Funding Opportunities & Proposal Development
Collaboration & Team Science: A Field Guide
Dean Christine Himes: Building Science Teams
watch on youtube
The Academic Executive Brief
The “science of team science” (SCITS) is a new and emerging field of research, as academics and proposal developers study what environments and dynamics create successful science teams. Here are resources on SCITS:
The Science of Team Science Listserv
The Collaboration Success Wizard
Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS)
Search: GrantForward Funding Opportunities Database
Did you know? Becoming a reviewer of research proposal applications is one of the best way to learn what funders are looking for! Use these links to learn more about becoming a grant reviewer:
NSF's Merit Review Process:
| Fund Searching Workshop |
| Crafting a Strong Research Proposal Workshop |
| Team Science Workshop |
Editorial and Writing Assistance
This can be either a simple grammatical review or a more complex review for style, grantsmanship, and cohesiveness. IIT faculty may follow these instructions to obtain a copy of a funded IIT proposal.
This is the most read part of the proposal, so it must be well written. Tips for the executive summary.
Integrating the sponsor’s “goal language” into your narrative
This is done by thoroughly reviewing the solicitation/program announcement for the proposal you are preparing, and then suggesting ways to integrate the sponsor’s language into your own. The intent is to ensure that your narrative and abstract fully address the specifics and requirements of the program the sponsor is trying to fund.
Resubmitting Rejected Proposals
Addressing reviewers' comments in your revised proposal. You can also get assistance with revising a proposal that has been submitted to one sponsor so that it will be well-received by a second or even a third sponsor.
Often a proposal must include certain "template" information so that the sponsor has sufficient information about IIT. These may be found on the OSRP site.
Some sponsors have limits on the number of proposals that may be submitted from an organization. In these cases, an internal selection process is required to determine which proposals will go forward. When the number of abstracts received is more than the number of proposals allowed per the solicitation, an internal competition will be necessary.
The process described below is the result of input from faculty and discussions between the associate deans, department chairs, deans of the various colleges and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research. The purpose of this document is to outline the internal review process for limited submission proposals. The goal of this process is to ensure that proposals are reviewed in both a fair and competitive manner. This will also allow the Vice Provost for Research to select a pool of reviewers with the proper expertise to present a strong candidate or team to move forward.
The process for submitting and selecting proposals for limited submissions is a three-step process.
- PIs submit a three page abstract to ORCPD for consideration in the internal competition
- If necessary, Vice Provost for Research, or his or her, designee convenes an internal panel to review properly submitted abstracts
- If selected in the internal competition, the PI submits a full proposal to the sponsor
The Office of Research Compliance and Proposal Development (ORCPD) will update and post the announcements on the ORCPD website.
All submissions of abstracts and supporting documents are to be sent to email@example.com. All abstracts must be received by noon (CST) of the stated deadline date in order to be eligible.
The internal review panel may include the associate deans, department chairs, former chairs, center or institute directors or other faculty. Each participant in the review panel will have a faculty appointment or have had faculty experience. This panel will meet to discuss the relative merits of the abstract and to recommend the abstract(s) to be invited to submit. The goal of the review panel’s effort will be to identify the very best proposal(s) to send from the university to the funding agency. On rare occasions, the panel’s recommendations may not be accepted by the Vice Provost for Research based on University priorities or best interests. The panel will be notified of such changes should this occur.
Researchers will submit an abstract following the guidelines listed below via email to the Office of Research Compliance and Proposal Development (ORCPD). ORCPD will review the abstracts to make sure they meet internal deadlines and formatting requirements. Any abstracts which do not follow the template will be rejected. This format is required in order to assist the review panel in making an equitable, informed decision.
Abstracts should be no more than three (3) pages and follow the NSF guidelines for margins, spacing and fonts.
All abstracts must contain the following:
- Sponsor & solicitation number (if known),
- PI and all personnel (including co-PIs, senior personnel, subcontractors, etc.) and their affiliation (any additional personnel not listed in the abstract will require prior approval by the Dean of the appropriate College before they can be added to the proposal)
- Full title of the proposal
- Start and end dates of grant period
- A detailed budget for the entire project. Budget template.
- If cost share is mandatory, supporting documentation from the appropriate source should be provided. If cost share is coming from internal sources, prior approval from the Dean of the appropriate College is required and should be attached to the abstract. The detailed budget for the cost share should be included on the budget template (tab b) above. Indirect costs are charged on cost share.
- If indirect cost rate limitations are imposed by the sponsor, prior approval from the Dean of the appropriate College is required.