In recent years, 10-15 Catalyst applications have been funded per review cycle, about 25 per year. Roughly 65% of Catalyst applications have been funded.

Here are some frequent problems:

• The narrative of the application was not written for a non-specialist.
• The project was not situated in the appropriate scholarly or artistic context (e.g., not including references).
• The application did not follow the recommended format in the proposal guide or contained large passages that were cut and pasted from sabbatical or external grant applications. Successful proposals are clearly  written, well-organized, and written specifically for the Catalyst grant.
• The applicant did not appropriately document the commitment of external agencies or sponsors vital to the success of the project.
• The budget was not sufficiently detailed or did not explain why budget items were vital to completing the project.
• The likely outcomes of the project were not sufficiently explained.
• The applicant did not demonstrate that they have expertise in the methods that they propose using.
• The applicant did not demonstrate they have the expertise (or action plan) to effectively analyze their data.
• The application did not respond to all relevant sections of the application form.
• Other GVSU funding sources are more appropriate for the project.

Seek feedback on your draft application, especially from peers and from people outside of your discipline or field. Some units have formal review committees for CSCE grants. In any case, more eyes on your proposal will help you tell a more compelling story about your scholarly/creative project.

Additionally, the CSCE’s Research and Development committee has one or more members from each college and the library. Many of these committee members are willing to review draft applications, identify potential concerns, and recommend improvements.

• The proposal is written to allow a non-specialist reader to accurately summarize the project to a third  party.
• Regardless of complexity, the strongest applications clearly explain what the project is, why it is significant, who is involved, and what everyone involved will be doing.
• The proposal clearly contextualizes the project and its significance. The strongest applications explain how a project relates and contributes to a broader scholarly/creative conversation in a discipline, a community of practice, and/or within the applicant’s own scholarly/creative trajectory.
• A description of the how the budgeted expenses contribute to the project (e.g., if requesting funds for travel, explain why the travel is necessary to your project).
• The application has a compelling narrative. The strongest applications persuade readers that a project is interesting, important, innovative, or exciting, and they demonstrate that the project is feasible.

The Committee wants to catalyze scholarly and/or artistic activity for all faculty, and they are especially interested in doing so for faculty who have been less productive. Successful applications of this sort typically describe how the grant will help develop a new creative/scholarly direction and demonstrate preparation or circumstances which will allow the project to succeed. For example, an applicant might detail retraining or other steps they have undertaken to ensure success.

During review cycles when resources are especially limited, an applicant who has recently (and/or frequently) obtained support might be less likely to be successful. Nevertheless, many faculty members succeed in obtaining grants on a regular basis. These individuals generally demonstrate a good return on the Committee’s investment: they succeed in accomplishing the goals set forth in their grants.

Note: catalyst and collaborative grants are designed as seed funding, not as ongoing support for longer-term projects. For new projects that are related to previously-funded work, strong applications explain how the grant will support a new research direction or catalyze scholarly/creative activity not covered by the previous grant.

Yes, the Committee has funded many active scholars who are between grants. Successful applicants often explain how this funding will make their external grant application more competitive or will allow them to complete a project that was initiated with an external grant.

You can apply for the Faculty Course Reassignment for Research and Creative Expression, as a supplement to a Catalyst grant. If your project only requires time, you can apply for a $0 Catalyst grant, select the Course Reassignment supplement, and focus your application on the reassigned time.

The Committee recognizes and values that CSCE funding can lead to impactful student experiences as well as providing meaningful contributions to a project. However, the primary goal of CSCE funding is catalyze the scholarship and artistic activity of faculty. If a faculty member’s primary goal for a project is to advance student development, they should consider other funding mechanisms, such as the Student Summer Scholars (S3) or Modified Student Summer Scholars (MS3) programs. The most successful Catalyst grant applications emphasize the scholarly/creative nature and significance of the project, instead of student experiences.

Yes, paying students can be a major (or even the sole) budget item. However, it is incumbent on the applicant to explain that employing students is the best or only way to complete their project. The case for paying students is generally strongest when students are working long hours, have unusual skills or training, or it would be otherwise difficult to recruit student volunteers to contribute to the project.

Yes, the Committee has funded numerous faculty members who have applied for or who are currently on sabbatical leave. It is important to understand that just because you have received university support for your sabbatical leave does not guarantee Research and Development support for your Catalyst request. Make sure you follow the guidelines for the Catalyst proposal and do not just attach your sabbatical application. For example, a strong application to offset sabbatical travel costs would clearly explain how the travel contributes to the scholarly/creative project.

Please allow up to 30 days from the application deadline for the committee to review your application and for the CSCE Administrative Assistant to prepare notification letters. That is by November 1st for Round 1, March 1st for Round 2, and April 15th for Round 3.

If your proposal is not funded, you may request feedback from the committee by sending the Center for Scholarly and Creative Excellence an email. You are also encouraged to seek additional feedback in a 1:1 meeting with the Executive Director of Center for Scholarly and Creative Excellence and/or the Chair of R&D. They will offer suggestions on how to improve or strengthen your proposal for resubmission. Please contact CSCE for more details.