Module 3 - Writing a Compelling Project Description

Overview | Technical | Merit & Impacts | Writing | References | Proposal Steps | Resources

Merit & Impacts

NSF is very clear about the criteria by which all proposals are reviewed. Review panels are instructed to assess each proposal against its Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. To write a compelling proposal it is not only important to incorporate both in the Project Description, it is also important to understand what these criteria mean and why they are important to the NSF so that your proposal reflects these criteria as underlying themes of your work.

In Chapter III, NSF Proposal Processing and Review, the PAPPG describes Merit Review Principles and Criteria, including Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Proposal merit review criteria help NSF review panels and program officers determine what projects to support by considering not only the technical components but also the project’s potential to advance NSF’s mission “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” Principles focus on a project’s potential to advance/transform knowledge, contribute to societal goals, and conduct meaningful assessment/evaluation. A comprehensive description of the Foundation’s merit review process is also available on the NSF website.

The importance of these criteria is emphasized in the PAPPGs:

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (Chapter II.C.2.d.(i) contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including Chapter II.C.2.d.(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to 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 could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be 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:
   • Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   • 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 organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

From the PAPPG (Chapter III.A.2)

In Module 1: Plan, we asked that you brainstorm responses to the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact statements. Take a moment now and, given what you’ve learned so far, revise and enter your responses to the questions below. Each response should be approximately one paragraph in length, and will be used in the assignment at the end of this module.