Grant Applications
Rachel Croson, PhD
Dean, College of Business
UT Arlington
(formerly DD SES/SBE NSF)
1
Granting Context
Grants are growing in importance
Each granting organization has a mission
NSF: basic research (transformative) with broader impact
Each granting program has a unique audience
Economics, DRMS, interdisciplinary
Each granting unit has a process for evaluation
Ad-hoc reviews, panel reviews, program officer recommendation
Successful grants contribute to the mission of the
organization, are written to be compelling to the unique
audience and are in a format that enables them to be
processed appropriately
NSF Context
Money comes from Congress (political issues)
Allocated to the various Directorates (SBE)
Allocated to the various Divisions (SES)
Allocated to the standing programs (Econ, DRMS, …)
Percentage raked off at each level for new initiatives
(sometimes via mandatory contributions instead)
When budget grows, (almost) all the new money
When budget is flat, standing programs’ budgets decrease
“Getting our share” (back)
Historically, standing programs becoming more competitive
Interdisciplinary Initiatives
SaTC: Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace
Social, Behavioral and Economic Science of Cybersecurity
Proposals joint between computer scientists and SBE scientists
Single panel evaluation, including scholars of both types
IBSS: Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science
Across SBE disciplines; must be a team (300K/$1M)
Population Change, Sources and Consequences of Disparities,
Technology, New Media and Social Networks
Single panel, multiple disciplines
Constantly changing; keep an eye out
The Review Process (6 moz)
Proposals are submitted, “compliance-checked”
POs solicit and receive ad-hoc reviews
POs assign proposals to panelists; receive reviews
Panel meets, looks at reviews, discusses proposals,
provides recommendations to POs
(co-review)
POs construct recommended funding portfolios (may
involve budget negotiations)
DD concurs, grant is made to institution (not to PI)
Grants office works with SRO to implement
Review Criteria
Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the
potential to advance knowledge; and
Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the
potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific,
desired societal outcomes.
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual
Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or
potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and
based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed
activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or
through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Rachel’s Top 10 List
1. Start early (as much work as a paper).
2. Read the program solicitation first (they change).
3. Communicate with your program officer.
4. Read others’ proposals (review, benchmark, …).
5. Identify projects at the “right” stage.
6. Know your audience and write for that audience.
7. Ask for what you need, not more and not less.
8. Follow the rules.
9. Submit; you can’t win if you don’t try.
10. Don’t be discouraged (not R&R).
Other Topics
IRB
International collaborations
Collaborative proposals vs. subawards
Data management plan
REU and other supplements
Working with your SRO
“Moving” a grant
Annual reports and other communications
RAPID/EAGER/INSPIRE
Thanks!
[email protected]