Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking about sharing some thoughts/tips on @NSF @NSF_SBE #SciSIP grant apps. Don’t think I’ve seen any recently, other than the ones focusing on grad fellowships specifically. So here goes and for what it’s worth. Please use and share, with no guarantees :)
\\begin{.}
\\begin{.}
1. Many applicants only receive awards after multiple attempts! My first award came after 7-8 apps, incl. 2 when I was a grad student. These included proposals to Economics, DRMS, MMS, both standard and CAREER. Some of them were co-reviewed. So, one may need to be relentless!
2. Personal story 1: I was at the point of not applying anymore when a former @NSF program officer (PO) and the PO’s colleague saw me present at #ASSA. They asked if I had considered submitting my work for funding. I just received a rejection a week before; they said apply again!
3. Tips to create a better proposal: a) review for @NSF (email POs and say you’re willing to review), b) email awardees and ask for successful and NOT successful proposals, c) seek feedback from people above and others, d) start early — at least 2 months before the deadline!
4. More tips: a) leverage your Sponsored Programs Office (they can help with more standard requirements, e.g. budget templates/rates, equipment, and bio), b) contrary to what some people told me, you do NOT need to have done the work to get funded, but you do need to be clear!
5. Final tips: a) discuss with PO, b) revise the draft/s and get more feedback from people mentioned above, c) have the proposal routed 2 weeks before deadline, d) have a clear understanding of how the work meets @NSF merit review criteria, intellectual merit and broader impacts.
6. Intellectual merit addresses the novelty of your work relative to existing literature (how does it advance the knowledge frontier). Broader impacts addresses how your work will benefit society more generally (policy implications, benefits to profession, student involvement).
7. Personal story 2: It’s important that POs know what you’re working on. On occasion, they may have “discretionary/rush” funding. So you may get a call asking for a proposal in 4-5 days. While this rarely happens, you’d want to be ready in case it does! It happened to me once.
Summary
1. Have a clear idea that meets the merit review criteria — intellectual merit and broader impacts
2. Start early
3. Get lots of feedback
4. Check https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg18_1/nsf18_1.pdf
5. Check https://wbpep.weebly.com — a workshop by Kaye Husbands Fealing @sppgatech and I
6. Endure!
1. Have a clear idea that meets the merit review criteria — intellectual merit and broader impacts
2. Start early
3. Get lots of feedback
4. Check https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg18_1/nsf18_1.pdf
5. Check https://wbpep.weebly.com — a workshop by Kaye Husbands Fealing @sppgatech and I
6. Endure!
I’ll periodically update this thread, once I realize I’ve forgotten some important stuff.
Others, in particular @NSF veterans, please share your thoughts, rebuttals, etc. I won’t call you out, but you know who you are!
\\end{.}
Others, in particular @NSF veterans, please share your thoughts, rebuttals, etc. I won’t call you out, but you know who you are!
\\end{.}
@jenniferdoleac I had meant to say, please feel free to include this in your very useful resources page, http://jenniferdoleac.com/resources/ . But, I see you already have -- thanks.
Update 1/N @NSF CAREER grants, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503214 are particularly difficult to get. The expected profile is like that of @SloanFoundation Research Fellows, https://sloan.org/fellowships , i.e. very well published. If you're not at that stage, you're (likely) wasting your time.
Update 2/N So, rather than applying straight to CAREER: a) pitch for standard grants; b) build your publication record; and c) apply to CAREER as you go up for tenure or promotion (whichever comes first, since applicants must be tenure-track assistant professors or equivalent).
Update 3/N a) it's OK if you don't get a CAREER (while prestigious you can also fund your work through other grants), b) Econ-DRMS-MMS are not only ones funding "Econ" research (think broadly), c) “hard” #STEM @NSF may function differently from Econ (so take advice with caution).
Update 4/N For #HBCU and URM scholars in particular: a) @QEMNetwork has great workshops to support proposal development (more of a "hard" #STEM focus) and b) @NSF has specific calls/windows that may apply to you, e.g. "Excellence in Research" at this link https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18522/nsf18522.pdf
Update 5/N Broader Impacts additions/suggestions
by @nomadj1s
https://twitter.com/nomadj1s/status/1026848733378609152
by @BowerbirdComm https://twitter.com/BowerbirdComm/status/1027245808045973504
by @nomadj1s
https://twitter.com/nomadj1s/status/1026848733378609152
by @BowerbirdComm https://twitter.com/BowerbirdComm/status/1027245808045973504
Update 6/N Use the “recommended reviewers” box. My understanding: POs do pay attention to/like this, since they’re regularly seeking reviewers. Of course, they may ignore suggestions and won’t pull exclusively from it. Avoid conflicts of interest e.g. coauthors, same institution.
Update 7/N I've created a moment that contains live-tweets from a broadening participation workshop that Kaye Husbands Fealing @sppgatech and I organized in October 2017 (link below). The full slide deck is on the workshop website I provided previously. https://twitter.com/i/moments/1027781924570456064
Some of the statistics cited in the thread below by @KordingLab (and related replies) are relevant for this thread. So, copy/pasting.
In short, it takes persistence to apply for and get grant awards! The thread also contains other useful advice. https://twitter.com/KordingLab/status/1029894643591331847
In short, it takes persistence to apply for and get grant awards! The thread also contains other useful advice. https://twitter.com/KordingLab/status/1029894643591331847
Update 9/N (I forgot to number the last one)
@pdakean on instability of the reviewer pool and how this may contribute to different scores etc. across submission rounds. In short, this is part of the reason why persistence is key! https://twitter.com/pdakean/status/1030849491941904384
@pdakean on instability of the reviewer pool and how this may contribute to different scores etc. across submission rounds. In short, this is part of the reason why persistence is key! https://twitter.com/pdakean/status/1030849491941904384
Update 10/N @eckelcc -- who has many @NSF awards -- chimed in on several parts of the thread. Below are links to the responses:
* Common mistakes: https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157028339925815296?s=20
* Why review?
https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157026736753782789?s=20
* A good proposal is a necessary condition https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157026405319880706?s=20
* Common mistakes: https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157028339925815296?s=20
* Why review?
https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157026736753782789?s=20
* A good proposal is a necessary condition https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157026405319880706?s=20
Update 11/N @eckelcc has also pointed out that @NSF recently put together a website focused on broader impacts (BI) and why BI is increasingly more important in the review process.
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157027295888072704?s=20
Link to NSF website: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/special/broaderimpacts/
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/eckelcc/status/1157027295888072704?s=20
Link to NSF website: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/special/broaderimpacts/
Update 12/N By the way, I just realized that @NancyLutzEcon is also on Twitter. While not an official NSF account, she shares relevant information on the feed.
