On a recent and rare afternoon when I had a chance to attend a presentation on tips for writing up NSF grants, I came away with an intriguing angle. (And do instructional designers support the conceptualizing, writing and fulfillment of federal grants—you bet!)

Dr. Parag R. Chitnis described the general guidelines for NSFs…which focus on science and engineering (but not the study of diseases). He suggested that this organization has the defined strategies of funding “discovery, infrastructure, learning, and stewardship” on issues of energy, the environment, and the economy. And one of the strategies that especially caught my attention was “cyber-enabled discovery and innovation.”

Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation

Grant-funded research needs to be disseminated to a wider readership of researchers, academics, private industry, students, and others. Delivering findings—through databases, simulations, immersive spaces, learning modules, and other methods—are a critical aspect to many grant-funded projects.

Oftentimes, in the past, though, it’s not until deadlines are starting to appear on the near horizon that instructional designers are brought in to salvage a project…or after a first rejection…with critiques about the pedagogical piece. Interestingly, other project heads are bringing instructional designers to the table at the brainstorming phase to shore up their grants.

Cutting Edge

He covered the basics that this organizations supports “high risk, high reward” in their approaches. They want some preliminary data to show that this proposed research direction will be potentially rewarding. The grant funders emphasize the need for a track record of scientific success by the team. In other words, works that are on the edge of “proof of concept” and which break new ground and have potentials to expand their respective (and other) fields would be more competitive than those which are run-of-the-mill (which probably wouldn’t even be competitive). The scope has to be ambitious but doable. If something is beyond the scope of a project, the grant PIs need to acknowledge that. There shouldn’t be any gaps in the steps needed to execute on the grant’s goals.

What grant applicants won’t know is the internal “portfolio balance” by the funders based on what is submitted.

It helps to have complementary funding. It helps to collaborate with other institutions. The design of the research has to be comprehensive and set up for success; the team must have access to the resources to actualize the plan. If there’s reliance on other entities on or off campus, those have to be solid relationships to actually achieve the project goals. The grant application should bring together the “best ideas” and “the most capable people.” The research should lead to broader impacts.

Dr. Chitnis emphasized the need for some eye-catching aspects to the proposed research, but he also admonished his audience of educators: “Be honest. Acknowledge experimental problems, and have alternatives.”

Not Just Plain Old Teaching

Many grant proposals include educational plans, and he cautioned that just as the scientific parts of a project have to be assessed, so does the learning. The educational aspects should be integrated with the research and be innovative and creative. The educational piece should show the teams’ awareness of the larger educational realities, such as state educational board plans.

Local Advantages

He suggested that grant funding applicants should work with the campus strengths. The emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaborations probably still has a lot of power in today’s funding environment when there’s more need to make the dollar stretch further.

Full Documentation

The budget needs to be fully conceptualized regarding the inputs and the outlays. He alluded to the need for full documentation of the elements of a grant application, such as showing other entities’ supports via collaboration letters.

How to be Competitive

He wrapped up with an interesting tip. “Rapid resubmission does not help.” That is logically clear, but I think many grant applicants often want to move a project back into the funders’ hands…as if it’s a first-in-line phenomena.

As I was walking out, one of the faculty whom I know commented that the role of personal connections matters a lot in some funding organizations. For others, there is more of a blind review by peers and a de facto acceptance of the decisions of the critiquers. The odds of getting funded are in the single digits in very competitive pools for these funds. An occasional refresher helps, even if instructional designers are not at the daily competitive edge for moneys. A fair amount of this ID’s work involves supporting the chasing of grant funds and making idea in funded grant applications real.