Grant Writing

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

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.