1. Where to Submit Your Proposal? Finding a Program

GEOG 695B Professional Development

PROPOSAL WRITING

1. Where to submit your proposal? Finding a program

A. National Science Foundation

Graduate Research Fellowships

SBE Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants

What kinds of research has this program funded before?

General awards search - topic, institution, NSF organization
DDRIG search
Program managers

B. SBSRI: SBS Research Institute

Funding database

SBSRI funding(also check out proposal-writing workshops)

C. Other sources of funding

NASA Space Grant Program

Social Science Research Council: SSRC Fellowships and Grants

Fulbright Funding

Inter-American Foundation (IAF) Dissertation Fellowship: Dissertation fieldwork in Latin America and the Caribbean

American Institute of Indian Studies Fellowships

The Aspen Institute

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Research and Fellowship Support

The Wenner-Gren Foundation Grant

EPA STAR NCER Fellowships

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Grants

Open Society Foundation Grants

The Society of Woman Geographers Fellowship

(*Marissa Isaak 2013, Brittany Davis, Erika Wise, Sarah Smith past recipients from the UA)

American Association of University Women (AAUW) Fellowships and Grants

State Wildlife Grants (SWG)

Internal resources (University of Arizona)

Graduate College Office of Fellowships

See also UA Office of Nationally Competitive Scholarships which has some resources for grad students

Institute of Environment

Travel grants:

Confluence Center

Water Sustainability Program

Tinker Field Research Grant

GPSC Travel Grants

McGinnies Graduate Scholarship in Arid Lands Studies (open to any UA student)

2. Reading and Interpreting a Request for Proposals (RFP)

In the calls for proposals, this document (often called a ‘solicitation’) is where you find information on the program, its goals, and what kind of research it seems to fund (which may vary from year to year). This information is absolutely critical for determining if your proposal idea is a good fit, and how to specifically target and tune your proposal to address the RFP details. Read the fine print, as all the details you need to know should be here (deadlines, program goals, funding mechanisms, contacts, award information, $ amounts, eligibility, proposal preparation and submission guidelines, budget guidelines, allowable costs, university indirect costs, etc.) Some examples:

National Science Foundation:Geography and Spatial Sciences Program (GSS) program solicitation

NOAA Climate Program Office grants, Climate and Societal Interactions 2014 call for proposals

SBSRI examples

3. Writing a Proposal

Typical proposal components:

There often is explicit guidance on what you need to include. Depending on the specific program, these can include:

Project summary*

Description (problem statement, hypothesis, justification of need)
Goals and objectives
Research plan
Time line for work
Prior work and or qualifications
Linkages and leverage
Cited literature

*see review process below

The nuts and bolts parts typically include (pay attention to instructions, proposals have been returned or declined because they don’t directly comply with these requirements):

Bio sketches or CV
Current and pending support
Data management plan
Facilities
Budget (pay attention to what expenses are allowed and what are not)
Budget justification.

Also look for and pay attention to information on page limits, formatting, fonts. In general, try to include schematic diagrams, tables, bullet-point lists, etc. to break up what can otherwise be page-after-page monotony of slabs of dense text. Make it easy (and provide mnemonics) for the reviewers, who are often asked to evaluate a dozen or more proposals, which can easily run to 50 pages each with all the ancillary “nuts and bolts” listed above.

Strategies – this document is different from a paper; it is a sales job!

Ask grad student friends and colleagues to see copies of past proposals (successful or not) with review comments received, especially for the same programs you’re applying to.

And make sure to have someone knowledgeable on the subject matter read your proposal early on in developing it, and shortly prior to submission.

4. Proposal Submission

The most important thing in this process is to be cognizant of deadlines at the SGD, UA, and granting agency. Make sure you give yourself plenty of time to meet the deadlines. For a large NSF-style proposal, your title, project summary or abstract, budget and budget justification are the elements you will need to provide with the most lead time, as these are the parts that need to be approved via an official (now online) routing process that involves budget checking, signatures by SGD Director, SBS Dean’s office, and office of Vice President for Research, before Office of Sponsored Projects will “release” it for you to upload (or they may have to be the ones to upload). It is a good idea to give the SGD business manager a heads up as soon as you know you plan to submit a proposal.

SGDproposal information
UA Sponsored Projects
Online proposal submission process (Fastlane, Grants.gov)

5. Proposal Review Process

The process varies, but commonly involves outside reviewers who may not be familiar with your particular field of research. A typical NSF review process includes 3-8 outside reviewers, a review panel, a recommendation to approve from the program manager, and formal approval by the contracts office.

Review criteria: these are often explicitly stated, so look for these and make sure to directly address them (with sub-sections or bold/italics identifiers to make it easy for reviewers).

A good set of guidelines are the NSF review criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts (see examples below/attached, which we will review during the 12/12 seminar.)

A. Review Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit-review process for the selection of projects. All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. For example, proposals for large facility projects also might be subject to special review criteria outlined in the program solicitation.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions, and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgments.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

NSF Grad Fellowship:

The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge.

Panelists evaluating applications submitted to the Graduate Research Fellowship Program may consider the following with respect to the Intellectual Merit Criterion: the potential of the applicant to advance knowledge based on a holistic analysis of the complete application, including the personal statement, relevant background, future goals, graduate research statement, strength of the academic record, description of previous research experience or publication/presentations, and references.

Standard NSF Research Proposal:

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship:

The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

Panelists may consider the following with respect to the Broader Impacts Criterion: the potential of the applicant for future broader impacts as indicated by personal experiences, professional experiences, educational experiences and future plans.

Standard NSF Research Proposal:

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the US; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.