nsf research proposal example

Susan Finger
sfinger at cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University

Updated April 2015

The original version of this advice was written in the late 1980s. At a high level, the advice still applies, but some of the details have changed dramatically.

What follows is a collection of advice for writing research grants to the National Science Foundation. It includes some guidelines on how to write an NSF proposal and how to get the latest version of the NSF forms. Some required NSF forms, such as the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, will usually be provided by your institution’s grants office.

This document focuses on writing proposals to NSF, but the general advice can be applied to writing any proposal.

Always read the RFP (request for proposal) to find out what the funders want. They will give you money only if you can help them reach their goals. The goals of funding agencies (public and private) vary dramatically. A successful proposal to NSF looks nothing like a successful proposal to NASA. Even within an agency, the style of proposals can be different among internal divisions. Find out about the agency, its goals, and its review system.

All proposals should answer the following questions in one form or another.

NSF is organized a lot like a university, except that instead of departments and colleges it has divisions and directorates. The Program Directors (PDs, also equivalently called program managers and program officers) are like professors (and a lot of them are professors on leaves of absence). They have areas of specialization which correspond to the research areas covered by their programs. The division directors are like department chairs. They oversee the broad research areas covered by the programs and deal with administrative issues. The Assistant Directors are like Deans of Colleges. They lead the directorates and are responsible for the major research directions in Engineering, Physical Sciences, etc. The Director of NSF, who is like a university president or chancellor, is responsible for the overall direction of Science and Engineering Research. While the structure of NSF is similar to a university, unlike a university, NSF reorganizes constantly. This means that you may get to know a program director who may suddenly return to his or her university or may be reassigned to another program -- or that your program may be merged with a different program. While this is disconcerting in the short run, in the long run it keeps programs from stagnating and helps NSF keep on the forefront of research areas.

Find out which program supports your research area. (It's not always obvious). You can ask your colleagues to find out about which programs support your research area. Find out if there are other people at NSF you should talk to and what special initiatives might apply to you. You can find the list of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the NSF web site (http://www.nsf.gov/).

Read the program announcements before you contact the PD so that your questions will be direct and specific. The easiest way to get started is to send a brief email to the program director stating which program you are interested in applying to, a short statement of your relevant research interests, your availability by phone or email, and a one-page attachment that covers the first three questions above: what’s the problem, why it’s important, and what your key idea is. Don’t spend a lot of time/space giving the big picture on, e.g. cybersecurity; you are talking to an expert your area.

Some PDs prefer e-mail; some prefer phone calls. Some like to talk to Principal Investigators (PIs); some don’t. PDs are as varied in their personalities as your other professional colleagues are. If you do talk to a PD on the phone, remember to listen; don’t just pitch your idea non-stop.  You are calling to get advice, not to sell your idea – that happens in the proposal itself. Remember to say "thank you." (Don't be discouraged if they are rough on you. They spend most of the day on the computer and the phone and the rest of the time they're traveling and staying in government-rate hotels.) Treat the PDs as if they are intelligent people (even if you doubt it). The PD will assign the reviewers and will make the final decision. You don't have to be a sycophant, just be polite. (This advice comes from a former NSF program director.)

Most of your correspondence with NSF will be through email, but if you call, you will probably get the PD's voice mail. Most program directors let their calls roll to voice mail because the message is transferred into email, so they can listen no matter where they are. Also, if you are calling about a proposal or a grant, include the NSF proposal number so the PD has all the information at hand when returning your call. When you call,

·         clearly state who you are,

·         your institutional affiliation,

·         why you are calling,

·         give the proposal or grant number if you have it, and

·         provide several times when you will be available for a call back.

Also, oddly, the NSF phone system displays the caller ID when the call is in progress, but the number disappears after the call is over and, as far as I could tell, there is no way to get it back. So don't count on the program officer being able to see that you called. Leave a message if you want them to know that you called.

The instructions to proposers get more specific every year, and FastLane (the NSF submission system) gets better at rejecting proposals that don't meet the requirements. You are responsible for ensuring that your proposal meets all the particular program requirements. Follow the directions! (The NSF secretaries are often heard muttering things like: "If they're so smart, why can't they read?")

The number of proposals submitted to NSF has increased dramatically over the last decade. As a result, fewer proposals are funded. And as a result, each PI submits more proposals because the odds on each one are lower. DO NOT submit essentially the same proposal to several programs. The proposal will probably go to at least one duplicate reviewer, who will get angry that you are burdening the system, will recommend that both proposals be rejected, and will put a black mark next to your name. DO NOT submit a proposal that is rushed and not the best that you can do. Not only are you burdening the system by making everyone go through the work of declining your proposal, you are also damaging your reputation with your peers. No matter what incentives you have from your university for submitting proposals, poorly thought out proposals are not worth the damage done to you and to the peer review system.

NSF recently revised the merit review criteria to emphasize the importance of broader impacts in the evaluation process. The following excerpt is from the instructions to NSF reviewers:

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers should consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits would accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers are asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

·      Intellectual Merit: The intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and

·      Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

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 a 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?

As you write your proposal, you should keep the review criteria in mind. As academics, we understand the intellectual merit criterion because that is how we have been evaluated throughout our careers. However, many academics struggle with the broader impacts criterion. You need to convince the reviewers that your question is not just intellectually challenging, but also that the resulting knowledge will benefit society and that you have a feasible plan to get the knowledge out of the university and get it used in the world.

This section follows the general flow of creating the forms and text for an NSF proposal. Once you have a rough draft of your proposal, ask someone who is senior to you to read your proposal as if he or she were an NSF reviewer. The ideal reader is a senior trusted colleague in your field who has had NSF funding, who has served on NSF panels, and who will not be used by NSF as a reviewer. (See Section 2.5.e on conflicts of interest.)

The formatting requirements for proposals are given in the (GPG), which you can get from the . (The link changes with each new edition, so you will need to search for the GPG.) Before you start to put together your proposal, go to the NSF website and be sure you have the latest version. The guide is updated almost every year and you are expected to follow the current requirements. Your proposal may be returned without review if you don’t do this.

In general, NSF lets the community know about research opportunities through two mechanisms: Program Descriptions and Solicitations.

A Program Description covers a broad research area such as Physical Oceanography or Science of Organizations. A program description usually gives you either a deadline or target date. Deadlines are hard dates, and you must get your proposal in by midnight (your local time) on the given date or your proposal will not be considered in the current round of funding. Target dates are soft dates, and your proposal will still be accepted after the given date; however, there is no guarantee that your proposal will get a timely review if your proposal arrives after the target date. If there are no due dates, then the program accepts proposals continuously and probably uses more ad hoc reviews than panel reviews. (Section V explains the difference between these types of reviews.)

A Solicitation is more specific than a Program Description. Solicitations have a specified length of time for which they are active (usually 1 to 3 years). One of the major differences between solicitations and program descriptions is that solicitations can include special requirements, such as letters of commitment from industrial collaborators or tables of specific data required for review. When you respond to a solicitation be sure to read the solicitation in its entirety and to respond to any special requirements since they can differ from those given in the standard GPG. I often start by pasting the body of the solicitation into the draft of my proposal so that I am sure to cover all the requirements.

NSF also issues Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) when there is a special funding opportunity or when a policy change is made that affects the current GPG.  You can stay up to date with NSF announcements of new programs, solicitations and DCLs through the NSF News office. To receive email updates, go to and select Get News Updates by Email. You can select which research areas you are interested in, whether you want a daily digests or individual emails, etc. I get a daily digest, and I over- rather than under-select options. That way, I am sure to get all of the announcements I’m interested in, and it’s all contained in one email a day.  

The summary is a one page overview of the proposal. It is not an abstract. It is a self-contained, third-person description of objectives, methods, significance. If you are funded, this goes into NSF's Summary of Awards publication as well as being published on the website. It will be read by your colleagues, the general public, and Congress. Because PIs were not explicitly addressing Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts as instructed, NSF has changed the summary page to a form with separate sections for the overview, the statement of Intellectual Merit and the statement of Broader Impact.

Note: the Project Summary form accepts ASCII text only. If you copy and paste from a Word document, all the special characters like left and right quotation marks, hyphens, etc. will show up as question marks in the final version. Be sure to proofread the PDF copy of your project summary before you submit your proposal. Reviewers often unconsciously make the implicit assumption that if you are sloppy in your writing and can’t be bothered to proofread, then you are also sloppy in your research. There is a provision to upload a PDF if your project summary requires special formatting for equations or other technical content; however, the PDF must follow the project summary requirements with separate headings for the overview, statement of Intellectual Merit and the statement of Broader Impact.

The project description has a 15 page limit. Proposals over this limit are returned without review. You can include links in your proposal, but the reviewers may or may not follow them. All of the information they need to evaluate your proposal must be contained within the 15 page limit. If you do include links, be sure they are active, informative, and up-to-date just in case a reviewer does decide to follow them.

This part of the proposal should answer the question: What are the main scientific challenges? Emphasize what the new ideas are. Briefly describe the project's major goals and their impact on the state of the art. Give the reviewer the context for the proposal.

Clearly state the question you will address:

Surprisingly, this section can kill a proposal. You need to be able to put your work in context. Often, a proposal will appear naive because the relevant literature is not cited. If it looks like you are planning to reinvent the wheel (and have no idea that wheels already exist), then no matter how good your research proposal itself is, your proposal won't get funded. If you trash everyone else in your research field, saying their work is no good, you also will not get funded. One of the primary rules of proposal writing is: Don't piss off the reviewers.

You can build your credentials in this section by summarizing other people's work clearly and concisely and by stating how your work uses their ideas and how it differs from theirs.

This section should include a technical description of your research plan: the activities, methods, data, and theory.

This should be equivalent to a PhD thesis proposal for the big leagues. Write to convince the best person in your field that your idea deserves funding. Simultaneously, you must convince someone who is very smart but has no background in your sub-area. The goal of your proposal is to persuade the reviewers that your ideas are so important that they will take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and hand it to you.

This is the part that counts. WHAT will you do? Why is your strategy an appropriate one to pursue? What is the key idea that makes it possible for to answer this question? HOW will you achieve your goals? Concisely and coherently, this section should complete the arguments developed earlier and present your initial pass on how to solve the problems posed. Avoid repetitions and digressions.

In general, NSF is more interested in ideas than in deliverables. The question is: What will we know when you're done that we don't know now? The question is not: What will we have that we don't have now? That is, rather than saying that you will develop a system that will do X, Y and Z, instead say why it is important to be able to do X, Y and Z; why X, Y and Z can't be done now; what knowledge is needed to make X, Y, and Z possible, your plan that will make it possible to do X, Y and Z; and, by the way, you will demonstrate X, Y and Z in a system.

Right now, NSF is more open to application-oriented research. They need to show Congress that the money spent on research benefits the US economy. Some years ago, the word "applied" was a bad word at NSF. Now it's a good word. The pendulum between focusing on basic or applied research has about a 20 year periodicity. You always need to check to find out where it is at the moment. Check with the PD and knowledgeable colleagues.

In the review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts have the same weight. From the GPG (emphasis mine):

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to the achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Remember that all of the proposals going to a review panel are in the same area of research, so you need to distinguish your proposal by what YOU are going to do to help NSF get the knowledge out of the academy and into the world. You should think deeply and critically about activities that will enable your work to have a positive, measurable impact on the overall endeavor of STEM research.

Present a plan for how you will go about addressing/attacking/solving the questions you have raised. Discuss expected results and your plan for evaluating the results. How will you measure progress?

Include a discussion of milestones and expected dates of completion. (Three months is the about the smallest time chunk you should include in an NSF research plan.) You are not committed to following this plan - but you must present a FEASIBLE plan to convince the reviewers that you know how to go about getting research results.

For new PIs, this is often the hardest section to write. You don't have to write the plan that you will follow no matter what. Think of it instead as presenting a possible path from where you are now to where you want to be at the end of the research. Give as much detail as you can. (You will always have at least one reviewer who is a stickler for details.)

If any of the PIs have received NSF support in the past 5 years, you must include a summary of the results of previous work. The pages in this section count toward the total 15 pages. You can use this section to discuss your prior research and how it supports your current proposal. Note that you must report both on the results for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. One of the purposes of this section is to help the reviewers evaluate your track record, so be sure to make a strong case for your results in both categories.

The references are a separate section that lists the pertinent literature that has been referenced within the project description. Remember to proofread the reference list. Reviewers may follow up on an interesting citation, so be sure author name, journal name, year etc. are correct.

Program directors often look in the bibliography for potential reviewers, and reviewers often look in the bibliography to see if their work is cited. If your bibliography has a lot of peripheral references, your proposal may be sent to reviewers whose work is not directly related to yours and who may not understand your proposal. On the other hand, if you do not cite the relevant literature, your proposal may be sent to reviewers who are not cited and who will criticize you for not knowing the literature. The references do not count in the 15 page proposal limit.

Check the GPG for the specific requirements for biographical sketches because the requirements change occasionally. The goal of the biosketch is to provide reviewers with your credentials that will help them evaluate whether you have the background, knowledge and skills to perform the proposed research. The biosketch also helps identify your conflicts of interest.

Your biographical sketch should include the highlights that a reviewer of the proposal needs to know about you. Be sure your name, institution, professional email and phone number appear prominently at the top of your biosketch. Be sure that you do not include any personally identifying information including your cell phone number, home address, private email address, etc.

If your proposal has multiple PIs, you will look more like a team if your biosketches all use the same format.

The current requirements are:

a) Your professional preparation: undergraduate, graduate nd postdoctoral. Include the institution, major, degree and year.

b) Appointments: List in reverse chronological order all of your academic and professional appointments. Include your current appointment

c) Publications: List up to five publications, patents, copyrights, or software systems , plus up to five other significant publications. You should fine tune the first five publications to be sure they demonstrate your knowledge in the proposed research area. Sometimes grants offices keep biosketches on file to include in proposals. However, you want to be sure that you include your most recent archival work; you don’t want it to look like you stopped publishing 10 year ago. Also, if you work in several areas or want to highlight a particular area of expertise, be sure to select your five works most relevant to the current proposal.

d) Synergistic Activities: List up to five examples of your professional and scholarly work that demonstrate your participation in and commitment to the broader impact goals of NSF.

e) Collaborators and other affiliations; Conflicts of Interest (COI): This section has three parts: a) collaborators and co-editors; b) your graduate and post graduate advisors and c) the current and former students who you advised as graduate or post graduate students. (See the GPG for the exact requirements.)

The information in this section serves many purposes. A reviewer may be interested in the number of PhD students you have advised and what kinds of careers they have gone on to; they may look at your collaborators to see whether you work with industry, with people from other fields, or with people at other universities.

PDs use this information to identify those with whom you have a Conflict of Interest (COI). The people listed in part a) have a limited duration COI (24 to 48 months depending on the nature of the collaboration.) The people listed in b) and c) have a life-time COI. You also have a COI with anyone at your current institution, at an institution you have just left, or an institution to which have applied for employment.

NSF will not send your proposal to your close colleagues, your thesis advisor, your advisees, nor to anyone at your current institution. You may list such people explicitly, if you wish.

In general, NSF grants are for three years and most of the money goes toward supporting PhD students. A typical budget for a single PI grant is about $100K/year, which will pay for a graduate student (tuition and stipend), about 10% of the professor's time to supervise the student, a little bit of travel, copying, and overhead. However, the grant size varies from division to division. Ask someone in your area what is typical.

Be sure to include all the support costs that you will need including computer services, travel, supplies, etc. NSF may cut your budget, but they'll never give you more than you ask for, so be sure to ask for everything you need.

Describe, justify, and estimate cost of equipment items $5000 or more. (Double check the GPG for the current dollar limit.) If your equipment needs change between the time you submit the proposal and the time it is granted, you can still buy what you need -- But be sure to talk to the university grants office BEFORE you buy the new equipment. There are special rules about equipment money because it is usually exempt from overhead charges. Also, NSF will only provide equipment money for research computers. Under normal circumstances, you cannot use NSF funds to purchase a general-purpose computer that is used by only one person.

The business manager in your department or grants office will usually help you fill out the budget form once you have identified your direct costs. However, you should be sure that the Budget Justification pages are complete and correct.  Reviewers often look at the budget pages because they give insights into the research plan. Who is being paid to do the work? What priorities are reflected in the budget? Are the resources requested sufficient to carry out the plan? Does the budget look padded or lean? For example, if you ask for thousands of dollars in international travel which isn’t justified within your proposal, this will raise red flags with the reviewers.

Note that NSF does not allow voluntary cost sharing. Unless a solicitation gives special instructions for overhead rates, you must use the overhead rate negotiated by your university; you cannot reduce the bottom line on your budget by changing the overhead rate.

List all current and pending support on the given forms. Your institution’s grants office can probably help with these.

If you have submitted the same proposal to more than one agency, be sure that you declare it on the cover page and in the current and pending support section. If you don't and the same reviewer is picked by both agencies, you won't get funded and your reputation will be damaged. Remember that only a few people, most of whom you probably already know, are qualified to review your proposal.

This section should focus on the facilities available to you that you need to do your research. If you will rely on any specialized equipment, describe it. The question in the reviewer's mind is: Do you have the necessary resources to carry out the research? In addition, if you are asking for equipment in your proposal, you will want to make clear what equipment you don't have. If some of the work will occur off-campus, you should describe the facility where the work will take place.

If your proposal includes funding for postdoctoral researchers, you must include a one-page supplementary document that describes the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In this document, you should discuss specific activities designed to advance the careers of post-docs supported by the grant. Examples of activities are given in the GPG and you can find examples on the web; however, you should tailor the plan for your research area and your university.

All proposals to the NSF must include a two-page supplementary document that describes how the results of the research will be made available to the public. The plan should cover:

Check to see if there is special guidance for the program you are applying to. Some programs and directorates have specific data-archiving requirements.

Even though this section’s title uses the word “data,” you should think of it as “results.” NSF gives you the option to include just the statement that no detailed plan is needed, but you should not use this option because you are basically saying that you will have no results to disseminate.

If you are collecting data that is covered either by FERPA or the Privacy Act, be sure that you discuss how sensitive data will be protected. Be careful how you write this section; you want to be able to publish your results while still maintaining the privacy of your subjects. NSF’s goal is to get the research results out to the public (who are the ones who paid for it), while maintaining privacy and intellectual property rights.

Again, you can find many sample data management plans on the web. Be sure that your plan is relevant to your research and your university.

All proposals arrive at NSF electronically - mostly through www.fastlane.nsf.gov and occasionally through www.grants.gov. The proposals are routed based on the program announcement number or the NSF division given by the PI. (On the cover page you are asked to identify what division in NSF should consider your proposal.) Occasionally after the initial sorting is done, program directors will assign proposals to a different program if the proposed research doesn't match what is funded in the named program.

Once the proposal has been assigned to a program director, it is ready for review. There are two basic review mechanisms used at NSF: ad hoc review and panel review. Both are single blind peer review mechanisms: that is, the reviewers (who are the PI's peers) know who the PI is, but the PI does not know who the reviewers are.

Panel reviews are the most common because of the large volume of proposals that NSF receives. Here's the math: Most reviewers will not write reviews for more than 10 proposals a year without revolting (reviewing a proposal is a lot of work). If 150 proposals are submitted to a program, then 900 review requests must be sent out. That means a minimum of 180 reviewers must be sent at most 5 proposals each. Three reviews per person per year is more realistic - so that means the program director must have access to 300 of the proposal writers' peers in order to get the peer review system to work. And that's just for one program. All the other program directors are working with the same numbers -- and the expertise of many reviewers overlaps several programs.

For a panel review, the program director selects 10 to 15 experts in a field and asks them review a set of related proposals. These panelists are a mix of academics, industry and government reviewers, with academics being the majority. Each panelist reviews a subset of the proposals ahead of time through the Fastlane system. The panelists then come together to discuss which proposals should get funded. Most reviewers find it easier to rank a set of proposals than to write a detailed review of each proposal. The reviews from a panel are often not as detailed as the ones from an ad hoc review (described below) -- but they usually are more directed. If one reviewer completely misses the point of a proposal (which they sometimes do), this will come out during the panel discussion so you get fewer out-in-left-field reviews from panels than from ad hoc review. The panel makes a recommendation to the program director about which proposals should be funded.

The program director can assign an individual to review a proposal outside the panel system. Ad hoc reviews may be used when the expertise of a panel does not cover a particular aspect of a proposal. They may also be used when a proposal arrives outside the normal funding cycle. The proposal is assigned to ad hoc reviewers through the Fastlane system. The reviewer is given about two weeks to a month to review the proposal. Again, the review happens within the Fastlane system.

Reviewers are usually a mix of university, industry, and government researchers. Almost always, the majority are academics.

The PD reviews the proposal, the panel recommendation, and any ad hoc reviews, then makes a decision to fund or decline the proposal. The PDs must exercise judgment. For example, a reviewer might appear to be a perfect match for a proposal -- but when the review comes in, it may be obvious that the PI's work conflicts with the reviewers work, and the reviewer is biased.

Often the decision to fund involves deciding whether to fund the proposal at the full or reduced amount. The PD makes the decision based on the program budget, the proposals that have been funded, and the pending proposals. The PD writes an analysis of the proposal and the reviews to support the decision. The proposal goes to the division director who must concur with the decision for it to be official. You are notified by email once the decision is final. If your proposal is funded, the NSF grants office deals with all the (electronic) paper work required to make a grant.

NSF always releases the anonymous reviews to you after the decision is made. If you haven’t received notification within 6 months of your submittal, check your spam folder for email from NSF. (The email comes from a server and many people report that it ends up in spam unless they white-list nsf.gov.) You can also login to Fastlane to check the status. Only call the PD as a last resort.

Note: A grant from NSF goes to the institution, not to the PI. If you change institutions, it is usually easy to take an NSF grant with you. However, you must negotiate with your current and future institution. NSF will not intervene in these negotiations.

Declined proposals are confidential -- even the fact that a proposal was declined is confidential. For grants, the titles, abstracts, PIs, funding amounts, .. are public information, but the proposal itself is confidential.

Almost all NSF information is available over the web. The main NSF web page gives you access to all NSF program descriptions, publications (including the NSF Grant Proposal Guide), program descriptions and current deadlines, the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of project directors, etc.

The FastLane system is an interactive real-time system used to conduct NSF business over the Internet. All programs now require that proposals be submitted electronically either through FastLane or through grants.gov. The grants office at your institution can set up an account for you so that you can submit proposals and check their status through FastLane. If you are asked to write a review or be on a panel, the program officer will give you an id and password to give you access to the proposals.

Aside on Fastlane: The first time I was a PD at NSF in the mid 1980s, Fastlane was just coming into existence through the efforts of Erich Bloch, then the Director of NSF and a former IBM researcher and executive. I returned to NSF as a PD in 2010 and that was the year that all proposal processing was done completely electronically. In order to update the software methods and make NSF funding more transparent to the public, the current plan is to migrate the functions of Fastlane to research.gov and to grants.gov. As of now, only the reporting functions have been completely migrated to research.gov.

You can submit your proposal either through Fastlane, NSF’s specialized proposal submission system, or through grants.gov, the submission system for all proposals to the US government. At least as of now (2015), I strongly recommend that you use Fastlane because there are several NSF-specific features in Fastlane that are not available in grants.gov. Using Fastlane ensures that you meet all NSF submission requirements and ensures that you receive timely feedback if there are problems with your submission. In the long run, Fastlane will almost certainly be subsumed by grants.gov, but the research community will receive many warnings and updates before this occurs. If your institution’s grants office requires you to use grants.gov, don’t worry that your proposal will be penalized. It just requires more work on the part of the NSF support staff both to get the proposal from grants.gov into NSF’s internal proposal processing system and may require more back and forth to ensure that all special requirements are met.

Start early if you haven’t used Fastlane before. There are many sections and forms to fill out. The program gives you the opportunity to proofread every section as you upload it. Always click "Proofread PDF" button. READ the pdf and be sure it is OK before you hit the "Accept" button. Do not treat the "Accept" button like a "Yeah, Sure, Whatever" button. Don’t call the PD and ask to replace a corrupt file with the correct one. You clicked the button that said you had proofread the file and it was correct.

Remember that for every proposal you submit to NSF, at least five or six of your peers take the time to read it, write a review, and travel to DC to discuss it. Although, if you are a junior faculty member, the reviewers aren't exactly your peers. Panels tend to be weighted toward more senior members of the community, and these are the people who will be asked to write letters for your promotion and tenure case and they are also are the people who are on program committees and editorial boards. Only submit your best work!

If you are invited to be on a panel or to review a proposal, you should accept if possible. Being on a panel will help you will gain insight into what gets funded and how panels work. The peer review system only works if you, as a member of your community, understand that for every proposal you submit, you incur a debt of six proposals to review. Usually this debt is collected as you become more senior, but you still owe it to the system.

NSF Fellowship

The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship ( NSF GRFP ) is a great way to start a research career. I was a successful applicant in 2010. Below are some details about the program and some tips for applying. You will also find many examples of successful essays and you can even submit your own essays if you are willing to serve as inspiration for the next round of applicants.

Note, this advice was last updated in Sept 2021.

What is it?

The NSF GRFP provides $34,000 to the student and some money to your department for three years. You have the flexibility to defer for up to two years in case you have another source of funding (but you cannot defer to take a year off).

The basic requirements are:

1. US Citizen, US National, or permanent resident

2. Currently a graduating Senior or First/Second year graduate student

3. Graduate students may only apply in their first OR second year (NOT both) . I have some thoughts on which year to apply .

4. Going into science research (does not apply to medical school)

Check out the official requirements at the NSF GRFP website . Here is the more detailed NSF presentation on the requirements. The deadlines are usually the last week of October , but it is never too early to start.

Basic Outline of Application Process

You will need to write two essays:

Personal Statement, Relevant Background, and Future Goals (3 pages)

Graduate Research Statement (2 pages)

You will need to get at least three letters of reference

These essays will be reviewed on the criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

And that's really it. The challenge is to sell yourself in 5 pages and to successful address the two criteria.

Tips for Getting Started

Read over the official NSF GRFP website , especially their tips .

Look through the NSF GRFP FAQ , with detailed answers here.

Here is a detailed website from Robin Walker . She has a very very thorough guide to the application .

Look at advice from past winners. There are lots of great advice out there, but in an interest to not overload you, here are my personal top choices. You can find more in my examples table at the bottom of the page.

Mallory Ladd - If you can follow her schedule, you should be more than prepared

Claire Bowen - Lots of advice interleaved with excerpts from successful essays

DJ Strouse - Applied under old system, but still great advice.

Blengineers - Fun video series of application tips

Read an example essay. I have posted all of my essays (and others) as well as my ratings sheets at the bottom of this page and organized into them into a table . Personally, I found this extremely useful and I have to give credit to two University of Wisconsin NSF GRFP winners who shared their essays with me, without which I was struggling on how to start the application.

Check out an old guide for reviewers .

For current discussions on the application process, check out this years NSF GRFP discussion at The GradCafe Forums . Some past years discussions include: 2020-2021 , 2019-2020 , 2018-2019 , 2017-2018 , 2016-2017 , 2015-2016 , 2014-2015 , 2013-2014 , 2012-2013 , 2011-2012 , and 2010-2011 .

General Advice

Every essay should address both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

Each essay needs explicit headers of Intellectual Merit / Broader Impacts .

NSF GRFP funds the person, not the project. The most important choice you make is designating the primary field (Chemistry vs Physics & Astronomy, etc). The subfield is less important. If you are an undergrad doing research, I would strongly suggest to make your research proposal related to what you are currently researching as long as: 1. you are going to apply to programs in the same primary field and 2. there is at least a small chance (even if only a few percent) that you could do something related to your proposal in graduate school. NSF will not force you to follow through with the research; instead they just want to see that you can actually write a proposal. I personally wrote about my undergraduate research. It was in physics and I only applied to physics graduate schools (so same primary field), but I was not sure I wanted to continue with it in graduate school, and in fact it ended up being impossible since I did not get into any graduate schools with anyone doing research in my proposed subfield.

Write for a general science audience and assume the reviewer is in your primary field, but not your subfield. This is NSF's tentative review panels , you can see that the only guarantee is that the reviewer is in your primary field.

Ask for letters of reference early and gently remind your writers of the deadline. Get a diverse set of letter writers. I had my current adviser (who was doing research similar to what I proposed), a past research adviser, and my boss at a tutoring center. Therefore, I had two letters addressing my intellectual merit, while one letter addressed broader impacts.

Ask for help. Your current university probably has a writing center . Don't be shy, they will love to help you. Also try asking around your department to find students who have applied previously.

Review Criteria Details

(Below is direct text from NSF but with sentences cut and added highlights)

General Review Criteria

In considering applications, reviewers are instructed to address the two Merit Review Criteria as approved by the National Science Board - Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Therefore, applicants must include separate statements on Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in their written statements in order to provide reviewers with the information necessary to evaluate the application with respect to both Criteria as detailed below.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

Intellectual Merit: the potential to advance knowledge

Broader Impacts: the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

What is the potential for the proposed activity to

Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and

Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale ? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success ?

How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?

Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Extra details on Broader Impacts: (additional tips from NSF here )

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself , through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects , or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project . NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the US; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Merit Review Criteria specific to the GRFP

Intellectual Merit Criterion : the potential of the applicant to advance knowledge based on a holistic analysis of the complete application, including the Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Statement, Graduate Research Plan Statement, strength of the academic record, description of previous research experience or publication/presentations, and references.

Broader Impacts Criterion : the potential of the applicant for future broader impacts as indicated by personal experiences, professional experiences, educational experiences and future plans.

Review Criteria: My Two Cents

Here is how I like to think of the review criteria, point by point.

How would answering this research question change science (Intellectual Merit) or society (Broader Impacts)?

Why should I fund you specifically, and not just this research question? What innovation do you specifically bring to the table?

Is there a detailed plan? With built in measures of success?

What are your qualifications?

Can you actual carry out the needed research?

At the end of each essay, you should be able to check off how you answered each point above for BOTH Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

Personal Statement, Relevant Background, and Future Goals: Essay Prompt from NSF

Prompt in 2021:

Please outline your educational and professional development plans and career goals. How do you envision graduate school preparing your for a career that allows you to contribute to expanding scientific understanding as well as broadly benefit society?

Additional prompt previously provided by NSF:

Describe your personal, educational, and/or professional experiences that motivate your decision to pursue advanced study in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM). Include specific examples of any research and/or professional activities in which you have participated. Present a concise description of the activities, highlight the results and discuss how these activities have prepared you to seek a graduate degree. Specify your role in the activity including the extent to which you worked independently and/or as part of a team. Describe the contributions of your activity to advancing knowledge in STEM fields as well as the potential for broader impacts (See Solicitation, Section VI, for more information about Broader Impacts).

NSF Fellows are expected to become globally engaged knowledge experts and leaders who can contribute significantly to research, education, and innovations in science and engineering. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate your potential to satisfy this requirement. Your ideas and examples do not have to be confined necessarily to the discipline that you have chosen to pursue.

Personal Statement, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Essay: My Two Cents

Based on the new emphasis NSF GRFP general requirements, I would write the essay in three main sections with two subsections for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

Personal Statement (~1 page). This is where you tell your unique story of either how you became interested in science, what makes you special, and/or any unique perspective you bring to science. Great place to mention if you had to overcome any hardships or would be adding to the diversity of the STEM field. Definitely use this section to highlight Broader Impacts.

Relevant Background (~1 page). Hopefully you already have research experience, so explain how that has prepared you for success in graduate school and beyond. Mainly use this section for Intellectual Merit, but also highly the Broader Impacts of your research experience.

Future Goals (~ 1/2 page). This is where you tie your personal background and scientific background into one cohesive vision for the future.

Intellectual Merit (~1/4 page). Conclude the essay by summarizing all of your contributions to Intellectual Merit. Make sure this is an explicit header.

Broader Impact (~1/4 page). Conclude the essay by summarizing all of your contributions to Broader Impact. Make sure this is an explicit header.

Graduate Research Statement: Essay Prompt from NSF

Present an original research topic that you would like to pursue in graduate school. Describe the research idea, your general approach, as well as any unique resources that may be needed for accomplishing the research goal (i.e. access to national facilities or collections, collaborations, overseas work, etc). You may choose to include important literature citations. Address the potential of the research to advance knowledge and understanding within science as well as the potential for broader impacts on society. The research discussed must be in a field listed in the Solicitation (Section X, Fields of Study).

Graduate Research Statement: My Two Cents

I would recommend structuring the essay as follows:

Introduction

Introduce the scientific problem and its impact on science and society (emphasis on Review Criteria 1)

Research Plan

Show the major steps that need to be accomplished

What is the creative part of your approach?

Have you thought of alternatives for hard or crucial steps?

What skills do you have to make this plan successful?

Intellectual Merit

Have a clear header for this section

Clearly demonstrate that tackling this problem will make an impact and advance science

Try to summarize how you hit all five Review Criteria

Broader Impacts

Paragraphs to address how this research impacts all five Review Criteria.

(Optional). Could use the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts sections as conclusion. If not, e nd with several sentences summarizing your project .

This essay will be Intellectual Merit heavy, but still needs to address Broader Impacts. Show why the broader scientific community / society should care about your research!

Examples of Successful Essays

These are all the essays of recent winners that I could find online. If you want me to link to an example on your website, or if you are willing to share your essays but don't have a site, I can add it to the table if you fill out the contact form below .

Some notes:

Click here to apply your own sort / filters to the table .

Remember the format changed starting in 2014!

If I couldn't figure out the year, I filled in 2013 for old format and 2014 for new formats.

Proposal Column --- Graduate Research Plan ( >= 2014) or Proposed Research ( <= 2013)

Personal Column --- Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals ( >= 2014) or Personal ( <= 2013)

Previous Column --- Previous Research Statement ( <= 2013 only)

HM = Honorable Mention

Can't find an example in your area? Tip from GradCafe Forum : politely email past winners !

I've linked to a lot of sites, let me know if any links break! A suggested fix is even better :)

Example essays below, or open in Google Drive

Submit Example Here

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• About the Collections
• Find Books, Articles & More
• Special Collections & Archives
• Scholarly Communication
• Research Data
• Digital Collections
• Help Build Our Collections
• Library Cards & Checkout Periods
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan
• My Library Account
• Fines & Fees
• Billing Appeal Form
• Data & GIS Lab
• Digital Media Lab
• Computers & Laptops
• Print & Scan
• Tech Lending
• Connect from Off-Campus
• Study Spaces
• Reserve a Space
• Library Workshops
• Library Maps
• Library Tours
• Library De-Stress Activities
• News & Events
• Geisel Library & Sally T. WongAvery Library
• Strategy & Partnerships
• Library Jobs
• Library Policies
• Support the Library
• Service Desk Hours
• Research & Collections

Plan & Manage

• UC San Diego Sample NSF Data Management Plans

Sample NSF Data Management Plans

These examples from UC San Diego proposals are intended to provide a starting point for the development of other proposal-specific Data Management Plans.

We thank the UC San Diego investigators who gave permission to include their DMPs in this collection. If you have a DMP you'd be willing to have included here, please contact the library Research Data Curation Program .

Please keep in mind that these examples are project-specific. PIs are encouraged to submit draft DMPs well in advance of the proposal deadline to OCGA to ensure compliance with University policy.

Office of the Director (OD)

Office of cyberinfrastructure (od/oci).

• DMP Example Allan Snavely From Allan Snavely's proposal to the Strategic Technologies for Cyberinfrastructure (STCI) program.

Office of Integrative Activities (OD/OIA)

• DMP Example Todd Martz SIO.pdf From Professor Todd Martz's proposal entitled “MRI: Development of an instrument for testing and calibration of autonomous sensors for the marine CO2 system” to the Major Research Instrumentation Program for consideration by the Division of Ocean Sciences.
• DMP Example Chaitan Baru SDSC.pdf From Dr. Chaitan Baru's Type II proposal to the NSF-wide Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) program.

Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)

Division of environmental biology (bio/deb).

• DMP Example Cleland.pdf From Elsa Cleland's successful proposal The influence of plant functional types on ecosystem responses to altered rainfall , to the Ecosystem Studies Program.

Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (BIO/IOS)

• DMP Example Nitz.pdf From Douglas Nitz's successful proposal, CAREER: Parietal Cortex and the Transformation of Spatial Cognition into Action, to the Activation Program in the Neural Systems Cluster.
• DMP Example Laurie Smith.pdf From Laurie Smith's successful proposal, Polarization of Plant Cell Division by Receptor-Like Proteins, to the Plant Genome Research Program.

Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE)

Division of computing and communication foundations (cise/ccf).

• DMP Example Cosman.pdf From Pamela Cosman's successful proposal, CIF: Medium: Mobile multiview video: compression, rendering, and transmission , to the Communications and Information Foundations Program.

Directorate for Education & Human Resources (EHR)

Division of graduate education (ehr/dge).

• DMP Example Michael Kalichman.doc From Michael Kalichman's successful proposal, Integrating Ethics Education: Capacity-Building Workshops for Science and Engineering Faculty , to the Ethics Education in Science and Engineering Program.

Directorate for Engineering (ENG)

Division of chemical, bioengineering, environmental, and transport systems (eng/cbet).

• DMP Example Shah.pdf From Sameer Shah's successful proposal, Supply and Demand of Proteins During Neuronal Growth and Extension , to the Biomedical Engineering Program.

Division of Civil Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (ENG/CMMI)

• DMP Example John Fontanesi SOM.doc From Professor John Fontanesi's proposal to the Service Enterprise Systems (SES) program in the Systems Engineering and Design (SED) Cluster in the Civil Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) Division. The proposed research is to determine the utility of a hybrid agent-based, discrete event simulation and analysis, to understand and improve hospital functions.

Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ENG/ECCS)

• DMP Example ECE.pdf From a proposal to conduct research on signal processing techniques for photonic systems.
• DMP Example Xiang,J.doc From Professor Jie Xiang's proposal to conduct research on nanoelectronics.

Directorate for Geosciences (GEO)

Division of ocean sciences (geo/oce) physical oceanography (geo/po).

• DMP Example Pinkel.pdf From Rob Pinkel's successful proposal, Collaborative Research: Tasmanian Tidal Dissipation Experiment (T-TIDE) , to the Physical Oceanography Program.
• DMP Example SIO-BO.doc From a proposal to the Biological Oceanography program in the Division of Ocean Sciences.
• DMP Example SIO-PO.doc From a proposal to the Physical Oceanography Program in the Division of Ocean Sciences to conduct research on the flux of carbon dioxide generated by breaking waves across the ocean/atmosphere boundary layer.
• DMP Example SIO OCE.pdf From a proposal to NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences for research on marine aerosol particle chemistry.
• DMP Example Jennifer MacKinnon.pdf From Professor Jennifer MacKinnon's proposal to the NSF OCE program in physical oceanography. The proposed work involves studying currents and turbulent mixing in the deep ocean using a variety of specialized oceanographic instruments and involving co-PIs from six different institutions.

Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS)

Division of mathematical sciences (mps/dms).

• DMP Example Rogalski.pdf From Daniel Rogalski's successful proposal, Noncommutative surfaces and Calabi-Yau algebras , to the Algebra and Number Theory Program.

Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE)

Division of social and economic sciences (sbe/ses).

• DMP Example Ayelet Gneezy.pdf From Ayelet Gneezy's successful proposal Social Pricing - Image Management, Social Preferences and Pay-What-You-Want, to the Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program.
• DMP Example Wixted.pdf From John Wixted's successful proposal, Signal Detection Theory and Eyewitness Memory , to the Law and Social Sciences Program.

Crosscutting – Multiple Directorates and Offices

• DMP Example Psych.doc From a proposal to the crosscutting NSF/NIH program, Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience (CRCNS): Innovative Approaches to Science and Engineering Research on Brain Function , for experimental psychology research.
• DMP Example anon.doc From a proposal to the crosscutting NSF/NIH program, Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience (CRCNS): Innovative Approaches to Science and Engineering Research on Brain Function.
• Data Management Best Practices
• Create a Data Management Plan
• DMPTool Tutorial
• Sample Data Management Plans
• NIH Policy on Rigor and Reproducibility
• NIH Data Sharing Policy Update

Submit a consultation request or email us at [email protected] .

Search form

• Graduate Students
• Grants to Promote Diversity

NSF GRFP Proposal Library

Filter by....

• Research Plans
• Personal Statements
• Reviewers' Comments

Award Status

• Honorable Mentions
• 1st Year Grad Student
• 2nd Year Grad Student
• Before Grad Training

Translational Interests

• Translational Research Interest

Home Program

Biochemistry

Bioengineering

Biomedical Informatics

Cancer Biology

Chemical and Systems Biology

Developmental Biology

Microbiology and Immunology

Molecular and Cellular Physiology

Neurosciences

Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine

Structural Biology

• Reset filters

This Proposal Library was created in collaboration with the Stanford Biosciences Student Association .

The proposal materials are only available to Stanford affiliates. Please use your Stanford email to sign into google drive for access.

Diego Almanza

Gabriel Amador

“Think big and keep the logic simple and clear! Your reviewers will likely not be in your exact subfield.”

Bella Archibald

Yohan Auguste

Benjamin N Bell

“Look at successful applications!! I got ideas for highlighting things I wanted to emphasize by looking at other applications.”

Alyssa Benjamin

“Don’t be shy about sending your proposal to others for feedback and don’t worry about making it perfect before you show it to someone! Getting feedback is a great way to help you focus on your best ideas and get inspiration for improvements.”

Jeremy Bjelajac

“Personal statement should tell a coherent story while highlighting your achievements, it may sound like you’re gloating but thats okay. The research statement needs to follow a logical progression, and neither of your aims should be able to “fail”, make it so that any result is useful knowledge.”

Rachel Brown

“I made my personal statement read more like a story than a series of statements. I lead them through my life and aspirations with imagery and something of a narrative thread.”

Kristy Carpenter

“The SBSA peer mentorship program was super valuable! It kept me accountable and gave me internal deadlines to make sure I finished all parts of the application on time. My peer mentor was really helpful and instrumental in me submitting a strong application!”

Joleen Cheah

“My professors’ input on my application was extremely useful.”

“I was so nervous to even start the proposal because I felt like I just got to grad school and had no idea what I was doing. The thing is that no first year grad students know what they’re doing! And that’s fine. My rotation mentor was a huge huge help with the research proposal and I wish I had started talking with her earlier rather than stressing by myself. Also, you can reuse lots of your grad school application materials for the personal statement.”

Isabel O Delwel

Tristram Dodge

“Feedback from my PI was important to make sure the science was right, and feedback from other professors who weren’t familiar with the system was helpful to make sure I was communicating clearly and including the necessary details.”

Honorable Mention

“It’s alright to go through multiple iterations of your proposal, even if it changes the direction drastically. Try to make sure there is some synergy between your personal statement and research proposal.”

Gina El Nesr

“Be creative! The best advice I got was to write a proposal for a project I would love to do, inspired by the research I’ve done and classes I’ve taken. With background in the material that would be involved to tackle the research, all that’s left was to dream big and have fun with the proposal.”

Lucas Encarnacion-Rivera

“Maximize your chances at getting it by thinking like a reviewer. “

Emma Esterman

“Write to the rubric — read what is being evaluated in terms of intellectual merit and broader impacts, and explicitly tie your experiences to those metrics. The biggest difference in my first and second application was framing my research plan to address a basic science question and thinking about the broader impacts of the research in terms of the scientific community instead of its translational applications.”

Scott Fleming

“Focus on your own personal experiences and commitments when thinking about the “Broader Impacts” criterion. Also be sure to get feedback from current students, especially those who may have already received the NSF GRFP.”

Andrea Sofia Flores Perez

“I would advise thinking about a scientific problem that you are passionate about, but also have some experience in. You will commit many many hours to writing an NSF proposal and if you’re not passionate about what you’re writing about, it will be a very daunting experience. That being said, don’t choose a topic you have no previous experience or knowledge in – the reviewers will think you are not fit to conduct that research. So choose carefully!”

Alyssa Lyn Fortier

“I would have to do. The NSF GRFP application needs to capture your story, so you really have to craft a narrative that explains your journey to grad school. I wasn’t really sure what my journey was, so I had to think long and hard about the actions and thought processes that led me here.”

Matthew Gill

“My advice to new grad students: 1. Avoid stressing about it! The GRFP won’t make or break your career. Don’t let it get in the way of enjoying your rotation(s). 2. Ask for help! Pick other folks’ brains about both research topics/questions if you’re unsure about them. Folks love to give helpful feedback around here.”

Emily Greenwald

“Outreach and a diversity of prior experience is a big plus. They care most about intellectual merit and broader impacts, so use those words a LOT. Make a broader impacts plan for your time at grad school and state it.”

Meagan Hamblin

“Halfway through writing my research proposal I completely changed the aims I was proposing. After getting feedback I realized my proposal would be stronger with the different experiments. Don’t be afraid to seek out feedback and be open to brainstorming lots of different project ideas and experiments in the beginning stages.”

“Start early and solicit feedback often! The back and forth of ideas with peers and mentors is what produces the best writing!”

Ariel Hannum

“Definitely start early and talk to people about your proposal and personal statement. Whether it is fellow grad students, mentors, or friends that are not in your field, they can be a resource to bounce ideas off of. Having a friend take a fresh look before you submit your application is extremely helpful, as they can pick up on grammatical errors you may have missed after looking at your document over several months. “

Angela Hickey

“It helps to write something you know and have previous experience with since the reviewers are looking at your capability as a scientist. Also remember that most reviewers are reading hundreds of applications so highlight important information in the first or last sentence of a paragraph.”

Jolie Huang

“My SBSA mentor helped a lot in revising my personal statement! It helped that he didn’t have expertise in my research areas so he could point out the areas where I was less clear.”

Lynnette Jackson

“The best advice I received is that the GRFP funds individuals rather than just their research proposals. Make sure that each aspect of your application is telling the reviewers who you are as a scientist and a person. Also the broader impacts and intellectual merit are often overlooked but they are critical for getting funded!”

Christina Jensen

“The personal statement and broader impacts deserve just as much, if not more attention than the research statement. The NSF is funding the researcher, not the research.”

“A good approach to the application is to get started early, or at least to start thinking about what to write for the Research Plan and Personal Statement as soon as possible, so ideas have time to get fleshed out and go through multiple revisions. For me, getting useful feedback from several different sources was probably the most important factor in strengthening my proposal.”

“Read lots of examples and be sure to show your research proposal to faculty in advance!”

“Writing a proposal for the NSF taught me how to identify novel research areas and outline an experimental plan for filling a gap in knowledge.”

Yannick Clency Lee-yow

“Don’t stress about NSF GRFP too much. It doesn’t really change your graduate school experience in the slightest.”

“Your draft will go through many iterations – this is totally ok, and asking for opinions is helpful! However, there will come a time when sometimes different opinions will contradict one another, which can be overwhelming – at that point, have confidence in yourself and know that it’s your decision in the end what to include. “

Steven Massa

Samson Mataraso

“My advice for writing the NSF GRFP is to make sure that you are very clear about how your work will contribute to the advancement of science.”

Alma G. Mendoza

“Make sure that your personal statement gives the reviewers insight into who you are and what drives you. This is your only chance to let them get to know why they should invest in your future.”

Elisabeth Meyer

“Start with topics you can get help on (e.g. from your current rotation lab) and from there, pick something you find interesting. For the personal statement, it can feel embarrassing but have as many people read over it as possible.”

Katherine Miller

“Start early, ensure you get as many eyes on your writing as possible before submission. NSF is not the NIH and wants you to remember that. I did not include any clinical interest or health applications of my research in my proposal.

Formatting matters. Clearly define each section of your writing. It’s especially important to define “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impact” sections separately. The more explicit roadmapping you do, the better.”

Michael Montgomery

“Identify a broad scientific question and think about how this question is related to the work you have already done and your goals for graduate school. This will save you a lot of time in creating a proposal that has well connected aims and makes sense within the context of your current scientific training and career trajectory.”

“The biggest change I made to improve the quality of my statements was revising key sentences to make sure that they very, very clearly conveyed the intellectual merit and broader impact of my proposal as a whole. I focused on making sure that someone who read only these bolded/italicized sentences would still be able to understand what I was proposing and how it fulfilled the funding criteria.”

“You almost certainly won’t end up doing exactly what you say in your Research Plan statement, but it’s still a valuable experience to write. The process makes you think hard about what you want to get out of your PhD, and is hopefully an opportunity for you to co-produce an exciting idea with your research mentors.”

Maike Morrison

“Talk to your PI about your application materials and ask for advice, especially when developing your research proposal. You don’t have to come up with the ideas behind your materials alone.”

Rahul Nagvekar

“Having an application that is both clearly basic-science focused and has clear broader impacts can be difficult! It is also subjective, so make sure to have multiple people read drafts of your application and ask for their feedback as to whether both of these aspects are apparent.”

Abena Peasah

“It’s a really good idea to start early.”

Rachel Porter

“Reviewers need to see that you are a qualified candidate and can propose an original project idea, but they also want to get a sense of who you are as a person, and how that has influenced your work. Including personal details or experiences can really strengthen your application, and the lack of can count against you.”

“Start early and it’s ok to switch ideas and make multiple drafts. You can end up combining ideas or getting a better understanding of what sort of projects you want to pursue.”

Ramya Rangan

“I wish I had shown more people my application materials! I only showed my research advisor at the time. It would have given me a sense for whether I was on the right track.”

“For the personal statement, the biggest positive change I made between the first and second submission was explicitly splitting my essay into an “Intellectual Merits” section and a “Broader Impacts” section.”

Rebecca Rodell

“Start planning months in advance and go through many rounds of feedback! People are generally happy to read over a draft, so ask them to and give them a reasonable amount of time (about 1 week) to do so.”

Adonis Alexandre Rubio

Erin Sanders

“My PI helped me really hone a “theme” for my personal statement, a unifying idea that you can come back to repetitively. My theme was “fearless”. The key is to tell a story about yourself that the reviewers actually want to read, that is not just a laundry list of your accomplishments. Tell them what you did, why it was interesting and how it shaped you. You can even try to tie in the theme to your proposal. This strategy sets your essay apart from all the others that start “when i was a kid….”. Not that this can’t be an effective strategy, but a LOT of people use it. Think about what makes you and your story special.”

Venkat Sankar

“When the NSF says they want basic science, they mean it – try to not even mention disease or human health impacts in your proposal, and focus applications on the advancement of basic biology.”

Lucas Sant’Anna

“Get as many opinions as possible. You work very hard on it and sometimes become completely blind to how other people will react when reading it for the first time.”

Danica Schmidtke

“Getting feedback from lots of people is good, but remember that you do NOT have to use every suggestion you get. Make sure you don’t lose your voice!”

Daniel A Shaykevich

“The GRFP is mostly about you and your potential as a scientist, not the project you are proposing! It’s important to think about why you do science and what you want to accomplish, in addition to the mechanics of your project. “

Nicole Tanenbaum

“A common piece of advice I have heard about the NSF GRFP is that the NSF is not only funding your science, but is also funding you as a person. Therefore, it is helpful to include how you became interested in science or the unique perspective you can bring to the scientific community. When drafting your proposal, take it in chunks. First start with outlines. Keep good documentation of your sources. Once the ideas are there, flesh it out into a more eloquent narrative and format citations. Once you have a draft, seek as much feedback from as many different sources as possible. It’s good to seek advice from people in your lab, people outside of your lab, and people at all different stages of their scientific careers. And of course, be respectful of everyone’s time and sincerely thank them for their feedback!”

Sebastian Toro Arana

“My rotation PI and the SBSA peer mentoring program really strengthened my proposal.”

Rachel Varnau

“Ask professors and other mentors for feedback at every stage, and read others’ applications before writing your own. “

Maggie Wang

“If you can, try to get feedback from both domain experts (e.g. your advisor) and people who may not be as familiar with your particular area of research (e.g. PhD students in other biosciences programs). The former are great for helping you sharpen the technical rigor of your application. The latter probably won’t understand all the nitty gritty details, which means they can challenge you to see the bigger picture of why your proposed research matters and how it aligns with the NSF research mission.

To emphasize the “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts” of my research plan, I explicitly incorporated phrasing and vocabulary from the NSF definitions of intellectual merit and broader impacts. I had initially thought this might be too blunt, but it helps to make it really clear how your plan meets the NSF criteria, especially for reviewers who might be reading your essay very quickly.”

Jonathan Weiss

“One huge piece of advice I was given was that NSF funds YOU, not your project. Make sure you emphasize the qualities that make you a unique, capable, and impactful researcher!”

Ali Wilkening

“Think broadly when it comes to broader impacts and intellectual merit and make sure those qualities are easily found by the reviewer. Think about all the broader impacts your work could possibly make and how you are uniquely poised to enact them then make a list and choose the top few to emphasize in your proposal and tie those into your experiences in your personal statement. For my second application, I started working on it much earlier and got help from a lot more people and with broader backgrounds/relationships to me. I also made sure to frame my personal statement into a story to demonstrate what personal factors drove me to complete the broader impacts I claimed in my proposal.”

Alexa Wnorowski

“My advice to you is ask for lots of feedback! Don’t be afraid to reach out to others who have applied or received the fellowship before, especially if they’re in a similar field.”

“I signed up for the NSF GRFP mentoring program through SBSA! This was by far the most helpful resource – my mentor offered their time each week to give me personalized feedback and the overall program set manageable deadlines that kept me on track. The NSF GRFP is not something you can pull together in a weekend – start early, leave time to receive feedback from PIs, mentors, labmates, friends, etc., and keep writing!”

“Think carefully about your hypothesis but also have fun thinking about science you would be excited about doing!”

Ilana Zucker-Scharff

“People are super willing to share their insight/proposals if you just reach out.”

• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Terms of Use
• Emergency Info

© Stanford University .  Stanford , California 94305 . Copyright Complaints     Trademark Notice

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. National Science Foundation Research Traineeship Program

Solicitation coming soon, important information about nsf’s implementation of the revised 2 cfr.

NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website . These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

The NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program seeks proposals that explore ways for graduate students in research-based master’s and doctoral degree programs to develop the skills, knowledge, and competencies needed to pursue a range of STEM careers. The program is dedicated to effective training of STEM graduate students in high priority interdisciplinary or convergent research areas, through a comprehensive traineeship model that is innovative, evidence-based, and aligned with changing workforce and research needs. Proposals are requested that address any interdisciplinary or convergent research theme of national priority, as described in section II.D below.

The NRT program addresses workforce development, emphasizing broad participation, and institutional capacity building needs in graduate education. The program encourages proposals that involve strategic collaborations with the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government agencies, national laboratories, field stations, teaching and learning centers, informal science centers, and academic partners. NRT especially welcomes proposals that reflect collaborations between NRT proposals and existing NSF Eddie Bernice Johnson Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (INCLUDES) Initiative , Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) , Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) ,   NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) , and NSF STEM Ed Organizational Postdoctoral Fellowship program (STEM Ed OPRF) projects, provided the collaboration will strengthen both projects. Researchers at minority serving institutions and emerging research institutions are strongly encouraged to submit proposals. Collaborations between NRT proposals and existing NSF INCLUDES projects should strengthen both NRT and INCLUDES projects.

Updates and announcements

Nrt webinar video now available, program contacts.

Program events

• June 4, 2024 - Approaches to Broadening Participation in STEM Graduate Education
• April 23, 2024 - NSF's New Mentoring Requirements for Graduate Students
• August 30, 2023 - NSF Research Traineeship Program (NRT) Webinars
• August 24, 2023 - NSF Research Traineeship Program (NRT) Webinars
• August 21, 2023 - NSF Research Traineeship Program (NRT) Webinars
• June 21, 2022 - DBI Virtual Office Hour: Training Programs
• August 9, 2021 - NSF Research Traineeship Program Webinar

Awards made through this program

National Science Foundation Research Traineeship Program

Organization(s).

• Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)
• Division of Graduate Education (EDU/DGE)
• Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)
• Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
• Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
• Directorate for Geosciences (GEO)
• Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
• Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
• Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)
• Office of Integrative Activities (OD/OIA)

NSF Fellowship Research Proposal

Criteria for success.

• Your proposed research is eligible for the Fellowship (e.g., you do not propose research about a particular disease or on clinical practice).
• Your research proposal convinces a panel of academics that you are qualified to receive the Fellowship, with equal consideration of the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria.
• You show that the proposed research is creative, original, or transformative.
• You show that you are actually capable of performing the research.
• Your proposal meets the formatting and page limit criteria.

The sections, their sizes, and their order is just an example, not the rule.

Your research proposal (technically, the “Graduate Research Plan Statement”) is part of an application that should convince the selection panel to award you the Fellowship. The proposal is the part of the application where you get to lay out a plan for your graduate research career. The personal statement gives you space to explain the big picture of your past and future career; the research proposal is a place for more nuts and bolts. It is an opportunity to convince the selection panel that you are capable of being a successful researcher: that you have the intellectual ability to propose a creative, feasible plan of research.

Note that if you win the Fellowship, no one will actually hold you to this particular research plan; this is a demonstration of critical thinking, not a commitment.

Your entire application will be “reviewed online by virtual panels of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional graduate education experts”. These are academics, usually from your broad area of science (e.g., engineering) but not from your specific area (e.g., colloid simulations using MD). They will judge your application using some combination of (a) the NSF’s official criteria for the Fellowship and (b) their own ideas about what constitutes good science.

The people on the committee read many, many applications. Make it easy for them to figure out that you are qualified for the award by referencing the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria that they use to judge your application. It may be wise to, for example, have sections in your proposal that are explicitly labeled “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts”. It may also be wise to have an “Abstract” or “Executive Summary” at the beginning of the proposal. Use simple language rather than field jargon.

The selection panel knows that this is a graduate student fellowship and not the sort of grant that is going to a principal investigator. Real grants are big documents with heaps of citations and references. Because this application is about funding you and not a specific project, the panel is more interested in seeing what your proposal says about you rather than about your project. Spend more words showing that you are capable and creative rather than showing that you can cite many papers.

Do your homework

A mature and sophisticated proposal for research is more likely to win you the Fellowship. Before sitting down to write, do your homework. Read the literature in the field to ensure the project that you are proposing is both novel and feasible.

Find mentors to help you develop and refine your ideas. Senior scientists such as postdocs and faculty members have more experience writing research proposals and can give valuable feedback. Additionally, they may be representative of members of your selection committee. Your proposal should also excite someone who is in your exact field. If they have any reservations about whether the project is interesting or feasible, then scientists outside your field will have an even more difficult time believing that the research is worth pursuing.

Demonstrate creativity

There’s typically a tradeoff between risk/reward and credibility. Low-risk projects, like obvious, simple extensions of your undergraduate thesis research, tend to be very credible: it’s clear that you can do them. They also tend to be low on reward. Projects that are very ambitious and have huge rewards tend to be unbelievable and impossible for a grad student. There’s a sweet spot in between: find a problem that you can probably solve and that demonstrates that you took some initiative, know your field, and have some creative thoughts.

Include Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria

Read the program solicitation so you know what “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts” mean to the NSF, and show that your proposed research meets those criteria. In particular, do not just make up your own ideas about what “Broader Impacts” means. The NSF has specific lists of activities that constitute Broader Impacts. These criteria are so important that the solicitation even says that “applicants must include separate statements on Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in their written statements [… and] should include headings for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in their statements.”

Write for a reader who is outside of your field and short on attention

It’s more important that all the members of your panel understand your work than that you impress the one member of the panel who happens to be in your field. When you write a paper or a grant, it will probably be minutely reviewed by people in your exact field. However, your panel for the NSF GRFP will likely not be in your field, and your application will be one of many they read. They may very well miss points in your proposal that you think are “subtle” or “implicit.” Explicitly state what you are doing and why, and make it clear even to someone who does not know your field, and who is fatigued from reading many applications.

Lay out concrete hypotheses, approaches, and outcomes

Strong research proposals say what motivates the project, how the project will get done, and what the project’s outcome will mean with respect to the motivating scientific question. In the life sciences, scientists often label their hypotheses or objectives as “specific aims”.

When discussing research approach and outcomes, make it clear that the project has a clear endpoint that is well within the timeline of a PhD. It’s great if your project leads into a lifelong line of research, but the NSF GRFP only funds graduate study. To win the Fellowship, the proposed research should be able to be completed within a few years.

As best you can, describe concrete outcomes. Will you discover a protein? Will you have designed a certain tool? Having a concrete outcome can help you show how your research will meet the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, by saying, “Once I have X in hand, Y will be intellectually possible or will have Z effect on society.”

You may also indicate multiple possible outcomes, showing that you have given careful thought to the project. For example, you could say, “If we observe X then we will take route Y. However, if we observe Z , we will have to look at an alternative route.” Research does not always go according to plan, and showing alternative ways to complete the project will show that you are prepared to be a successful graduate student researcher.

Your research proposal will be judged, in part, on the basis of whether or not the panel members believe you will actually be able to carry it out. It might therefore be wise to name the key resources in your target institution and program. Your success as a graduate student will depend on your advisor’s mentorship, the opportunity for collaboration with other scientists, and the resources that you will have at your target institution. Make it clear that you will have the right equipment and intellectual input that you will need to solve your problem. (Again, this is not because you’ll be expected to actually complete this research. Rather, the goal is to demonstrate your resourcefulness, and the likelihood that you’ll excel as a researcher in general.)

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

This is a research statement that was part of an MIT ChemE graduate student’s successful NSF GRFP application (written while an undergraduate). 1 MB

Writing a proposal? Read the NIH grant instructions!

I know that there is a very long and boring set of instructions for writing NIH grants, called the SF424: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html This page is particularly helpful in listing what the review criteria are, and some tips about writing the proposal. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/write-your-application.htm

For example, under Writing Tip #3:

• Write a clear topic sentence for each paragraph with one main point or idea.  This is key for readability.
• Make your points as direct as possible. Avoid jargon or excessive language.
• Write simple and clear sentences, keeping to about 20 words or less in each.

What points should you address?

I can’t find it in the current online version of the guidelines, but the prior PDF version of the SF424 has some very salient questions that you should make sure the various sections of your proposal address.

I f you cannot easily find a single topic (first) sentence of a paragraph that is followed by evidence to address the point below, then you probably haven’t focused your writing enough to what the reviewers want to know. As a reviewer, I scan the document, read the first sentences of each paragraph to see if I can catch the answers to these questions before diving in.

And, as a rule, the first sentence of each paragraph should be coordinated so that they form the logical underpinnings of your research proposal, with the stuff in the paragraphs supplying the necessary evidence for each point. So one paragraph, one topic, and if I agree with your assertion, then I won’t read further into the paragraph in much detail, but if I disagree then I’ll be scrutinizing the data and literature that you present.

Here they are:

Specific Aims

State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved. 

List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology. 

Significance

Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses.

Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields. 

Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved

Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms. 

Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions. 

Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches  

Approach 

Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Unless addressed separately in the Resource Sharing Plan attachment below, include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. 

Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims. • _If the project is in the early stages of development, describe any strategy to establish feasibility, and address the management of any high risk aspects of the proposed work.