Fatal Flaws

Top Ten Ways To Write a Good Proposal (That Won’t Get Funded)

1. Assume deadlines are not enforced.

Instead…

• Work early with your Sponsored Research Officer (SRO).
• Test drive FastLane and make sure your SRO knows how to drive too!
• Set your own final deadline a day or so ahead of the formal deadline to allow time to solve problems.
• Grants.gov is in use now.

2. Assume page limits and font size restrictions are not enforced.

Instead…

• Consult the program solicitation and the GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) carefully.
• Proposals that exceed page and/or font size limits are returned without review.

3. Substitute flowery rhetoric for good examples.

Instead…

• Minimize complaints about students, other departments, the administration, etc., and describe what you will do and why.
• Ground your project in the context of related efforts.
• Provide detailed examples of learning materials, if relevant.
• Specify who you will work with and why.
• State how you plan to assess progress and student learning.
• Detail the tasks and timeline for completing activities.
• Specifically address intellectual merit and broader impacts and use the phrases explicitly in the project summary.

4. Don’t check your speeling, nor you’re grammer.

Instead…

• Check and double check; first impressions are important to reviewers.
• State your good ideas clearly. Ignore the bad ones.
• Have a trusted colleague who is not involved in the project read your drafts and final proposal.

Note: Don’t use complimentary when you mean complementary or principle investigator when you mean principal investigator, etc.

5. Assume the program guidelines have not changed; better yet, ignore them!

Instead…

• Read the solicitation completely and carefully.
• Address each area outlined in the solicitation that is relevant to your project.
• Check the program solicitation carefully for any additional criteria, e.g. the Integration of Research and Education, or integrating diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

6. Assert: “Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a variety of methods.”

Instead…

• Plan for formative and summative evaluation.
• Include an evaluation plan with specific timelines and projected benchmarks.
• Engage an objective evaluator.

7. Assume a project website is sufficient for dissemination.

Instead…

• A website may be necessary, but who will maintain it and how in the long run?
• Engage beta test sites. “Early adopters” can serve as natural dissemination channels.
• Plan workshops and mini-courses; identify similar projects and propose sessions at regional and national meetings.
• Learn about and use NSDL and other digital repositories.

8. Assume your past accomplishments are well known; after all, NSF may have funded them.

Instead…

• Provide results from prior funding – this includes quantitative data and information on impact.
• Describe how new efforts build on this previous work, and how it has contributed to the broader knowledge base about educational improvement.
• Recognize that the review panelists are diverse and not all familiar with your institutional context.

9. Provide a template letter of commitment for your (genuine) supporters to use. (They will!)

Instead…

• Ask for original letters of support that detail what your collaborators will do and why involvement in your project will help them.
• Letters from administrators are stronger if they demonstrate real commitment, e.g. release time, faculty development funds, new course approvals, etc.

10. Inflate the budget to allow for negotiations.

Instead…

• Make the budget reflect the work plan directly.
• Provide a budget explanation that ties your budget request to project personnel and activities.
• Make it clear who is responsible for what.
• Provide biographical sketches for all key personnel.