Sponsored Programs

Transforming Research Ideas into Grant Proposals

On Feb. 6, Kristina Schierenbeck, Biological Sciences, led the Office of Sponsored Projects Research Mentoring workshop “Transforming Your Research Ideas into Proposal Outlines.”

Schierenbeck walked first-year faculty through the process of developing ideas into successful grant proposals, with a focus on the nuts and bolts of presenting ideas in a way that results in a funded project.

Successful proposals include these elements:

A solid research question or clearly stated project objective

A clear, detailed (but not minutely detailed), and well-thought-out experimental design or procedure

Preliminary supporting data demonstrating the feasibility of the project

Schierenbeck stressed the need to focus on merit. That is, although it is important to emphasize one’s qualifications, institutional support, and student involvement (which is key), ultimately, the project proposal must stand on its own merits, be interesting, and well developed.

She told her audience not to be disappointed by rejection. Project proposal submission is a competitive business. At smaller institutions like CSU, Chico, she said that faculty have a tendency to give up too easily, saying things like, “We will never compete with the Berkeleys or Harvards.” What faculty may not realize is that the faculty at Berkeley and Harvard are also experiencing rejection, but they persist. A positive way to look at rejection is that the reviewers are helping the researcher refine his or her work and methodology. There are other times, of course, where the message is clear: Do not resubmit.

It can take as long as two years (and several revised submissions) before obtaining funding. Schieren-beck used her own funding record with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to highlight this point:

Population biology grant The proposal was partially funded on the first round. Schierenbeck and a colleague had asked for about $200,000 but were given $50,000 to split. They were both new professors, and the funding agency wanted to “try them out” in terms of productivity. Because they were productive with the funds, their work helped secure later grants.

Clarkia POWRE grant Schierenbeck was funded on the third round. The panel liked her research question but wanted more preliminary data. She kept responding positively to reviewer suggestions, and it was eventually funded.

Herbarium grant This proposal was funded on the second round. Although she responded positively to reviewer comments, this was a tough one to evaluate because the reviews on this grant weren’t strong. Schierenbeck thinks it was funded because she played up CSU, Chico’s herbarium as a regional resource and emphasized student involvement in the writing of the grant.

She has been the recipient of four NSF grants since 1994 as well as a number of smaller grants from the California Native Plant Society and the CSU system.

Schierenbeck has been with the CSU system since 1994, spending four years at CSU, Fresno and the last three at CSU, Chico. Prior to her career with the CSU, she conducted research in Washington, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Costa Rica. Her research emphasis includes both theoretical and applied aspects of evolutionary botany, using both molecular and ecological techniques. In addition to being busy with her graduate students and publications, Schierenbeck is also editor of the botanical journal Madroño.

Tom LeBlanc, proposal development manager, Sponsored Programs