Proposals Marie des Jardins mariedjcs umbc edu CMSC
Proposals Marie des. Jardins (mariedj@cs. umbc. edu) CMSC 691 B April 19, 2006 4/19/06
Sources u Robert L. Peters, Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or Ph. D. (Revised Edition). NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1997. u Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph. D. Is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in Science. Basic Books, 1993. u Tom Dietterich, CS 519 course slides, Oregon State University. u Caroline Wardle, Obtaining Federal Funding, CRA-W Workshop Slides, 1993/1994/1999. 4/19/06 2
Outline u Proposal Contents u General Advice u Sources of Funding u Proposal Evaluation 4/19/06 3
Proposal Contents 4/19/06
Know Your Goals u Dissertation proposal 4 Convince committee you’re on the right track u Funding proposal 4 Convince reviewers and program manager to give you money 4/19/06 5
Proposal Strategy u Just having a good idea is not enough! u Need to convince reviewers that: 4 The problem is important 4 You have a good approach to solve the problem 4 Your approach is likely to succeed 4 You have a well developed research plan u Chicken-and-egg problem 4 If you don’t have preliminary results and a well developed approach, you’re not likely to make a convincing case for success 4 If you already have preliminary results and a well developed approach, you’re already doing the research! 4 → By the time you get the funding, you’ll be done! 4 . . . so with the funding you get, you’ll write the journal papers, and start developing preliminary results for the next proposal. . . 4/19/06 6
Topics to Cover u Long-term goals u Significance u Specific goals u Methods and experiments u Feasibility Typically 15 pages or less! u Risks u Current state of knowledge u Timetable u Budget/budget justification u Biographies 4/19/06 7
Long-Term Goals u Vision 4 Big picture 4 Broad focus u Motivation behind your work 4/19/06 8
Significance u Why do you want to work on this problem? u Why will other people care about it? 4. . . in the field 4. . . in other fields 4. . . in society 4. . . in the program 4. . . on your committee 4/19/06 9
Specific Goals u What part of the big picture will you focus on? u What specific tasks will you accomplish? 4/19/06 10
Methods and Experiments u How will you demonstrate success? u How will you test your claims? u Data sets, domains, experimental methodologies, evaluation criteria 4/19/06 11
Feasibility u Why should we believe you will be able to carry out this research plan? 4/19/06 12
Risks u What might go wrong? u How will you recover? u What’s your backup/contingency plan? 4/19/06 13
Current State of Knowledge u Who else has worked on this problem? u Why have previous approaches been unsuccessful? 4. . . or if this is a new problem, why are new approaches needed? u How does your method build on, or depart from, previous approaches? 4/19/06 14
Timetable u Typical research grant: 2 -3 years, sometimes up to 5 u Typical dissertation timeline (from proposal): 1 -3 years u What are your milestones? u Approximately when do you expect to complete each milestone? u Relevant deadlines (conference deadlines, program meetings, integrated demonstrations) 4/19/06 15
Budget / Justification u How much money do you need? u Why is each line item important to the project? 4/19/06 16
Biographies u Typically one- or two-page abbreviated CV 4/19/06 17
References u For thesis proposal only: 4 Annotated bibliography is very helpful 4 Can include important/relevant papers that you plan to read, but haven’t read yet. (should discuss these separately in Related Work section) 4/19/06 18
General Advice 4/19/06
General Proposal Advice u Start writing early! u First impressions count: 4 A good introduction/summary is absolutely essential!! 4 Be neat! u Be as specific as possible u Don’t make your reviewers work too hard u Keep revising u Get feedback from peers and mentors u Resubmit if necessary u Read other people’s proposals 4/19/06 20
Sources of Funding 4/19/06
Government Agencies u NSF u NIH u Do. D 4 DARPA 4 AFOSR 4 ARL u Departments of Education, Energy, . . . u Other agencies 4/19/06 22
Industry u Sponsored research u Partnerships u Equipment grants 4/19/06 23
Proposal Evaluation 4/19/06
NSF Review Criteria u Intellectual Merit 4 Increasing knowledge and understanding within a field 4 Qualifications of proposers 4 Creativity and originality 4 Scope and organization of proposed research 4 Access to resources u Broader Impact 4 Teaching, training, and learning 4 Participation of underrepresented groups 4 Enhancement of research infrastructure 4 Dissemination of results 4 Benefits to society 4/19/06 25
NSF Ratings u Excellent 4 Perhaps 10% of proposals; should definitely be funded u Very Good 4 Top 1/3 of proposals; should be considered for funding if sufficient funds are available u Good 4 Middle 1/3 of proposals; worthy of support (but likely will not be enough funding for this category) u Fair 4 Bottom 1/3 of proposals; not likely to be considered for funding u Poor 4 Proposal has serious deficiencies and should not be funded u Typical funded proposal has at least one Excellent and two Very Goods u Many NSF programs have a 10% funding rate 4/19/06 26
NSF: How it Really Works u Specific areas are usually not targeted. . . 4. . . but some program managers have areas they like or dislike 4. . . and sometimes your research won’t fit in any of the NSF programs, especially if you’re doing interdisciplinary work 4 It never hurts to visit and chat with the program manager(s) u Peer review panel provides primary input 4 If you don’t get a good peer rating, you’re doomed 4 Panelist who knows your area inside and out can shoot your proposal down (or champion it!) 4 Panelists who don’t know your area can shoot you proposal down (or be intrigued by it!) 4/19/06 27
DARPA Proposal Roadmap u Goal u Tangible benefits to end users u Critical technical barriers u Main elements of proposed approach u Rationale 4 Why will the proposed approach overcome the technical barriers? u Nature of expected results u Risk if the work is not done u Criteria for evaluating progress u Cost of the proposed effort 4/19/06 28
DARPA: How it Really Works u Who you know is of primary importance u Marketing to program managers is key u Contributing to the development of program announcements (BAA = Broad Agency Announcement) u Awards are contracts (many deliverables; much program manager control) 4/19/06 29
NSF vs. DARPA u Politics and agency goals notwithstanding. . . u NSF awards are grants 4 No specific deliverables (except annual reports) 4 Little program manager control 4 Work on what you want to (but do good work!) 4 Funding rarely goes away, once awarded 4 Extremely competitive 4 Less $$ 4/19/06 u DARPA awards are contracts 4 Many deliverables 4 Much program manager control 4 Focus might change 4 Funding might disappear 4 Once you’re hooked in, the money can be pretty steady 4 More $$ 30
- Slides: 30