Workshop on Internal Grant Competitions

 R&S and T&L Grants 

• Faculty Development funds for grants up to $2,500 in two separate competitions:

- Research and Scholarship (reviewed by R&S Committee); and                 
- Teaching and Learning (reviewed by Faculty Development Committee). 

• Grants are restricted to full-time faculty members.
• Faculty can only be the lead Principal Investigator for one funded proposal.
• This is a competitive grant program.

 Process 

• Submit your proposal by the deadline.  We do not accept late applications. Send your original proposal and 10 copies to OSP (Victor Hall 236) by 5 p.m. on __________________.   
  

• Proposals will immediately be sent to reviewers.

• Reviewers have approximately 2 weeks to review them and write comments.

• Reviewers will meet as a committee to discuss and rank the proposals.

• The committees will make recommendations to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, who reviews all proposals and recommendations.

• The committees will make recommendations to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, who reviews all proposals and recommendations.

• The VPAA will announce awards near the beginning of November. 

• All final funding decisions rest with the VPAA.

Tips for a successful proposal

     Consider the Committee makeup 

• There are faculty members from a variety of disciplines.
• Not every reviewer will have in-depth knowledge of your particular field.
• Follow the instructions and write for the generalist, but use enough details to explain your project clearly.  

Review is based on the written proposal; do not lobby reviewers  

• Don’t put them in a situation where they have a conflict of interest.
• Rankings come after discussion by committee; reviewers can gain insight from other members and change their minds about how they rank the proposals.
• Any lobbying of committee members will likely come up in the discussion. 
• However, neither the Director of Faculty Development nor the Director of Sponsored Programs votes on proposals, so they are available to answer questions and possibly offer suggestions.

 Use the appropriate form

 ·        There is a different application for each competition.

• The Department Head and Dean must sign to approve the project, e.g. that any release-time can be accommodated.

     Format strategically   

• Organize your proposal by the review criteria.  For example, a T&L proposal would have the following sections (we recommend using these as headings):  
• Project Description
• Demonstrated Need
• Anticipated Improvement in Teaching and Learning
• Evaluation of Outcomes/Impact 
• Budget Justification 
  
• Remember that reviewers are going to read as many as 40-50 applications in two weeks, while continuing with their own teaching, committee, public service, and family life obligations.
• The Evaluation component is critical, so provide specific assessment methods.
• Spend your creativity on ideas and project design, not necessarily on your writing.
• If your qualifications are not readily apparent, address those in the body of your proposal as well.
• Make your proposal package neat, organized, and attractive to reviewers.
• Proposals should not take the form of essays, but rather they should follow the standard format, with headings and subheadings to address the required sections.

      Adhere to the page limit    

• Your proposal should consist of the following:
• Cover sheet, signed by Department Head and Dean, with the budget detailed on the form
• Up to a maximum of four (4) pages for your project description
• The only appendix that may be attached is your IRB approval if you’re using human subjects  

• Reviewers can reject out of hand any proposal that exceeds the 4-page limit or otherwise fails to follow procedure.

Have a colleague or neutral third party review your proposal  

• Ask for constructive criticism on continuity, clarity and reasoning.
• Check for unsupported assumptions, jargon, or excessive rhetorical language.
• Don’t wait until the last minute to secure the signature from your Department Head; (s)he may be able to provide critical insight and advice on improving your submission.  

    IRB Approval  

• If it can’t be obtained by the deadline, indicate on your proposal that you’ve applied and will forward us the approval form.
• You should have applied to the IRB by the time you submit your proposal.
• We cannot award you any money until we get the approval letter.  

Ø   Ensure that costs are appropriate.  

• See the back of the form - -these are all costs that commonly come up on these proposals.

• Budget justification: do some research, determine the actual costs, and justify them.  Don’t just ask for the maximum amount. 

• The committee can cut your budget or decide not to fund certain items if they seem excessive, unnecessary, or are otherwise not well justified. 

• Often, modest requests for good, small projects make the best impressions on the committee.
    
• Travel funds are difficult to sell to the committee and should really be sought from your Dean.   These funds should only be requested in extremely special circumstances.  Also, attending or presenting at a conference is not usually adequate justification; what’s important is what the faculty member will do with that experience upon return to campus, and projecting assessment can be difficult.

Example:  Research and Scholarship grants have funded travel to a library in another state where the resources were non-circulating and not available elsewhere. Part of the justification for that proposal was to explain that there was no other way to have access to the material. 

Example:  Travel in a Teaching and Learning proposal might involve sending a faculty member to a workshop to learn about designing courses for the web and then having them come back and teach everyone in their department how to do it.     

• Teaching and Learning grants: don’t forget that the underlying function of these grants is faculty development.

Example:  We have seen Teaching & Learning proposals in the past that provided wonderful teaching and learning outcomes for public school teachers by our faculty, but there wasn't (or it wasn't obvious in the proposal) any development of our faculty. 

Example:  Another proposal was rejected because the Teaching and Learning was all invested in support staff rather than the faculty member.

• Funds should not be requested for students; they have access to a Student Activities fund, and we have only a marginal amount for all internal grants to faculty.  Accordingly, these funds should be for the development of our faculty.

• Ensure that costs are ones we can legally pay.  

·        Remember that these are state funds that were appropriated for spending on Higher Education.

·         Also, as state dollars, they cannot be used for on-campus food, refreshments, etc.  

Example: We had a proposal budget that we couldn't fund because it was all equipment for a local public school system.  If the equipment could have been housed at AASU, the proposal would have been funded because it was excellent in every other respect. 

Back to Research & Scholarship Page
Office of Sponsored Programs