The DDIG: a comprehensive guide
Workshop: Writing Successful NSF
Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants
Irene Newton, Spencer Hall, Heather Reynolds,
September 9th, 2013 - revised August 17, 2015
Contents:
Introduction: nuts and
bolts, can/should you do this?....................................................
Sage advice: what makes a
good DDIG? what makes a bad one?...................................
Merit review criteria:
mock panel summaries for competitive ……………………….………
and non competitive grants
The National Science
Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) and Integrative
Organismal Biology (IOB) offer PhD candidates a great opportunity to apply for
research money while starting a relationship with NSF. Through its Doctoral
Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) program, NSF awards up to $13K (direct
costs) for 24 months to students meeting eligibility requirements. In this document we first provide a brief
overview of the process and proposal organization, then focus most of our
attention on what differentiates successful from unfunded proposals. How can
your DDIG be one of the 20-35% of successful proposals? DDIG proposals are
reviewed by panels composed of scientists who read, rate and debate the
proposals, and ultimately recommend the best for funding. After having served on separate DDIG panels
for DEB (Spencer and Heather for Ecology in 2012, Irene for Evolution in 2013),
we have compared our experiences and compiled the advice below (see several
similar points also raised by Skelly 2003):
Why consider writing a DDIG
DDIGs are intended to fund
an avenue of research/training that wouldn’t have been possible without the
funding. DDIGs are NOT intended to fund
your core thesis research; rather they are intended to “value-add” by funding
enhancements to thesis research that is already well underway and for which
substantial preliminary data exists. Consistent with the intent of the DDIG for
research enhancement, beginning graduate students do not qualify for submitting
a DDIG. From the NSF website: “Allowable items include travel to specialized
facilities or field research locations and professional meetings, use of
specialized research equipment, purchase of supplies and services not otherwise
available, the hiring of field or laboratory assistants, fees for computerized
or other forms of data, and rental of environmental chambers or other research
facilities.” Importantly, you CANNOT use
the DDIG funds for stipends or tuitions.
Likewise, if your PI
already has a grant on your DDIG topic that could reasonably fund your proposed
DDIG research, you are not likely to be funded; if “existing funds” are
available for the proposed work, you are disqualified. The important point being that DDIG grants
are intended for enhancements to your thesis research that do not have existing
sources of support.
Why else consider writing
a DDIG? The fame …The glory…The practice and most importantly…Excellent odds (25-30% funding rate)
Are you eligible to submit a DDIG?
You must be a senior PhD
student (that is, you must have passed your qualifying/preliminary exams and
have been accepted into the program by the time that you submit the
application). Funded research must fall under
the purview of either of two different NSF sections: 1) The Division of Environmental Biology (and
any cluster within it) or 2) the Behavioral Systems Cluster of the Division of
Integrative Organismal
Systems (IOS). Read more about these sections here:
Systems (IOS). Read more about these sections here:
http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DEB
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504676
When in doubt as to
whether or not your project would be attractive to these panels, talk to your
PI and then, if still concerned, contact the program officer and ask before
getting started on the grant. It is
their job to talk to you and guide
you to funding opportunities so don’t be shy!
In your phone call,
introduce yourself by your name, your institution, and your PI’s lab. Have a short elevator talk prepared that
covers your proposed research and how you think it may fit in to that
cluster/program. These clusters review
an extremely broad range of proposals so don’t be discouraged until you hear
from the top.
Contact information:
DEB Program Officer, telephone:
(703) 292-8480, email: ddig-deb@nsf.gov
IOS Program Officer,
telephone: (703) 292-8423, email: ddig-ios@nsf.gov
Nuts and Bolts:
DDIG submissions are
usually due in in the Fall, the second thursday in October, and this year they are due October 8th at 5PM.
Have your documents prepared well ahead of time – your office of
sponsored research likely requires 7-10 days lead time, and you will want to contact
that office well before then (at least a month is recommended) to be assigned a
grant officer who will assist you with the paperwork logistics of submitting
your proposal.
Sections of the proposal:
a. Biosketch. Use your advisor's and biosketches from
recently funded DDIGs in your field as a model, and don't worry if you don't
have anything relevant to list for many of the sections – you are young yet. Check the relevant instructions in the
current Grant Proposal Guide (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg)
to make sure you get the format correct.
b.
Project
Summary. A new format has been adopted
for this section (which you will cut/paste into text boxes on the FastLane
website submission form). It contains
three sections (character limited): Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader
Impacts. To get a sense of what is
required for these sections, check out the criteria for review at the end of
this document.
c.
Project
Description. The meat and potatoes, or tempeh and noodles, if you will, of the
proposal; 8 pages only. This is where
you describe your proposed project, and how it enhances your dissertation. You
will therefore need to introduce your existing data/project as context for your
proposed enhancement, being sure to lay out the big picture conceptual
framework for your research program. Just be careful not to make your core
thesis the center of your proposal (once again, the DDIG is for enhancements to
your core research, but does not fund the core research itself). Remember to
include a delineated section on broader impacts.
d.
Cited
references. Make sure you used the
correct NSF-style format specified in the Grant Proposal Guide.
e.
Context for
Improvement. This supplemental document
is essential to the DDIG. This is where
you highlight how the DDIG will lead to IMPROVEMENT of your dissertation. This
means that 1) you must present the pre-existing research and 2) explain how
your proposed project seamlessly ties into this, allows for independence from
your PhD mentor, and improves the quality of your work. Also explain in this document that no other
funds are available for this work.
f.
Statement of
Candidacy. A supplemental document
generated by the chair of the graduate program stating that you have passed
your qualifying exams and are now officially part of the program. There is specific language required in this
letter so make sure to read the DDIG funding opportunity announcement (FOA).
g.
Data
Management Plan. This is now required
for all research proposals, and although it may make no sense in the context of
your project, you are required to submit one.
How will you store and make available data collected as part of the
project? Who will manage databases long term? Ask your PI if you’ve not seen
one before and work off of that document as well as those of recently funded
DDIGs in your field as models.
h.
Supporting
Documents. If you are collaborating with anyone else, here’s where their
letters of collaboration go. They are
required to follow a very specific template that is available on the DDIG FOA.
As always, make sure you
thoroughly read the FOA and the NSF GPG.
If you submit your materials to the office of sponsored research with
enough lead time, they are extremely helpful and catch many errors but it is up to you to prevent rejection without
review.
Some useful links:
The NSF DDIG funding
opportunity announcement:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13568
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13568
The NSF Grant Proposal
Guide:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
IU Biology’s Guide to
Submitting an NSF DDIG: Chronology with nuts and bolts information about how to
actually submit it through ORA.
http://www.indiana.edu/~bioweb/graduate/resources/DDIG_guide.shtml
Link at Stony Brook of
successful DDIGs
http://www.anat.stonybrook.edu/IDPAS/student_grants/NSFDDIG%20past%20applications%20idpas.html
From Joan Strassman’s blog
Some Sage Advice:
1.
Read the
directions:
Roughly
10% of proposals are returned without review because they are lacking major
components required (such as the Data Management plan) or because they don’t
follow the directions outlined in the NSF GPG.
Read the program solicitation and the GPG line by line and make sure you
follow all instructions. Additionally,
make sure you coordinate with your Office of Research Administration ahead of
time (they like 2 weeks lead time on the budget for approval – we recommend
contacting someone there at least 1 month ahead of time; 1.5-2 months lead time
is even better).
2.
Know your
reviewers and your panel:
Your
reviewer is tired. Your reviewer has
read at least 20 other proposals during this exhausting process. Your reviewer
(largely) couldn’t care less about you or your project but is trying to quickly
get through this stack of proposals before the review submission deadline. It is your job to make them care. Here are some tips to accomplish this:
·
Write assuming
that your reviewers are tired and not experts in your subdiscipline…. It is
important to appreciate that three panelists will read your proposal and many
(15-25) others, sometimes at the last minute (even on the airplane!), and often
on subjects with which they are familiar but not experts. This situation sets a
very high premium on clear, concise writing aimed at a broad audience. Proposals aimed narrowly at a targeted
subdiscipline often fail, and nuance often gets proposals nowhere.
·
…but
be prepared for an expert to review your proposal. Occasionally, a panelist’s
dissertation or current research overlaps with a student’s proposal. In these
instances, a student who includes shallow or murky methodology runs into
trouble. So, this means that proposals must be written for a general audience but
must also be technically sound.
3.
What are the
traits of funded proposals? Successful DDIGs:
·
Ask
conceptually cutting-edge, often risky questions. The best proposals usually
pushed conceptual boundaries and challenged the status quo. This aspect of
DDIGs made them very fun to review. NSF
invests relatively few dollars per DDIG ($10K compared to, say, $300K) and
therefore is willing to fund exciting proposals that might not work. On the other hand, we have seen proposals fail
which seemed solid and technically sound but did not excite panelists.
·
Clearly
demonstrate the ability to *improve* the dissertation. Panelists look to see
that the dissertation is well in progress, since it is a dissertation
improvement grant, not a dissertation grant. In most cases, this means that
some compelling data are needed to win over panelists.
·
Are a
deviation from what has been previously done by the Primary Investigator (the
advisor).
·
Broadly pitch
the conceptually-motivated introduction on the first page. The reviewer must
know what the proposal is about – and want to know more about it – by the end
of the first page. Set that hook early; waiting until page three or four is too
late.
·
Test clearly
stated hypotheses which naturally stemmed from the Introduction.
·
Smoothly
integrate background material to place those hypotheses into context. This
background material helps to establish the promise of the dissertation as a
whole.
·
Very clearly
explain methods that obviously relate to the hypotheses and strongly argue that
the proposed research will answer the questions raised. Another tip here: if you can, make your
methods a schematic (if complicated sampling regimes are being explained in
text, for example, it is much easier to convey in visual form). Also, it will reduce the total number of
words the panelists have to read, and for that they will thank you. While panelists are willing to fund risky proposals,
they do want to know that the proposed work is logical and feasible.
·
Exhibit at
least some degree of independence from the advisor’s work and grants. DDIG panelists
are not interested in funding the advisor
– they want to fund exciting work of promising students. It may be good to
strive for some degree of independence from your advisor’s program anyway; it
is particularly important for successful DDIGs. This aspect of your DDIG is
highlighted in a “Context for Improvement” section.
·
Are visually
pleasing and easy on those tired reviewer eyes. Use clear titles and subtitles,
consider judicious use of gray toned shading to highlight major sections, and
include well-placed figures and tables. All of these elements act to break up
long chunks of text and make it easy for the reviewer to assimilate the
information and help to keep them engaged.
4.
A note on
broader impacts:
The
Broader Impacts section offers the student applicant an opportunity to
highlight aspects of the research that can appeal to audiences beyond those who
will read the student’s papers. You must make an effort to establish the
broader implications of your research, whether they are in education and
training (especially of underrepresented groups), broader scientific outreach
and/or dissemination, establishing scientific partnerships, or societal
benefits (e.g. applied goals, such as managing natural, cultivated, or urban
ecosystems; promoting human health; etc.).
As a
matter of course, all DDIG proposals have built
in broader impacts. This is because
they are targeting training of graduate students. Be aware, however, that most successful
DDIG’s go beyond this automatic broader impact and make an effort to describe
societal benefits beyond the basic training of a graduate student. This term ‘broader impacts’ refers to other societal
benefits that will accrue as a result of funding the proposal. They can be direct outcomes of the proposal (such as “we are studying the cause
of Colony Collapse Disorder in honey bees, the most important agricultural
pollinator”; “through this proposal, an underrepresented minority will be
funded”) or they can be indirect but have a benefit on societal outcomes (such
as “we will actively recruit and train undergraduate women to learn
bioinformatics as part of this project and as a result, will hope to increase
the number entering STEM fields” or “we will create a website for the general
public to follow bumble bee decline in the United States”).
Here are
actual examples of good broader impacts (in no way exhaustive):
·
Undergraduate training
·
Significant engagement with the public throughout
·
Seamless integration/incorporation of outreach into your proposal
·
Software developed from this proposed project will be freely
accessible to the community, and useful
·
Development of a website to inform public about results.
·
Participating in outreach to underprivileged students (via an
existing university program)
·
Community outreach featuring high school biology classes
·
Outreach to managers of natural or agricultural systems
Your
broader impacts should make sense in
the context of your proposal. Go with
something that feels natural to you.
Don’t propose to work with kids if you don’t like ‘em! Don’t go
crazy. Reviewers can sense when the
broader impacts are overwhelming (either in time or commitment from the
student) or when they aren’t well integrated into the proposal.
5.
Why proposals
don’t get funded (or receive poor scoring reviews)
·
Work that was
sound but not terribly exciting. Solid but boring = no funding. Often the
problem here is the failure to place research into a broader intellectual and
scientific context, or to overemphasize description rather than
hypothesis-driven science.
·
Lack of pilot
data. Preliminary data establishes both that your methodology is sound and
appropriate, and that you have the necessary skills to complete the research.
The panel must be confident that the research can be done, even if the specific
outcome is not yet known. We noticed that proposals with little or no prior
data were rarely funded. If you do not have compelling data yet, consider
submitting your proposal in a year.
·
Overemphasis
on Methods, and/or question and inquiry that are not conceptually rigorous. We
have noticed that this problem seems especially acute with proposals involving
newly emerging genomic/high-throughput or sequencing or molecular methods. Yes,
these methods are exciting and can open intellectual doors that were formerly
closed. However, if your proposal relies heavily on these methods, heed this
warning: methods are just means to an end. The end must be feasible, logical
research that asks and answers conceptually compelling questions. Poorly framed questions addressed with (meta)genomic
sequencing or cutting-edge molecular technology were typically denied funding. Also, if your proposal will rely heavily on newer
methods, especially those for which your laboratory is not known, make sure
that you have demonstrated that you can do the work. And/or include a letter of collaboration from
someone expert in the field.
·
Poor
scholarship, especially large gaps in knowledge of the literature directly
related to the project. One obvious red flag for this problem is the ‘first
time ever’ claim. This claim reads something like, “to our knowledge, this is
the first study to examine adaptation in the wild”. Do not make a ‘first time
ever’ claim unless you are certain that your study and/or approach is truly
unique. Better yet, why not instead emphasize the burning need to answer the
question you have raised in your proposal? Panelists are often much more
inspired by (and motivated to fund) proposals emphasizing the importance to
solve critical problems than those making claims to novelty alone.
·
Poor grantsmanship,
sloppy presentation. Do we really need to say it? Always do a spell-check before
submitting. Better yet, read your proposal aloud so that you can catch typos,
grammatical errors, or problems in the flow of the prose, and have a friend or
colleague whose editing skills you respect review your proposal.
·
Minimal or
non-existent broader impacts. This section will generally not kill a
scientifically impressive proposal but can sink a proposal on the borderline
between Fund and Do Not Fund.
·
Poorly justified
or non-existent ‘context for improvement’. As with broader impacts, a poor job in this section
can kill a proposal – even one that is well liked may suffer.
Some more advice:
6.
Do not start
writing the proposal at the last minute. It shows and it does not impress.
7.
Find examples
of successful proposals and use them as a model for your own. You may find it
useful to review a number of successful proposals to find the style and content
strategies that are best suited for you.
8.
Multiple modes
of inference are good if integrated. Panelists seem to love work that combined multiple
avenues of inference, especially modeling with data collection. We suggest that
you highlight this aspect if it applies to your work. However, do not emphasize
components that are not well integrated with the rest of your proposal.
9.
Make sure that
your advisor reads it. It is obvious when students do not get good feedback from
their advisors and/or labmates.
1.
Make sure that
others read it, especially those who do not study similar problems. If you
study plants, give it to a plankton person. If you study disease, give it to
someone who works on nutrient cycling. They can note places where the proposal
is not clear and does not make sense to the generally informed reader in your overall
discipline.
1.
Produce
high-quality figures. One well thought-out diagram or graph can simultaneously
show preliminary data, demonstrate your research skills, and save a substantial
amount of text. It can also really help panelists if your proposal involves
complex interactions (species, populations, or genes).
1.
Note on
resubmissions. If your DDIG is not funded the first time around, you should
submit it during the following year if possible! Many DDIGs are successful on
the second try. (This means that you should prepare to submit a DDIG as soon as
you can in your graduate career). The second time around, indicate that the
proposal is a resubmission in the text and explain how the proposal
incorporated feedback from the previous review. Reviewers explicitly look for this
and criticize proposals that ignore previous comments. Reviewers know which
proposals were resubmitted, and they access prior reviews.
1.
Know what NSF
wants to know from panelists: As panelists, we are asked to address questions
in the attached review template. Make
sure that someone reading your proposal would favorably review each of these
criteria.
Literature Cited
Skelly, D. K. 2003. How to
write a successful Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant proposal.
Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America 84:137-138.
Below are some fake panel summaries for a competitive and a noncompetitive proposal.
Imaginary
Science and Animals Cluster
Doctoral
Dissertation Improvement Grants Panel
September
2013
If this a
resubmission, how have previous criticisms been addressed?
N/A
The following elements should be considered in
the review for both criteria:
1.
What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a.
advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across
different fields (Intellectual Merit) and
b.
benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)
2.
To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3.
Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned,
well-organized and based on sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a
mechanism to assess success?
4.
How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to
conduct the proposed activities?
5.
Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home
institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
CRITERION
1: In
the context of the five merit review elements, please evaluate the strengths
are weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit:
Intellectual Strengths: The panel agreed that the project was exciting with
the potential to be transformative in the field of biology and evolution. The PIs propose to explore the tradeoffs
between Unicorn horn size and fecundity, suggesting they are coevolved and
linked across the many species of Unicorn.
The system is quite neat but results will be applicable to other
research systems and of broad import.
Intellectual Weaknesses: None observed.
CRITERION
II: In
the context of the five merit review elements, please evaluate the strengths
are weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts:
Broader Impacts Strengths: The PI and student
propose to involve a local elementary school in their research, taking the
students out on field trips to learn about unicorn biology. The fact that Unicorns are an endangered
species also increased the importance of this work, in the eyes of the
committee.
Broader Impacts Weaknesses: None observed.
ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review
criteria, if applicable:
Context
for Improvement:
The proposed work was seen as independent of the adviser's research
focus (which has largely investigated unicorn behavioral genetics). The project will expand beyond the original
thesis plan (which initially began as a project to create a phylogeny of the
unicorns) to now include sampling from sites around the US, Asia and Europe to
enlarge the database of species used for population and evolutionary analyses.
Data
Management Plan: The data management plan is adequate.
SYNTHESIS
AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project will expand the co-PI's thesis project to include an
evolutionary component and include international sampling to broaden its
database. The project plan is supported
by comprehensive modeling and a sound experimental plan is described. The
Broader Impact activities are unexceptional and include continued mentoring of
undergraduates in the PI's laboratory and outreach to K-12 students. The panel
agreed that this study would yield results that would be of interest to many
parties and may be used as a base for understanding the evolution of horns
across many species. The experiments are well developed. The data management
plan is adequate.
The panel recommendation is: Competitive
This summary was read by
the assigned panelists and they concurred that the summary accurately reflects
the panel consensus.
Imaginary
Science and Animals Cluster
Doctoral
Dissertation Improvement Grants Panel
September
2013
If this a
resubmission, how have previous criticisms been addressed?
Although this is a resubmission the PI does not
directly address previous concerns (such as the quality of writing) that
persist in this submission.
The following elements should be considered in
the review for both criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed
activity to
c.
advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across
different fields (Intellectual Merit) and
d.
benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)
2. To what extent do the proposed activities
suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed
activities well-reasoned, well-organized and based on sound rationale? Does the
plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team,
or institution to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to
the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out
the proposed activities?
CRITERION
1: In
the context of the five merit review elements, please evaluate the strengths
are weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit:
Intellectual Strengths: The
panel agreed that the proposal addresses a compelling question in Dragon
biology and evolution.
Intellectual Weaknesses: This proposal is not very well written and
therefore difficult to follow the logic behind the project and design. The panel questioned the ability to generate
relationships between Dragons and Dinosaurs (that is, ancestral-extant
relationships) based on morphology alone for these groups of mythical
creatures. Additionally, there seems to
be little support at the institution for this kind of work: no Dragon rearing
facility, no expert in the methods being used consulted or involved.
CRITERION
II: In
the context of the five merit review elements, please evaluate the strengths
are weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts:
Broader Impacts Strengths:
Broader Impacts Weaknesses: Beyond the casual
mention of potential undergraduate involvement, no other broader impacts are
incorporated into this proposed project.
Additionally, the safety of the undergraduate around these dangerous
animals was not adequately addressed.
ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review
criteria, if applicable:
Context
for Improvement:
It's unclear how this project fits into the entire
dissertation of the student – no clear delineation between previous data and
how this project extends previous work was presented. Additionally, the project is very much in
line with the PI’s previous publication records (although, admittedly, not
involving Dragons) and does not represent a novel deviation from their research
thrust.
Data
Management Plan: The data management plan is adequate, although sparse. For example, how will the morphological data
collected be stored and shared?
SYNTHESIS
AND RECOMMENDATION:
A compelling question addressed with methods that
were not deemed reasonable by the panel members. Involvement of collaborators with expertise
in Dragon evolution would benefit the project and the student. Additionally, a
clear delineation of previous work vs. proposed work in the context of the PhD
would’ve allowed this panel to better assess the context for improvement. Finally, broader impacts could have been
stronger, as could have the grantsmanship.
The panel recommendation is: not competitive
This summary was read by
the assigned panelists and they concurred that the summary accurately reflects
the panel consensus.
Comments
Post a Comment