caise

Q: When will people who submitted a proposal under the last ISE solicitation learn whether they have been funded?
A: Some have heard already. Others might not hear for another month or so, but hopefully not much longer than that. We’re trying to get these processed before mid-June.

Q: If you are waiting to hear about whether you were funded in the last solicitation, should you resubmit under this one?
A: There is an overlap of proposal processing that will require some consideration for some PIs. PIs whose proposals from the last round are still in process should think about the possibility of sending in a preliminary proposal by June 25 if they haven’t heard a definitive answer yet. If they receive an award from the last round, then they don’t have to submit a full proposal.

Q: Can a Principal Investigator (PI) be from a corporate agency?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I be a PI or Co-PI on multiple ISE grant submissions?
A: The current solicitation does not place any limits on the number of proposals that a PI can submit.

Q: Will the ISE program support book publishing as a primary deliverable?
A: We fund the development of innovations in informal science education and have several different project types to meet various needs and circumstances as described in the program solicitation 09-553. Book publishing as a stand-alone activity is not something that we can fund. However, exhibit development is appropriate, and sometimes books can accompany the exhibit.

Q: Will a PI or Co-PI who does not have a history of prior NSF support be penalized?
A: No. Each proposal is evaluated on the merits of the case that is made for funding and on the qualifications of the PI and team, whether they have received NSF funding before or not.

Q: When is the official IRB letter needed?
A: The letter is not required for preliminary proposals. However, an official IRB letter must be in place before funding can be received after a full proposal has been recommended for funding. Generally, proposers wait until they get to the negotiation phase before obtaining an IRB letter. So, it depends on the availability of your IRB to process your required documents and produce the IRB letter once funding is imminent. In other cases, research protocols cannot be established until sometime after the project has been underway. In such cases the award letter will stipulate that the research cannot be conducted until the IRB letter has been received.

Q: Are we required to submit our proposals to a human subjects review board in advance of the full proposal submission? A grant review from Independent Review Consulting, for example, is $400 per submission. In the past we have submitted our proposals to IRC only after receiving questions from the program officer.
A: You are not required to have the IRB process completed by the time one submits the full proposal. However, it is important that the Human Subjects issue is addressed in the proposal and that the determination has been made whether to check the box on Human Subjects on the front cover of the proposal.

Q: What is the maximum amount of an award for a conference?
A: The ISE program has removed its limitations on conference proposals. The NSF Grant Proposal Guide section II. D. 8 provides information on conferences.

Q: In regard to Broad Implementation grants, is a formative evaluation required?
A: It’s not required for all Broad Implementation projects, but it is expected for those that are planning adaptations such as improving the original product, reaching new audiences, or other incremental innovations.

Q: When applying for a Pathways grant, how much information should we include in the preliminary and full proposals describing the major project we are working toward versus what we're seeking funding for under Pathways?
A: A Pathways proposal must provide sufficient information that clearly indicates (1) what is the team’s intent, at the time the Pathways proposal is submitted, for what the full-scale project might entail, and then, related to that, (2) what major issues/problems/decisions (via a feasibility study, pilot program, front-end audience work, etc.) need to be explored during the Pathways project to help clarify what the concept of the full-scale project will be.

Q: If you submit a preliminary proposal as one project type, can you submit that full proposal as a different project type? Can you change the PI from the prelim to the full proposal? Can you change the lead institution from the prelim to the full proposal?
A: In moving from preliminary proposals to full proposals, the submitting institution cannot change. The PI can change, although it is best if the change is to make a co-PI the PI. The project type might change in rare circumstances. Consideration needs to be given to the fact that the preliminary proposal forms the basis of the reviews that the PI will receive, and thus a full proposal should benefit from those reviewer comments. In some instances, reviewers might actually suggest that the PI consider changing the project type. Such comments are advisory, as is the Encourage or Discourage evaluation.

Q: Is there a limit to the number of awards an institution can receive across all project types, or within a project type?
A: The guidelines indicate no limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted. The number of awards to an institution or PI does depend on a range of portfolio-balancing assessments that are taken into account at NSF.

Q: In the new solicitation, it seems that we are not required to have a collaborator for all types of projects. It seems that some research proposals, for example, may not have a collaborator. Are collaborators required for all types of proposals?
A: The Project Management section of the narrative is the same for all project types. This includes a description of the collaborations that are appropriate to the nature of the proposed project and the impact it hopes to have.

Q: May we submit proposals in two different project types (e.g., full-scale development and research) that are independent, but interrelated in topic? For example, one would be a full-scale development proposal that addresses public conceptions of algebra through an exhibition and programming. The other would be a research proposal on museum visitors’ conceptions of algebra (that was not based on visitor experiences with an algebra exhibition or program). Should we link the two proposals in any way?
A: More than one proposal can be submitted on a particular topic. Each of these will be reviewed independently on its merits. Note that Full-scale Development projects can also have a research component.

Q: What category does a planning grant fall under?
A: We expanded the planning grant category into what is now called Pathways, which allows for a range of activities as described in the guidelines.

Q: Is there a limit to the amount of money (or proportion of funds awarded, if successful) that can be allocated by the prime to its subcontractor(s) for Pathways Projects?
A: Every project distributes its funds in different ways. There is no specification on that distribution. When the full proposal is submitted in November, the budget justification pages are where we and reviewers will look to see your rationale for the budget components.

Q: The solicitation says that research projects "may" be evaluated by an advisory board. Is it OK use an external evaluator to evaluate a project instead of an advisory board?
A: Yes. However, it is also a good idea to have an advisory board for a diversity of perspectives.

Q: Do we have to identify all consultants and their roles in the preliminary proposal?
A: Not all consultants have to be identified in the preliminary proposal. The PI and team can continue to develop the preliminary idea and structure their organization and management. However, the preliminary proposal needs to make a case that the project is moving sufficiently in a direction toward having a complete team with the necessary skills by the time the full proposal is submitted in November. In some cases, as with an exhibit development project, it might not be possible to identify the fabricator of the exhibit at the time of the submission. That is fine. If awarded, the award letter will contain a clause about the requirement for having the fabricator approved by the program officer when the project gets to that stage.

Q: Which section of the proposal should include the intended impacts? They are specifically requested in the Rationale, Project Design, and again in the logic model under Project Management.
A: The Project Rationale section is the primary place where the proposal should explain the intended impacts. Since Rationale, Design and Management are inter-related, the format allows PIs to continue to build and reinforce their case for the work.

Q: For projects with budgets greater than the NSF request, should we still include a total project budget spreadsheet as a Supplementary Document?
A: This is a bit more complicated now since the maximum award for some project types has some flexibility, but only in rare cases. The best thing to do is contact a program officer to explain the total budget situation and get advice on how best to proceed.

Q: The guidelines mention mailing in CD/DVD's for media which cannot be submitted electronically. But can we still send panelists to a prototype website?
A: Yes.

Q: How would I know whether I should apply under number 3 (full-scale development) or 4 (broad implementation)?
A: Full-scale development is intended for the development of major NEW deliverables, e.g. TV programs, exhibits, etc. Broad implementation is intended specifically for expanding the impact of deliverables that have already been developed and proven their worth. If you need to clarify this issue, it is important to discuss your particular case with a program officer.

Q: In Section V. Proposal Preparation: A. Preliminary proposal; paragraph 2, line 3, does the statement "In case of a resubmission, the proposal must be substantially revised" refer to the full proposal or the preliminary proposal?
A: A resubmission refers to a proposal that had been submitted in a previous round and been declined. The new proposal needs to take into account the comments the PI received from the reviewers and program officer.

Q: Are the review panels going to change?
A: In general, review panels will be organized as has been done in the past. However, ISE program staff and management continue to assess how to improve these processes, especially as we continue to get proposals from the field that combine several kinds of deliverables.

Q: Will preliminary proposals be fully reviewed in time to help the full proposal?
A: Yes. The timeframe between June 25 and November 19, 2009 was set to allow for timely feedback.

Q: What’s the difference between a “supplement to research” and a “Communicating Research to Public Audiences” proposal?
A: These terms can sometimes be confusing because “supplement” is used in a few different ways. All NSF awards are eligible to request from the program that gave the award a small amount of funding to assure adequate completion of the original scope of work. Typically, these involve additional research for a research award or, in the case of ISE, increasing the potential impact of an exhibit, TV program, etc. “Supplements” also used to be a term for new awards that fund a researcher to develop educational activities associated with the research in ways that expanded their “broader impact” initiatives. In 2003 these “supplements” were changed to the “Communicating Research to Public Audiences” program, which had its own guidelines. Now, in 2009, the CRPA proposals have been rolled into the ISE program guidelines as a project type.

Q: What are the proposal due dates for CRPA?
A: There are no deadlines for the CRPA project type.

Q: What is the basic format for CRPA proposals?
A: The proposal format for the CRPA is the same as for other project types: Project Rationale, Project Design, Project Management, etc.

Q: Can a postdoc salary be written into the CRPA grant?
A: Staffing for CRPA projects can include anyone who needs to be part of the team to do the job. Remember that NSF requires that postdocs have mentors who are identified in the proposal. Also, for CRPA projects, successful proposals include professionals with experience in informal science education on their teams – i.e. who know what the best practices are with respect to the informal education experiences that are proposed. The communication vehicles should not be activities like giving public lectures.

Q: Can CRPA funds be use to communicate only the results of cutting-edge research by an NSF investigator, or can they be used to convey information that includes the cutting-edge research and other related material?
A: The intent is to fund projects whose goal is to help the public understand some aspect of the research that the PI has conducted. Often such work needs to be put in a broader context, which is fine.

Q: Can the funds be used to support the refinement of a public lecture on a broad topic that is related to the investigator's current NSF-funded research?
A: Public lectures are rarely funded via the CRPA mechanism. The objective is to engage the public with learning experiences that go beyond traditional educational formats. These experiences could be exhibits, online experiences, film, radio, citizen science, and other communication vehicles.

Q: How will decisions be made about the CRPA proposals, and how fast? Will they be sent out for review, or with the rolling deadline will it be an ISE staff decision?
A: All CRPA proposals go through the NSF merit review process and must have at least 3 written reviews and ratings. Reviewers have backgrounds in the science under consideration and in designing experience in informal science education. Evaluation processes are also important. We try to process proposals no longer than 6 months after the submission date. Since there is no deadline for CRPAs, decisions are made throughout the year.

Q: Could a CRPA grant be used to fund such a series based on current NSF-funded research, or would each video have to highlight a current piece of research?
A: The main issue here is that the proposal must include the award number of the NSF-funded research that forms the basis of the proposed project.

Q: Are education research projects eligible for CRPA funding?
A: The intent of the CRPA is to communicate to the public about the scientific research of the PI. Education research is eligible.

Q: What are evaluation criteria for CRPA proposals?
A: CRPA projects are usually relatively small in scope; however, the ISE program expects that informal science education evaluation professionals will be involved in these projects. Typically, evaluation should include some front-end analysis of the audience (especially since the STEM content will focus on current research), formative evaluation pertinent to the kind of project, and a modest summative evaluation indicating how well the intended impacts have been achieved. As with other ISE projects, the Framework for Evaluating Informal Science Education Projects document is a helpful tool. The Learning Science in Informal Environments book should also be consulted.

Q: Can we list two PIs for CRPAs that are collaborations between a researcher and a science center (one from each)?
A: This is fine. The main point is that the submitting PI must have an active NSF research award, and the proposal is submitted via that PI’s institution; therefore, funding of the co-PI will pass through the lead institution to the other.

Q: Have funding levels for the ISE program changed now that it incorporates CRPA?
A: Since 2003, CRPA projects have been funded within the annual budget of the ISE program. That will continue.

Q: Earlier solicitations talked about grant supplements. Do these still exist?
A: Yes. Those are awards that are generic to all NSF programs. For ISE they are supplements to active ISE awards. Supplements to research awards of other NSF programs are submitted to the research program. The NSF grants manual explains more about supplements. To access the NSF grants manual, go to http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02151/gpm02_151.pdf.