1. EXPEDITING AND COMPLETING THE APPLICATION
Navigating the Sea of Competition
Positioning Proposals for Funding
Dianne Donnelly, Ph.D.
Sandy Justice, USF-CRA

2. The Stakes

3. The Stakes

4. Guardians of Grantsmanship

5. Our Mission
The complexity of research administration requires
knowledgeable, highly adaptive, and skilled professionals
who have expertise in an ever expanding variety of areas
characterized today by evolving regulatory requirements and
a need for managed risk.

6. Navigating the Sea of Competition

7. Kicked to the Curb Activity

8. Positioned for Success:
The Grant Process
1. Novel Idea
2. Grant
Opportunities
3. Grant
Application
Process
4. Grant
Decisions
(Award/Reject)

9. Identify Novel Idea
1. Novel Idea
2. Grant
Opportunities
3. Grant
Application
Process
4. Grant
Decisions
(Award/Reject)

10. Generate Novel Idea
• The idea, as presented, is worth pursuing
 Think 5 years out (Arrow Electronics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67NkkFE4WYs
• The idea, may do the following:
 Fill gaps in science
 Take scholarship in new direction
 Bring disciplines together

11. 100 GRAND Activity
• Identify your novel idea
• Develop your pitch
• Persuade your audience
• Consider the impact and significance
Align the idea with funding priorities
• Offer peer review perspectives
Reference clarity, feasibility, significance, and
impact

12. Identify Grant Opportunities
1. Novel Idea
2. Grant
Opportunities
3. Grant
Application
Process
4. Grant
Decisions

13. Where to Find the Right RFP?
News Digest

14. Finding Funding: 6 Key
FOCUSED Words
• Global
• Diaspora
• Sustainable
• Entomology
• Hazards
• Energy
• Autism
• Materials
• Economics
• Health
• Women
• Political Reform
• Water
• STEM Ed
• Forensics
• Research
• Engineering
• Cancer
• Migration
• Digital Humanities

15. Eligibility Match
Principle Investigator (PI)
• Postdoc
• Early-career
• Mid-career
• Established PI
• Tenure Earning
• US resident, Visa
Status
Request for Funding (RFP)
• NIH – Which R grant?
• NSF – disciplinary
• PECASE, CAREER
• NEH Fellowship
• ACLS, Fulbright
• Foundation grants
• DOD

16. Broad Brush Proposal Steps
Understand the preliminary and subsequent steps
needed to be and stay competitive
 Pilot Data
 Project Team – demonstrated expertise
 Facilities, equipment, infrastructure
 Broader Impacts – diversity, engagement,
relevance
 Publications and presentations

17. Grant Application Process

18. Checklists and Timelines
 Internal checks & balances
 Proposal pieces
 Letters of support
 Budget (cost share?)
 Compliance (COI)
 Subs / Collaborators
 CV/Bio Sketch

20. Careful Examination of Guidelines
Look for Revisions
or Changes from
the last time this
grant was offered…

21. Sample Proposals
Look at what has been done … seek examples
of success

22. Proposal Pieces: Tailor for Proposal
• Data Management Plans
• Postdoc Mentoring Plans
• Digital Data Research Plans
• Intellectual Property Plans
• Facilities, Equipment & Infrastructure
• 5% Other

23. Timelines: Planning Ahead

24. Budget Activity
• A PI walks into a bar ….
• What budget categories are you, as the
RA, going to write on your cocktail napkin?

25. Cocktail Napkin Budget
• Sr. Personnel (% effort >
calendar months)
• Other Personnel (Center
coordinator, Lab manager,
Equipment technician)
• Fringe Benefits
• Equipment (F&A bearing?)
• Travel
• Participant Support Costs
 Gift cards or cash
 Travel support
 Bread and water
 Supplies (binoculars,
iPads)
• Other Direct Costs
 Materials and Supplies
 Publication costs
 Consultant services
 Computing
 Subawards
 Other (Lab fees)
• Total Direct Costs (A through G)
• Non F&A ‘Other’ – Tuition
• Indirect Costs (F&A)

26. Partners & Planning
• Partners should support with clarity and
confidence: “I support this project because…”
• Commitment should resonate (specific, ‘real’)

27. Partners and Planning

28. Subs and Contracts

29. Grant Application Process
1. Novel Idea
2. Grant
Opportunities
3. Grant
Application
Process
4. Grant
Decisions
(Award/Reject)

30. Crafting the Compelling Story

31. Grant Writing: A Genre of Its Own
Focus: on scholarly
pursuits of writer
Past-Oriented: completed
research
Audience: Like-discipline
peers
Specialized Terminology:
(“inside jargon”)
Focus: aligns with
priorities of agency
Future-Oriented:
Research plan
Audience: PO’s & both
narrowly & broadly
defined peers
Accessible Language:
(broader audience)
AcademicWriting
GrantWriting

32. Timing is Everything!

33. # of narrative pages allowed in grant x 4 hrs. of writing, editing,
proofreading/page
+ 1.5 hrs. to carefully read & outline RFP guidelines
+ 5 hrs. to write a detailed budget justification and complete budget
forms
+ 5 hrs. to obtain letters of support, resumes, & job descriptions
+ 1 hr. to complete grant forms
+ 5 hrs. to do a final review, compile, & submit proposal
For typical 15 page proposal: 60 hrs. +15 hrs. +5 hrs. +1 hr. +5
hrs. ~73 hrs. = Four 18 hrs. days -- if this is all faculty do!

34. More on Timing

35. Perfect Practice Makes Perfect
• Activate portions of brain through practice
• QUANTITY of grant writing practice is important
to improving skills but so is the QUALITY of the
practice—do it often and do it effectively –
perfect grant writing practice makes perfect.

36. Knowing Your Audience
• Panelists (experts) vs.
ad hoc
• Interdisciplinary vs.
multidisciplinary
• Fair vs.
prejudicial/biased

37. Thinking Like a Reviewer
• Readability is the key
• Assume the audience
is well-educated, but
don’t assume topical
knowledge
• Aim the application at
a wider breadth of
audience
• Write in a single voice,
so the proposal is a
coherent, well-
integrated story
• Make sure terms are
well defined when you
use them

39. Competitive
• Novel, original idea
• Succinct & focused plan
• Clear ROI
• Credible PI who can
accomplish work in given
timeframe
• Clarity concerning future
direction
• Convincing evidence
Compelling
• Persuasive story
• Quantifiable argument
• Impactful research
• Solid guideposts for
reader
• Clear, concise confident,
cohesive writing
• Meaningful
visuals/captions

40. • WHAT are you
proposing to do?
• WHY is this
important?
• Can YOU do it?
3 Important Questions

41. In More Proposal Terms
• Intellectual Merit
• Probability of success
• Feasibility
• Applicant’s qualifications
• Preliminary work
• Broader Aspects

42. Persuasive Proposal Writing
1. “Sell your best idea” clearly
2. Make them care
3. Prove that you can do it

43. High Quality Proposals
Immediately state the fundamental elements
of the project
• Methodology: Experimental, theoretical, survey,
fieldwork, observational, computational,
archive, database
• Techniques: Use recognizable terms
• Stake: What is “at stake?”

44. Goals/Aims and Objectives
Goal/Aim
“Our aim with this
innovative curriculum
is to improve the
supply of graduates
with National Registry
certification.”
Objective
“At least 90 per cent of
course graduates will
pass the National
Registry certification.”

45. Anchor Activity
Write a brief outline of your new/established
project and come up with these foundation
requirements:
1. Methodology: Theory, experimental,
survey, fieldwork, etc.
2. Technique: Slightly more detailed than
above
3. What’s at stake?

46. Delivery, Design, Documentation
• Delivery (following the guidelines, guiding your
reader, presenting confidence, and providing
concision, cohesion, clarity)
• Documentation (delivering facts & evidence)
• Design (conveying visual messages)

47. Back to the Stakes
• # of proposals nearly
doubled, # of awards
Unchanged, success
rates dropped to
single-digit numbers
• Panels review many
grants
• Reviewers have limited
time to make the case
for your grant

48. Intangibles Influence Funding
• Reviewers will eliminate 50% of proposals
as “undiscussed” – no opportunity for
funding
• Funding success can depend on
reviewer’s area of expertise
• All else being equal – some institutional
bias

49. Revise, Revise, Revise

50. Guide the Reader
• Use topic sentences that both introduce and
summarize the info in a paragraph.
• Make connections to your project aim through
your proposal in various sections
• Emphasize research questions, aims, sub-aims
with headings
• Bold section headers and subheaders and
critical components to guide readers (some PIs
italicize critical statements).
• Propel message forward with visuals and
captions.

51. Concision
• Incorporate direct concise language
• Consider brevity
• Simplify sentences
• Vary future tense
• Construct parallel structure

52. Confidence & Clarity
• Use active verbs
• Sound confident, but not arrogant
• Craft concrete “visual” language
• Limit adjectives and adverbs
• Watch clichéd words
• Make subjects and verbs agree in number
• Make pronoun usage clear rather than vague or
ambiguous

53. Activity: Change Passive to Active
• It has been demonstrated by research
that….
• The SAP Program is being implemented
by our department this year.
• Following administration of the third
dosage, measurements will be taken.

54. • Make it easier for reviewers to understand your
ideas
• Help show the flow of ideas/aims, highlight
important points, & convey your thinking and
approach
• Connect the graphic to the aims of the proposal
• Provide value in the time/effort you invest in
incorporating these visuals
• Establish the “identity of the project”
Informational Design

57. Visuals & Captions: Propelling
Messages Forward

58. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9i769czbV_YYm1rZ3
ZYUFYzTGM

59. Project Summaries or Abstracts
• Presents ideas, methods, and expected outcome
• Must be clear, concise, and comprehensive
• First impressions – read by reviewers completely

60. Compelling Introductions
• Lead sentence should get reviewer’s
attention (create tension; what’s the
problem? What’s your answer?)
• Note why prior studies have not resolved
problem and why your study has merit
• Why is unique about your site,
methodology, collaborations?
• What is your proposal’s purpose?

61. Project Description
• Page limit awareness
• A broader theoretical framework that works down
to one or a few focal questions
• A well-specified, scientifically sound research
plan to test answers to the focal questions
• Clear and believable statements regarding
prospective intellectual merit and broader impacts
• A sound management plan and descriptions of
who will do what work

62. Sound Management Plan

63. Intellectual Merit/Significance
Why is your research important for the
advancement of your field?
• What is already known?
• What is new?
• What will your research add?
• What will this do to enhance
or enable research in your field
or the field of others?

64. Intellectual Merit Activity
• Develop your Intellectual Merit Section
How is your work going to advance
knowledge in your field?
Are you addressing gaps in the knowledge
base? Do you have evidence of that gap?
• Share with your colleague(s)

65. Broader Impact
• How will your research results be applied?
 Economic/environment/energy
 Education and training
 Providing opportunities for
underrepresented groups
 Improving research
and education
infrastructure
 Offering transparency and publication plans

66. Broader Impact Intrinsic to Research
• Improves theoretical knowledge and
operational models of weather systems, storm
forecasting, and resilience planning post
Hurricane Sandy
• Improves predications of severe weather
• Engages in cutting-edge research in optical
sciences with the potential for profound
impacts on human health & counterterrorism
* see NSF Perspectives on Broader Impacts

67. Broader Impact Education and Outreach
• Creates a traveling exhibition: Human Plus Real
Lives – displays extraordinary technological
advances being made to restore and extend
human abilities
• Provides students with opportunity to work at a
premier global lab
• Connects Florida’s manufacturers, teachers, &
students with its workforce
• Researches innate plant immunity
* see NSF Perspectives on Broader Impacts

68. Broader Impact Activity
• Develop your Broader Impact/Significance
Section
How will your work promote teaching,
training, and learning?
How might your work broaden participation
of underrepresented groups?
Help the stakeholders who will be affected
by your work understand the value of your
research and why your project is worthy of
investment.

69. Letters of Collaboration
• Triage – selective LOIs
• Gauge response – all LOIs move forward
• Know the art of the elevator speech
 Form a clear introduction
 Tell a story
 Hook your reader
 Conclude with a call to action

70. LOIs and Letter Proposals
• Speak to WHY you, WHY this grant
• Write succinctly – brevity is key
 From 15 pages to 1, 3 or 5 pages
 Not an abstract of a full grant
• Avoid technical jargon and acronyms
• Bold statement of positive language
• Know and define your purpose

71. Typical LP/LOI Structure
• Project Title – descriptive, impactful, succinct
• Project Summary (Opening paragraph)
• Project Description – systematic, foundation-
speak, assertive
• Summary budget – Clear, reasonable,
competitive

72. ACTIVITY

73. Submitting Your Proposal:
Measure Twice, Cut Once
• Checklist before submission
• NSF bio – top 5 ‘products’ not ‘publications’
• Formatting follows guidelines … including the
name of the project title, ‘CAREER:” and your file,
‘narrative’
• Budget check – fringe rate, F&A, tuition
• Internal approvals

74. @ Submission
• Know your deadline – receipt date (and time …
EST)
• If there is an error, there is time to remedy
• Understand how to address issues, or (first time
with this agency?) partner with a veteran, keep a
hotline handy
• Confirm receipt – encourage patience – waiting
for funding decision is hard to do.

75. Positioned for Success:
The Grant Process
1. Novel Idea
2. Grant
Opportunities
3. Grant
Application
Process
4. Grant
Decisions
(Award/Reject)

76. Fund Me, Maybe

77. Funding Decisions

78. NSF
• Lack of Focus
• Lack of PI experience/credibility
• Scope is out of proportion to
budget and workload
• More specificity on
goals/objectives and project
purpose needed
• Work doesn’t address broad
current interests
NIH
• Approach to problem is
not clearly defined
• Competence of
Investigators is not
confirmed
• Allocation of time is out
of proportion to PI’s
teaching or other non-
research duties
Common Reasons for Low Ratings

79. Why Unfunded?
• Project didn’t match program funding
• Proposal was unreasonable
Guidelines weren’t followed,
Objectives/methods were unclear, budget
didn’t match scope
Needs more data and proof that the project is
achievable (seed data, infrastructure)
• Shrinking program funding – ltd. # awards

80. Unfunded Proposals:
Revise & Resubmit
• Learn from Experience: How can the next
proposal benefit?
• Address Peer Review Comments: Is it
worthwhile to revise / resubmit?
• Talk with your Program Officer

81. Revise & Resubmit

82. Addressing Peer Review Comments
• Rejection – lack of PI experience, dearth of
pubs, insufficient infrastructure
Remedy – add senior collaborator (Co-PI),
strengthen management plan
• Rejection – too vague, difficult to read or
follow
Remedy – clear/specific format, guiding
headings, relevant illustrations

83. • Rejection – a peer reviewer says, ‘I didn’t
understand where the PI was going with this”
Remedy – additional clarity on process
• Rejection – the proposal seems too ambitious
or unachievable
Remedy – timeline and flow chart mapping
out objectives and deliverables
Addressing Peer Review Comments

84. Awarded. Now What?
• Thank your Program Officer
• Read over the reviewers’ comments (no
comments? Ask for them.)
• Discuss the comments with your PO so that you
can improve for the subsequent proposal
• Understand how to establish the award, and meet
sponsor’s reporting requirements

85. Questions?
Dr. Dianne Donnelly, Assistant Dean of
Research, College of Arts & Sciences, USF
ddonnelly@usf.edu
Sandy Justice, USF Certified Research
Administrator, TRAIN® Ambassador, Sr. Research
Administrator, Office of Research and Scholarship,
USF College of Arts & Sciences sjustice@usf.edu

86. Resources
• Stay current with the research news and what’s trending at the
federal funding agencies… one way is through GUIRR, the
Government University Industry Research Roundtable
• The Foundation Center posts the text of its Proposal Writing Short
Course.
• The University of Michigan hosts a useful Proposal Writer’s Guide.
• The Human Frontiers Science Program posts its monograph on
the Art of Grantsmanship.
• This ACLS article outlines the essentials of proposal writing for
fellowship competitions.
• Michigan State University has a listing with links to over 100
proposal guides, including ones that focus on specific disciplines or
on applications to specific agencies and organizations.

87. Resources
Advanced
Manufacturing
Cybersecurity
Big Data
Education
Energy &
Environment
Innovation International
Research
IP/Patents Jobs/Workforce
Outsourcing Research &
Development

88. Navigating the Sea of Competition