NSF Grant Proposal Response, Essay Example

NSF Grant Proposal Guide Exercise

The grant submission discussed in chapter 16 of the textbook is effective because it serves as a good guideline for how most research proposals should be written, but this information differs significantly from what is asked for by the National Science Foundation (NSF) primarily because different grant awarding institutions have different specific requirements for their grants. The NSF stresses that the applicant identify their proposal type before submission. These proposal types include letters of intent, preliminary proposals, and full proposals, and their requirement will vary on the basis of the specific grant that is being awarded. An additional major difference between the information contained within the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and chapter 16 is that different types of applicants must follow different procedures. For example, a government institution applying for a grant would not follow the same process as a primary investigator in academia. There is also a significant difference between for-profit and non-for-profit institutions.

An additional consideration that is necessary for applying for NSF grants is how they are awarded. First time applicants are given additional consideration throughout the process and are more likely to have their proposal approved on this basis. Furthermore, individuals who have had several grants been successfully awarded and that are accompanied by published work are also likely to be selected. It’s important for the researcher to demonstrate that they are capable of carrying out the research they proposed, but the NSF also wants to ensure that new researchers have an equal opportunity for their careers to begin. According to applicants who have applied for NSF funding, it is more difficult to get a second or third proposal granted than the first.

Analyzing an External Proposal

The writer’s description of the problem does not provide statistical evidence, which is problematic because it is useful to convince the reader that the problem is important. By simply stating the information rather than providing proof of what is presented, the reader is likely to question the authenticity of the data. Therefore, it is beneficial for the grant writer to provide preliminary data, if this data serves as good evidence to back up information provided in the proposal. If the proposal is meant to generate certain statistical data, this work does not have to be included because it is the outcome of the project.

If the reader is not familiar with the proposer’s organization, this description would not be sufficient for setting the context of the proposal. This is detrimental because the background of the organization is necessary for the reader to understand in order for the true importance of the project to be conveyed. The proposer provides only two sentences about what the organization is and their previous partnership. It would be beneficial to use at least a paragraph to accomplish this in order to make the reader understand what the organization has done in the past and why it has the expertise necessary to successfully complete the project that is proposed.

Based on this proposal, I would not award the organization $67,000 because it is unclear what they actually intend to do. Although they explain the problem that they are trying to address well, they don’t explain it in a way that convinces the reader that they understand what to do throughout the research process in order to find a solution. This part of the proposal should be more detailed to alleviate this issue. Furthermore, the budget that was provided was not adequate. It needs to be broken down more clearly and written in a way that the reader can readily identify what is being requested.

References

Markel M. (2012). Technical Communication 10th ed. Bedford St. Martin’s.