To subscribe to e-mail notification of updates
with a link to this page, fill out the Subscription Form.
Also visit the Grant Deadlines page for program deadlines for the upcoming three months.
October 24,2002
Information for Prospective NSF Applicants
Representatives from the National Science Foundation spoke at a Regional Grants Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, on Oct. 15th-16th and provided insight on future NSF initiatives, budget directions, and the proposal-writing and review process. Robin Roenker from Sponsored Program Development attended the conference and shares the following highlights of pertinent facts and advice from NSF program officers.
- Changes in Size and Duration of NSF Grants
Currently the average NSF grant is approximately $115,000 over a three-year period. NSF hopes to increase average grant size to $250,000 over a five-year period within the next five years. When asked if this would result in a bias against smaller proposals in the review process, the NSF response was that smaller proposals would not be penalized; at the same time bigger, cross-disciplinary initiatives (such as the Math and Science Partnership Program) will tend to become an even bigger focus in the coming years.
- Chance of Becoming Funded at NSF
Mary Santonastasso, Division Director of the Division of Grants & Agreements, shared a rather encouraging statistic for the power of revising and resubmitting at NSF: approximately 42 percent of principal investigators are funded within three years after submitting an average of 1.8 proposals.
- Number of Reviewers to Suggest
A list of five potential reviewers is recommended as an appropriate number. Investigators should ensure that there is no conflict of interest for any of the names provided (they cannot be from the same campus, previous collaborators, etc.).
- The changing look of the NSF Review Panel
Archaeology Program Director John Yellen suggested that the increasing focus on interdisciplinary projects at NSF has resulted in review panels of researchers from sometimes very disparate academic backgrounds. Whereas a review panel might have previously included seven economists, it now might have an economist, a sociologist, a geologist, an anthropologist, etc. Because of this, Yellen indicated that, in his opinion, aspects of the proposal such as the inclusion of women and minorities, and the means of knowledge dissemination have become even more significant in the review process. He argued that since the panel members now come from such intellectually diverse backgrounds, they search for a common ground on which they all can equally evaluate the proposal. In many cases, the sources of common ground are these so-called infrastructure components, rather than the intellectual merit. He suggested that investigators be encouraged to not leave these elements to the "last page" but rather give them added attention and focus.
- Write Proposal as If to Someone in Your Bibliography
Yellen also indicated that when facing such multi-disciplinary proposals, as a program director he often chooses reviewers for each component specialty from names listed in the proposal's bibliography. He said it "wouldn't be a bad idea" to encourage investigators to write their proposals as if they were writing to someone listed in their bibliography. The sense is that the proposal should "satisfy the specialists in your field, but be put in a broader context" that is accessible to those in associated fields.
- Contact the Program Officer/Others at NSF
Above all, the theme of the conference seemed to be the importance of contacting NSF officials "early and often" with questions about programs and funding opportunities. Sponsored Program Development echoes this recommendation and offers assistance in identifying appropriate contacts (257-2861; rkroen2@uky.edu).
Maintained by Research Communications
Updated 10-25-02
|
|
