Pre-award and Proposal Preparation

External Funding Databases

Automated External Funding Alerts by Email

Institutional Funding Opportunities

Proposal Development

Budget Development

Cost Sharing

Proposal Review & Approval Process

Proposal Data Sheet

Pre-award Forms

Contact Us

Research Awards Program (Internal Grants)

The award competition is primarily intended to promote faculty research/projects that will lead to future external funding.  Before preparing and submitting the application, it may be helpful to review previously funded proposals.  Sample funded proposals will be available at the reference desk at Henderson Library for review. Please contact Eleanor Haynes at 478-0843 to discuss your project if you have questions regarding the proposal format or narrative. 

There is one award competition during each academic year. The competition's awards cover project periods beginning July 1 of that year and ending by May 30 of the following year with a budget period of July 1 through May 1. The maximum grant award is $10,000.

Application Deadline: January 15, 2010.

Quick Links for Additional Information:

Eligibility - Policies - Application Guidelines - Evaluation Criteria - Forms

ELIGIBILITY
Eligibility is open to the Corps of Instruction, as defined by the Board of Regents:
Full-time professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors, lecturers and teaching personnel with such other titles as may be approved by the Board, shall be the Corps of Instruction. Full-time research and extension personnel and duly certified librarians will be included in the Corps of Instruction on the basis of comparable training. Persons holding adjunct appointments or other honorary titles shall not be considered to be members of the faculty.

• Proposed projects must be directed toward research/scholarly/artistic activities and should result in a grant proposal for external funding, conference presentation, publication, recital, or exhibit. Projects may not be directed toward preparation of courses. Early career faculty are encouraged to apply.
• The Committee will not support a single project on a continuing basis. Applicants submitting a proposal closely related to a previous Committee-funded project must demonstrate that the new application is substantially different.
• Faculty working on projects of a continuing nature or who have received Faculty Research awards during the past five years are encouraged to seek outside support. Researchers applying for funding that have been funded in the past 5 years should show evidence of efforts toward external funding in the application.
• Each faculty member may submit only one proposal (either as Principal Investigator or as a Co-Investigator) during each funding cycle.
• Anyone receiving money in the previous year's competition is ineligible in the current year. (E.g., an individual who received funding in FY10 will be eligible to apply for funding in FY12)
• Individuals who are funded must agree to utilize the awarded funding in accordance with the approved budget.
• Faculty who sever their employment at Georgia Southern University at any time during the funding period will forfeit the remainder of support and are ineligible for summer stipend funds.
• Receipt of a Grant Award does not affect eligibility for an Award for Excellence in Research and/or Creative/Scholarly Activity.

<Back to top>

APPLICATION GUIDELINES
Complete the forms in the Faculty Research Grant Proposal Forms Kit. Attach a detailed Budget Explanation/Justification and a Proposal Narrative.

One signed and routed original and one electronic version in Word format of the proposal must be received in the Office of Research Services and Sponsored Programs by 5 PM on the deadline date. (The committee strongly recommends that proposals not be sent through any of the mail systems.)

The hardcopy format must be delivered to the Office of Research Services and Sponsored Programs at 2021 Veazey Hall, P.O. Box 800, Statesboro, GA 30460 prior to 5 PM on the due date. One electronic copy must be submitted to ehaynes@georgiasouthern.edu prior 5 PM on the due date. (The electronic copy is not required to have signatures.)

Joint proposals are encouraged. If a joint proposal is submitted with someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements, the specific tasks to be undertaken by each member of the research team must be described in detail. Funds may only be used toward the eligible faculty expenses.

Proposals that are incomplete or not in compliance with the guidelines will be eliminated from the competition without review.

A written assurance that application to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use (IACUC) or Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) (as appropriate) will be made prior to July 1 if funded and work will not begin until approval is obtained is required for any project that gathers data from human subjects (IRB), utilizes vertebrate animals (IACUC) or utilized biological materials or recombinant DNA (IBC).

Required Forms
The forms that must be completed and submitted as part of the Faculty Research Grant Application are:

The Committee strongly recommends that applications be submitted on current forms applicable to the current year's funding cycle. All submitted documents should be written to be read by an individual who is not familiar with the applicant’s discipline. Use of outdated forms or discipline specific language may affect funding decisions.

Cover Sheet
Note that this form includes a section on "Prior Faculty Research Funding for Grants or Stipends Received as either the Principal Investigator or as a Co-Investigator during the past five years." The Committee's evaluation of each proposal will include a consideration of the results/product/services/outcomes associated with previous awards to that applicant.

Biographical Sketch
The sketch is limited to two single-spaced pages. Please include only the requested information.

Abstract
The abstract should be one page in length and follow the same type and font guidelines given for the proposal narrative (see below). This is a key element in all proposals and should include statements concerning:

In short, the abstract should give reviewers a clear overview of the entire project. 

Proposal Narrative – Instructions 
• A proposal narrative must be attached to the application forms. The narrative must meet the following guidelines.
• Pages submitted must be of standard size (8½ inch x 11 inch) white paper. All margins (i.e., top, bottom, and sides of pages) must be at least one inch.
• The narrative must be double-spaced and limited to a maximum of six (6) pages. The type size must be clear and readily legible, in standard size - i.e., 10 to 12 points. Do not reduce or condense type or line size.
• Attachments in the form of appendices may include a list of references cited (no more than three pages) and other materials which help clarify your proposal's content (e.g., a copy of a questionnaire, a letter of agreement for you to use a library collection critical to your research, data tables and/or other illustrations of preliminary results from your research, photographs or other reproductions of prior or preliminary artistic or scholarly works). In order to increase the odds that the Faculty Research Committee will have time to review your key attachments, it is to your benefit to be brief. Please do not include a resume or vita.
• The proposed research should be explained in a manner understandable to persons not expert in your field. As much as possible, you should use terms and concepts which assume that the Faculty Research Committee has no background in your proposal's subject area.  It is helpful to have a colleague from an unrelated discipline read your proposal before submission to assure your reviewers will have a clear understanding of your proposal.

Format and Contents
In recognition of the disciplinary diversity of the university's faculty, proposals to the Faculty Research Committee may be submitted in any appropriate format, as long as the narrative includes all of the areas described below. Two possible formats are outlined below; however, you should use a format which best fits the nature of the project and/or the approach to implementing the project. (Please note: Although your narrative should cover each category in the format you select, you do not need to follow the suggested order.)

Proposal Contents
I.  Purpose/Objectives
II.  Relevance/Significance
III.  Procedures/Process/Work plan/Methodology
IV.  Schedule/Timetable

Purpose/Objectives
This section should answer the question, "What do you intend to do?" It is suggested that you begin with a concise statement of the general purpose or major objectives and goals of the proposed project. This statement, often in combination with the limited objectives or specific aims, should describe the research/scholarly/artistic issue or problem to be addressed, product to be developed, work to be created, external funding opportunity, etc. (If a hypothesis is appropriate for your proposed project, it should be presented as part of this discussion.) The committee will review your proposal to determine the extent to which you have chosen your purpose and goals carefully and logically, and stated them clearly and concisely. Be specific about the results, products, or consequences of your project's purpose or objectives.    

Relevance/Significance
This section should address the broad importance of the project in the field and its potential to generate external funding. For example, will the project address a gap in your field or discipline, make a contribution to an important or noteworthy scholarly or aesthetic issue, advance the understanding of your area of work, have immediate or eventual practical value (e.g., enhance opportunities for students, provide a stepping stone for your interest area, or lead to proposal for outside funding or public exhibit), produce new data and concepts, or test existing hypotheses and assumptions?   Will the projects develop a pool of pilot data relevant to an identified funding source or contact base?  Document the significance and originality of your project's approach. Specify likely outlets for dissemination of your results (e.g., journals or other publications, conferences, associations, exhibits, museums, societies, or potential user groups). This section should convince the Committee of the overall merit of your project.

Procedures/Process/Work Plan/Methodology
This section should describe project activities in detail; describe the sequence, flow, and interrelationship of activities; and present a reasonable scope of activities. (If appropriate, a schedule or timetable may be incorporated within the six-page narrative or included as a separate attachment.) The case should be made in this section that the methods and procedures are familiar to the applicant and are appropriate for the purpose or objectives already described. If established methods or procedures cannot serve the project, describe how modifications will enable you to overcome shortcomings in existing approaches. For the entire project, demonstrate an understanding of the linkages between your process or methodology, the activities to be undertaken, your aims, the limitations on what can be produced or concluded, and the plan for evaluating whether the project has been accomplished.

Schedule/Timetable
This section should answer the question, "Are you being realistic about what you propose to accomplish in the time frame you outline?" Have you described how you propose to use the research semester(s)? Approximately how long should each task or activity take? Have you included your institutional approval in the timeline? At what point in the process do you expect to test which hypotheses, accomplish which objectives, produce which results, etc. (If appropriate, a timetable or task/activity chart may be included as a separate attachment.) 
Keep the award limitations in mind when constructing your time table.  Funds will not be available until July 1 and must be encumbered or expensed by May 1 of the following year.  All expenditures must be complete by May 30 of the awarded fiscal year. The timeline end point should include a reference to action toward external funding.

Budget and Budget Justification Explanation
The itemized budget form must include all proposed expenditures. Please note that faculty stipends not to exceed $3000 per application and student support are eligible costs.  Academic year salary is not an eligible cost. Please note: budget justifications will be used to assist the committee where funding only allows partial awards.

<Back to top>

EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Committee uses universal criteria to evaluate proposals and to establish funding priorities. The criteria have been developed to be applicable across disciplines. You are strongly encouraged, therefore, to keep these criteria in mind as you prepare your proposal. Careful editing and proofing are, of course, strongly recommended. As appropriate, you are expected to incorporate references to pertinent literature throughout your narrative.

Intrinsic Merit of the Project
This criterion considers the likelihood that the project will lead to discoveries or advances within its field or discipline, or have substantial impact on progress in that field or discipline or lead to significant sources of external funding. The concern is that the project is soundly conceived in terms of current work in the field, existing literature on the subject, and appropriateness of procedures for the task. (The term "project" as used in this and the following contexts refers to the central concern of the proposed activity - for example, this may be a current or emerging issue in a discipline such as chemistry or economics, a question of interpretation of an artistic creation or historical event, the technical or procedural choices in the production of an artistic or other creative work, or an assessment of current or alternative social policies or programs.)

Relevance of the Project
This criterion relates to the likelihood that the project can contribute to the achievement of a goal that is external to that of the project's field or discipline itself: for example, by serving as the basis for new or improved techniques, by assisting in the amelioration of community or societal issues, by helping to enhance aesthetic or cultural development, or by enhancing public knowledge, understanding, or appreciation of the project's area of concern.

Proposer's ability to carry out the project
This criterion considers the capability of the applicant in terms of his/her past training, publication activity, and other scholarly or creative accomplishments. The adequacy of the resources available including ability to complete the work within the award period (July 1 – May 30) is also considered. As appropriate, the applicant should include details on recent research/scholarly/creative projects. Beginning researchers may include student work.

Evaluation Summaries and Funding Decisions
Committee members will provide an initial evaluation summary for each proposal, using the following categories:

• OUTSTANDING: Important project undertaken by a qualified investigator who can be expected to make substantial progress and has potential for external funding. This rating should be reserved for truly excellent proposals, but should be used when warranted. Top priority for funding. Point value: 5
• EXCELLENT: Proposal considered superior, both for the intrinsic merit of the project and the ability of the investigator. Should be supported. Point value: 4
• VERY GOOD: Proposal considered superior, both for the intrinsic merit of the project and the ability of the investigator. Should be fully or partially supported with recommendation for scope or budgetary adjustment. Point value: 3
• GOOD: Worthwhile project by a competent investigator, but routine in nature. May be supported if funds are available. Proposal considered superior, both for the intrinsic merit of the project and the ability of the investigator. Should be supported. Point value: 2
• FAIR: Proposal has serious deficiencies that decrease the probability of successful completion. Might merit consideration if resubmitted with major changes in future competition. Point value: 1
• POOR: Clearly not deserving of support or is written in language that prohibits adequate merit evaluation by reviewers. Point value: 0
• UNRESPONSIVE: Proposal is incomplete or not in compliance with the guidelines. Point value: 0

The committee will meet to discuss each proposal, using the initial evaluation summaries as the basis for the discussions and ranking. Following these discussions, the committee may recommend full funding, partial funding, or no funding. In the event of a partial award, the awardee may wish to alter the scope of the proposed research or may even choose to decline the award and reapply at another time.  Partial funding removes the awardee from the following year's competition.

<Back to top>

Special Notice Regarding Intellectual Property
Please note that receipt of this award for the development of creative and scholarly works and new material, devices, processes, or other inventions which may have commercial potential are governed by the Georgia Southern University Intellectual Property Policy. Assistance is available thorugh the Research Services Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

Any potential financial conflict of interest that may be inherent in this project must be reported to the Associate Vice President for Research. A conflict of interest that can be managed will not make the project ineligible for funding. Please refer to the Georgia Southern University Conflict of Interest Policy.