I'm reviewing a new grant-writing book, entitled Good to Great Grant Writing: Secrets to Success by Dr. Julie Cwikla. The book is full of little nuggets of good advice on writing your grant. In the first section, Cwikla looks at what she considers the artistic components of good grant writing, including the following:
Picture your reviewer: I once asked a seasoned PI and reviewer, "What do reviewers really want?" He replied, "They don't want to be reading your grant!" His response was sardonic, of course, but the truth of the matter is that reviewers are reading your grant proposal as volunteers on top of all their other work and family responsibilities. With this in mind, you cannot make your proposal too simple or too easy-to-read.
Start with the punchline: Probably the most unique thing about good grant-writing, as opposed to other forms of writing, is you need to make your point fast. You need to both hook your reader with a problem statement and quickly show what your proposed project is about (connecting them both). Given that we know the reviewer is likely not excited to review your grant and is doing it on top of everything else, they have a low tolerance for extraneous details. They want to know what you're doing and why it's important right away...so tell them in the opening sentences!
Describe the forest and then the trees: Expanding on the previous point, once you've gotten straight to the punchline of your project, back up and give your reviewer a sense of the context, or the forest in this metaphor. What has previous research found? Where is the field at in this area? Then once you've described the forest, describe the individual trees. It's not enough to offer reviewers a compelling vision of your work, you must offer enough details on your project to instill confidence in your reviewers that you can get it done.
Scrap the jargon: You know I've said it before, but this time Dr. Cwikla says it again: Take out the jargon from your proposal. Jargon is the technical terminology in your discipline that people outside of your immediate area of expertise don't understand. Like I said earlier, you can't make your proposal too simple, so take out all the jargon you possibly can. If there are one or two words or phrases you simply must have, be sure to define them and use them consistently!
Building off of last week's blog, approaching your grant proposal as an art can allow you to build a compelling and well-structured case that convinces your weary reviewers to recommend funding.
Resources:
The Art of Writing Proposals - Przeworkski and Salomon
The Art of Proposal Writing: Proposals as a Genre - Ruhleder
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Your grant narrative
This week, ORDE held a seminar that focused on developing career grant proposals. Mark Golkowski, an Associate Professor in Engineering at CU Denver, and NSF CAREER awardee, offered a fantastic perspective on using narrative in grant proposals.
Dr. Golkowki made the point that people learn and understand concepts best when they are told to them through a story. Story-telling is a powerful form of communication; it draws people in and guides them through when well done.
He drew on the classic construction of a story that many of us learn in school. The image below offers a simple depiction of how traditional fiction stories are structured. You get to know the characters and situation at the start of a story, then there is a hook or a problem that builds to the climax of the story. Once the climax passes, the characters begin the work of solving problems and establishing a new normal and the story ends with a conclusion.
Although Dr. Golkowski advocated for incorporating story-telling and narrative into grant proposals as well, he suggested that the structure employed should be unique. He offered the following revised narrative structure for grant proposals:
You begin your proposal by describing the problem or opportunity that your research addresses. It's important here to show how dire the problem is and why it's been so difficult to solve. You're trying to emote a sense of urgency and need amongst your reviewers. Instead of making the traditional climax your pivotal point, the proposal low point is where your reviewers are wondering if there is any hope. This is when you present your approach, your solution, your research. Here's where you start to bring your readers back up, although, it's not a straight shot. Dr. Golkowski points out that your story's incline should plateau a bit when you show again how challenging your research task is. There's risk and you're tackling a large feat, but you have a back-up plan and the great rewards are waiting on the other side of the project. Finally, you pull your reviewers way up by showing them the vision of what's really possible once this research project is accomplished.
I can tell you that in my work reviewing proposals for our PIs at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus, the vision is often missing from a proposal. For example, project overviews or specific aims often fizzle out with the PI leaving us with only logistical details. By employing narrative, and specifically Dr. Golkowski's structure, you leave your reviewers wanting more. But, they're going to have to fund you to hear the end of the story! ;)
Resources
How to Win Grants with Great Storytelling - Mathilda Harris (Grant Training Center)
The Top 3 Tips for Telling Your Story So Funders Will Listen - Grantsedge
Dr. Golkowki made the point that people learn and understand concepts best when they are told to them through a story. Story-telling is a powerful form of communication; it draws people in and guides them through when well done.
He drew on the classic construction of a story that many of us learn in school. The image below offers a simple depiction of how traditional fiction stories are structured. You get to know the characters and situation at the start of a story, then there is a hook or a problem that builds to the climax of the story. Once the climax passes, the characters begin the work of solving problems and establishing a new normal and the story ends with a conclusion.
Although Dr. Golkowski advocated for incorporating story-telling and narrative into grant proposals as well, he suggested that the structure employed should be unique. He offered the following revised narrative structure for grant proposals:
I can tell you that in my work reviewing proposals for our PIs at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus, the vision is often missing from a proposal. For example, project overviews or specific aims often fizzle out with the PI leaving us with only logistical details. By employing narrative, and specifically Dr. Golkowski's structure, you leave your reviewers wanting more. But, they're going to have to fund you to hear the end of the story! ;)
Resources
How to Win Grants with Great Storytelling - Mathilda Harris (Grant Training Center)
The Top 3 Tips for Telling Your Story So Funders Will Listen - Grantsedge
Thursday, February 27, 2020
The NSF CAREER Toolkit
Yearly, ORDE develops a toolkit for those PIs applying for the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development Program or CAREER program. Below is a snippet and you can find the full toolkit here.
Resources:
CAREER Toolkit - ORDE
CAREER Website - NSF
CAREER Program Solicitation - NSF
CAREER AWARD PURPOSE
AND BACKGROUND
All NSF directorates participate in the CAREER Program, designed to support junior faculty in their dual roles as teacher-scholars. CAREER Awards provide recipients the opportunity to enhance their professional career development, better integrate their research and education responsibilities, and build academic leadership abilities. While all NSF directorates make CAREER Awards, the number of awards varies significantly by directorate (see Appendix A, NSF CAREER Awards by Directorate, page 9).
All NSF directorates participate in the CAREER Program, designed to support junior faculty in their dual roles as teacher-scholars. CAREER Awards provide recipients the opportunity to enhance their professional career development, better integrate their research and education responsibilities, and build academic leadership abilities. While all NSF directorates make CAREER Awards, the number of awards varies significantly by directorate (see Appendix A, NSF CAREER Awards by Directorate, page 9).
This year NSF is only offering one deadline – JULY 27,
2020 – for the CAREER Program across all the Directorates in contrast to
previous years that featured multiple deadlines to accommodate proposal traffic
on the online proposal submission system. Beyond 2020, the CAREER deadline is
set for the fourth Monday of July.
Three areas emphasized by NSF program officers and CAREER
awardees are:
·
Begin
work on a CAREER Award proposal early. This is a very competitive program;
NSF is estimating it will make just 500 new and continuing CAREER awards per
year during the timeframe this announcement is open. It is also unlike any
other proposal you will submit to NSF because it involves planning your career
objectives and illustrating how the CAREER Award will contribute to your professional
development over the next 5, 10, and 20 years.
·
CAREER
Awards represent a true balance between your faculty research and education
roles. The required educational component may focus on any level: K-12
students, undergraduates, graduate students, and/or the general public. When
planning this component, design innovative outreach efforts that go well beyond
what you normally do in your faculty role.
·
Partnerships,
especially industrial partnerships, are considered a positive aspect, but
keep in mind that no co-principal
investigators are allowed on CAREER proposals (see discussion under Budget
Details on page 5). International collaborations are also encouraged.
Resources:
CAREER Toolkit - ORDE
CAREER Website - NSF
CAREER Program Solicitation - NSF
Friday, February 21, 2020
Making your grant proposal smooth reading
I've been reviewing some writing recently and found myself making edits or suggestions around sentence length in some places where sentences went on for three-four lines, but left sentences of the same length alone in other places. This got me thinking, what's happening in those long sentences I let slide that made them easier to read than those I revised? To provide some answers to this question and the broader question of what you can do to make your grant writing easier to read, consider these tips:
Use first person, active voice
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it is much easier to read writing that is written in the first person (using I and we instead of "the PI" or "the research team"). Of course, there are still granting agencies that frown on use of the first person, so if that is the case, always follow their rules first. But, even if you are forced into third person, you can still use active voice.
Third person, passive voice: The experiment will be conducted by the PI.
Third person, active voice: The PI will conduct the experiment.
First person, active voice: I will conduct the experiment.
You'll notice that not only is the first person, active voice example easier to read, but it's also shorter!
Read it aloud
Many writers/editors work to strike a conversational tone in their work. But, how do you do that? Well, try turning the written word into the spoken word to see how it sounds. Try reading what you have written and revise the turns of phrase that don't roll off the tongue the way they did the pen. And, of course, if you can engage someone else in listening to your talk and get their opinion, you've gone one step further to making your writing conversational.
Avoid big and vague words
Research is often dealing with highly technical or theoretical concepts, and of course, these areas lend themselves to some whopper, super-smart-sounding, words. These five dollar words are fantastic to include in your scholarly articles, but when it comes to grant-writing, they will likely not earn you any bonus points. Consider the reviewer who you send to the dictionary a couple of times. With a stack of grant applications next to them, they probably won't thank you for building their vocabulary and may resent the extra time they spend reading when you should have explained things for them.
One thought = One sentence
Circling back to our original query of why some long sentences are easier to read than others, I think where writers often get into trouble is when they try to put more than one thought in a sentence. Aside from considering the tips above, one thing that makes sentences difficult to read is when they become a list of conjunctive clauses. When you find a sentence that is long, and it's riddled with ands, or it is plum full of ors, but you lose the point of it somewhere along the way, and then the writer shifts ideas, or then they try to bring it back around, but you are already lost, and so...you get the point. That last sentence wasn't much longer than others I've used in this blog, but it just wanders on. Even if you had no trouble following it, you were probably getting a little annoyed. So, try to keep your sentences short, but if you need to get lengthy on a couple, do all you can to keep them readable and focused on one idea.
Resources
3 Quick-and-Easy Tips to Make Your Writing Easier to Read and More Effective - Jen Stevens
Making Your Writing Easy to Read - Cheryl Stevens
Use first person, active voice
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it is much easier to read writing that is written in the first person (using I and we instead of "the PI" or "the research team"). Of course, there are still granting agencies that frown on use of the first person, so if that is the case, always follow their rules first. But, even if you are forced into third person, you can still use active voice.
Third person, passive voice: The experiment will be conducted by the PI.
Third person, active voice: The PI will conduct the experiment.
First person, active voice: I will conduct the experiment.
You'll notice that not only is the first person, active voice example easier to read, but it's also shorter!
Read it aloud
Many writers/editors work to strike a conversational tone in their work. But, how do you do that? Well, try turning the written word into the spoken word to see how it sounds. Try reading what you have written and revise the turns of phrase that don't roll off the tongue the way they did the pen. And, of course, if you can engage someone else in listening to your talk and get their opinion, you've gone one step further to making your writing conversational.
Avoid big and vague words
Research is often dealing with highly technical or theoretical concepts, and of course, these areas lend themselves to some whopper, super-smart-sounding, words. These five dollar words are fantastic to include in your scholarly articles, but when it comes to grant-writing, they will likely not earn you any bonus points. Consider the reviewer who you send to the dictionary a couple of times. With a stack of grant applications next to them, they probably won't thank you for building their vocabulary and may resent the extra time they spend reading when you should have explained things for them.
One thought = One sentence
Circling back to our original query of why some long sentences are easier to read than others, I think where writers often get into trouble is when they try to put more than one thought in a sentence. Aside from considering the tips above, one thing that makes sentences difficult to read is when they become a list of conjunctive clauses. When you find a sentence that is long, and it's riddled with ands, or it is plum full of ors, but you lose the point of it somewhere along the way, and then the writer shifts ideas, or then they try to bring it back around, but you are already lost, and so...you get the point. That last sentence wasn't much longer than others I've used in this blog, but it just wanders on. Even if you had no trouble following it, you were probably getting a little annoyed. So, try to keep your sentences short, but if you need to get lengthy on a couple, do all you can to keep them readable and focused on one idea.
Resources
3 Quick-and-Easy Tips to Make Your Writing Easier to Read and More Effective - Jen Stevens
Making Your Writing Easy to Read - Cheryl Stevens
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Targeting your grant pitch
I've blogged before about how you make a clear and compelling case in your grant proposal, but this week I want to highlight the importance of targeting and speaking to a particular agency in your grant proposal. Oftentimes, PIs submit their same research project to several different funding agencies, which is fantastic and a savvy move in our competitive grants climate. However, where those same researchers go wrong is when they cut and paste one proposal into a template for another with very little customization.
Brian Buma, an Assistant Professor in Integrative Biology at CU Denver, highlighted at our Grant Writing Symposium last week the importance of this customization. Below are a few tips for targeting an agency with your proposal:
Do your homework: Read and re-read the program announcement, but also the agency mission, strategic plan, annual report, etc. Get to know the agency and the type of work in which they're investing.
Know your reviewers: Make sure you know who will be ultimately reviewing your proposal. How broad is the review panel? Does it include laypeople? This will give you a better sense of to whom you're writing.
Talk to a Program Officer: The PO is the liaison for the agency, and no one can give you a better glimpse into what the agency is looking to fund. So, reach out early and often to see if your project and pitch are a good fit.
Dr. Buma shared the hook he used for different agencies that were essentially pitching the same research project in customized ways to speak to the agency. Here were those examples:
National Geographic: "We will tell the story of the world's southernmost forests, a region never before explored and a compelling example of a wild landscape on the edge of human experience."
National Science Foundation: "We will test theories related to climate change in the southern hemisphere and provide a new reference point in a geographically under-sampled region, reducing the need to spatially extrapolate current ecosystem projections."
US Forest Service: "We will better understand, and be able to predict, the impact of climate change on forest growth and health by setting up long-term monitoring plots in this region, which has not been done prior."
Local Government: "We will build local knowledge and enable better access to the region by establishing long-term monitoring plots and sharing those results with the community directly via town hall meetings."
Even if you don't know much about the agencies above, it's clear to see that Dr. Buma is focusing his pitch on what he knows each agency is interested in. National Geographic is a popular magazine, so they want the story of the research. The NSF is interested in furthering scientific fields. The US Forest Service wants to fund work that preserves forests, and local government groups are interested in community relations.
So, before you start cutting and pasting your project verbiage into a new agency template, make sure you're pitching to that agency's needs and interests.
Resources:
Turning Your Research Idea Into a Proposal Worth Funding - Salmaan Kanji
Crafting a Sales Pitch for Your Grant Proposal - Robert Porter
Brian Buma, an Assistant Professor in Integrative Biology at CU Denver, highlighted at our Grant Writing Symposium last week the importance of this customization. Below are a few tips for targeting an agency with your proposal:
Do your homework: Read and re-read the program announcement, but also the agency mission, strategic plan, annual report, etc. Get to know the agency and the type of work in which they're investing.
Know your reviewers: Make sure you know who will be ultimately reviewing your proposal. How broad is the review panel? Does it include laypeople? This will give you a better sense of to whom you're writing.
Talk to a Program Officer: The PO is the liaison for the agency, and no one can give you a better glimpse into what the agency is looking to fund. So, reach out early and often to see if your project and pitch are a good fit.
Dr. Buma shared the hook he used for different agencies that were essentially pitching the same research project in customized ways to speak to the agency. Here were those examples:
National Geographic: "We will tell the story of the world's southernmost forests, a region never before explored and a compelling example of a wild landscape on the edge of human experience."
National Science Foundation: "We will test theories related to climate change in the southern hemisphere and provide a new reference point in a geographically under-sampled region, reducing the need to spatially extrapolate current ecosystem projections."
US Forest Service: "We will better understand, and be able to predict, the impact of climate change on forest growth and health by setting up long-term monitoring plots in this region, which has not been done prior."
Local Government: "We will build local knowledge and enable better access to the region by establishing long-term monitoring plots and sharing those results with the community directly via town hall meetings."
Even if you don't know much about the agencies above, it's clear to see that Dr. Buma is focusing his pitch on what he knows each agency is interested in. National Geographic is a popular magazine, so they want the story of the research. The NSF is interested in furthering scientific fields. The US Forest Service wants to fund work that preserves forests, and local government groups are interested in community relations.
So, before you start cutting and pasting your project verbiage into a new agency template, make sure you're pitching to that agency's needs and interests.
Resources:
Turning Your Research Idea Into a Proposal Worth Funding - Salmaan Kanji
Crafting a Sales Pitch for Your Grant Proposal - Robert Porter
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
What's in a name? Titling your grant proposal
Pardon my cliché title, but since this is a blog, I just cannot help myself with some of my dubiously clever titles! However, I do think that this gives us an example of a title that makes sense for a blog, but the tone of which would not be appropriate for a grant proposal.
Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.
So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant application?
Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation
Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned
Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support
Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.
In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:
ORDE's Titling Tips:
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction
Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.
- That this won't be a horribly boring or overly technical blog post through my initial overused Shakespearean pun.
- That this blog is about grant titling through the latter half of the title
So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant application?
Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation
Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned
Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support
Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.
In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:
ORDE's Titling Tips:
- Review titles of funded projects by your sponsor (warning: do not assume these titles are the best, but consider your impression of the project based on the title)
- Be original and relevant (look up the hot language used by the sponsor and see if it fits with your concept)
- Be accurate and use agency-friendly keywords
- Use results/impact-driven words instead of describing a process
- Be authoritative (Questions, although they may seem intriguing can imply yours is an exploratory, risky, or questionable project)
- Only use abbreviations that are understood by the reader (e.g., DNA)
- Use active verbs (e.g., remodeling, reconstructing, creating, etc.)
- Use plain language (remember, get the point across clearly)
- Get feedback from colleagues and your program officer
- Proofread your title along with everything else
- Use the same title in resubmittals so your reviewers know to focus on your changes
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Deciding to go for a grant
When it comes to going for a grant, since we are the research development office, we tend to say, "Yes, you should!" Our zeal comes from seeing many researchers who were great candidates for grants decide not to go for them.
However, even we can concede that deciding to go for a grant isn't always a simple decision. Grant proposals are laborious. ORDE recommends a six month process for developing a grant proposal. And, I'll add, that a seasoned PI at our Anschutz Medical Campus recently praised our timeline and even suggested that early career investigators should be planning their grant proposal a year before it's due! So, see? It's not just us!
Grant proposals are complex and take a lot of work and care, and that's why you want to be wise about the grants you choose to go for, because it is heartbreaking to put in all that work and never get the grant even after resubmission(s) (which are to be expected).
So, below are things to consider as you decide whether or not to go for a grant:
Are you and your project a good fit for the grant?
It's true, even if you and a grant are a match made in heaven, it still takes a lot of tailoring and aligning to make sure that your proposal is the perfect response to an RFP or PA. If, as you're going through the program announcement, you start to get a sense that the agency is looking for something besides you and your research, this may not be the best fit. However, before throwing in the towel, reach out to the Program Officer to verify (see more below).
Do you have enough time to develop the proposal well?
Sometimes you stumble on to a program announcement that does seem perfect, but then "Oh no, the deadline is in three weeks!" When this happens, probably the best thing to do is check to see when their next deadline is, because three weeks isn't enough time to write a strong proposal. Make sure you always take time to map out a realistic timeline for developing a grant and if a quick deadline won't allow that, you may want to forego this one.
Will this project and grant move you toward your research goals?
Grants are a tradeoff; you have to give the agency everything they're looking for in your funded research, but you want to get some of what you want to do in there as well. Just make sure you are getting something in there that is what you really want to do and will move you a bit further along in your research trajectory. A funded project is often a years-long endeavor, so make sure it isn't tangential to your goals.
What does the Program Officer say?
As I mentioned above, the best person to help you decide whether you should apply or not is the Program Officer. Once you have a project overview or concept paper, email your Program Officer and ask for a brief conversation about your project. They will give you good advice as to whether you're a good fit. If they're not enthused, you may want to look for another funder. For example, one PI described contacting a PO at the NSF and when he asked the PO if he thought he should apply, they said, "I guess." That PI went in search of another funder.
I offer these tips cautiously, because most times if a program announcement looks like a fit for your research, you should submit a proposal. Don't get scared away because it's not an ideal scenario, because it may never be.
Resources:
ORDE Grant Development Timeline
ORDE Proposal Development Checklist
However, even we can concede that deciding to go for a grant isn't always a simple decision. Grant proposals are laborious. ORDE recommends a six month process for developing a grant proposal. And, I'll add, that a seasoned PI at our Anschutz Medical Campus recently praised our timeline and even suggested that early career investigators should be planning their grant proposal a year before it's due! So, see? It's not just us!
Grant proposals are complex and take a lot of work and care, and that's why you want to be wise about the grants you choose to go for, because it is heartbreaking to put in all that work and never get the grant even after resubmission(s) (which are to be expected).
So, below are things to consider as you decide whether or not to go for a grant:
Are you and your project a good fit for the grant?
It's true, even if you and a grant are a match made in heaven, it still takes a lot of tailoring and aligning to make sure that your proposal is the perfect response to an RFP or PA. If, as you're going through the program announcement, you start to get a sense that the agency is looking for something besides you and your research, this may not be the best fit. However, before throwing in the towel, reach out to the Program Officer to verify (see more below).
Do you have enough time to develop the proposal well?
Sometimes you stumble on to a program announcement that does seem perfect, but then "Oh no, the deadline is in three weeks!" When this happens, probably the best thing to do is check to see when their next deadline is, because three weeks isn't enough time to write a strong proposal. Make sure you always take time to map out a realistic timeline for developing a grant and if a quick deadline won't allow that, you may want to forego this one.
Will this project and grant move you toward your research goals?
Grants are a tradeoff; you have to give the agency everything they're looking for in your funded research, but you want to get some of what you want to do in there as well. Just make sure you are getting something in there that is what you really want to do and will move you a bit further along in your research trajectory. A funded project is often a years-long endeavor, so make sure it isn't tangential to your goals.
What does the Program Officer say?
As I mentioned above, the best person to help you decide whether you should apply or not is the Program Officer. Once you have a project overview or concept paper, email your Program Officer and ask for a brief conversation about your project. They will give you good advice as to whether you're a good fit. If they're not enthused, you may want to look for another funder. For example, one PI described contacting a PO at the NSF and when he asked the PO if he thought he should apply, they said, "I guess." That PI went in search of another funder.
I offer these tips cautiously, because most times if a program announcement looks like a fit for your research, you should submit a proposal. Don't get scared away because it's not an ideal scenario, because it may never be.
Resources:
ORDE Grant Development Timeline
ORDE Proposal Development Checklist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)