This document provides guidance on writing a fundable research proposal. It discusses the benefits of research for students, faculty, and institutions. Key benefits include hands-on learning, career preparation, developing critical thinking skills, and attracting engaged students and funding. The document also outlines factors that make proposals fundable such as developing an original idea that solves an important problem, targeting the right funding agency, and clearly stating the problem, approach, and why it was chosen. It emphasizes the importance of networking, collaboration, and persistence in the proposal process.

1. HOW TO WRITE A FUNDABLE RESEARCH PROPOSAL
M. Raja Reddy, Ph.D.
rrmitta@gmail.com

2. outline
• Why research and Benefits of research
• Fundable research ideas
• Funding agencies
• Research proposal preparation methodology

3. Why research in engineering colleges?
• Research is a systematic process of active inquiry and discovery through
collecting, analyzing, and inferring from data so that we can understand a
given phenomenon in which we are interested
• Research allows you to pursue your interests, to learn something new, to
hone your problem-solving skills and to challenge yourself in new ways.
• Working on a faculty-initiated research project gives you the opportunity
work closely with a mentor–a faculty member or other experienced
researcher.
• Every field of study has its own research problems and methods.
• As a researcher you seek answers to questions of great interest to you.
• Your research problem could be aesthetic, social, political, scientific or
technical.
• You choose the tools, gather and analyse the data

4. What are the Benefits of Research to students?
• Engages and empowers students in hands-on learning
• Enhances the student learning experience through mentoring
relationships with faculty
• Provides effective career preparation & promotes interest in
graduate education
• Develops critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, self
confidence, and intellectual independence
• Promotes an innovation-oriented culture

5. What benefits the research brings to faculty?
• Invigorates intellect and increases enthusiasm
• Enhances teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction
• Promotes advancements in research program
• Increases access to grant funding
• Encourages faculty to remain current in their field
• Promotes greater engagement with students, colleagues, and
the community
• Provides an opportunity to work with different people of
varied backgrounds.

6. Institutional Benefits of Research:
• Enhances intellectual vitality of the institution
• Attracts talented faculty and builds research programs
• Attracts engaged students and community interest
• External funding brings new equipment and facilities
• Encourages innovative and collaborative curricula
• Promotes engagement with national trends in higher
education and new research directions

7. Funding your Research
• Funding is an enabler
• Funds provide you with independence
• Funds help you
– to develop your skills and professional career
– to undertake research of your choice
– to build a research team
– to have up-to-date equipment and resources
– to travel and network with other researchers
• Excellence in research is not accomplished in isolation. It takes
intensive cooperation across borders, institutions, nations and
disciplines.
• But the search for prevailing solutions is also propelled by
competition.
• Competition for better ideas, for better methodologies, and
for the funding to make it all happen.

8. What is a Proposal?
• A proposal is generally a suggestion or plan made towards
accomplishing a given task.
• It is expected that such a plan previews the nature of the task
ahead and the step(s) and activities that lead to achieving the
goals and objectives of the task.
• A proposal therefore, is a foundation or scaffold upon which a
given product (body of knowledge, building, etc) can be
successfully made.
• A proposal serves a framework and foundation on which a
research work or study is to be built upon.
• Therefore, a poor proposal is like a poor framework or
foundation and will give rise to a poor research at the end.

9. What is a research proposal?
• A research proposal is a carefully prepared plan or path-way that
precedes any research study or work.
• It is a comprehensive plan by a researcher to carry out a chosen
research study or activity.
• It shows the preliminary actions the researcher proposes to take or
do based on a chosen and agreed title with the supervisor/promoter.
 Academic or scientific research carried out with a poor proposal is
bound to experience any or all of the following problems:
 Inability to locate any important knowledge gap;
 Lack of appropriate research design;
 Poor methodology and procedure
 Poor and inappropriate research instrument(s);
 Inappropriate ways of data collection;
 Use of wrong method(s) of data analysis;
 Wrong results and misleading interpretations and inferences; and
 Eventual failure to solve any problem.

10. Good idea fundable!
• You’ve thought about this idea for a long time!
• You’ve received feedback on this idea from faculty in courses,
your advisor, and/or others!
…but lots of good ideas
DON’T GET FUNDED.
WHY?
• Some times good ideas are never submitted as a grant proposal
• Lots of people have good ideas – there is Fierce competition
among those who do apply.
Good ideas –alone –don’t get funded.
WELL-WRITTEN GRANT PROPOSALS GET FUNDED

11. 4 Steps
[1/29/2013]
• 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
11

12. Research Grant Features
• Primary goal is scientific understanding
• Peer-reviewed (in some way)
• Wide discretion over objectives, methods
• Judged retrospectively
• Most technical
• Most competitive
12

13. Funding agencies - Government
• Aeronautics Research and Development Board (ARDB)
• Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
• Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
• Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC)
• Centre for Development of Telematics (C- DOT)
• Coal India Ltd.
• Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
• Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO)
• Department of Atomic Energy
• Department of AYUSH
• Department of Biotechnology (DBT)

14. Funding agencies - Government
• Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Ministry of
Chemicals & Fertilizers
• Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
• Department of Ocean Development
• Department of Science & Technology (DST)
• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG – German Research
Foundation)
• GAIL (India) Ltd.
• Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
• Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
• Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR)
• Indian National Science Academy (INSA)

15. Funding agencies - Government
• Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
• Indo French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced Research
(IFCPAR)
• Indo-US Science & Technology Forum
• Ministry of Agro & Rural Industries
• Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
• Ministry of Defence
• Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)
• Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
• Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
• Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)
• Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

16. Funding agencies - Government
• Ministry of Power
• Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
• Ministry of Rural Development
• Ministry of Textiles
• Ministry of Urban Development
• Ministry of Water Resources
• National Science Foundation
• Naval Research Board (NRB)
• Northern Indian Textile Research Association (NITRA)
• Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC)
• Petroleum Conservation Research Association (PCRA)
• Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB)
• Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
• Technology Information, Forecasting &Assessment Council (TIFAC)
• UK India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI)
• University Grants Commission

17. Funding agencies - Government
• Industry – private partnership
– To solve the product, performance and process problems
– To develop the product jointly defined
• MNC organizations –
– IBM, GE, Siemens, Honeywell, UTC, Shell, Applied Materials, TI, NXP,
etc.
• NGOs
– Rural development
– Adult education
– Farming
– Foultry etc

18. The “Secret Handshake”
[1/29/2013]
• 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
18

19. Common Myths
• 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.
19

20. Guiding Principles
 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
"Less than 10% of the proposals receive may fits the guidelines – and the
one's that don't fit are rejected"
20

21. A Preview of Review
• 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?
21

22. Planning
• Timeline of the proposal process
• Taking Stock
• Ongoing Readiness
• Preliminary Research
22

23. Timeline of Proposal
Funding
Initial
announcemen
t
Budget
adjustment
Account
Setup
HR
Annual
Reports
Extensions
Review
Internal
Review
Funder
Administrative
Check
Individual
Review
Panel
Review
Program Officer
Recommendations
Board Approval
Submission
Collaboration
Title,
Abstract
Personnel
Budget
Administrative
Approvals
Scientific
Portion
Internal
Review
Rewriting
Targeting
Identifying Funders Networking Identifying Funding
Opportunities
Reading RFP
Preliminary research
Collaborations Literature Pilots
Taking Stock
Projects Institution
[1/29/2013] 23

24. Review Your Research Program
• SWOT:
– Strengths
– Weaknesses
– Threats
– Opportunities
• Readiness
– Literature reviews
– Pilot projects/data collection
24

25. Do You need Money?
• 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. 25

26. Your Status
[1/29/2013]
• 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
26

27. PI-Authority
[1/29/2013]
• “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
27

28. Your Institutional Eligibility
• Private engineering college
• Special programs eligibility:
– NBA
– UGC 2(B) 12(f)
– NAAC
28

29. Institutional Positioning
• 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.
29

30. Institutional Support
[1/29/2013]
• 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 30

31. Active Preparations
• Ongoing Readiness
• Action Research
• Preliminary Results
“Chance favors the prepared mind.” -- Louis Pasteur
31

32. Ongoing Readiness
• Organization
– Maintain calendar of project & sponsor deadlines
– Review opportunities regularly
• Materials
– Bio's 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
"Nothing new that is really interesting comes without
collaboration" -- James Watson
32

33. “Action Research”
• 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
33

34. Preliminary Results
• 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
34

35. Planning
• 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?
– Your department?
– Yourself?
– Other sources?
35

36. Planning
• 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
36

37. Targeting
• Types of funding agencies
• Finding funders
• Finding Opportunities
37

38. Reading RFP’s
• 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
38

39. Unstated requirements
• 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
39

40. Reading an RFP
• Read the RFP included in the handout.
• 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 RFP
HOMEWORK
• Read background information about DST and the directorates
sponsoring this program at the DST website
• What are the core missions of these organizations?
• What are the key stakeholders?
• What are some likely unwritten requirements? 40

41. Review: Targeting
- 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?
- What are intellectual foundations?
- Examine previous funded projects, and talk with colleagues and
funders to find “unstated” requirements
[1/29/2013] 41

42. Writing & Submission
[1/29/2013]
• What to write
– Outlines of Proposals
– Writing Strategies
• Nuts and bolts
– Materials and Special Sections
– Managing the Submission Process
42

43. Proposal Components
• Main Description & Summary
– Titles
– Abstracts
– Executive Summaries
– Description (Main)
• Supporting Material
– Budgets
– Management Plans
– Data Management Plans
– Appendices
• Collaboration Support
– Budgeting
– Letters & Memoranda of Endorsement, Support, Agreement
[Source: NIH]
43

44. Main Description
• The Main Project Description
– Organization
– General Writing Strategies
– Writing Tips
– Outline
44

45. Proposal Organization
[1/29/2013]
• 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:
– 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 45

46. This will solve an important problem!
What a clever approach!
This is the team to carry it off!
Wow!
What we’d like reviewers to think…
46

47. Simple Proposal Outline
• 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”
47

48. Proposal plan
48
• 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?
• What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be
successful?
• Who cares?
• If you're 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 “reviews" to check for
success?

49. More detailed proposal outline
1. 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 methods
3. Preliminary Studies
1. Relationship between this project and your prior research
2. Demonstrate mastery of required methods
3. Use pilot data to highlight interesting findings, preliminary results
4. 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
49

50. Detailed 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
50

51. Qualitative Research Methods
[1/29/2013]
• 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 51

52. General Reviewer Questions
 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?
52

53. On Originality/Innovation
• 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.
53

54. How to be original
(like everyone else…)
• Imagine the unconstrained solution – what if you had
unlimited time, brains and Rs?
• 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
– Permute ideas: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use,
Eliminate, Reverse
– Impose artificial constraints on solution
– Identify analogies and systematically list correspondences
54

55. Writing Organization
• 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
55

56. Writing for Reviewers
Write 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
56

57. Writing Style Goals
• 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
57

58. Writing Style Tips
• Use active & specific language (not passive & vague)
• Avoid negativity about project ("will" not "would", "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
• Don't exaggerate
• Keep value judgments, political views, humor, controversial issues out
• Italics/bold to highlight key issues
• Avoid abbreviations, acronyms
• Do not assume common knowledge
58

59. Including Figures
Use 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 impact
Beware of…
• Clip-art
• “Chartjunk”
• Unfaithful reproduction
(color, fine detail, formats, …)
59

60. Supporting Materials
[1/29/2013]
• References and citations
• Titles and Abstracts
• Pre-proposals
• Other supporting materials
• Project Plans
60

61. References and Citations
References 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.)
61

62. Titles and Abstracts
Titles 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.
62

63. Pre-Proposals
[1/29/2013]
Pre-proposals summarize your project for different reviewers.
• Letter of intent
– Usually quite short < page.
– Guides Dean R&D 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
63

64. Other supporting materials
[1/29/2013]
• Letters
• Bios/CV’s
• Facilities
• Appendices
64

65. Bios
• 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
65

66. Letters
• Support
– Makes commitment to provide some service or resource
• 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
66

67. Appendices
• Put in what RFP asks for
• Minimize other material
• Reviewers might not read
67

68. Project Plans
Project 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
68

69. Budgets
A budget is your project from the financial perspective.
• Basic Categories:
– Internal People & benefits people costs
• PI
• Staff
• Grad/Ugrad/Postdoc
– Consultants
– Participants
– Big equipment (high cost)
– Other “direct” costs (laptops, printers, software, travel)
• Supplies
• Travel
• Etc
– “indirect” costs/overhead
69

70. How Much to Budget?
• Budget what you need to carry out the science/Engineering
– Budget what you need
– Make it clear how each budget item supports the plan
• Do’s and Don’ts
– Do estimate costs based on current typical costs
– Don’t cut corners
– Do talk to the Dean R&D 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?
70

71. Budget Tips
• 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
• Disallowed – personal entertainment, Food, bribes, development staff (fundraising), and other
foundation specific disallowables
• Avoid miscellaneous categories (even if labeled "contingency")
• Don't 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
71

72. Dissemination
Dissemination is your project from the community stakeholder
perspective.
• Articles/books
• Reviews
• Web site
• Conferences
• Training/short courses
• Learning modules
• Community involvement
Sponsors may have additional requirements
• Particular forms or forums
• Open access
72

73. Management Plan
A 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
73

74. Evaluation Plan
• 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
74

75. Data Management Plan
• When is it required?
– As per the project funder direction
– 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
– 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 supportOne size does not fit all projects.
75

76. Managing the Process
– 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 early
76

77. Authorship
[1/29/2013]
• 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
77

78. Review: Writing
[1/29/2013]
• Aim to 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
78

79. Criteria
[1/29/2013]
• 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)
79

80. Dealing with Rejection
• 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 couldn't 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
80

81. Reading Reviews
• 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
81

82. Do you resubmit?
[1/29/2013]
• 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
– Many 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
82

83. How to Resubmit
• 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 83

84. Critiquing
• 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
[1/29/2013] 84

85. Review: Review (Review)
• 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?
[1/29/2013] 85

86. Managing Funded Projects
[1/29/2013]
 Funded! – What to do.
 Project Management Overview
 Reports and Responsibilities
" 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
86

87. Funded!
[1/29/2013]
• 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
87

88. Project Management Overview
[1/29/2013]
• Preparing
– Staffing – HR
– Space – HR/Deans
– Financial – Financial Office/OSR
• (Re)-Planning
– Risks Analysis
– Timeline
– Milestones
– Deliverables – including dissemination activities
• Ongoing Management
– Continuous integration
– Constant communication
– Project data collection
– Quantitative Performance Estimation
– Active Risk management
– Expense / Cost Sharing / Effort Reports
– Substantive reporting
• Finalizing
– Extensions
– Spending down budget
– Data
– Reporting
88

89. Reports and Responsibilities
[1/29/2013]
• 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 – Depends on the funding agency
– 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 89

90. Review: Management
• Review your proposal
• Communicate immediately but don’t spend
• Track and measure your project progress
• Actively manage risks to your project
[1/29/2013] 90

91. Research Infrastructure
[1/29/2013]
• “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
91

92. Cooperative Agreements
• 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
92

93. Review: Other Funding
• 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
93

94. Conclusions
• Well written proposals are generally funded however one
needs to write more proposals to increase chances of funds
• The structure discussed in the presentation is a general one.
The writer needs to follow the guidelines given by the specific
funding agency.
• Writing the actual proposal is just one step in the grant
process.
• The skills for writing a good proposal are not normally part of
many academic curricula, they are also dynamic and require
constant appraisals even for the competent writers.