51. Engagement with NSF
• Talk with Program Officers
• Be precise on "intellectual merits"
– Basic knowledge and discovery
• Be bold on "broader impacts”
– “Grand challenges” for science
52. • Crosscutting and NSF-wide
• Biological Sciences
• Computer & Information Science & Engineering
• Education and Human Resources
• Environmental Research & Education
• International & Integrative Activities
• Mathematical & Physical Sciences
• Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Finding your way, Part I
53. SBE – Increasing Knowledge
of People and Society
• Building Community and Capacity for Data-Intensive Research in
the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and in Education
and Human Resources (BCC-SBE/EHR)
• Decision, Risk and Management Sciences (DRMS)
• Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS)
• Ethics Education in Science and Engineering (EESE)
• Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science Research (IBSS)
• Law & Social Sciences (LSS)
• Metadata for Long-standing Large-Scale Social Science Surveys
• Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (MMS)
• Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering
• Political Science
• SBE Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants
• Science of Organizations (SoO)
• Science, Technology, and Society (STS)
• Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)
• The NSF-Census Research Network (NCRN)
• Behavioral and
• National Center for
• Social and Economic
• SBE Office of
Finding your way, Part II
54. CISE – Exploring the
Frontiers of Computing
Division of Advanced Cyberinfrstructure (ACI)
Division of Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF)
• Algorithmic Foundations (AF)
• Communications and Information Foundations (CIF)
• Software and Hardware Foundations (SHF)
• Administrative Unit
Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS)
• Computer Systems Research (CSR)
• Research Infrastructure Program
• Networking Technology and Systems (NETS)
• Education and Workforce Program
• Administrative Unit
• Trustworthy Computing Program
Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS)
• Human-Centered Computing (HCC)
• Information Integration and Informatics (III)
• IIS Crosscutting Activities
• Robust Intelligence (RI)
• Administrative Unit
• Computing and
• Computer and Network
• Information &
Intelligent Systems (IIS)
Finding your way, Part III
55. Compare to a University
• Aerospace Engineering
• Agricultural and Biological Engineering
• Chemical and Biomolecular
• Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Computer Science
• Electrical and Computer Engineering
• Industrial & Enterprise Systems
• Materials Science and Engineering
• Mechanical Science and Engineering
• Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological
• Advanced Transportation Research and
Engineering Laboratory (ATREL)
• Beckman Institute for Advanced
Science and Technology*
• Coordinated Science Laboratory (CSL)
• Frederick Seitz Materials Research
• Information Trust Institute
• Institute for Genomic Biology*
• Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
• National Center for Supercomputing
56. Compare to a University (cont.)
Engineering Major Research Centers
• Advanced Digital Sciences Center (ADSC)
• Center for Nanoscale Chemical-Electrical-
Mechanical Manufacturing Systems
• Center for the Physics of Living Cells
• Center of Advanced Materials for
Purification of Water with Systems
• Computational Science and Engineering
• Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT)
• Illinois-Intel Parallelism Center (I2PC)
• Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for
. . . plus over 20 additional research and
educational centers and laboratories
College of Business Research Centers
• Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership
• Center for Business and Public Policy
• Center for Information Technology & E-
• Center for International Business Education
and Research (CIBER)
• Center for Professional Responsibility
• GolderCenter for Private Equity Research
• Zimmerman Center for International
Education & Research in Accounting (CIERA)
• Bureau of Economic & Business Research
• Office of Real Estate Research
• Office for Banking Research
• Office of Organizational Research
57. Internal Alignment
• Dynamics with your colleagues (senior and
• Support from your chair, director, dean
• Support from your
departmental/school/academic unit budget
officer and (if you have one) grants officer
• Support from your university’s grants office
• Support from your university’s office of
58. Pulling back the curtain on the review
Dozens of proposals before the panel (under 10% to
You are writing for:
– An scholar serving on the panel who will lift out
positive and negative aspects of your proposal to
present to the full panel
– Another scholar who will be serving as scribe during
the panel deliberations
– The full panel who will rank all the proposals
– A program officer who will take into account the
deliberations and ranking in making the funding
59. Special Focus:
Increased priority for commercializing
innovations emerging from NSF funding
– 3 person teams (PI, Ph.D. Student, Mentor)
– Bootcamp for entrepreneurship
– Highly valued by Congress
– Incomplete match with university infrastructure
60. Today’s most troubling and daunting problems
have common features: some of them arise from
human numbers and resource exploitation; they
require long-term commitments from separate
sectors of society and diverse disciplines to solve;
simple, unidimensional solutions are unlikely; and
failure to solve them can lead to disasters.
In some ways, the scales and complexities of our
current and future problems are
unprecedented, and it is likely that solutions will
have to be iterative . . .
Institutions can enable the ideas and energies of
individuals to have more impact and to sustain
efforts in ways that individuals cannot.
From “Science to Sustain Society,” by Ralph J.
Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences, 149th
Annual Meeting of the Academy (2012)
61. Funding Opportunities:
An Early Career Perspective
Leslie A. DeChurch
Georgia Institute of Technology
62. Four Types of Early Career Involvement
1. Program aimed at junior scholars
CAREER award – 5 year integrated program of research & education
designed to lay a solid foundation for a lifetime of scholarship
(NIH, DoDalso have similar programs)
2. PI on a 2-4 year standard research grant
Productive, but entails significant management responsibility
3. Co-PI on a 2-4 year standard research grant
Less management responsibility but typically less central to YOUR
research; less independence
4. Co-PI or consultant on a grant in another area (e.g., service
Little, if any value, time consuming
63. What’s in the Proposal?
• 15 Pages
– Write it longer & then tighten it
• Write a detailed outline first
– These become headings/subheadings; more structure is better
• Use tables & figures to depict complex information
– These need to be self-explanatory; reference them; use for both
theory & method
• Three questions you MUST directly address:
– What important problem (scientific, societal) will you work on?
– In what ways is your team uniquely qualified to work on it?
– Exactly what “new” work will you do? (include a Gant chart; who
does what, when, where)
64. Who’s in the Proposal?
• The people should match the ideas & the scope of work to be done
(explain the alignment in the proposal)
• Choose your team carefully – requisite skill variety
– The primary consideration: Assemble the smallest team with all of the
expertise & resources you need to be “uniquely qualified to do the work”
– Multi-disciplinary/multi-university v. single-discipline/single-university
– Senior collaborators:
• Experience and know how to manage funded research projects & research teams
• Resources & infrastructure
• Can be co-PIs or consultants
• Include post-doc(s), graduate students, undergraduates
• Include a collaboration plan
65. What’s in the Budget?
• Summer salary (1 week to 2 months) of each senior
• Salary (full or partial) for post-
docs, programmers, support staff
• Stipend & tuition for PhD students
• Funds to pay for research participants
• Travel to disseminate findings from your research
• Overhead (does your institution return any indirect to the
66. Your Frame of Mind
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Grants: An applicant view. In J.M. Darley, M.P. Zanna, & H.L.
Roediger III, The Compleat Academic. APA, Washington DC.
1. Believe in
3. Don’t worry
idea (but bad
2. Go for it!
5. Thicken your
7. Find your
67. Pursuing NSF
when, whether, and how?
University of Oregon
68. Should I submit a proposal?
1. Are you certain your department or college
understands, values, and rewards pursuit of external
Do not take this for granted!
2. How much support is available for grant administration at
Have you met with the staff who will help you write, budget, and
administer a proposal/award?
3. Are you tenured?
If not, does your research pipeline contain projects at various stages?
4. Could the research be done without a grant award?
If not, don’t pursue development of a proposal. (In other words, design
research that can be bootstrapped.)
69. Avoiding rookie mistakes
… some things I wish I’d known
Like a journal editor, but different
POs are expatriate scholars: rotators and careerists
Dual institutional logics: academic research and
They want to fund high quality research (academic) that
addresses program objectives (political)
Ideally, prefer to fund 20 - 30% of proposals
Don’t like rejecting quality proposals; don’t like funding
Your Program Officer is your best friend.
70. The upshot:
POs try to manage the flow of proposals
Translate the RFP into English
Critique your pre-proposal
Offer developmental comments
Give candid advice – encouragement or redirection
Meet with you in D.C., or at conferences
Suggest interdisciplinary framing
Pre-award, your PO stands ready to:
71. Program Officers want you to succeed
Communicate often … and not just in annual reports
Ask your PO’s advice, update him/her on progress and
Invite your PO to conference presentations based on NSF
Ask your PO, what could I do that would make you a
Post-award, don’t treat your PO like your
Dean, treat him/her like a valued colleague:
72. Funding for Management Scholars?
73. Breakouts are for General
• Tables will be staffed with PDs, PIs and
• Raise issues of general interest:
questions/issues about grant getting, rumors
about NSF you‟d like to check, perspective
you need to advise your grad students.
• If you want to know about the potential for
a particular study, please contact your PO