• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
AOM NSF Funding PDW 2013
 

AOM NSF Funding PDW 2013

on

  • 263 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
263
Views on SlideShare
263
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NoDerivs 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
  • Cross-cutting refers to any program managed by more than one division, directorate, or agency as indicated.

AOM NSF Funding PDW 2013 AOM NSF Funding PDW 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • Funding Opportunities and Practical Insights For AoM Scholars Kevin Crowston Cyber-Human Systems kcrowsto@nsf.gov
  • 2 Session Outline 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
  • Mathematical &Physical Sciences (MPS) Geosciences (GEO) Engineering (ENG) Computer& Information Science& Engineering (CISE) Biological Sciences (BIO) Officeofthe InspectorGeneral (OIG) Director DeputyDirector NationalScienceBoard (NSB) OfficeofDiversity&Inclusio OfficeoftheGeneralCounse OfficeofInternational& IntegrativeActivities OfficeofLegislative& PublicAffairs Social, Behavioral &Economic Sciences (SBE) Education &Human Resources (EHR) Budget,Finance &Award Management (BFA) Information &Resource Management (IRM) NSFOrganizationalChart
  • CISE Office of the Assistant Director AD: Farnam Jahanian DAD: C. Suzanne Iacono Computing and Communications Foundations (CCF) DD: Susanne Hambrusch Algorithmic Foundations Communication and Information Foundations Software and Hardware Foundations Computer and Network Systems (CNS) DD: Keith Marzullo Computer Systems Research Networking Technology and Systems Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS) DD: Howard Wactlar Cyber-Human Systems Information Integration and Informatics Robust Intelligence Advanced Cyber- infrastructure DD: Alan Blatecky Data High-performance Computing Networking/Cyberse curity Software CISE Cross-Cutting Programs
  • • CHS supports research on - Creative ideas and novel theories for understanding: • 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 various modalities. - Innovative technologies for: • Computer supported collaboration. • Human-Computer and human-robot interactions. • Social computing. • Affective computing. • Universal access. • Immersive environments. Types of Opportunities Core Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps Cyber-Human Systems (CHS)
  • 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 Coordinated Solicitations
  • SBE Organization SBE Assistant Director Myron Gurman Division of Social and Economic Sciences Economic, Decision, and Management Sciences Methods, Cross- Directorate, and Science and Society Programs Science, and Technology Social and Political Sciences Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Anthropological and Geographic Sciences Cognitive, Psychological, and Language Sciences Office of Multidisciplinary Activities Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) Program 7
  • Types of Opportunities Key Social, Behavioral and Economics Programs Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 8 Jan/Feb and Aug/Sept due dates annually Science of Organizations Decision, Risk & Management Science Economics Law and Social Science Methodology, Measurement & Statistics Social Psychology Political Science Sociology Science, Technology & Society Geography and Spatial Sciences Sept due date annually Science of Science and Innovation Policy
  • Types of Opportunities Example Standing Opportunities in Other Directorates ENG • Service Enterprise Systems (SES) • Systems Science (SYS) • Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events (IMEE) Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 9
  • 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 Sustainability Research Coordination Networks Science Across Virtual Institutes Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 10
  • • 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 usability. • Cross-Agency – 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 Types of Opportunities Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps
  • Types of Opportunities Grants for Particular Types of Individuals Graduate Research Fellowships Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants (in SBE) SBE Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program CAREER Awards Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 12
  • 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- scholars through: • outstanding research, • excellent education, and • the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organizations. Types of Opportunities Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps
  • Types of Opportunities Grants with Only Internal Review RAPIDs: Grants for Rapid Response Research EAGERs: Early concept Grants for Exploratory Research INSPIREs: Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education Workshops, doctoral consortia Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 14
  • Types of Opportunities Large Center Opportunities Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnerships (STC) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 15
  • Types of Opportunities NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Supplements to current or recently expired NSF grants to catalyze commercialization of research products. Involves mentoring and funding to develop commercialization options The lead can be a student Building capacity and capability for the long run. Unsolicited Solicited Types of Individuals No External Review Large Centers iCorps 16
  • Finding information: http://www.nsf.gov
  • Funding opportunities Upcomi ng Due Dates
  • Subscribe to updates Get NSF Updates by Email
  • CISE Updates and Announcements: http://www.cise.nsf.gov Get CISE Updates by Email Subscribe to receive special CISE announceme nts Featured Programs New information
  • Inquiries about Fit 21 E-mail 1-2 pages with: Research Question(s) -Theory on which you are building -Methods -Major Citations -We can identify potential fit -We can offer advice on some reviewing pitfalls
  • Search awards from each program page 22
  • Award search results
  • 24 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 – Volunteers
  • NSF Standard Merit Criteria Intellectual merit • Advancing knowledge in some field of study Broader impacts • Benefiting society • Advancing specific societal goals – Training – Diversity – Infrastructure – Dissemination/Public Awareness 25
  • Merit Review Elements (effective January 2013) 1. Potential to advance knowledge or to benefit society 2. Creativity and originality (“potentially transformative”) 3. Sound plan for achieving goals (including evaluation of outcomes) 4. Qualifications of the proposers 5. Sufficient access to resources
  • 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 nosh@northwestern.edu The Players‟Agenda, General Practices, Rules, Procedures Supported by NSF : OCI-0753047, IIS-0729505, IIS-0535214, SBE-0555115 NSF Funding for Organizational Scholars
  • 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 Investigator awards) • 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)
  • 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 reduced level • 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)
  • Rules • Modality of submission: Electronic (via Fastlane/grants.gov) • Submitting entity: The Institution’s Sponsored Research Office (who need time to review) • 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, industry, international) • 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)
  • Procedures • 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 promotion) • Calibrating career stages with engagement in individual projects, small scale (2-3 PIs) collaboration projects, large scale (5-10 Pis) collaborations, research laboratories and research centers
  • 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 cycle. • 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.
  • 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 EPSCOR states.
  • 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 co-PIs.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 RFP. • 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 research.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Try to do better next time ….
  • NSF Funding in the Context of Accelerating Change (Panel on Funding Opportunities for Academy of Management Scholars, from the National Science Foundation) Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld 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 Systems,” 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,”
  • 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 the sciences.” – 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)
  • Accelerating rates of technological change . . . The Babysitter of the Future Source: Steve Diggs, Scripps Institution of
  • 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: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/index .jsp
  • Most important challenges of the 21st Century, as identified by NAE • Make solar energy economical • Provide energy from fusion • Develop carbon sequestration methods • Manage the nitrogen cycle • Provide access to clean water • Restore and improve urban infrastructure • Advance health informatics • Engineer better medicines • Reverse-engineer the brain • Prevent nuclear terror • Secure cyberspace • Enhance virtual reality • Advance personalized learning • Engineer the tools of scientific discovery Source: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/
  • • 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, . . . http://ksj.mit.edu/sites/default/files/images/tracker/Higgs%20Science%20Cover2012.JPG
  • 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to 20 More than 20 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 10 to 20 More than 20 How are we doing? Could be better. Interdisciplinary lags behind. Maybe we don’t know how… Projects* Papers* Regular Interdisciplina Data from “Stakeholder Alignment for EarthCube” * Last 5 years
  • 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 Publication/translation challenges “Birds of a feather” tendencies Risk aversion tendencies Interdisciplinary Science
  • 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
  • • Crosscutting and NSF-wide • Biological Sciences • Computer & Information Science & Engineering • Education and Human Resources • Engineering • Environmental Research & Education • Geosciences • International & Integrative Activities • Mathematical & Physical Sciences • Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Finding your way, Part I
  • 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) • Economics • 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 (META-SSS) • 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) • Sociology • The NSF-Census Research Network (NCRN) SBE Organizations • Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS) • National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) • Social and Economic Sciences (SES) • SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (SMA) Finding your way, Part II
  • 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 CISE Organizations • Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI) • Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF) • Computer and Network Systems (CNS) • Information & Intelligent Systems (IIS) Finding your way, Part III
  • Compare to a University Engineering Departments • Aerospace Engineering • Agricultural and Biological Engineering • Bioengineering • Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering • Civil and Environmental Engineering • Computer Science • Electrical and Computer Engineering • Industrial & Enterprise Systems Engineering • Materials Science and Engineering • Mechanical Science and Engineering • Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering • Physics Engineering Multidisciplinary Centers • Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory (ATREL) • Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology* • Coordinated Science Laboratory (CSL) • Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory (MRL) • Information Trust Institute • Institute for Genomic Biology* • Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory (MNTL) • National Center for Supercomputing Applications*
  • Compare to a University (cont.) Engineering Major Research Centers • Advanced Digital Sciences Center (ADSC) • Center for Nanoscale Chemical-Electrical- Mechanical Manufacturing Systems (NanoCEMMS) • Center for the Physics of Living Cells • Center of Advanced Materials for Purification of Water with Systems (Water CAMPWS) • Computational Science and Engineering • Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) • Illinois-Intel Parallelism Center (I2PC) • Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for Power (TCIPG) . . . 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- Business Management • 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
  • Internal Alignment • Dynamics with your colleagues (senior and junior) • 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 technology management
  • Pulling back the curtain on the review process Dozens of proposals before the panel (under 10% to be funded) 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 recommendation
  • Special Focus: I Corps 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
  • 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)
  • Funding Opportunities: An Early Career Perspective Leslie A. DeChurch Georgia Institute of Technology
  • 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 roles) Little, if any value, time consuming
  • 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)
  • 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
  • What’s in the Budget? • Summer salary (1 week to 2 months) of each senior investigator (faculty) • 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 PI?)
  • 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 Yourself 3. Don’t worry about having the greatest idea (but bad ideas are seldom funded) 4. Persist& Learn from feedback 2. Go for it! 5. Thicken your skin 6. Focus 7. Find your right audience
  • Pursuing NSF Funding when, whether, and how? Alan Meyer University of Oregon
  • Should I submit a proposal? 1. Are you certain your department or college understands, values, and rewards pursuit of external funding?  Do not take this for granted! 2. How much support is available for grant administration at your school?  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.)
  • 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 bureaucratic politics  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 dodgy proposals. Your Program Officer is your best friend.
  • 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:
  • 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 changes  Invite your PO to conference presentations based on NSF awards  Ask your PO, what could I do that would make you a hero? Post-award, don’t treat your PO like your Dean, treat him/her like a valued colleague:
  • Funding for Management Scholars?
  • Breakouts are for General Discussions • Tables will be staffed with PDs, PIs and reviewers/panelists • 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 73