Transcript Writing Winning Grants - University of Pittsburgh

Fundamentals of
Writing Winning Proposals
Soha Hassoun
Tufts University
Young Faculty Workshop @ DAC, July 2009
Some slides/content are from a handout by
David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
Overview: The Funding Process
• Identify an agency with a mission that matches your
interests, and find a relevant CFP
• Understand the mechanics of the submission process
• Your idea will be presented to the funding agency in the
form of a written document, “The Proposal”
• A set of reviewers examines your proposal and makes a
recommendation to the funding agency (competitive vs.
non competitive for NSF; a score for NIH)
• The program officer makes final decision about funding
and funding amounts
You must allot time to:
• Develop your ideas,
• Write a competitive proposal, and
• Get one or more rounds of critical review from
your colleagues before you submit
David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
Ideas: How LARGE?
The Levitan Rule
“How many PhD theses are expected?”
Budget-driven: How many student-years?
– Budget is sometimes set by the program. Use that
as a starting point
Bottom line: Be credible
Innovation in Developing Ideas
• Ideas cannot be incremental
• Ideas must be innovative
– Does the project employ novel concepts,
methods, or approaches?
– Does the project challenge existing paradigms
or develop new methodologies or techniques?
• Ideas must be expanded
Innovation in Developing Ideas
• Based on knowledge
– Search the literature thoroughly
– Understand what the competition is doing and how
your idea/approach is distinguished
– Assess funded grant awards related to your idea
– Assess what you can/cannot do
• Innovation is NOT the only evaluation criteria. Each
agency has its own
Your Audience:
The Mindset of the Reviewers
•
•
•
•
Who are they?
What is their expertise ?
Can they evaluate your proposal fairly?
What are they looking for ?
The key to success in grant writing is to engender
enthusiasm in the reviewer – who then becomes
an advocate for your proposal. Therefore, always
write your application for the reviewer, NOT
yourself.
--David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
What Reviewers Look For First
•
•
•
•
What’s the title? Is it interesting?
Who is the applicant?
Which institution(s) is the applicant affiliated with?
What’s the basic idea? Is it within my area of
expertise?
• Is the application “Reviewer-friendly”?
David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
Reviewer-friendly == Maximally Readable
• Readability should take precedence over margin & font guidelines
• No distractions:
• Spelling & grammar errors
• Inconsistent technical terms and formatting
• Jargon, equations, tiny footnotes.
• Illustrations should be meaningful; worth 1000 words.
• Key points and impact are obvious
• Use key words: e.g. “This proposal is innovative because…”
• Use simple and clear organization
More is not better!
Make it easy for the reviewers
to evaluate your proposal
Simple & Clear Organization
Title
Summary
Overview & Objectives (1 page)
Significance (1/2 page)
Relevant Background
Preliminary Work
The Narrative
(Proposed Research)
Timeline, and other agencyspecific required sections
What Reviewers Look For Second:
Necessary Conceptual Ingredients
1. Identify a problem and establish a “critical need”
2. Focus on a particular aspect of the problem
3. Describe how you will uniquely/innovatively
contribute to the solution
4. Provide context and competitive analysis
5. Explain how you will evaluate your results
6. Provide compelling preliminary results
7. Describe impact/ pay off
8. Establish that you (and your team) are qualified to
provide the proposed solution
Simple & Clear Organization
Title
Summary
Overview & Objectives (1 page)
Significance (1/2 page)
Relevant Background
Preliminary Work
The Narrative
(Proposed Research)
Timeline, and other agency
specific required sections
Write this section first
Overview and Objectives (1 page)
• The “bottleneck” page
• The flow of logic must be compelling: Linear progression for a
strong Overview Section
Critical Need
Objective
Specific Aims/Tasks/Goals
Novelty/Innovation &
Expected Outcomes
Get an early critique of this page
Overview and Objectives Details
Good place
to establish
your
qualification
and mention
Prelim Work;
Not your bio!
Facts (known and unknowns)
that establish “Critical Need”.
Frame the problem
Long range goal.
Objective of this proposal.
Justify WHY you are solving the
critical need
Conceptual aims;
use strong verbs
Specific Aims/Tasks/Goals
Advocate for your
proposal:
Distinguishing
qualities.
Not in future tense.
“We expect…”
Novelty/Innovation &
Expected Outcomes
David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
Example Aim
Identify key parental factors responsible for children’s poor
transition from preschool to kindergarten. Based upon
collected evidence related to the situation, we will evaluate
the extent to which parents command of the English language
is a predictive factor of their children’s successful transition to
kindergarten.
David Morrison, www.grantcentral.com
Simple & Clear Organization
Title
Summary
Overview & Objectives (1 page)
Significance (1/2 page)
Relevant Background
Preliminary Work
The Narrative
(Proposed Research)
Timeline, and other agency
specific required sections
“Significance of The Proposed Work”
Section (1/2 page)
• Follows the Overview & Objective section
• Make it easy for all to identify importance of
your work
• Flow:
– Substantiate that there is a critical need
– Italicized statement of significance, “This project is
therefore significant because ..”
– Benefits and impact expected from the critical
need having successfully been addressed
“Relevant Background” Section
• Section provides a critical review of relevant
background. Not comprehensive. Section title
should be reflective of this:
e.g. “Review of Background literature relevant to this
project”
• Flow
– Make sure that each major point discussed allows a
conclusion to be reached
– Logically build up the stage for the Prelim/Narrative
• Cite contributions of possible reviewers
“Preliminary Work” Section
• What is Preliminary Work?
– Could be published prior work (yours or others)
Summarize key findings in reference to the problems that you framed;
do not cut & paste
– Could be your own preliminary data
• Preliminary work should provide compelling evidence:
a)
b)
c)
Importance of the problem
Analysis that identifies key issues that need to be addressed
Demonstrate your competence
• Set data in context. You should have set the stage in the Overview
and background sections
• Too much detail will be harmful
“Narrative Section”
Reviewers expect the flow here to match the
aims listed in the Overview & Objectives
section:
Parallel Aim Flow
1. Specific Aim #1 Repeat verbatim
Introduction
Work plan
Expected outcomes/results
Potential Problems/alternatives
…. Repeat for other aims
Simple & Clear Organization
Title
Summary
Overview & Objectives (1 page)
Significance (1/2 page)
Relevant Background
Preliminary Work
The Narrative
(Proposed Research)
Timeline, and other agency
specific required sections
Title Selection Tips
• List all key words that convey WHAT you want
to do and WHY it is important
• Arrange the words into a compelling and
informative title that fits the allowed space
“Summary” Section
• Very important. Widely read. Sometimes basis for
reviewers to select their reviewing assignments
• Written in plain English
• Written last, but not last minute
• Include key components from Overview and
Significance sections to develop advocacy
• Emphasize the relevance/significance to the funding
agency (i.e. Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact for
NSF)
Useful Hints
•
•
•
•
Do not sweep issues under the rug
Propose alternate plans
Draft your own collaboration letters
Comprehensively craft your “resources” section, including
listing of colleagues as intellectual resources
•
•
•
•
Ask others for sample proposals
Go to a grant-writing workshop
Get a mentor
Team up with more experienced writers and learn form
others
• On contacting the Program Officer
• On recommending reviewers
Final Words
• DO NOT GET DISCOURAGED!!
 The funding agencies cannot fund all “good
proposals”
 Learn from your mistakes
• Be pro-active in identifying funding and
collaborating opportunities
Questions?