The mechanics of applying remember you are not alone

1
The mechanics of applying remember you are not
alone

• Trish Lowney, PhD
• Executive Director
• Office of Sponsored Programs
• Syracuse University
• November 12, 2008

2
Now Lets Get Going!

• Read announcement /all instructions carefully
• Make an outline
• Respond precisely to what is asked
• Understand selection process
• Respond to review criteria

3
Okay!! Whats needed for a strong application?

• A great idea! - WHAT
• Concisely stated
• Convincing preliminary data (promising idea) (not
  always necessary when just getting started)
• Significant to the sponsor (or discipline or
  whomever) WHY
• Capable recipient WHO
• Have skills and resources needed to do proposed
  work

4
Increase your chances for Get help from
others

• Ask for copies of recently funded proposals
• Get input from program manager
• Work with funded (and unfunded) colleagues, have
  them read your work
• Get and reflect on reviewers comments and call
  for additional insights, if possible

5
Whats needed ? contd

• Feasible work plan - HOW
• Well thought out and planned strategies
• Solid rationale for each method or approach used
• Why approach is best tack to take..
• Approaches can answer question, test hypothesis
  etc
• Identified road blocks and plans to get around
  them

6
Whats needed ? contd

• Feasible work plan, contd
• When methods work is clear
• (positive/negative controls or evaluation)
• Results are interpreted
• Expected results described and what they mean in
  context of big idea, question, etc
• If get unexpected, convey what THAT means

7
Whats needed ? contd

• Feasible work plan, contd
• Reasonable amount of work for time available
• Clear impact SO WHAT?

8
Common Elements

• Cover page
• Title, Recipient (SU? - you)
• Contact info
• Administrivia DUNS, TIN, human subjects?
• new investigator
• Abstract, project or executive summary
  (uses/purposes vary)
• Budget, budget narrative
• Why expenditures are necessary and costs
  reasonable
• Biographical sketches (Who)
• Facilities resources (Who)

9
Common elements

• Project Narrative (What, Why, How)
• Total number of pages available? 5, 10, 15?
• Statement of need/purpose
• Goals, objectives/specific aims
• Significance
• State of knowledge/context
• First page what, why, how, importance the
  hook! Dont make the reader have to read half the
  document to get to the point

10
Common elements

• Project Narrative (the core of application)
• Research Design, Methods, Approach
• General methods - rationale
• Challenges/barriers alternative approaches
• Expected results
• Interpretation
• Timeline
• Management plan (if applicable)

11
Importance of Understanding

• Selection process
• And
• Review criteria used by sponsor.

12
The selection process

• Subjective?
• Panel of experts?
• Mail view by experts?
• Review by generalists?
• Strong manager?
• Board of Directors?
• Objective? points?
• Contracts

13
Common Review Criteria - NSF

• Intellectual Merit
• 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?

14
Common Review Criteria - NSF

• Broader impacts?
• 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?

15
Common Review Criteria - NIH

• Significance. Does this study address an
  important problem? If the aims are achieved, how
  will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be
  advanced? What will be the effect of these
  studies on the concepts, methods, technologies,
  treatments, services, or preventions that drive
  this field?
• Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical
  framework, design, methods, and analyses
  adequately developed, well integrated, well
  reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the
  project? Do the PI or PIs acknowledge potential
  problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
  For multiple PI applications, is the leadership
  plan consistent with and justified by the
  project's aims and each PI's expertise?

16
Common Review Criteria - NIH

• Innovation. Is the project original and
  innovative? For example Does it challenge
  existing paradigms or clinical practice or
  address an innovative hypothesis or critical
  barrier to progress in the field? Does the
  project develop or use novel concepts,
  approaches, methods, tools, or technologies?
• Investigators. Are the PI or PIs and other key
  personnel appropriately trained and well suited
  to carry out this work? Is the work proposed
  appropriate to the experience level of the PI or
  PIs and other researchers? Do the PI or PIs and
  investigative team bring complementary and
  integrated expertise to the project (if
  applicable)?
• Environment. Does the scientific environment or
  environments contribute to the probability of
  success? Do the studies benefit from unique
  features of the scientific environment or
  environments or subject populations? Do the
  studies use useful collaborative arrangements? Is
  there evidence of institutional support?

17
Before you submit

• Share with others for their feedback
• Review the entire application
• Responsive to review criteria?
• Instructions followed completely?
• Narrative clear, concise, relevant?

18
Does the application have good form?

• Compliant font (12 pt TNR, 11 pt Arial)
• White space (between paragraphs)
• Headers to communicate important points
• Bold text to emphasize review criteria
• Full justification ? looks pretty but hard to
  read (ragged right preferred)

19
Is your proposal Strong ?1

• Neat, well organized and easy to read
• Innovative present new perspective on an
  important problem
• Exciting convey the writers passion
• Informative convey knowledge of field
• Compelling provide preliminary data/rationale
• Feasible Solid work plan and budget

20
Submission process

• Feds Grants.gov Apply
• Exceptions NSF - FASTLANE, NASA - NSPIRES, ED -
  e-grants
• Proposal Central health related orgs
• Sponsors online application e.g.
• Wenner Gren
• Paper

21
Submission process

• Do you need permission to apply?
• SU yes
• Internal Routing and Review form signed by
• Advisor, chair, dean
• Why?
• SU agrees to comply with numerous requirements
  (certifications assurances)
• Need documentation that at the end of the day
  the right thing will be done for the right
  reasons at the right time.
• Who?
• Ordinarily Office of Sponsored Programs on your
  behalf

22
Submission process

• Are you authorized to submit?
• Award to organization (SU) No.
• Tax Exempt , IRS Tax Exempt determination
  letter
• DUNS
• Signature of authorized institutional official
• Award to applicant you are responsible for tax
  consequences of award - Yes

23
Keep on trying when

• Significance, relevance to sponsors agenda not
  clear
• Proposal lacks focus
• Get to the point early
• Laundry list of activities not unified into a
  coherent package
• Is overly ambitious
• Isnt feasible
• Is hard to read or sloppy
• Is poorly organized

24
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Poor Grant development
• Guidelines for proposal content, outline, and
  length were not followed exactly. As one
  government reviewer stated Overall, the most
  striking reason for low-marked proposals was the
  consistent failure of universities to be fully
  responsive to was asked for in the RFP.
• Proposals are not organized so that their
  distinct sections can be easily matched against
  the RFP evaluation criteria.
• The quality of the writing is poor. The proposal
  is hard to read, uses sweeping generalizations
  and jargon, and is excessively repetitive and too
  long.
• Proposal contains an unreasonable number of
  mechanical errors (for example, typos. Pages
  upside down or out of place) showing an
  inattention to detail and quality of work.
• Deadline for proposal submission was not met.

25
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Applicant didnt do homework
• The study or project, although meritorious, was
  not a priority topic to the sponsoring agency.
• Proposed beneficiaries of the project had no role
  in identifying problems and solutions, in
  designing the project or in carrying out the
  activities. Therefore, it seems unlikely that
  benefits will be sustained.
• In literature review or background section, the
  proposal writer showed he or she did not know the
  area of his or her subject matter. For example,
  sources cited were out of date, or the proposal
  writer overlooked important reference materials
  or previous studies and projects.

26
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Work plan not feasible
• Work plans are too vague. They lack specifics on
  what activities are to be done, why, how, when,
  in what sequence and by whom.
• Rationale for choosing a particular approach as
  the best solution to a research question or
  problem was missing or not very well thought out.
• Method for conducting the research or carrying
  out the project was not explained or seemed
  unsuited to the projects.
• Constraints most likely to be encountered in
  carrying out the research were not considered and
  there were no tactics for overcoming them
  presented.

27
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Work plan not feasible
• Proposed project appeared beyond the capacity of
  the individual or institution to carry out. For
  example, overly ambitious.
• Management responsibility and capability are not
  clearly demonstrated in terms of planning
  activities, budgeting funds, providing
  commodities, keeping records and writing reports.
  
• Weak evidence is presented of ability to meet
  schedules. Detailed monthly or quarterly
  schedules are missing, and timetables for
  accomplishing work are too optimistic.

28
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Work plan not feasible
• Lessons learned from previous projects or pilot
  researches are not shown or are not made relevant
  to the proposed project.
• Proposal was not clear in describing one or more
  elements. Or the proposal was not complete. For
  example, the proposal did not describe how the
  project would be managed, how activities would be
  monitored and results evaluated and reported.

29
Reasons proposals dont get funded source unknown

• Lack of Innovation
• Proposed research question, research design
  and/or research methods were completely
  traditional. The proposed project offered
  nothing unusual, intriguing, or clever or it
  seemed to lack significance.
• Budget
• Costs appeared greater than the benefits, or it
  was unclear who would benefit.
• Budget was too high. Budget was too low.

30
Persevere!!

• Everyone gets rejected..
• Those who get funded -
• Keep trying
• Learn from experience ?
• Continuously improve