NSF CAREER Proposal Writing Workshop

 

Saturday, November 13, 2004  (Notes were taken by Dr. Tony Schmitz)

 

The meeting began at 1 pm.

 

1. G. Hazelrigg, Welcome and Introduction

 

2. J. Cao/G. Hazelrigg, Presentation ‘CAREER Program Development’

Dr. Cao introduced the workshop goals, primarily ‘developing a CAREER plan’. She then outlined the requirements for a CAREER Award, which comprises an integration of research and education over a 5-year period.

 

Dr. Cao highlighted the fact that the CAREER proposal should be a reflection of the principal investigator (PI). However, in order for the proposal to describe the PI and his/her life plan, it is necessary for the PI to develop a strategic plan. A description of the strategic plan was followed by lists of DOs and DON’Ts. One interesting DO was to complete an NSF award search for our research area using FastLane. The DON’T ask for too much money recommendation generated questions regarding:

 

What is the minimum/maximum amount? [Minimum is $400,000, maximum varies by program.]

If the budget is very large, can the program manager reduce the budget once awarded? [This can cause problems because the proposal was reviewed for the original statement of work.]

Why is the amount $400,000? [It has grown to this amount over time (or) it just is.]

 

Dr. Cao surmised that everyone was just interested in money!

 

Dr. Hazelrigg next emphasized the importance of ‘Getting a Research Topic’. He outlined aspects of a successful research topic and corresponding plan. A critical question to ask is ‘Exactly what will your research contribute to the knowledge base?’ He noted that a proposal should begin with a statement defining the research objective (i.e., it answers the previous question). This should be followed up by comprehensive groundwork. One good source of (a portion of) this information is NSF agenda-setting workshops. He noted that research is only one aspect of your career, however.

 

Dr. Cao continued with a discussion of discovering funding avenues for a research topic. She recommended listing the potential funding sources for your research area and noted that some industrial projects do not represent quality graduate research.

 

Dr. Cao then described the NSF Engineering and DMII structures. This included a description of the academic research topics and program officers. She also provided guidelines for interactions with program offices (good questions, unacceptable questions). Questions included:

 

If the proposal was rejected, is this a good time to contact the program officer? [Yes, in fact, the program officer may help to understand the reviews.]

 

Is a proposal submitted directly to a program in FastLane? [Yes.]

 

Dr. Hazelrigg described the elements of a successful summary. First and foremost, the reader must know what research is proposed. ‘Sentence 1, paragraph 1 – state your objective. Don’t write a tech paper.’ He also stated that the PI must clearly identify the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact statements. One interesting point was that the project description (i.e., the rest of the proposal) merely supports the summary statement. He followed with other aspects of completing the proposal, such as the project description, letters of collaboration, and statements of intellectual merit and broader impact. He stressed that the intent of the broader impact statement is to highlight the importance of the work to the general public. He noted that a good way to learn this process is to ‘be a reviewer’.

 

Questions regarding the review process were:

 

I contacted a program officer to volunteer for a panel, but haven’t heard anything. Should I contact him again? [Yes, but understand that issues can arise which block a person from serving on a panel, such as multiple proposals from the reviewer’s institution and area of expertise.]

 

Do I need to contact each program officer for volunteering to review proposals? [Yes.]

 

Other questions were:

 

What has happened when you’ve submitted to one program, but find it has been rejected from another program? [The program officers try to find the best home for a proposal. Sometimes this means that the proposal would be best reviewed by another program. The intent of the change is to get a better review.]

 

3. M. Lewis, Presentation ‘NSF CAREER Proposal Writing Workshop’

Dr. Lewis noted that his presentation was composed of two parts: more general statements and ‘his story’.

 

He opened with the importance of knowing your audience, which will include senior faculty with a broad outlook of your research area. He noted that these senior people can be valuable resources, particularly those within your own department, and can provide important feedback on your proposal.

 

He followed with a description of the technical elements of the proposal. This includes being ambitious about your plans and detailing your previous successes in the area. Questions included:

 

How can young faculty demonstrate a track record not directly dependent on the thesis? [In general you are compared against faculty at the same experience level. However, some PIs may have spent time in industry or have other experience.]

 

Would you recommend submitting a CAREER in the first year after graduation? [It depends on the individual. Perhaps more important than experience, however, is that the PI is able to demonstrate a vision of planned activities.]

 

In your proposal you have letters of support from industry, how is that included? [They were primarily included to compete with other proposals. One danger is that poor letters can detract more than they help.]

 

The CAREER proposal is different than a research proposal; however, reviewers may express concern that there is no application of the research because there are no letters. Is this true for the CAREER? [It can be. If the research is highly theoretical, industry participation may be a negative. If the research is highly applied and represents incremental improvement to an ongoing process, then industrial letters of support may be much more important.]

 

Dr. Lewis continued with a discussion of the education component. He noted that this section can set you apart from the other top proposals. An important aspect is identifying your ‘passion’. His general comments concluded with a discussion of ‘add-ons’, including cost sharing and feedback from writing centers.

 

Dr. Lewis continued with a section title ‘My Story’, which identified some of his experiences (including disappointments). He described how he used feedback from a first submission to modify a second (successful) submission. He emphasized that rather than sulking about harsh reviews, they can be used to improve the proposal.

 

What do you mean by a solo paper? [I consider this to be a paper where you are the sole author. However, it could also be a paper with students only. In either case, it should be published in a top journal.]

 

Which proposal was reviewed by the workshop? [The unsuccessful proposal was reviewed here.]

 

Dr. Hazelrigg emphasized a few points: 1) proofreading is critical (spelling and grammar); and 2) harsh feedback happens to everyone.

 

4. A. Rabiei, Presentation ‘Key Points to Write Successful CAREER Proposals to NSF’

Dr. Rabiei started with ‘first steps’ in writing a successful proposal. These included contacting the proper program officer. She noted that the PI must believe in his/her idea; this confidence will show in the proposal.

 

She followed with a discussion of the summary. She emphasized the importance of being brief and to the point. Demonstrate what is novel and describe the plan. She noted that within the intellectual merit portion several issues should be addressed, including the objective, background, innovation, organization, and qualifications of the PI. She then elaborated on each topic.

 

One important point she made was that, in presenting previous work, state clearly that this is the PI’s previous work so reviewers will be able to conveniently assess whether the PI is qualified to complete the research.

 

She discussed the requirements for broader impacts. She noted the importance of: 1) teaching and training (e.g., team graduates and undergraduates); 2) reaching underrepresented groups (e.g., track record can demonstrate commitment); 3) improving infrastructure; and 4) disseminating the results. [Dr. Cao noted that being part of an underrepresented group does not exclude you from defining steps you will take to complete outreach to yours or other underrepresented groups.] Dr. Rabiei concluded that it should be possible to describe your research in one sentence to a ‘person on the street’.

 

A short break followed Dr. Rabiei’s presentation.

 

5. T. Schmitz, Presentation ‘More Advice on Writing Your NSF CAREER Proposal’

Dr. Schmitz showed a silly video and repeated many points from previous presentations.

 

6. T. Wu, Presentation ‘Design and Implementation of a Virtual Product Development System’

Dr. Wu began with a description of her background. She noted our preoccupation with the two Ps (papers and proposals). She demonstrated how her background helped define her research direction. She followed this by outlining the steps she followed in preparing her CAREER proposal: 1) visit NSF; 2) attend DMII grantee’s conference (Dr. Cao echoed that this is a good opportunity to learn about the DMII programs); 3) develop the research plan; 4) complete education plan; and 5) collaborate with industry.

 

She followed with a description of the research issues identified for her proposal. She then turned to issues related to industry collaboration. Finally, she described how the CAREER award benefits your academic career.

 

7. Z.J. Pei, Presentation ‘Presentation at the NSF CAREER Proposal Writing Workshop’

Dr. Pei first provided his background, including his education and industrial experience. He then summarized his current grants, publication status, and students. He followed this with the history of his CAREER proposal including submissions to NSF and KS EPSCoR. Within this section, he shared helpful feedback from a particular NSF reviewer.

 

He noted that part of his learning process has been attending the NSF Grantee’s conferences. He stressed that ‘doing your homework’ is important, e.g., for DMII the award amount is $400,000. Also, he discussed 1) identifying your research; 2) avoiding framing your research as development; 3) selecting a title; 4) studying successful proposals; 5) getting feedback from colleagues; and 6) obtaining support letters (not letters of recommendation).

 

How long can the title be? [The title should describe the research.]

 

Is the panel aware of how many times a PI has submitted the CAREER proposal? [Sometimes they are aware, but not always.]

 

Does the program officer complete an initial screening? [Yes, 1) pages are counted; 2) conflicts of interest with program officers; 3) letters of recommendation are checked, etc.; 4) program officers screen for program criteria; and 5) panels are set up.

 

What about suggestions for qualified reviewers? [This is fine. Sometimes the reviewer can’t be used due to conflicts or recent reviews (once a year is reasonable).  Suggestions for reviewers to exclude are also acceptable.]

 

Are SGER grants a good idea? [This is not necessarily the case. The SGER grant is not to be used to introduce you to research or as an emergency fix prior to tenure. It must satisfy one or more of the following: 1) you are examining a fleeting phenomenon; 2) it is in an area so new and unique that there is no available reviewer base; and 3) you are pursuing a completely different research direction.]

 

What about mail reviews? [It is not easy to get reviews back. It is usually necessary to complete a summary panel to get all the reviews completed at the end of the year. Given the current requirements, external mail reviews are not feasible.]

 

What do you mean by conflict? [A conflict exists if a reviewer: 1) is from the same institution; 2) is a family member; 3) has co-authored a paper in the last 48 months; 4) has co-edited a journal in the last 24 months; 5) has a financial interest in the award; or 6) has a thesis advisor/advisee relationship with the PI.]

 

What does current and pending support mean? [Strictly, it is concerned with your current funding and proposals which have been submitted. These must be listed with your submission.]

 

Dr. Hazelrigg thanked the group. Dinner followed.

 


Sunday, November 14, 2004 (summarized by ZJ Pei)

 

A continental breakfast was served at 7 am. Informal discussions between participants continued.

 

8:00 am – 10:30 am Mock panel review meetings

 

Drs. Cao and Hazelrigg introduced the procedures for a CAREER proposal panel.

 

Then, participants were divided into three groups:

Panel 1 (lead by Dr. Cao): Darabi, Easton, Lewis, Ohlmann, Park, Rabiei Rusmevichientong, Zou.

Panel 2 (led by Dr. Hazelrigg): Balaji, Huang, McMains, Pei, Pfefferkorn, Tang, Zhang.

Panel 3 (led by Dr. Blevins): Attinger, Cho, Eldredge, Guo, Geiger, Kretzschmar, Lodree, Schmitz, Wu.

 

Each group had mock panel review for the nine proposals. Panel summaries were given for each proposal. The nine proposals were put into three categories: PC, SC, DNC. The proposals in the first two categories were also ranked.

 

The results are shown below. (PC: Primary Consideration. SC: Secondary Consideration.)

 

Panel 1:

            PC: 8

            SC: 4, 9, 5

 

Panel 2:

PC:  8

SC:   4, 3, 1, 7

 

Panel 3

            PC: 8, 4, 5

SC: 1, 2, 9, 7

 

10:30 am – 11:00 am Break

 

11:00 am – 12:00 pm Summarizing and evaluations

 

Rankings from each group were shared first. Then, the ratings from all the workshop participants and the “real exert ratings” were shared (see the table on the next page).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each group then generated a list of DOs and DON’Ts for writing a successful CAREER proposal.

 

List from Group 1: (Notes taken by Dr. Jian Cao)

 

TO DO:

  1. have a good idea and “sell” it
  2. meet your program director at least 4 months before submission (be very prepared)
  3. motivate questions, state questions and have tasks to answer those questions
  4. 3-4 page education component
  5. education component should have specific relations with research component
  6. detailed plan for tasks
  7. show your qualification and their link to specific tasks
  8. demonstrate how the current state-of-the-art doesn’t answer the question
  9. provide experimental verification work (or at least a solid plan) if you propose theoretical/numerical work
  10. know people in your field, and more importantly, make sure they know you
  11. have your proposal read by others

 

Do Not:

  1. be too broad
  2. use 10pt font
  3. use too much bold
  4. repeat an entire paragraph
  5. write a technical paper
  6. propose a center/institute
  7. depend on others, in collaboration your work should be the driver
  8. just dump the literature, need to relate your proposal
  9. don’t abuse acronyms

 

 

List from Group 2: (Notes taken by Dr. Frank Pfefferkorn)

 

What we have learned:

·    Have a well laid-out plan and vision for your research and convey it clearly at the beginning of the proposal.

·    Use assessment metrics for both research and education goals.

·    Write your personal teaching style and goals at the beginning or concurrently with the research part.  This will help you mesh them together more naturally.

·    Clarity in writing is very important in getting points across.

·    Use active voice.

·    Precise writing is critical.

·    Have a clear objective and benefit to society that is backed up with solid work and feasible tasks that will achieve the objective.

·    Clearly specify what the new knowledge will be. 

·    Write in first or third person?

·    The research and education should not be totally separate, however, they don’t have to be completely integrated.  There should be some ties.

·    Do not copy the same education components without adding something new.  You need to talk about course development but also need to add something.

·    Do not use “we”

·    Do not use passive voice.

·    Lay out the structure of the proposal so that it is clear you are addressing all of the proposal assessment topics.

·    Don’t use 10pt font.

·    Be careful on defining the scope.

 

 

List from Group 3: (Notes taken by Dr. Jeff Eldredge)

 

DOS

  • Have a clear objective
  • Fully integrate the education plan in the proposal
  • Reach a broad audience of reviewers
  • Precise and concise, easy to access answers to questions
  • Title and summary are very important
  • Outcomes should be clearly stated, and an assessment method
  • Use visual aids to draw attention to intellectual merit, broader impacts
  • Discuss broader impacts with colleagues to get ideas for other areas

 

DONTS

  • Don’t gloss over details.  Details are important if critical to the task
  • Don’t rub reviewers the wrong way.  Keep it professional and objective, not personal.
  • Don’t ignore the RFP style (e.g. 10 point font).
  • Don’t use too many out-of-date references.
  • Don’t try to hide obvious weaknesses
  • Don’t force reviewers to read between the lines.

 

 

 

Finally, all the participants conducted the evaluation for the workshop. The results are presented in a separate file.