National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG): How to avoid pitfalls to increase your success

Transcription

1 National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG): How to avoid pitfalls to increase your success Jared L. DeForest Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University

2 The scientific method

3 Understand the review process before you start writing! Who is your audience? Reviewers: Well meaning, but very busy Will have to review ~20 proposals within a month At most, they will spend 2 hours reading your proposal and writing the review Less than 90 minutes is more likely Reviewers are NOT infallible! For DDIG, it is likely their first time reviewing a grant proposal

4 Understand the review process before you start writing! Who is your audience? Program officers They will decide which proposals will be recommend for funding Based on the reviews and other factors They can be a great source of information your program officer to set up a time to pitch your ideas Early feedback is critical

5 What is the most successful proposal? Transformative research Challenges conventional wisdom Leads to unexpected insights that enable new techniques or methodologies Redefines the boundaries of science

6 What makes a proposal strong? Intellectual Merit Fills in a significant scientific gap Will answers a burning scientific question Has a cool factor that gets people excited Broader Impacts Benefits society Advances desired societal outcomes Education, outreach, training

7 What are the reviewers judging you on? To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities wellreasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Directly quoted from the NSF Merit Review Criteria

8 This is where the magic happens

9 High Quality Proposal Excellent/Very good ranking Innovative, creative, imaginative, novel Something pops and gets the reviewer(s) excited Compelling scientific merit & broader impacts Cutting edge of scientific field Convincing with a feasible approach

10 Medium Quality Proposal Good ranking Somewhat innovative Science perceived as incremental Solid scientific merit and broader impacts Good, but nothing really pops out Strong case for feasibility Most likely the project can be completed with requested funds and experience

11 Low Quality or Not Competitive Proposals Fair Ranking Worthwhile qualities, but not compelling Trying to answer a question nobody asked Questionable feasibility Weak broader impacts Poor Ranking Lacks potential Will not advance science Contains flaws in logic or approach

12 How to write a successful proposal It is best to think of your reviewers as surly, overworked researchers They may NOT be an expert in your field Don t assume they will know the significance of your research You must clearly communicate your ideas Spoon-feed the information Don t make them work for it

13 How to write a successful proposal Be your own worst critic Seek out flaws and fill in the missing pieces Did you really describe a compelling project? Have peers and others read your work Outside your area of expertise is best Use white space or bold to frame and package the most important points

14 Remember, a real person will read your proposal! If you make it a struggle to read, then your chances of success will be severely limited This is the best way to hide cri=cal informa=on A less is more approach can maximize comprehension because the main points are obvious

15 Specific to DDIG: What s in the proposal? A brief description of the overall dissertation project The experimental design & scientific significance Only state the most critical information This description must provide clear context for the new work Ideally, you provide unexpected novel results from a dissertation chapter than can be explored with funding A detailed description of the question(s) to be addressed by the DDIG New data collection & experimental approach Proposed analysis and interpretation

16 Specific to DDIG: What s in the proposal? You need to provide a compelling argument that the proposed research is a significance enhancement of your dissertation It cannot appear part of the original dissertation chapter In other words, you will still graduate without this project If it is too different, it might seem tacked on The DDIG project has to be distinct from your advisors research This grant is to advance your research, not your advisors But concerns may be raised about qualification/resources if it appears outside his/her area

17 Specific to DDIG: Budget The budget must be sufficient to answer the research questions No more, no less Supplemental funds, not intended to support your dissertation Provide some detail, but don t get bogged down in specifics

18 Specific to DDIG: What else? A DDIG project IS a Broader Impact Outreach is a nice touch, but not expected You must get it all in eight, single-space pages Write with specificity and clarity Get an idea of what has been recently funded Submit it on time! October 9, 2014, 22 days to go!

19 Common, but avoidable pitfalls Didn t follow the guidelines Too much detail on dissertation, not enough on new project No results from prior work Didn t make a clear link between dissertation & DDIG project Too ambitious or cannot be achieved in reasonable timeframe Bad grammar, spelling mistakes, or typos Sloppy writing = sloppy science?

20 Months after you submitted the proposal: Receiving the review Grant funded, hurray! Still read the reviews They may improve the project Grant declined If they don t get it, then it was your fault Read the reviews very carefully Where did you go wrong? Contact the program officer to get the details Try to think of it as a good learning experience

21 Recommend Reading Material THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PROPOSAL AND AWARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GUIDE Part I - Grant Proposal Guide OCTOBER 2012 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 14, 2013 NSF 13-1 OMB Control Number:

22 Take Home Message Write the proposal from a reviewer s perspective What do they need to know it get it? Try to pitch your project in a way to stress how it may fill in a significant scientific gap without overstating the project Compelling scientific advancement Will greatly improve your dissertation

23 Harvey Ballard s additional points & reiterations

24 Absolutely essential criteria Transformative Delves into a NEW area outside the current dissertation project, adds a new dimension that would not otherwise be studied cannot be more of the same, but bigger Substantial preliminary data to ensure your proposed research can be accomplished Clear differentiation between what you are doing now for your PhD, and what you would be doing

25 Actual funding categories High must fund, IF monies exist (ca. 20% of proposals submitted; some will get funded) Medium should fund, IF monies exist (ca. 30% of proposals submitted, few will get funded, but NSF program officers have authority to champion a proposal) Low could fund, IF monies exist (ca. 20%); virtually never get funded Do not fund

26 Important considerations Give yourself ABUNDANT amounts of time to work on this; you can t do this half-assed and hope to get it; start working on this by mid-september at latest Anticipate multiple drafts and revisions with your advisor, possibly others If you don t have all the tools or training you need, identify another researcher and make contact with them to add your research at their institution; have them review your proposal as well Broader impacts should be collectively substantive, ideally; all NSF programs expect these