Get documents about "2011coe internal grant proposal
Document Sample
1
Requests for Proposals for COE Untenured (tenure track) Faculty
Internal Research Funding (mini-grants)
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011
From: COE Research Committee
To: COE Faculty Members
Re: Proposals for Untenured Faculty Internal Research Funding
1. The COE Research Committee is seeking proposals from COE untenured (tenure track) faculty
for internal research grants. Faculty can receive $1,000-$2,000 to support their research. These
grants are for untenured tenure track faculty only, and funds will only be allocated for research.
The funding cannot be used for travel to conferences. Travel to collect data within the state is
permissible but budgets should reflect the purchase of equipment or materials required to
successfully accomplish a research project. This is a great opportunity for faculty to obtain
funding providing support for independent research and establishing a line of inquiry.
2. Page two provides a description of what is required in proposals. The criteria and rating scale
that will be used to evaluate proposals are included on subsequent pages. Only proposals that
meet the requirements will be reviewed. It is strongly suggested that applicants submit drafts
of their proposals to their Department Representative on the Research Committee and/or
Dr. Karin Wiburg, Associate Dean for Research, for feedback and suggestions. Drafts of
proposals should be submitted for feedback at least two weeks before the proposals are due.
3. Times, Dates and Critical Information
a. Proposals are due by Saturday, February 25, 2011 at 2 p.m.
b. Email proposals in Word Document/Excel Format addressed to:
Michael Waldo
Counseling and Educational Psychology Department
miwaldo@nmsu.edu
c. You are only allowed one proposal as a primary investigator (e.g., you cannot write a solo
author proposal and an additional joint application proposal as the primary investigator).
d. Awards should be announced by March 15, 2011. All applicants will receive feedback on
their proposals.
e. Faculty who are awarded a 2012 mini grant will be required to submit a follow-up report by
January 13, 2013 describing their progress, the money they spent and the items they spent
the money on as well as any presentations or publications they may have obtained from the
project. Grant recipients will also be expected to offer a brief report on their research at the
Spring College Convocation in 2013. Faculty who do not complete these requirements will
not be eligible to apply for COE Faculty Research Funding the following year.
2
COE Internal Grant (mini-grants) Proposal Format
Please include the following information in your proposal. Proposals should not exceed 5 pages
(double spaced, 12 font, 1 inch margins). Please follow the outline below in formatting
proposals, including using the subheadings that are provided.
Part I
Project Title
Researcher & Department
Rank & Initial Appointment Date
Part II
Impact on Applicant’s Personal Research and Development, including potential
contributions to applicants’ future pursuit of external grant funding.
Impact on the Field of Study
Brief Review of Relevant Literature
Part III: Research Plan
Setting/Facilities
Procedures (data collection, data analysis)
Study Timeline
Use of findings/dissemination of results
Part IV: Budget and Budget Justification
Specific detailed listing to include shipping/handling
Travel for conferences or presentations is not permissible
Part V: References
3
Grant Evaluation Scale
The Research Committee will review grant proposals based on the rating system below.
You will be rated on 9 areas of your proposal. Ensure you carefully prepare your proposal to
meet these requirements.
1=Minimally meets criteria, but this aspect of the proposal is weak
2=Adequate for consideration of the proposal, but not a strength area
3=Clear, precise, valid presentation of this aspect
4=Commendably above average presentation of this aspect
5=Excellent presentation of this aspect
The various aspects of your proposal to be rated:
1. The proposal demonstrates/explains the value the project has for promoting the applicant’s
research agenda, including potential contributions to the applicant’s future pursuit of
external grant funding.
2. The proposal demonstrates/explains the value that the project has to the applicant’s
field/discipline.
3. The review of the literature provides sufficient background to justify the study.
4. The objectives of the proposal are clearly stated.
5. The procedures and methods are clearly explained.
6. The procedures and methods are adequate to achieve objectives.
7. The project is manageable within prescribed time limits.
8. The uses to be made of the findings are clearly stated and substantial.
9. The budget and justification of expenses are valid.
4
Applicant:________________________________
1=Minimally meets criteria, but this aspect of the proposal is weak
2=Adequate for consideration of the proposal, but not a strength area
3=Clear, precise, valid presentation of this aspect
4=Commendably above average presentation of this aspect
5=Excellent presentation of this aspect
1. _______The proposal demonstrates/explains the value the project has for promoting the
applicant’s research agenda, including potential contributions to the applicant’s future
pursuit of external grant funding.
Comments:
2. _______The proposal demonstrates/explains the value that the project has to the applicant’s
field/discipline.
Comments:
3. _______The review of the literature provides sufficient background to justify the study.
Comments:
4. _______The objectives of the proposal are clearly stated.
Comments:
5. _______The procedures and methods are clearly explained.
Comments:
6. _______The procedures and methods are adequate to achieve objectives.
Comments:
7. _______The project is manageable within prescribed time limits.
Comments:
8. _______The uses to be made of the findings are clearly stated and substantial.
Comments:
9. _______The budget and justification of expenses are valid.
Comments:
_______Total Score
5
