Faculty Investment Program

If faculty need reviews of their written proposal narrative, staff with the OU Writing Center and the Center for Faculty Excellence are available to provide that assistance. 

* Dates are subject to change.

** Proposals are checked for compliance prior to review by the Research Council. Proposals found to be non-compliant are return to the PI without review. If you submit your proposal before the due date (no less than one week before the due date), your proposal will be pre-reviewed for compliance and you will have time to make any necessary adjustments before resubmitting it for full consideration by the Research Council.

Funds are provided for the personal research of tenured or tenure-track faculty of all ranks, as well as research faculty, ranked renewable term faculty, and permanent professional or technical staff members who hold the terminal degree appropriate to their discipline. Non-ranked renewable term and temporary faculty, instructors, lecturers, adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, research personnel funded from external grants and contracts, postdoctoral researchers/associates/fellows, and students are not eligible for this particular program. Human Resources categories are used as the basis for eligibility. Proposals that request support for non-OU personnel, such as travel funds to bring a collaborator to campus, must provide a strong justification for the request in the budget section (see Proposal Preparation and Submission).

FIP proposals may request up to $15,000. Matching funds from colleges and departments are not required. This is a reimbursement program. If a proposal is funded, the OVPRP will reimburse the PI's department for expenditures up to the awarded amount. The reimbursement will be made after the PI's Final Report is submitted and approved by the OVPRP. Faculty separating from the university subsequent to notification of a FIP award, but prior to beginning work, generally will not be allowed to proceed with the award. If a FIP awardee separates from the university while performing FIP-funded research, s/he is strongly encouraged to complete the research prior to departing from the university and submit the final report so the department can be reimbursed for expenses incurred.

Eligible individuals may receive no more than one award from FIP in a given fiscal year (1 July-30 June). However, proposals for new funding may be submitted during a fiscal year in which an award is active provided the requested funding begins in the subsequent fiscal year. Additionally, the Research Council may place additional limitations on new proposals. For example, if a proposal funded by the Council states as a goal the submission of a proposal to an external funding agency, the Council may require proof of submission before agreeing to consider a new FIP proposal. Eligible individuals may receive funding simultaneously from more than one program administered by the Research Council or OVPRP. However, those with existing funding (or with applications under review) from these sources must disclose it when submitting another proposal for funding. In their new application, PIs must clearly demonstrate the proposed activities and budget request do not duplicate those outlined in the previously funded project. For example, a faculty member may receive funding from the Junior Faculty Fellowship, Faculty Travel, and Faculty Investment Programs simultaneously, provided no duplication of purpose exists.

If a faculty member would like to confirm eligibility prior to submitting a proposal to FIP, they should contact the OVPRP at RC_VPRfunding@ou.edu. Eligibility is determined using HR classifications of faculty positions as part of the “Regular Faculty” (section 3.1.1 of the Faculty Handbook; see also section 3.5.2 Appointments).

Proposal Content and Format

Proposals must use a font of 11 points or larger. Page margins should be 1” on all four sides. Line spacing must not be smaller than 1.5 lines.

A complete Faculty Investment Program proposal includes six required components and supplemental materials that may be required for certain projects.

1. Cover Sheet

The proposal cover sheet is available as a separate download. Complete the application cover sheet (PDF) form and obtain all required signatures. Incorporate a scanned copy of the signed form into the final proposal.

2. Project Description (limited to 6 pages, formatted as described above)

Proposals will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary group of faculty, not by experts in your field. We strongly recommend you use clear, basic English, avoid technical jargon, acronyms, and minutia that can make a research narrative inaccessible to reviewers.

The following 6 components must be addressed in your proposal. We recommend using these as the major organizational headers for your project narrative, in the order they are presented below. This flow will help reviewers quickly find what they are looking for and will help ensure you address each evaluation criterion thoroughly.

A. Intellectual Merit: Discuss the intrinsic intellectual significance, purpose, and value of the work being proposed in the context of the discipline(s) involved. This should include a clear statement of the problem or issue your work will address, a sufficient background of the literature to establish context for the proposed activities (what has been done to address the problem/issue, what are the remaining gaps), and a description of the specific knowledge gap your proposal will address.

B. Technical or Creative Approach: Describe the project’s overall approach and provide details of the specific methodology, analyses, and/or other work to be done (e.g., procedures, productions, protocols, experiments, studies, observations, information and data collection, surveys, analyses, performances, practices, exhibitions). Provide a timeline for the project that includes major tasks and activities.

C. Outcome and Impact on the Field of Scholarship: Clearly describe the project’s expected outcome(s) and impact(s). Include a brief discussion of how a successful outcome to the project will advance your field of scholarship. Note that an outcome (e.g., publication of a book) is different from an impact (e.g., the book is expected to be used by certain organizations to broaden understanding of a particular subject). Where appropriate, highlight the originality of the outcome(s) and/or the significance of the impact.

D. Impact on Investigator's Scholarship: Place the project in context relative to your research/scholarship, including your future plans. Help reviewers understand the logic of how this project fits in your overall research/scholarship program with specific details. For instance, will the project generate results for publication in the peer-reviewed literature or used as preliminary data to make a project more competitive for external funding opportunities? 

E. Qualifications and Collaborative History of the Investigator(s): Demonstrate that you/your team is qualified to perform the work, and if appropriate, that a successful history of collaboration exists, especially for projects involving personnel at other institutions. Note: this section should supplement, not replace, the two-page CV and should highlight those accomplishments that enhance the project’s likelihood of success.

F. Rationale for Funding Request: Explain why funding is being sought from the Research Council in comparison to other available sources, and whether one or more proposals for the same or similar purpose have been submitted elsewhere. For faculty in their first one or two years of employment, if start-up funding was provided to you by the University, discuss the rationale for requesting Research Council funding rather than using your start-up funds.

3. References (no page limit)

Provide complete references for all work cited in the Project Description.

4. Budget and Budget Justification (maximum of 2 pages)

Prepare an itemized budget table with a descriptive narrative outlining how the requested funds will be spent and why they are needed. Directly link each budget item (e.g., funding for a student) with details from the project description (e.g., the collection and analysis of data by the student). As appropriate, provide supporting documentation such as quotes from vendors for equipment purchases and estimates for travel. If the project seeks funding for specific individuals, provide a description of duties and why the individual is essential to the project's success. Note that proposals must adhere to State of Oklahoma travel guidelines (PDF), teaching release policies (subject to approval by the chair/director and dean), student stipend rates, data collection practices, tuition, equipment, summer salary, and support for staff. Additional information regarding budgets and justification can be found in Budget & Justification Guidance.

5. Investigator and Co-Applicant Curriculum Vitae (limit 2 pages each)

Submit a two-page curriculum vitae for the applicant and each co-applicant (NSF versions are acceptable) that includes a list of the individual's undergraduate and graduate education and postdoctoral training, professional appointments, up to five publications, exhibits, or other works most closely related to the proposed project, and up to five other significant publications, exhibits or other works, whether or not related to the proposed project.

6. Funding History (limited to 1 page)

a) List all current (active) and pending (submitted, under review) internal and external funding with a statement of how this funding is or is not related to the proposed FIP project. If no relevant funding history exists, indicate this.

b) Provide a brief synopsis of accomplishments (outcomes and impacts) from the most recent project(s) funded by the Research Council, whether related to the current submission or not.

7. Supplementary Documentation (no page limit, but content limited to the items listed)

These items are project-specific, and not all proposals will include them.

• If the project will involve human subjects, laboratory animals, rDNA and/or radioactive materials or biohazards, you must describe your plans to obtain necessary approval letters or other relevant documents by the time a Research Council award is expected to be made. The appropriate committees are: Human Subjects-Institutional Review Board; Laboratory Animals-Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and Radioactive Materials-Radiation Safety Committee and the Biosafety Committee.
• If the proposal seeks funding for teaching release (see FIP Teaching Release Form in Resources section), approval letters are required from both the department chair/director and the college dean at the time of proposal submission.
• If the proposal requests support for an activity for which you have documentation, such as a book contract, or identifies matching or in-kind support, include a copy of the documentation in your proposal.
• Applicants who believe reviewer comprehension of their proposal would be enhanced through the inclusion of audio files, video, images, and other material, e.g., art, complex figures, diagrams, illustrations, or other non-written expressions of content, may upload these files as supplementary documents to a written proposal following the guidelines above. Applicants may not use this supplementary document allowance to introduce additional ideas, concepts, or perspectives that are not included in the written proposal or circumvent the page limitations as part of the FIP guidelines.

All proposal components should be combined into a single PDF file, in the order listed above. PROPOSALS RECEIVED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS, OR WHICH DO NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED FORMATTING, WILL BE RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEW.

Applicants are reminded that all Research Council members read, review, and vote on all FIP proposals, regardless of their expertise in the proposed research. Aim to provide enough detail, description, and justification to provide a clear, concise, and exciting description of your proposed research/creative activity for a panel of scientifically literate reviewers who are non-experts in your field.

Proposal Submission

Submission of new proposals: Proposals to FIP must be submitted electronically as a single PDF file, using the online submission portal found at the bottom of this section, by the first business day of the month for review by Research Council in the same month.

Resubmission of Declined Proposals: A declined FIP proposal is limited to one resubmission. Notifications to PIs for declined proposals will include feedback from the reviewers. If you plan to resubmit a declined proposal, the resubmission must include a cover letter (maximum of two pages) describing how each of the reviewer comments have been addressed.

FIP SUBMISSION PORTAL

The Research Council review will consider each of the following aspects of the proposal, weighed equally, in making funding decisions:

• Intellectual merit
• Technical or creative approach
• Outcome(s) and impact on the field of scholarship
• Impact on investigator's scholarship
• Qualifications and collaborative history of the investigator(s)
• Appropriateness of budget and justification of resources requested

Proposal review form (PDF)

The review of proposals submitted to the Research Council is conducted with the highest standards of ethical integrity per Council policy. FIP proposals are reviewed as follows:

• Proposals that are incomplete or incorrectly formatted will be returned without review.
• Proposals that are complete and meet the guidelines will be sent to the Chair of the Research Council to determine, based on information on the application cover sheet (PDF), whether any conflicts of interest exist between those submitting the proposal and members of the Council. All conflicted Council members must recuse themselves from participating in the review and will leave the room when the remaining Council members discuss and vote on the proposal.
• Drawing from the unconflicted Council members, the Council Chair will assign two individuals to serve as lead reviewers, one having expertise in a discipline closely related to the proposal. If the latter does not exist, two Council members will still serve as lead reviewers and the Council Chair, in consultation with the Vice President for Research and Partnerships, will identify an unconflicted OU faculty member, external to the Council and with expertise in a discipline closely related to the proposal, to serve as a reviewer. In this manner, all FIP proposals will be reviewed by an unconflicted individual having expertise in a discipline closely related to the proposal topic. If the Council Chair is conflicted, the Vice President for Research and Partnerships will assign reviewers.
• The two Council lead reviewers, and the external reviewer, if utilized, each will provide an independent written proposal review, with the latter participating in the Council meeting discussion via telephone. External reviewers will not, however, vote on the proposal, though they will be subject to the same confidentiality provisions as Council members. Guided by input from all assigned reviewers, unconflicted Research Council members will vote on the proposal.

The Research Council Secretary, in collaboration with the Council Chair, will prepare a narrative summary of the reviews and discussion, then this summary and the vote will be forwarded to the Vice President for Research and Partnerships, with whom the final funding decision rests. A decision letter will be sent to the PI per the FIP timeline. Declined proposals that are eligible for resubmission will include reviewer feedback. Note that the written reviews, discussion details, and vote are confidential. The project investigator(s), project title, and proposed and approved budget amount for all funded projects are posted on the Research Council web site at the end of the fiscal year in which they were awarded.

Recipients of FIP awards are subject to the following requirements.

Reporting The principal investigator is required to submit a Final Report that includes a written narrative and a Final Budget (see template in the Resources Section) as described in and by the date provided in the award letter. The project Final Report must be submitted via the submission portal. The narrative should describe the outcomes and impacts of the project on the field of study, on the scholarly programs of the investigators, and on the university as a whole. It also should describe any deviations from the work from that originally proposed and include activities in progress that relate directly to the project. Once the Final Report has been received and approved, funds will be reimbursed to the PI's department up to the award amount.

An extension may be requested by emailing RC_VPRfunding@ou.edu. The extension must be requested prior to the deadline and should include a justification.

FIP FINAL REPORT SUBMISSION PORTAL

Serving as a Reviewer By accepting funding from the FIP, faculty members may be called upon to serve as an ad hoc reviewer for the Research Council. Faculty are obligated to review no more than three proposals, in a subject area related to their own, within a two-year period that begins when their proposal is approved for funding.

Acknowledging Research Council Support All written publications, in digital or print form, that have benefitted from Research Council funding must contain the following statement of acknowledgment: "This research was supported (in part, if appropriate) by a grant from the Research Council of the University of Oklahoma Norman Campus."