Grant Writing

Guidance for preparing research grant proposals.

When to Use

• •Preparing grant applications
• •Developing research plans
• •Writing broader impacts statements
• •Creating project timelines
• •Budgeting research projects

Grant Proposal Structure

Standard Components

Writing by Section

Abstract/Summary

Goal: Enable reviewers to understand the project quickly.

Structure (usually 1 page):

1. •Problem and significance (2-3 sentences)
2. •Knowledge gap (1-2 sentences)
3. •Central hypothesis (1 sentence)
4. •Specific aims overview (2-3 sentences)
5. •Expected outcomes (2-3 sentences)
6. •Impact/significance (1-2 sentences)

Tips:

• •Write last, after rest of proposal is complete
• •Make it self-contained
• •Include key methods
• •Emphasize innovation and impact

Specific Aims

Goal: Clear, compelling statement of objectives.

Structure (typically 1 page):

1. •Opening paragraph: Hook + significance + gap
2. •Central hypothesis: One clear statement
3. •Specific Aim 1: First objective
4. •Specific Aim 2: Second objective
5. •Specific Aim 3: Third objective (optional)
6. •Expected outcomes: What success looks like
7. •Impact statement: Why this matters

Aim Format:

**Aim N: [Action verb] [What] [To achieve what]**

Hypothesis: [Testable statement]
Approach: [Brief method description]
Expected outcome: [What we'll learn/produce]

Good Aim Characteristics:

• •Clear and testable
• •Achievable in proposed timeframe
• •Each aim contributes to overall goal
• •Aims are related but not dependent
• •Failure of one aim doesn't doom others

Research Plan

Introduction/Background:

• •Establish significance
• •Review relevant literature
• •Identify knowledge gap
• •State how you'll address the gap

Preliminary Data (if applicable):

• •Show feasibility
• •Demonstrate expertise
• •Support proposed approach
• •Present pilot results

Research Design and Methods:

For each aim:

## Aim N: [Title]

### Rationale
[Why this aim is important]

### Approach
[Detailed methodology]

### Expected Results
[What you anticipate finding]

### Potential Problems and Alternatives
[Risks and mitigation strategies]

### Timeline
[When this aim will be completed]

Broader Impacts

Categories (NSF):

1. •Advancing knowledge and understanding
2. •Promoting teaching, training, mentoring
3. •Broadening participation of underrepresented groups
4. •Enhancing infrastructure for research/education
5. •Disseminating results broadly
6. •Benefiting society

Tips:

• •Be specific and concrete
• •Show track record if possible
• •Connect to your research
• •Include measurable outcomes

Timeline and Milestones

Gantt Chart Format:

Key Milestones:

• •Define clear go/no-go decision points
• •Include deliverables
• •Show interdependencies

Agency-Specific Guidance

NSF

Key Criteria:

1. •Intellectual Merit: Potential to advance knowledge
2. •Broader Impacts: Benefit to society

Tips:

• •Balance both criteria equally
• •Be explicit about how you address each
• •Use their exact language

Common Programs (CS/ML):

• •CAREER (early career faculty)
• •CRII (research initiation)
• •Core Programs (CCF, IIS, CNS)
• •SaTC (security)

NIH

Key Criteria:

1. •Significance: Does it address an important problem?
2. •Investigator(s): Are researchers qualified?
3. •Innovation: Does it employ novel concepts?
4. •Approach: Is methodology sound?
5. •Environment: Is institutional support adequate?

Tips:

• •Frame in terms of health impact
• •Include preliminary data
• •Address rigor and reproducibility

DARPA

Key Characteristics:

• •High-risk, high-reward
• •Transformative potential
• •Clear metrics
• •Aggressive timelines

Tips:

• •Emphasize breakthrough potential
• •Show awareness of state-of-the-art
• •Define clear success metrics
• •Include go/no-go decision points

Common Mistakes

Content Mistakes

• •Vague or untestable hypotheses
• •Aims that are dependent (all-or-nothing)
• •Overpromising what can be achieved
• •Not addressing potential failures
• •Weak preliminary data

Structural Mistakes

• •Too much background, not enough plan
• •Burying key points
• •Not following page limits
• •Unclear organization
• •Missing required sections

Tone Mistakes

• •Too tentative ("we hope to...")
• •Too arrogant ("we will definitively prove...")
• •Not acknowledging risks
• •Ignoring competition

Quality Checklist

Before Submission

• • Follows all formatting requirements
• • All sections complete
• • Specific aims are clear and testable
• • Timeline is realistic
• • Budget is justified
• • Broader impacts are concrete
• • Preliminary data supports feasibility
• • Risks and alternatives addressed
• • References are complete
• • Proofread thoroughly

Review Simulation

• • Can someone outside your area understand it?
• • Are the aims achievable in the timeframe?
• • Is innovation clearly articulated?
• • Are you the right person to do this?
• • Would you fund this if you were a reviewer?

References

See references/ folder for:

• •nsf_guidelines.md: NSF-specific guidance
• •nih_guidelines.md: NIH-specific guidance