Getting Help with Proposals for Grants

• Editing & Critique from Colleagues
• Proposal Components
• The Literature Review/ Background Section
• The Literature Search
• The Proposal Process

Editing & Critique from Colleagues

Like your other publications (articles, monographs, book chapters, books), your proposals are documents that reflect your thinking, command of the literature, and writing skills. Proposals are important: proposal writing helps you clarify your thoughts and methods for the project, as well as your plans for disseminating your findings.

Proposals must be responsive to the demands of the funding agencies and their reviewers. Therefore it is in your best interest as the proposal writer to line up “fresh pairs of eyes” to look at the proposal before it is submitted. Sometimes your chair, or other members of your department, will be generous with their assistance. Sometimes you may have collaborators or associates at other institutions who can help. In addition, staff in the School’s Office of Academic Affairs and Office of Development can assist you in finding readers or providing hands-on editorial help if this is appropriate. Such readers may offer a range of assistance -- from checking the budget, to checking that all evaluation criteria identified by the funding agency are addressed, to tracing your argument through the relevant sections of the proposal.

The pre-submission review will serve you well, as the proposal writer and the future principal investigator, to fit the draft proposal review into your proposal development timeline. This timeline may be helpful.

Proposal Components

Introduction

Once you’ve narrowed down the organizations and received the go-ahead from the Office for University Development, you’ve come to the larger task of writing the proposal. The grant proposal is essentially a sales tool. You want to sell your research to the grantmaking organization of your choice. The writing should be engaging and easily understandable by someone who does not have an academic background in your area ofexpertise. Public funders often have more specific guidelines, but most organizations request the following information:

Cover Page/Cover Letter

Should be no more than two pages (though one is recommended) and include the following information:

• University’s name
• Funder agency’s name, title, and address
• Addressed to the individual responsible for the funding program
• Proposal title
• Funds requested
• Include the principal investigator’s signature and contact information (name, address, telephone number, e-mail address)
• Include the NYU Office of Sponsored Programs Projects Officer’s signature and contact information (name, address, telephone number, e-mail address)

Abstract

A brief, coherent one-page summary of the attached proposal (usually 200 words or less).

Table of contents

Should be included for proposals over five pages in length.

The Literature Review/ Background Section

One of the vital components of any research is the literature review. It provides information about research methodology in the area and background about both theory and application as they are related to your study. Sound proposals devote most of the literature review to explaining 1) exactly how and why the research question or hypothesis was formulated in the proposed form and 2) exactly why the proposed research strategy was selected. Most reviews aim at explaining the choices made for the study. Others educate the reader concerning the state of science in the problem area.

In the end, the literature review should elucidate the following:

• • Gaps in current knowledge. These gaps and the previous reviews should lead your questions.
  • That no one has done anything similar, or if so, you should be clear about the unique contribution of your study.
  • Previous research methods.
  • Conceptual framework that you may adapt or use.
  • In summary, this section must highlight why this study is needed. The writing should differ from that used in an academic paper; you should assume the reader is not familiar with the topic and previous work in the area, yet the tone should reflect that the reader will be an intellectual who is waiting to be convinced by your arguments. If you have any questions, you can refer to Assistant Dean Stephen Sagner or John Johnson.

Useful links

Resources for literature reviews and grant and academic writing

• Becker, H.S. Writing for social scientists. Chigago: University Press, 1986.
• Bobst Library Subject Guide: Grants in the Arts
• Finker, A. Conducting research literature reviews: From paper to the internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1998
• List, Charles and Plum, Stephen. Library Research Guide to Philosophy. Ann Arbor: Pierian Press, 1990.
• Locke, Lawrence F., and et al. Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals. Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 2000.
• Gitlin, Laura. Successful grant writing : strategies for health and human service professionals New York : Springer Pub. Co., 1996.
• Matkin, Ralph and Riggar, T. F. Persist and Publish: Helpful Hints for Academic Writing and Publishing. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1991.
• Moxley, Joseph. Publish, Don't Perish: The Scholar's Guide to Academic Writing and Publishing. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992.
• ---. Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992.
• Judith, Garrard. Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method
  by Aspen Publishers, Inc.;
• Pinch, Winifred. 'Synthesis: implementing a complex process.' Nurse Educator 20 (1995): 34-40.
• Pritchard, Eileen and Paula R. Scott. Literature searching in science, technology, and agriculture Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1984.
• Przweorski, A. & Salomon, F. The art of writing proposals. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1995.
• Zanna, Mark and Darley, John, Eds. The Complete Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist, New York: Random House, 1987

Websites:

• "Grantsmanship is the art of requiring peer-reviewed research funding": www.hfsp.org/how/content
• "Grants and Grant writing": nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/09/20/2

The Literature Search

The literature search is a vital part of academic work. A literature search is the process of finding relevant sources of information for the literature review (litreview) of a proposal.

Bobst Library can provide assistance in the sometimes arduous process of retrieving literature that is most relevant to your needs. It is recommended that you conduct your searches in person as well as online. Attending introductory seminars and asking for expert help can save hours. There are many library resources outside of NYU. Full-time NYU faculty, full-time NYU students, and part-time students in degree programs have access and borrowing privileges at these libraries:

• Cooper Union Library
• Mannes College of Music Scherman Library
• New School University Fogelman Library

The New York Public Library, Research Libraries also provide services depending on your area of research.

Bobst Library has in its References and Services site:

• Information on Access, Reserves and Circulation Services
• Electronic Reference Service including 'Ask a Librarian' – which provides instant message services from 1pm-5om, Monday-Friday.
• A link to 'Subject Specialists' who can help with questions in various academic fields.
• Interlibrary loan procedures and forms

Other Bobst services include:

• Databases which provides a quick link to all of the databases in which NYU provides (e.g. ERIC and PsychINFO)
• How to find an article
• How to find a book

   

  Other NYU libraries

Reference:

Locke, Lawrence F., and et al. Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals. Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 2000.

The Proposal Process

Your Department Chair:

• The Chair of each department is the first resource for information on relevant sources.
  • You will need a specific “go-ahead” to pursue funding from any particular source from your Chair.
• The Office of Academic Affairs:
  • This Office maintains an extensive array of information on public sources of funding such as the National Science Foundation.
  • Request a meeting to explore appropriate opportunities by e-mailing Associate Dean Joseph McDonald (joseph.mcdonald@nyu.edu) or John Johnson (john.johnson@nyu.edu) regarding your research.
• The Development Office:
  • As a faculty member, you have access to both the School’s and the University’s research on foundation and corporate sources.
  • If you are interested in pursuing private sources of funding, e.g. foundations, contact the School’s Assistant Dean for Development, Steven Sagner (steve.sagner@nyu.edu).
  • If you are planning to pursue both public and private sources, contact the Office of Academic Affairs and the Development Office simultaneously so that one meeting can be arranged.

Drafting your research proposals:

• Once you have your research concept thought out, and have some initial ideas about appropriate prospects, you should follow the process outlined below to help ensure your best possible chances in the increasingly competitive funding environment in both the public and private sectors.
• The Office of Academic Affairs and the Development Office can help guide you through the proposal-drafting phase. In some cases, a single project proposal may need to be tailored differently for each potential source of support in order to meet the characteristics and requirements of those specific sources.

Inform us:

Contact John Johnson and Stephen Sagner via e-mail to let us know that you definitely plan to apply for a grant.

We will need these basics:

• Working Title: as this will be used to track your proposal, you will need to inform us if your title changes
• Project members, including designated “PI”
• Sources you plan to approach
• Deadlines for each source
• Deadline for your initial draft

What we do at this stage:

• Public sources—Guidelines and Budget:
  • John Johnson will meet with you to review guidelines and rules established by the funder. This meeting should happen at least one month before the proposal due date.
  • John Johnson will begin working on a budget with you.
• Private Sources—Guidelines, Clearance Process and Budget:
  • In order to pursue any specific foundation or corporate prospect, you should understand the specific guidelines for that source. Stephen Sagner, Assistant Dean for Development and Alumni Relations (stephen.sagner@nyu.edu) or Judy Buck, Assistant Director of Development for Steinhardt (judy.buck@nyu.edu) can provide you with this information.
  • Before submitting your proposal, you must receive University clearance. This process normally takes one to two weeks.
  • Once you email Stephen Sagner to notify her that you wish to approach a private source, she will begin the paperwork through the University. Please note that this process has become quite stringent as Schools within the University are all actively pursing private funds. If Stephen Sagner is well-informed about your project, she can serve as your advocate to help gain clearance for you whenever possible. Allowing sufficient time for the clearance process is also important. Please note that all clearances expire in 6 months.
  • The clearance process is critical. Should you fail to get clearance, your proposal may need to be withdrawn should there be a conflict with another University initiative.
  • John Johnson will begin working on a budget with you; it should be finalized two weeks before the proposal is due.

Tracking:

• The School maintains a tracking process for proposals under development. This information is shared on a regular basis with the School’s Dean and Dean’s Group, and reviewed periodically by the Chairs.

Contacting Public or Private Source directly:

• Many faculty members have their own contacts within public and private sources.
• We strongly encourage you to use these contacts once you have clearance, of course, for private sources. In order to help the overall process, we ask that you inform John Johnson or Stephen Sagner of any direct contacts of this kind via a quick e-mail.

Finalizing your draft:

• Drafting:
  • If you wish to work with a staff member on your draft, John Johnson, Steve Sagner, Judy Buck or another individual on the University level will be available to work with you on an “as-needed” basis. For this type of collaboration, it is helpful to discuss a timetable for both the drafts and the feedback. Be sure to allow enough time for this process.
  • Please note that staff members cannot be expected to provide major editing at the last minute. We have excellent writers and editors on staff, but faculty members are expected to take responsibility for the overall proposal, and its timely development, at all times.
• Two weeks before the deadline: your proposal should be finalized, including a review and go-ahead by your Chair. Submit the draft via email to either John Johnson or Stephen Sagner. Work with John Johnson on your budget. Work with John or Stephen Sagner on any specific requirements for your source. For any research proposal you will need to complete the Synopsis Form for Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP, which is part of the Central NYU Administration), and have it signed by yourself and your Chair
• One week before the deadline: your budget should be finalized, along with budget justification and any other requirements of the funder, and (for public sources) you should have the signed OSP Synopsis Form. Submit your package of materials to the Office of Academic Affairs for final review and approval.
• Final week before submission for public sources: For public sources, once the proposal and budget have been approved, it must be submitted for signature to the Office of Sponsored Programs. Please note that it generally takes about three business days to get a signature from this Office, so get your package finalized as early as possible to help us meet your deadline.
• Final week before submission for private sources: For private sources, once the proposal and budget have been approved, you should work with Stephen Sagner on an appropriate cover letter.

Submitting your Proposal

• Either the Office of Academic Affairs or the Development Office will be responsible for delivering the proposal via US mail, an express overnight service, a messenger, or electronically (which is increasingly recommended). Note that for electronic submission requirements, additional time may be needed during the drafting process to format the proposal appropriately.
• Either the Office of Academic Affairs or the Development Office will prepare appropriate copies of the proposal, and distribute them to all relevant parties, including the official University files.

Tracking Pending Proposals

• The two Offices track together all pending proposals and share this chart periodically with the Dean, Dean’s Group and Department Chairs.
  Any information you receive directly about a pending proposal should be relayed via email or a phone call to either John Johnson or Steve Sagner If they receive information, they will contact you.
• For private foundations, you should discuss follow-up strategies with Stephen Sagner.
• For public grants, review dates are generally public knowledge. You can discuss with John Johnson when to begin inquiring about the status of your proposal.

Getting Funded (or Rejected)

• Any information received about the acceptance or rejection of a pending proposal should be relayed immediately via email or a phone call to either John Johnson or Stephen Sagner.
• Please note that having a proposal “rejected” is not the end of the funding process. Understanding why a proposal was rejected is often key to obtaining future funding. The probability of receiving funding on a resubmission of a proposal is actually much higher than that of a first submission. This makes it extremely important for faculty to let either John Johnson or Stephen Sagner know when a proposal has been rejected and to plan a resubmission.
• At the point when an acceptance has been received, the project enters the “post-award” phase.
• Please note that it is imperative that any projects that are funded comply with all the source’s stated reporting requirements.
• Faculty members are responsible for the timely submission of any and all reports for their projects.
• Lillian Padilla and Stephen Sagner will periodically remind faculty members of the reporting schedule, but the drafting and delivery of those reports is an important faculty responsibility. Failure to comply with a source’s reporting requirements may jeopardize the entire University’s ability to secure future funding from that source in the future, as has, unfortunately, happened in the past.