table of contents of a research proposal

• Privacy Policy

Home » Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Table of Contents

Definition:

Table of contents (TOC) is a list of the headings or sections in a document or book, arranged in the order in which they appear. It serves as a roadmap or guide to the contents of the document, allowing readers to quickly find specific information they are looking for.

A typical table of contents includes chapter titles, section headings, subheadings, and their corresponding page numbers.

The table of contents is usually located at the beginning of the document or book, after the title page and any front matter, such as a preface or introduction.

Table of Contents in Research

In Research, A Table of Contents (TOC) is a structured list of the main sections or chapters of a research paper , Thesis and Dissertation . It provides readers with an overview of the organization and structure of the document, allowing them to quickly locate specific information and navigate through the document.

Importance of Table of Contents

Here are some reasons why a TOC is important:

• Navigation : It serves as a roadmap that helps readers navigate the document easily. By providing a clear and concise overview of the contents, readers can quickly locate the section they need to read without having to search through the entire document.
• Organization : A well-structured TOC reflects the organization of the document. It helps to organize the content logically and categorize it into easily digestible chunks, which makes it easier for readers to understand and follow.
• Clarity : It can help to clarify the document’s purpose, scope, and structure. It provides an overview of the document’s main topics and subtopics, which can help readers to understand the content’s overall message.
• Efficiency : This can save readers time and effort by allowing them to skip to the section they need to read, rather than having to go through the entire document.
• Professionalism : Including a Table of Contents in a document shows that the author has taken the time and effort to organize the content properly. It adds a level of professionalism and credibility to the document.

Types of Table of Contents

There are different types of table of contents depending on the purpose and structure of the document. Here are some examples:

Simple Table of Contents

This is a basic table of contents that lists the major sections or chapters of a document along with their corresponding page numbers.

Example: Table of Contents

I. Introduction …………………………………………. 1

II. Literature Review ………………………………… 3

III. Methodology ……………………………………… 6

IV. Results …………………………………………….. 9

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 12

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 15

Expanded Table of Contents

This type of table of contents provides more detailed information about the contents of each section or chapter, including subsections and subheadings.

A. Background …………………………………….. 1

B. Problem Statement ………………………….. 2

C. Research Questions ……………………….. 3

II. Literature Review ………………………………… 5

A. Theoretical Framework …………………… 5

B. Previous Research ………………………….. 6

C. Gaps and Limitations ……………………… 8 I

II. Methodology ……………………………………… 11

A. Research Design ……………………………. 11

B. Data Collection …………………………….. 12

C. Data Analysis ……………………………….. 13

IV. Results …………………………………………….. 15

A. Descriptive Statistics ……………………… 15

B. Hypothesis Testing …………………………. 17

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 20

A. Interpretation of Findings ……………… 20

B. Implications for Practice ………………… 22

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 25

A. Summary of Findings ……………………… 25

B. Contributions and Recommendations ….. 27

Graphic Table of Contents

This type of table of contents uses visual aids, such as icons or images, to represent the different sections or chapters of a document.

I. Introduction …………………………………………. [image of a light bulb]

II. Literature Review ………………………………… [image of a book]

III. Methodology ……………………………………… [image of a microscope]

IV. Results …………………………………………….. [image of a graph]

V. Discussion …………………………………………. [image of a conversation bubble]

Alphabetical Table of Contents

This type of table of contents lists the different topics or keywords in alphabetical order, along with their corresponding page numbers.

A. Abstract ……………………………………………… 1

B. Background …………………………………………. 3

C. Conclusion …………………………………………. 10

D. Data Analysis …………………………………….. 8

E. Ethics ……………………………………………….. 6

F. Findings ……………………………………………… 7

G. Introduction ……………………………………….. 1

H. Hypothesis ………………………………………….. 5

I. Literature Review ………………………………… 2

J. Methodology ……………………………………… 4

K. Limitations …………………………………………. 9

L. Results ………………………………………………… 7

M. Discussion …………………………………………. 10

Hierarchical Table of Contents

This type of table of contents displays the different levels of headings and subheadings in a hierarchical order, indicating the relative importance and relationship between the different sections.

    A. Background …………………………………….. 2

      B. Purpose of the Study ……………………….. 3

      A. Theoretical Framework …………………… 5

             1. Concept A ……………………………….. 6

                    a. Definition ………………………….. 6

                     b. Example ……………………………. 7

              2. Concept B ……………………………….. 8

       B. Previous Research ………………………….. 9

III. Methodology ……………………………………… 12

       A. Research Design ……………………………. 12

             1. Sample ……………………………………. 13

               2. Procedure ………………………………. 14

       B. Data Collection …………………………….. 15

            1. Instrumentation ……………………….. 16

            2. Validity and Reliability ………………. 17

       C. Data Analysis ……………………………….. 18

          1. Descriptive Statistics …………………… 19

           2. Inferential Statistics ………………….. 20

IV. Result s …………………………………………….. 22

    A. Overview of Findings ……………………… 22

B. Hypothesis Testing …………………………. 23

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 26

A. Interpretation of Findings ………………… 26

B. Implications for Practice ………………… 28

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 31

A. Summary of Findings ……………………… 31

B. Contributions and Recommendations ….. 33

Table of Contents Format

Here’s an example format for a Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

C. Methodology

II. Background

A. Historical Context

B. Literature Review

III. Methodology

A. Research Design

B. Data Collection

C. Data Analysis

IV. Results

A. Descriptive Statistics

B. Inferential Statistics

C. Qualitative Findings

V. Discussion

A. Interpretation of Results

B. Implications for Practice

C. Limitations and Future Research

VI. Conclusion

A. Summary of Findings

B. Contributions to the Field

C. Final Remarks

VII. References

VIII. Appendices

Note : This is just an example format and can vary depending on the type of document or research paper you are writing.

When to use Table of Contents

A TOC can be particularly useful in the following cases:

• Lengthy documents : If the document is lengthy, with several sections and subsections, a Table of contents can help readers quickly navigate the document and find the relevant information.
• Complex documents: If the document is complex, with multiple topics or themes, a TOC can help readers understand the relationships between the different sections and how they are connected.
• Technical documents: If the document is technical, with a lot of jargon or specialized terminology, This can help readers understand the organization of the document and locate the information they need.
• Legal documents: If the document is a legal document, such as a contract or a legal brief, It helps readers quickly locate specific sections or provisions.

How to Make a Table of Contents

Here are the steps to create a table of contents:

• Organize your document: Before you start making a table of contents, organize your document into sections and subsections. Each section should have a clear and descriptive heading that summarizes the content.
• Add heading styles : Use the heading styles in your word processor to format the headings in your document. The heading styles are usually named Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3, and so on. Apply the appropriate heading style to each section heading in your document.
• Insert a table of contents: Once you’ve added headings to your document, you can insert a table of contents. In Microsoft Word, go to the References tab, click on Table of Contents, and choose a style from the list. The table of contents will be inserted into your document.
• Update the table of contents: If you make changes to your document, such as adding or deleting sections, you’ll need to update the table of contents. In Microsoft Word, right-click on the table of contents and select Update Field. Choose whether you want to update the page numbers or the entire table, and click OK.

Purpose of Table of Contents

A table of contents (TOC) serves several purposes, including:

• Marketing : It can be used as a marketing tool to entice readers to read a book or document. By highlighting the most interesting or compelling sections, a TOC can give readers a preview of what’s to come and encourage them to dive deeper into the content.
• Accessibility : A TOC can make a document or book more accessible to people with disabilities, such as those who use screen readers or other assistive technologies. By providing a clear and organized overview of the content, a TOC can help these readers navigate the material more easily.
• Collaboration : This can be used as a collaboration tool to help multiple authors or editors work together on a document or book. By providing a shared framework for organizing the content, a TOC can help ensure that everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goals.
• Reference : It can serve as a reference tool for readers who need to revisit specific sections of a document or book. By providing a clear overview of the content and organization, a TOC can help readers quickly locate the information they need, even if they don’t remember exactly where it was located.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Structure the Table of Contents for a Research Paper

4-minute read

• 16th July 2023

So you’ve made it to the important step of writing the table of contents for your paper. Congratulations on making it this far! Whether you’re writing a research paper or a dissertation , the table of contents not only provides the reader with guidance on where to find the sections of your paper, but it also signals that a quality piece of research is to follow. Here, we will provide detailed instructions on how to structure the table of contents for your research paper.

Steps to Create a Table of Contents

• Insert the table of contents after the title page.

Within the structure of your research paper , you should place the table of contents after the title page but before the introduction or the beginning of the content. If your research paper includes an abstract or an acknowledgements section , place the table of contents after it.

• List all the paper’s sections and subsections in chronological order.

Depending on the complexity of your paper, this list will include chapters (first-level headings), chapter sections (second-level headings), and perhaps subsections (third-level headings). If you have a chapter outline , it will come in handy during this step. You should include the bibliography and all appendices in your table of contents. If you have more than a few charts and figures (more often the case in a dissertation than in a research paper), you should add them to a separate list of charts and figures that immediately follows the table of contents. (Check out our FAQs below for additional guidance on items that should not be in your table of contents.)

• Paginate each section.

Label each section and subsection with the page number it begins on. Be sure to do a check after you’ve made your final edits to ensure that you don’t need to update the page numbers.

• Format your table of contents.

The way you format your table of contents will depend on the style guide you use for the rest of your paper. For example, there are table of contents formatting guidelines for Turabian/Chicago and MLA styles, and although the APA recommends checking with your instructor for formatting instructions (always a good rule of thumb), you can also create a table of contents for a research paper that follows APA style .

• Add hyperlinks if you like.

Depending on the word processing software you’re using, you may also be able to hyperlink the sections of your table of contents for easier navigation through your paper. (Instructions for this feature are available for both Microsoft Word and Google Docs .)

To summarize, the following steps will help you create a clear and concise table of contents to guide readers through your research paper:

1. Insert the table of contents after the title page.

2. List all the sections and subsections in chronological order.

3. Paginate each section.

4. Format the table of contents according to your style guide.

5. Add optional hyperlinks.

If you’d like help formatting and proofreading your research paper , check out some of our services. You can even submit a sample for free . Best of luck writing your research paper table of contents!

What is a table of contents?

A table of contents is a listing of each section of a document in chronological order, accompanied by the page number where the section begins. A table of contents gives the reader an overview of the contents of a document, as well as providing guidance on where to find each section.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

What should I include in my table of contents?

If your paper contains any of the following sections, they should be included in your table of contents:

●  Chapters, chapter sections, and subsections

●  Introduction

●  Conclusion

●  Appendices

●  Bibliography

Although recommendations may differ among institutions, you generally should not include the following in your table of contents:

●  Title page

●  Abstract

●  Acknowledgements

●  Forward or preface

If you have several charts, figures, or tables, consider creating a separate list for them that will immediately follow the table of contents. Also, you don’t need to include the table of contents itself in your table of contents.

Is there more than one way to format a table of contents?

Yes! In addition to following any recommendations from your instructor or institution, you should follow the stipulations of your style guide .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Components of a research proposal.

In general, the proposal components include:

Introduction: Provides reader with a broad overview of problem in context.

Statement of problem: Answers the question, “What research problem are you going to investigate?”

Literature review: Shows how your approach builds on existing research; helps you identify methodological and design issues in studies similar to your own; introduces you to measurement tools others have used effectively; helps you interpret findings; and ties results of your work to those who’ve preceded you.

Research design and methods: Describes how you’ll go about answering your research questions and confirming your hypothesis(es). Lists the hypothesis(es) to be tested, or states research question you’ll ask to seek a solution to your research problem. Include as much detail as possible: measurement instruments and procedures, subjects and sample size.

The research design is what you’ll also need to submit for approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) if your research involves human or animal subjects, respectively.

Timeline: Breaks your project into small, easily doable steps via backwards calendar.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Table of Contents

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

A guide to the table of contents page

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Definition: Table of Contents
• 3 Everything for Your Thesis
• 5 Create in Microsoft Word
• 6 In a Nutshell

Definition: Table of Contents

The table of contents is an organized listing of your document’s chapters, sections and, often, figures, clearly labelled by page number. Readers should be able to look at your table of contents page and understand immediately how your paper is organized, enabling them to skip to any relevant section or sub-section. The table of contents should list all front matter, main content and back matter, including the headings and page numbers of all chapters and the bibliography . A good table of contents should be easy to read, accurately formatted and completed last so that it is 100% accurate. Although you can complete a table of contents manually, many word processing tools like Microsoft Word enable you to format your table of contents automatically.

When adding the finishing touches to your dissertation, the table of contents is one of the most crucial elements. It helps the reader navigate (like a map) through your argument and topic points. Adding a table of contents is simple and it can be inserted easily after you have finished writing your paper. In this guide, we look at the do’s and don’ts of a table of contents; this will help you process and format your dissertation in a professional way.

When adding the finishing touches to your dissertation, the table of contents is one of the most crucial elements. It helps the reader navigate (like a map) through your argument and topic points. Adding a table of contents is simple and can be inserted easily after you have finished writing your paper. In this guide, we look at the do’s and don’ts of a table of contents; this will help you process and format your dissertation in a professional way.

• ✓ Post a picture on Instagram
• ✓ Get the most likes on your picture
• ✓ Receive up to $300 cash back

What is a table of contents?

A table of contents is a list, usually on a page at the beginning of a piece of academic writing , which outlines the chapters or sections names with their corresponding page numbers. In addition to chapter names, it includes bullet points of the sub-chapter headings or subsection headings. It usually comes right after the title page of a research paper.

How do you write a table of contents

To write a table of contents, you first write the title or chapter names of your research paper in chronological order. Secondly, you write the subheadings or subtitles, if you have them in your paper. After that, you write the page numbers for the corresponding headings and subheadings. You can also very easily set up a table of contents in Microsoft Word.

Where do you put a table of contents?

The table of contents is found on a page right at the beginning of an academic writing project. It comes specifically after the title page and acknowledgements, but before the introductory page of a writing project. This position at the beginning of an academic piece of writing is universal for all academic projects.

What to include in a table of contents?

A sample table of contents includes the title of the paper at the very top, followed by the chapter names and subtitles in chronological order. At the end of each line, is the page number of the corresponding headings. Examples of chapter names can be: executive summary,  introduction, project description, marketing plan, summary and conclusion. The abstract and acknowledgments are usually not included in the table of contents, however this could depend on the formatting that is required by your institution. Scroll down to see some examples.

How important is a table of contents?

A table of contents is very important at the beginning of a writing project for two important reasons. Firstly, it helps the reader easily locate contents of particular topics itemized as chapters or subtitles. Secondly, it helps the writer arrange their work and organize their thoughts so that important sections of an academic project are not left out. This has the extra effect of helping to manage the reader’s expectation of any academic essay or thesis right from the beginning.

Everything for Your Thesis

A table of contents is a crucial component of an academic thesis. Whether you’re completing a Bachelor’s or a postgraduate degree, the table of contents is a requirement for dissertation submissions. As a rule of thumb, your table of contents will usually come after your title page , abstract, acknowledgement or preface. Although it’s not necessary to include a reference to this front matter in your table of contents, different universities have different policies and guidelines.

Although the table of contents is best completed after you have finished your thesis, it’s a good idea to draw up a mock table of contents in the early stages of writing. This allows you to formulate a structure and think through your topic and how you are going to research, answer and make your argument. Think of this as a form of “reverse engineering”. Knowing how your chapters are going to be ordered and what topics or research questions are included in each will help immensely when it comes to your writing.

The table of contents is not just an academic formality, it allows your examiner to quickly get a feel for your topic and understand how your dissertation will be presented. An unclear or sloppy table of contents may even have an adverse effect on your grade because the dissertation is difficult to follow.

Examiners are readers, after all, and a dissertation is an exercise in producing an argument. A clear table of contents will give both a good impression and provide an accurate roadmap to make the examiner’s job easier and your argument more persuasive.

Your table of contents section will come after your acknowledgements and before your introduction. It includes a list of all your headers and their respective pages and will also contain a sub-section listing your tables, figures or illustrations (if you are using them). In general, your thesis can be ordered like this:

1. Title Page 2. Copyright / Statement of Originality 3. Abstract 4. Acknowledgement, Dedication and Preface (optional) 5. Table of Contents 6. List of Figures/Tables/Illustrations 7. Chapters 8. Appendices 9. Endnotes (depending on your formatting) 10. Bibliography / References

The formatting of your table of contents will depend on your academic field and thesis length. Some disciplines, like the sciences, have a methodical structure which includes recommended subheadings on methodology, data results, discussion and conclusion. Humanities subjects, on the other hand, are far more varied. Whichever discipline you are working in, you need to create an organized list of all chapters in their order of appearance, with chapter subheadings clearly labelled.

Sample table of contents for a short dissertation:

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. x List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Chapter 2: Literature Survey ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42 Chapter 4: Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 100 Chapter 5: Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 129 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 169 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 172

When producing a more significant and longer dissertation, say for a Master’s degree or even a PhD, your chapter descriptions should contain all subheadings. These are listed with the chapter number, followed by a decimal point and the subheading number.

Sample table of contents for a PhD dissertation:

Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Literature Review 1.3 Data 1.4 Findings 1.5 Conclusion

Chapter 2, and so on.

The key to writing a good table of contents is consistency and accuracy. You cannot list subheadings for one chapter and forget them for another. Subheadings are not always required but they can be very helpful if you are dealing with a detailed topic. The page numbers in the table of contents must match with the respective pages in your thesis or manuscript.

What’s more, chapter titles and subheading titles must match their corresponding pages. If your first chapter is called “Chapter 1: The Beginning”, it must be written as such on both the table of contents and first chapter page. So long as you remain both accurate and consistent, your table of contents will be perfect.

Create in Microsoft Word

Fortunately, the days of manually writing a contents page are over. You can still produce a contents page manually with Microsoft Word, but consider using their automatic feature to guarantee accuracy and save time.

To produce an automatically-generated table of contents, you must first work with heading styles. These can be found in the home tab under “Styles”. Select top-level headings (your chapter titles) and apply the Heading 1 style. This ensures that they will be formatted as main headings. Second-level headings (subheadings) can be applied with the Heading 2 style. This will place them underneath and within each main heading.

Once you have worked with heading styles, simply click on the “References” tab and select “Table of Contents”. This option will allow you to automatically produce a page with accurate page links to your document. To customize the format and style applied to your table of contents, select “Custom Table of Contents” at the bottom of the tab. Remember to update your table of contents by selecting the table and choosing “Update” from the drop-down menu. This will ensure that your headings, sub-headings and page numbers all add up.

Thesis Printing & Binding

You are already done writing your thesis and need a high quality printing & binding service? Then you are right to choose BachelorPrint! Check out our 24-hour online printing service. For more information click the button below :

In a Nutshell

• The table of contents is a vital part of any academic thesis or extensive paper.
• It is an accurate map of your manuscript’s content – its headings, sub-headings and page numbers.
• It shows how you have divided your thesis into more manageable chunks through the use of chapters.
• By breaking apart your thesis into discrete sections, you make your argument both more persuasive and easier to follow.
• What’s more, your contents page should produce an accurate map of your thesis’ references, bibliography, illustrations and figures.
• It is an accurate map of the chapters, references, bibliography, illustrations and figures in your thesis.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

Free Research Proposal Table Of Contents Template

Free Download this Research Proposal Table Of Contents Template Design in Word, Google Docs, Apple Pages, Publisher Format. Easily Editable, Printable, Downloadable.

Our Research Proposal Table Of Contents Template helps you organize and structure your research proposal. Our template includes all the necessary sections for a comprehensive proposal outline, so you can focus on writing and researching your proposal. Simplify your research proposal process with our Research Proposal Table Of Contents Template.

No  template.net  attribution required

You may also like

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.

Archived funding opportunity

Nsf 22-633: epscor research infrastructure improvement program: track-2 focused epscor collaborations (rii track-2 fec), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: September 19, 2022
• Replaces: NSF 22-523
• Replaced by: NSF 24-573

Program Solicitation NSF 22-633

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

     December 20, 2022

     Third Tuesday in December, Annually Thereafter

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

     January 24, 2023

     Fourth Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

Only jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria may submit proposals to the Research Infrastructure Improvement Program Track-2 (RII Track-2 FEC) competition.

• The topical focus area for the FY 2023/2024 competition is: "advancing climate change research and resilience capacity to expand opportunities for disproportionately affected communities."
• Proposals for the FY 2023/2024 competition may be submitted either as (i) a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations or (ii) a collaborative proposal from one organization with support for non-lead collaborating organizations requested as subawards.
• Each submitting organization may serve as lead on only one proposal. However, an organization may serve as a non-lead in a collaborative submission or subawardee on any number of additional proposals.
• Each submission must have at least two collaborators (specifically as PI or co-PI) who are from an organization in a different eligible EPSCoR jurisdiction.
• An investigator may serve as Principal Investigator (PI) or Co-PI on only one RII Track-2 FEC award at any given time. However, the investigator may serve as Senior Personnel on any number of RII Track-2 FEC submissions or awards.

Important Information

Innovating and migrating proposal preparation and submission capabilities from FastLane to Research.gov is part of the ongoing NSF information technology modernization efforts, as described in Important Notice No. 147 . In support of these efforts, proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation must be prepared and submitted via Research.gov or via Grants.gov and may not be prepared or submitted via FastLane.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) ( NSF 22-1 ), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after October 4, 2021.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 Focused EPSCoR Collaborations (RII Track-2 FEC)

The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed to fulfill the mandate of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to promote scientific progress nationwide. NSF EPSCoR eligibility is based on a jurisdiction's recent five-year history of total funds awarded by NSF relative to the Foundation's total research budget for that same period. The current table of eligible jurisdictions is available on the NSF EPSCoR website (see RII eligibility ). Through this program, NSF establishes partnerships with government, higher education, and industry that are designed to affect sustainable improvements in a jurisdiction's research infrastructure, Research and Development (R&D) capacity, and hence, its R&D competitiveness. RII Track-2 FEC builds interjurisdictional collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) focus areas consistent with the National Science Foundation 2022-2026 Strategic Plan . Projects are investigator-driven and must include researchers from at least two EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions with complementary expertise and resources necessary to address challenges, which neither party could address as well or rapidly independently. RII Track-2 FEC projects have a comprehensive and integrated vision to drive discovery and build sustainable STEM capacity that exemplifies individual, institutional, geographic, and disciplinary diversity. Additionally, the projects' STEM research and education activities seek to broaden participation through the strategic inclusion and integration of diverse individuals, institutions, and sectors. In addition, NSF EPSCoR recognizes that the development of early-career faculty from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields is critical to sustaining and advancing research capacity. The integration and inclusion of Minority-serving Institutions (MSIs), women's colleges, Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), and two-year colleges is a critical component of this sustainable STEM capacity. For FY 2023/2024, the topical focus area of RII Track-2 FEC is: " advancing climate change research and resilience capacity to expand opportunities for disproportionately affected communities. "

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• John-David Swanson, telephone: (703) 292-2898, email: [email protected]
• Jose Colom-Ustariz, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: [email protected]
• Eric W. Lindquist, telephone: (703) 292-7127, email: [email protected]
• Andrea Johnson, telephone: (703) 292-5164, email: [email protected]
• Jeanne Small, telephone: (703) 292-8623, email: [email protected]
• Chinonye Whitley, telephone: (703) 292-8458, email: [email protected]
• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 10

Up to 10 awards each in FY 2023 and FY 2024

Anticipated Funding Amount: $10,000,000 to $15,000,000

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Only jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria and are one of the types of organization listed below may submit proposals to the Research Infrastructure Improvement Program Track-2 (RII Track-2 FEC) competition. Organizations located in RII-eligible jurisdictions: Institutions of higher education (PhD-granting and non-PhD-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories or possessions. Distinct academic campuses (e.g., that award their own degrees, have independent administrative structures, admissions policies, alumni associations, etc.) within multi-campus systems qualify as separate submission-eligible institutions. Campuses that plan to submit a proposal through the Sponsored Projects Office of other campuses or organizations should contact NSF to discuss eligibility as early as possible and at least six weeks before submitting such a proposal. Not-for-profit, non-degree-granting domestic U.S. organizations, acting on behalf of their employees, that include (but are not limited to) independent museums and science centers, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies, and similar organizations that are directly associated with the Nation's research or educational activities. These organizations must have an independent, permanent administrative organization (e.g., an office of sponsored research) located in the United States, its territories or possessions, and have 501(c)(3) tax status. Proposals may be submitted either as a collaborative from multiple organizations or from one organization with support for collaborators requested as subawards.

Who May Serve as PI:

Principal Investigators of proposed RII Track-2 FEC projects must be affiliated and employed by eligible organizations in EPSCoR jurisdictions. Each EPSCoR jurisdiction participating in a proposed project must be represented by a PI or at least one co-PI. The PI and co-PIs must all have research expertise relevant to the focus area of the research being proposed. PIs and Co-PIs on current NSF EPSCoR RII Track-2 FEC awards with end dates (including any No Cost Extensions) beyond October 31, 2023/2024 (for the respective FY2023/2024 competitions) are not eligible to submit proposals as a PI or Co-PI in this competition.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

An organization may serve as lead on one proposal, either as the lead on a single proposal with subawards, or as the lead on a set of separately submitted collaborative proposals. An organization may serve as a non-lead on any number of additional proposals.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

An individual cannot serve as PI or co-PI on more than one RII Track-2 FEC project, both currently awarded or in this competition, but may serve as senior personnel on any number of RII Track-2 FEC proposals or awards.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

C. due dates, proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

A. EPSCoR Mission and Goals

The mission of EPSCoR is to enhance research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions (states, territories, commonwealth) by strengthening STEM capacity and capability.

EPSCoR goals are to:

• Catalyze research capability across and among jurisdictions;
• Establish STEM professional development pathways;
• Broaden participation of diverse groups/institutions in STEM;
• Effect engagement in STEM at national and global levels; and
• Impact jurisdictional economic development.

B. Criteria for Eligibility to Participate in the Research Infrastructure Improvement Track-2: Focused EPSCoR Collaborations (RII Track-2 FEC)

Research Infrastructure Improvement Program Track-2 (RII Track-2 FEC)

Eligibility to take part in this competition is based on a jurisdiction's recent five-year history of total funds awarded by NSF relative to the Foundation's total research budget for that same period. The current table of eligible jurisdictions is available on the NSF EPSCoR website (see RII eligibility ). Only EPSCoR eligible organizations may take part in this competition.

C. RII Track-2 FEC Program

Well-designed collaborative strategies are essential to EPSCoR's goal of enhancing the competitive position of research and research-based education in science and engineering. This approach can help overcome impediments posed by limited infrastructure or human capital within a single jurisdiction and can enable broad engagement at the frontiers of discovery and innovation in science and engineering.

This Research Infrastructure Improvement Track-2: Focused EPSCoR Collaborations (RII Track-2 FEC) solicitation responds directly to national studies and community input, including reports from the 2022 2M Study of the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) report and the National Science Foundation 2022-2026 Strategic Plan . RII Track-2 FEC seeks to build nationally and internationally competitive collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators by providing a mechanism to coalesce investigator expertise into a critical mass for a sustained, effective research and education partnership toward NSF priorities.

NSF EPSCoR support of a proposed research infrastructure improvement activity should not duplicate other available federal, jurisdictional, or institutional resources and should add significant value to increasing scientific competitiveness at the national or regional level.

II. Program Description

The primary driver for RII Track-2 FEC investments is the need to build STEM-driven, interjurisdictional research collaborations with the potential to be nationally and internationally competitive. The Project Description should include a strong rationale for the collaboration and demonstrate that the partnership is designed to facilitate discovery and innovation in the focus area, which neither party could address as well, or as rapidly, alone. RII Track-2 FEC projects are unique in their integration of researchers into collaborative teams across EPSCoR jurisdictions, and must develop a diverse, well-prepared, STEM-enabled workforce necessary to sustain research competitiveness. Moreover, NSF EPSCoR recognizes that the demographics of the United States is changing and therefore to be competitive, EPSCoR jurisdictions must be intentional regarding broadening participation in projects through diversity and inclusion of individuals traditionally underrepresented in STEM. Therefore, the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty who are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields as well as the involvement of traditionally underrepresented groups at all levels of this project, including at the postdoctoral researcher, student, and K-12, are critical in achieving this goal and must be an integral component of the proposed project.

Over the long term, RII Track-2 FEC investments are expected to result in sustained improvements in research competitiveness, enabling EPSCoR investigators to successfully pursue significant opportunities of national and international importance in science and engineering research and education. Moreover, specific to this solicitation, it is expected that previous NSF and other federal agency investments will be leveraged and translated into advancing our understanding of the effects of climate change as well as climate resilience on individuals and communities disproportionately affected by this phenomenon in the involved jurisdiction(s). Non-EPSCoR and international collaborations may be included, but no EPSCoR funds should be directed to these organizations.

Central to the success of the proposal is a clear demonstration that the collaboration is well-positioned to produce outcomes that cannot be obtained through the efforts of a team in a single jurisdiction working alone. The proposal must clearly identify the roles and contributions of each partner in the project, the anticipated increases in research capacity and competitiveness, the projected workforce development and educational plan and outcomes, and the benefits to the jurisdictions, nation, and society. It is expected that these collaborations be balanced, with participating jurisdictions each contributing to and benefitting from projects at levels that are appropriate to their capabilities.

To ensure maximum impact of available programmatic funds, requests for RII Track-2 FEC funding must:

• Add significantly to the research capacity of the participating jurisdictions in the designated focus area;
• Contribute to the advancement of research and innovation in the proposal's focus area;
• Illustrate how the participating jurisdictions' research capacities will be positively impacted by the collaborative effort;
• Outline clear plans for the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty who are underrepresented in the chosen STEM field;
• Engage the full diversity of the participating jurisdictions' resources including two- and four-year colleges, Minority-serving institutions, and local and state industry in STEM workforce development;
• Engage and collaborate with social and economic scientists to understand and assess the societal implications of emerging, innovative and disruptive technologies towards climate resilience on impacted communities; and
• Present a detailed plan to demonstrate the potential for economic impact of the endeavor and present a sustainability plan for obtaining subsequent, sustained non-EPSCoR funding from federal, jurisdictional, or private sector sources.

Note: In all instances, clear specification of research and education goals, performance metrics, evaluation, management, and a timetable for achieving goals are also requirements.

RII Track-2 FEC proposals are expected to be STEM-driven collaborations and the PI and co-PIs should all be active researchers in the associated focus area of the proposal. Proposals should clearly explain how the proposed research, education and workforce development activities will create or increase the capacity for the jurisdictions involved to participate in climate change and resilience research, especially how it pertains to vulnerable populations. Proposals must include a timetable or strategic plan for achieving those goals, and/or a logic model with a clearly articulated theory of change that identifies appropriate indicators of progress towards the desired outcomes.

Current Topic Focus Area

RII Track-2 FEC proposals must be aligned with the following focus area: "advancing climate change research and resilience capacity to expand opportunities for disproportionately affected communities." Climate change is an important component of global environmental change and addressing, and mitigating, its effects is a key national priority. As a major societal challenge, climate change has profound consequences for the habitability and sustainability of the planet, while also affecting the nation's food, water, energy, economies, security, and quality of life through its impacts on human health, agriculture, ecosystems and water resources. Disproportionately affected communities are considered more susceptible to these impacts and adaptation and mitigation strategies related to climate change and resiliency must be based on robust scientific findings affecting and involving these communities. Participation in climate change research with disproportionally affected individuals as the centerpiece, will potentially advance science and engineering, enhance the contribution of EPSCoR jurisdictions to the well-being of our nation's citizens, and promote economic stability and recovery in EPSCoR jurisdictions.

Broadening Participation

EPSCoR's mission of enhancing the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions by strengthening STEM capacity and capability serves as foundation to a program goal to "broaden the participation of diverse groups and institutions in STEM." By leveraging current and previous NSF substantial investments, as well investments from other federal agencies, in the research underlying or supporting climate change and resiliency research, this solicitation seeks to create a significant and collective impact on targeted jurisdictions by advancing the quality of life of disproportionately affected populations and thus enhancing jurisdictions' awareness of the socio-economic impact of climate change. Proposals submitted for the 2023/2024 RII Track-2 FEC competition could leverage already documented outcomes from any project (or projects) related to previous investments in climate change across multiple jurisdictions and collectively bring those outcomes together to address new opportunities that focus on disproportionately affected communities that are historically more vulnerable to the effects of climate change within the targeted jurisdiction(s). As a result, these projects are expected to create or establish a solid pathway towards benefiting and impacting the jurisdictions in mitigating and adapting to, and/or understanding climate change events in concert with a diverse STEM workforce.

Social Perspectives

Moreover, to understand the impacts of climate change and its effect on disproportionately affected populations in the jurisdiction(s), it is critical to understand its influence from a social perspective and its potential societal implications. It is expected that projects include components that address understanding and assessing any specific disruptive impacts of the research for the betterment of these populations, the development of innovative educational plans to prepare a skilled technical workforce, at all levels, (K-12, two-year college, undergraduate, and graduate students, as well as university faculty), to adapt to and understand climate change and climate resiliency and the social and economic impacts on the jurisdiction(s). To do this, NSF EPSCoR envisions the convergence of multidisciplinary and diverse teams that span the sciences, engineering, social sciences, and innovation research to understand and build the science, scale it up, and ground it within the perspective of socio-economic implications. Proposals should include a vision for how the project will be sustained and include a description of any plans for technology transfer, if applicable, and innovation education to demonstrate how research activities will help the community in question. In addition, partnerships with companies, innovation experts, non-governmental organization (NGOs), local communities, and relevant local and State government and other stakeholders are expected to allow the project to have a significant impact in the jurisdictions involved. Furthermore, the anticipated needs of the future workforce, projects should develop strong educational programs in the proposed research areas that can be implemented across institutions of higher learning in participating jurisdictions and directly contribute to building a skilled workforce in areas associated to climate change and climate resiliency. Additionally, STEM talent must be cultivated in populations traditionally underrepresented in STEM in order for jurisdictions to keep pace with changing workforce needs. Accordingly, proposals should include a strong commitment to building a diverse workforce. The inclusion and involvement of two- and four-year colleges, Primarily Undergraduate Institutions, women's colleges, and Minority-serving Institutions that serve individuals traditionally underrepresented in STEM is strongly recommended. Involvement and mentoring of early-career faculty is required and a detailed mentoring plan that leverages national best practices for STEM mentoring is expected. More information on NSF's commitment to broadening participation can be found in the National Science Foundation 2022-2026 Strategic Plan .

The proposed research and education activities, innovation, workforce development, diversity, sustainability, and other project activities should be closely tied to the focus area of "advancing climate change research and resilience capacity to expand opportunities for disproportionately affected communities."

III. Award Information

Up to 10 awards for a total funding of $15,000,000 each in FY 2023 and FY 2024 are anticipated, pending the availability of funds.

The RII Track-2 FEC award amount is based on the number of eligible jurisdictions participating in the project. If organizations from two RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $1 million per year for up to four years ($4 million maximum total). If organizations from three or more RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $1.5 million per year for up to four years ($6 million maximum total). Program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

V. proposal preparation and submission instructions.

Letters of Intent (required) :

A Letter of Intent (LOI) must be submitted by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) of the submitting organization by the LOI due date. Proposals received that are not preceded by an LOI from the AOR of the submitting organization will be returned without review.

The LOI contains "Synopsis" and "Other Comments" text data fields. LOIs should use these fields to describe, in as much detail as possible, the research to be addressed by the proposal. LOIs will be used solely in preparation for merit review. LOIs will not be seen by reviewers or used in any manner to judge the merit of the proposed research. Due to the space limitations, it is in the proposer's best interest to provide information on the proposed research topics only and to avoid providing extraneous information such as: prior accomplishments, motivation for the research, information on the qualifications of the project participants, etc. However, the LOI should indicate participating EPSCoR jurisdictions in the project.

A list of science/research keywords should be entered under the "Research Keywords" entry to assist NSF EPSCoR staff in preparing for proposal review.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions :

When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

• Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required when submitting Letters of Intent.
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 99 Other Participating Organizations are permitted
• Research Keywords are required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not permitted

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following instructions are specific to proposals submitted to the Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 Focused EPSCoR Collaborations (RII Track-2 FEC) competition and supplement the NSF PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:

• RII Track-2 FEC proposals may only be submitted by organizations in the RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions listed in Section IV of this solicitation. An organization may only serve as lead on one proposal, either as the lead on a single proposal with subawards, or as the lead on a set of separately submitted collaborative proposals.

Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizard. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)" or "Separately submitted collaborative proposal". The project title must begin with "RII Track-2 FEC:" and follow with an informative title in the topic area.

1. Senior Personnel. The lead PI must be a researcher from the submitting jurisdiction and all other participating jurisdictions should have at least one individual designated as PI or co-PI on the proposal.

2. Project Summary (1 page maximum). In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the Project Summary must include three separate sections labeled Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. In the Overview section, briefly describe: the collaborating institutions; the vision and goals of the collaboration; a statement of the objectives and methods to be employed; expected impacts of the proposed activities; and plans for sustaining collaborations and impacts beyond the award period. At the end of the Broader Impacts section, indicate the Letter of Intent (LOI) number, and the NSF Directorate(s), Division(s), and Program(s) that most closely align with the proposal's research focus.

3. Project Description (20 pages maximum). This section should present the proposed activities in a clear, compelling way and describe how the activities for which NSF support is being requested will lead to sustainable impacts. In addition to the requirements contained in the NSF PAPPG, including a separate section labeled Broader Impacts , the Project Description must articulate clear plans for elements described below.

The Project Description may not exceed 20 pages, including text, as well as any graphic or illustrative materials. Maximum page limitations also apply to specific subsections of the Project Description. Note that if the maximum page limit for each subsection is used, the total number of pages will exceed the maximum allow for the Project Description. Proposals that exceed the page limitations or that do not contain all items described below will be returned without review.

In addition to the separate section labeled Broader Impacts requirement by the PAPPG, the Project Description must contain the following subsections:

3.1 Status and Overview (2 pages maximum). Describe the motivation and rationale for establishing the collaboration, and how the proposed project addresses the identified research focus area for this competition.

3.2 Results from Relevant Prior Support (2 pages maximum). Describe results from relevant prior NSF support and other prior federal or other investments of the PIs and co-PIs in the last five years. This section should include a description of the activities and impacts of previous NSF awards, including major accomplishments in both intellectual merit and broader impacts towards the theme of this RII Track-2 FEC competition.

3.3 Research, Collaboration, and Workforce Development (18 pages maximum). The project's Research, Collaboration, and Workforce Development component is the focal point from which all other project elements derive. This section of the proposal should provide a concise description of the long-term research and education goals and intellectual focus in sufficient detail to enable their scientific merit and broader impacts to be assessed. The proposal must present the proposed research in the context of other efforts in the field (with appropriate references), state the major challenges and how they will be addressed, and comment on novelty and/or originality of the proposed approach. In addition to providing explicit evidence for the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the research and education activities, this section should:

• Identify the faculty-level participants and estimate the numbers of postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate research participants. Briefly outline the resources (available and planned) to accomplish the research goals.
• Establish the means of developing a coordinated, collaborative approach involving investigators across different organizations, jurisdictions and disciplines. Describe interactions with other groups and organizations among the jurisdictions, and at the national and international levels, as appropriate. The research and education program description must demonstrate how the collaboration will advance research, education, and workforce development. The narrative should demonstrate how the collaboration's activities would advance the frontiers of knowledge and future research competitiveness of the participating jurisdictions in the proposed research areas.
• Provide relevant baseline data regarding any of the research, education, workforce development, or other project targets and goals. For example, in cases where quantitative goals or targets are proposed, baseline data regarding the current situation or past performance should be given.

3.3.1 Research impact in affected populations. Given the topic of this solicitation "advancing climate change research and resilience capacity to expand opportunities for disproportionately affected communities," it is expected that projects are catalytic, multi-jurisdiction investments in research and education infrastructure. In particular, the target population should be clearly defined as should the relationship of the research and its impacts within the proposal.

3.3.2 Interjurisdictional Collaborations and Partnerships. Interdisciplinary collaborative research brings with it the challenge of developing productive high-performing research teams involving multiple researchers from different organizations and disciplinary expertise. This section must clearly present the rationale for the composition of the teams, a description of the leadership structure, and the context for establishing the collaboration. The research expertise of the PIs and co-PIs must be explained in the context of the proposed research activities. Coordination and synergy among the collaborators should be summarized and the role of each of the faculty-level investigators should be clearly defined. Mechanisms that foster collaboration across the teams, such as all hands meetings, and risk-mitigation strategies should be described. The compelling ways in which the project leadership plans to coordinate the activities into a cohesive project should be presented, with well-articulated goals and strategies to achieve them.

This section must include a specific discussion of how the collaborative effort will positively impact each participating jurisdiction and its respective target population by leveraging the proposed climate change and climate resilience research, including methodologies and metrics for measuring success. Proposals should also explain how each participating jurisdiction will contribute to and benefit from the proposed collaboration in a meaningful and distinct way.

3.3.3 Sustainability of the Team. A detailed plan for long-term sustainability of the proposed activities and infrastructure (physical, cyber, and human) beyond the lifespan of the project is required. Plans should clearly delineate what the expected research impacts will be on the jurisdiction(s) involved and how they could holistically tie into affecting populations of the jurisdiction(s) involved. The plan must provide realistic, annual metrics to assess the short and long-term economic impacts of this project. This could include realistic timelines for new submissions of proposals to NSF and other federal and state programs by the project team in the focus area topic, or industry and state partnerships that lead to alternative pathways to sustainability. The plan should also include how proposed new faculty hires, if any, will be supported beyond the award period.

3.3.4 Workforce Development. The scope of RII Track-2 FEC activities must include STEM workforce development activities that are integrated with the research and education components of the project and contribute to the preparation of a diverse, new cadre of skilled researchers, innovators, and educators who represents the diversity of the nation.

The workforce development plan must include explicit efforts for the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty in the project's research activities. It should also describe in detail the mechanisms to attract and mentor these individuals, to enable their development and success as educators and researchers, and their specific contributions to achieving the project's goals in the focus area. For the purposes of this solicitation, early-career faculty are defined as those who are employed as assistant professors in tenure track (or equivalent) positions, or research assistant professors at the time of submission of the proposal, or who are hired in to such a position during the award period.

The research and educational training for postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate trainees should be designed to develop a workforce that is able to integrate as appropriate within the chosen industry as defined by the project. This should provide them with skills to work easily across disciplinary and other perceived boundaries and to interface with stakeholders such as academe, industry, government, and the general public. This can include the involvement of K-12, two- year and four-year colleges, as well as Minority-serving institutions with the intent to develop an inclusive workforce appropriate to populate new niches that are created through the project's activities. In particular, the proposed program should present an implementation strategy, informed by national best practices for building research competencies, and research mentoring. The implementation strategy should include an initial baseline assessment, clearly articulated goals, milestones, and timelines.

3.4 Evaluation and Assessment Plan (2 pages maximum).

An independent expert evaluator must provide annual evaluation and assessment of the project. In addition, quantitative collection is required as part of the centralized project output data collection (see below) and should be used in concert with any additional quantitative or qualitative data collected by the required independent evaluator.

The Evaluation and Assessment plan should be an integral part of the project design to aid in the identification of outcomes and impacts of the project's goals and objectives as well as a tool for providing effective feedback to the management team through an independent evaluator. Evaluation plans should include strategies for formative and summative assessments, including goals, metrics, and milestones. The plan must include metrics for the strength of the collaboration and workforce development, including submission of collaborative proposals and associated awards, collaborative publications, progression of early-career faculty, innovations, research results, longitudinal tracking of undergraduates, graduate students, and post docs, and it should document how the collaborative efforts evolve over time.

In addition to the project-specific evaluation, all RII Track-2 FEC awardees will also be required to participate in a centralized project outcomes data-collection activity coordinated by NSF EPSCoR and carried out by its designated entity. This activity is intended to facilitate standardized, accurate metrics tracking across projects and to complement the projects' individual evaluation and assessment efforts.

3.5 Management and Implementation Plan (2 pages Maximum). Proposals must include a comprehensive plan for the project's management, including the roles and responsibilities of key personnel, how the PI and Co-PIs plan to communicate and coordinate with each other and the project team, how the centralized project output data-collection will be integrated into their evaluation mechanisms as described above, and how the project's administrative requirements will be managed across all areas. The plan should describe the responsibilities of any administrative staff who are expected to support the project on a full or part-time basis.

Proposals must also include a clear implementation plan and timeline that will contain an outline for how this project will bring together previous documented research outcomes and build on them through this proposal. This should contain details of how the research will be coordinated across jurisdictions to bring it to meet the needs of the target industry and relevant jurisdiction(s) for eventual implementation.

4. Budget and Budget Justification . See Section V.B. below for information and guidance.

5. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources. Provide a description of relevant available facilities, equipment, and other resources relevant to the project for each EPSCoR jurisdiction in the collaboration.

6. Senior Personnel Documents

• Biographical Sketches. In accordance with the guidance contained in the PAPPG, a separate biographical sketch must be provided for each individual designated as senior personnel on the project. It is permitted to include biographical sketches for any named collaborators (" Other Personnel ") whose expertise is crucial to the success of the project, including the independent evaluator(s). If doing so, these biographical sketches must be uploaded in the Other Personnel Biographical Information section in Research.gov and they must conform to NSF guidelines for biographical sketches. Do not include biographical sketches for members of External Advisory Committees or Boards.
• Current and Pending Support. In accordance with the guidance contained in the PAPPG, current and pending support information must be separately provided for each individual designated as senior personnel on the project.
• Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information. In accordance with the guidance contained in the PAPPG, COA information must be separately provided for each individual designated as senior personnel on the project.

7. Other Supplementary Documents (in addition to those required by the PAPPG)

• List of Participants. Provide a list of participating senior investigators (faculty level and equivalent) by name, organization, and departmental affiliation.
• List of all institutions and companies involved in the project (including location).
• No Letters of Collaboration should be included for both the established and new collaborations included in this project, as the role and extent of involvement should be clearly outlined in the Project Description. However, up to a maximum of five Letters of Commitment of two pages or less from other partners or jurisdictional officials may be included to support commitment that will be relied upon beyond the collaboration among the core project investigators.

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

• Funding requests can be for durations of up to 4 years. The allowed RII Track-2 FEC award amount depends on the number of participating EPSCoR jurisdictions. If organizations from two RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $1 million per year. If institutions from three or more RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $1.5 million per year.
• Budgets should include sufficient funding for participation in annual jurisdictional and regional EPSCoR conferences, and in one RII Track-2 FEC kickoff meeting for all PIs and all co-PIs at the NSF Headquarters in Year 1 only.
• RII Track-2 FEC projects are expected to host or facilitate project-wide meetings (virtual, hybrid, and/or in-person) such as EPSCoR all-hands workshops and/or science symposia which include support for student (undergraduate and graduate as appropriate) participants of the RII Track-2 FEC project.
• If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization," budgets for participating organizations must be included as subawards to the budget of the submitting organization. Only the budget of the submitting organization may include subawards (i.e., no subawards may appear in the budgets of sub awardee organizations). Each subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than five pages (see PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.g).
• If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations," follow the instructions in PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 regarding budget submissions.
• Organizations or institutions submitting proposal budgets with Subawards (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget) must be able to verify that the lead institution has established a system to monitor the subawards issued on Federally sponsored projects and that appropriate agreements are in place with subrecipients.
• Subawards to institutions in non-EPSCoR jurisdictions are not allowed.
• Financial compensation for any independent evaluator(s) involved in the project must be included in the budget of the submitting organization under Consultant Services. No other form of financial compensation for external evaluation services is allowed.
• Proposal budgets must comply with guidance in 2 CFR 200 and the current NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) . Proposing entities are cautioned to ensure that all costs proposed are allowable (allocable, reasonable, and necessary), especially those costs associated with Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget). Costs typically considered to be for entertainment, incentive, or promotional purposes should be sufficiently detailed in the budget justification to support the programmatic relevance and need. In general, costs for entertainment, amusement, advertising/promotional purposes are unallowable and may not be requested. However, among EPSCoR's programmatic goals are emphases on establishing STEM development pathways and broadening participation of diverse groups in STEM, that can include "Bridge" programs designed to prepare high school students for the transition to college. This may include entertainment, amusement, and/or promotional costs related to STEM enrichment activities covering a range of possible career paths or activities focusing on cohort-building and maintaining healthy work-life balance. These categories of activities are consistent with the overall program goal of preparing students for the difficult high school to college transition. This may include residential programs for minor students whose supervisory requirements may require different choices than would be appropriate for adult students. When costs typically considered as entertainment, amusement, and promotion are necessary to accomplish the proposed objectives, they must be included in the budget and justified in the budget justification.

Proposals with budgets that depart from these instructions will be considered not responsive and may be returned without review.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing 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." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

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. (PAPPG 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 PAPPG 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:

• 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?

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 other underrepresented groups 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.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers for the RII Track-2 FEC competition will also consider the following specific aspects of intellectual merit and broader impacts, as applicable:

• Research Capacity - What is the potential of the project to advance the relevant fields of science and engineering while simultaneously enhancing research competitiveness and developing research capacity and infrastructure in the jurisdictions (including physical, cyber, and human resources)? How will the proposed activities contribute to the national and international reputations of the project participants and participating institutions? What is the potential of the project to improve the ability of the participating institutions and participants to compete for and successfully conduct innovative research projects in the future?
• Interjurisdictional Collaboration - Do the research activities in different jurisdictions support and foster a balanced, sustained, collaborative effort such that each participant is contributing to and benefitting from the project at an appropriate level? Is the scope of work such that no single jurisdiction could accomplish the goals individually? Are the projects well administered and does the project present plans for sustaining the effort in the jurisdiction(s) beyond the scope of the award?
• Workforce Development - What is the potential for the proposed activities to recruit and/or develop early-career faculty in the focus area of the proposal and prepare them for sustained productivity? What is the potential for the proposed activities to sustain a pathway of highly skilled students and postdoctoral fellows who are underrepresented in associated disciplines and industries, can excel in this focus area, and succeed in careers in academia and/or industry? In an effort to prepare a workforce that is able to engage in the industries relating to climate change, how effectively will diverse populations (e.g., of individuals traditionally underrepresented in STEM, persons with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, rural, and/or first-generation college students) and institutions (e.g., Minority-serving institutions and 2- and 4-year institutions) be engaged in the research and education activities? What novel and effective ways are proposed to achieve the workforce development goals?
• Jurisdictional Impacts - What is the potential to achieve meaningful and sustained impacts within the jurisdictions with respect to their education capacity, economic development, and quality of life? How will the plans and activities lead to sustainable improvements in a diverse workforce preparation and research competitiveness of the jurisdictions? How do the proposed activities promote organizational connections and linkages within the jurisdictions, and between private and public sectors? How does the project advance innovation, technology transfer, and potential commercialization?
• Integration of Project Elements - How well are the different aspects - research, education, workforce development, sustainability, project coordination, and evaluation - described and integrated in the project? What are the innovative ways in which the project addresses these components in tandem? What benefits or added value will be realized as a result of integrating the project elements? What is the potential of the project to reach its education and workforce development goals and objectives as a result of the proposed research, and vice versa? What is the level of integration among shared facilities and research partners?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

Any cooperative agreement awarded in response to this solicitation will contain the following term and condition:

Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols

(a) This clause implements Section 3(b) of Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, dated September 9, 2021 (published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2021, 86 FR 50985). Note that the Department of Labor has included "cooperative agreements" within the definition of "contract-like instrument" in its rule referenced at Section 2(e) of this Executive Order, which provides:

For purposes of this order, the term "contract or contract-like instrument" shall have the meaning set forth in the Department of Labor's proposed rule, "Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, " 86 Fed. Reg. 38816, 38887 (July 22, 2021). If the Department of Labor issues a final rule relating to that proposed rule, that term shall have the meaning set forth in that final rule.

(b) The awardee must comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this award, for awardee workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ .

(c) Subawards . The awardee must include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in subawards at any tier that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subaward, and are for services, including construction, performed in whole or in part within the United States or its outlying areas. That threshold is presently $250,000.

(d) Definition . As used in this clause, United States or its outlying areas means:

• The fifty States;
• The District of Columbia;
• The commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands;
• The territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands; and
• The minor outlying islands of Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Atoll.

(e) The Foundation will take no action to enforce this article, where the place of performance identified in the award is in a U.S. state or outlying area subject to a court order prohibiting the application of requirements pursuant to the Executive Order (hereinafter, "Excluded State or Outlying Area". A current list of such Excluded States and Outlying Areas is maintained at https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ .

TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions:

Programmatic Terms and Conditions, if applicable, are outcomes of the proposal specific merit review process.

TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:

EPSCoR funds must be expended within EPSCoR jurisdictions.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

The annual and final reports must include identification of numbers of women and members of other underrepresented groups in faculty and staff positions and as participants in the activities funded by the award.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:

• FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk: 1-800-673-6188
• FastLane Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314