1. Grant writing Ken Davis Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State University

2. Poll How many people have written a research proposal on their own? Have helped a colleague or advisor to write a proposal? How many have located a request for proposals? Read a request for proposals? Read the guidelines for proposal layout for an agency? Contacted a program manager about a research idea? Have a good idea of one to several programs that would support the type of research you do?

3. General advice about how to write a good proposal and get funds to support your research Find a request for proposals that fits your scientific interests –research offices often provide info to potential investigators Read the request for proposals Respond to the request for proposals –some requests are very focused, others less so, but take the guidance seriously. Visit briefly with the program manager about your idea well in advance of the proposal deadline. –especially worthwhile if you aren’t very familiar with the program Find an institution with good support staff, and take good care of them.

4. Universal stages of proposal writing Anxiety/interest – you have a really good idea, you want to pursue it, and you found the right RFP (request for proposals). Information gathering and fear - writing the introduction is very hard, especially early in your career. Confusion – you thought your idea was clear, but as you write, you realize that you didn’t have such a clear plan. Rectification – you work to answer the problems and questions that have arisen as you put the idea into words. Doubt – you’re sure your idea will never work. You should give up. It has all been done before/is too expensive/etc. Excitement – this is really a cool idea. It hasn’t been done before. I am the right person to do this. Exhaustion - as a result of doing all that writing. Then: Exhiliration (and fear/anxiety?). Or. Frustration (and relief?), depending on the outcome. And if the latter: Frustration (when your graduate students don’t realize all that you have done to give them this opportunity!)

5. Elements of a typical proposal Introduction. –what is the topic, why is it important, –what is already know, –what isn’t know, and –what (critically important) knowledge gap will you fill? If the reviewer isn’t convinced at this point, you’re in trouble. Objectives, hypotheses, significance (to the RFP and to science in general). –Objectives and hypotheses should be interchangeable. I like to state both. E.g. –We will determine the change in net C flux as a function of changing temperature. vs. The net C flux will increase by Q% for a P degree rise in temperature.

6. Elements of a typical proposal Methods –Clearly link methods to the objectives/hypotheses. –Bulk of the proposal Expected products (and significance) –Short, to the point, and linked to the hypotheses Management –time line, coordination of work, qualifications of investigators, facilities available, data/model management and sharing. Budget Vitae, statement of current and pending research support Abstract/summary - crucial! Write it last!

7. More advice Make your hypothesis testable, show how you will test it, show that it is an important and new question, show that you are very qualified to do what you are proposing. Show some results. Gives the reviewers confidence that you are qualified. Read the literature - get “into the heads” of your reviewers - know the current boundaries of knowledge - anticipate the level of understanding of your reviewers.

8. More, more advice Clearly link methods to your objectives and hypotheses. Plan your budget - make it after you know what work you are promising to do, and make sure it fits into the bounds of the call. Write clearly - ask colleagues to read it and see if they understand. Start writing early. Find good colleagues. Read some good proposals from your colleagues.

9. Common pitfalls Poor or missing hypothesis/objective. –Some proposals are just going to do things, but forget to say why. –Some proposals have hypotheses than cannot be tested - e.g. too vague, too ambitious. Methods don’t match the objectives, or are hard to match with the objectives. Methods are hard to understand (either too much knowledge is assumed, or it isn’t written clearly). Methods appear to be flawed - won’t be able to answer some or all of the hypotheses/meet some or all of the objectives. Methods are too risky. (You might not agree with reviews.)

10. More common pitfalls Project is too expensive for the program. Project budget is too large/small for the proposed work. Objectives do not appear to be sufficiently interesting scientifically, or have already been achieved by others. Proposal isn’t responsive to the RFP - might be good science, but not suited to the program.

11. Balancing acts Balance between detail of methods and community understanding/trust of methods. Detail vs. brevity. Balance between selling the idea as great vs. presenting objective evaluation of a hypothesis. –do the latter - show that the hypothesis is very important – but not that you know the answer, or that you need to find a particular answer. Balance between writing for experts vs. writing for generalists. – know your reviewers. Balance between very new ideas and small modifications of old ideas. –Very new work is often risky, and reviewers (often conservative) might not understand. Less ambitious work might be seen as not innovative enough.

12. Exercise 6-8 sentence proposals. (abstract/summary) –Introduction/scientific need (2 sentences if needed) –Objective –Hypothesis –Method (2 sentences if needed) –Expected product/significance (2 sentences if needed) Write, share, criticize. These are my suggestion for the essential elements of a project summary.