Part 2 Writing NSF Grant Proposals Video Series: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts

A few weeks ago, I gave a talk at the University of Hartford about writing successful NSF grant proposals. I've written many proposals over the years, made plenty of mistakes, learned some things, and am still learning.

Part 1 covered getting started fundamentals: the parts and pieces of an NSF proposal, practical writing strategies to help you secure funding, and an introduction to Intellectual Merit (IM) and Broader Impacts (BI).

Part 2 digs deep into Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts: what they mean, how reviewers evaluate them, and practical writing strategies to address both effectively.

Intellectual Merit covers whether your proposed activity can advance knowledge within its field or across different fields. Think of it as the contribution part of potential publications; it addresses the work itself and its findings.

Broader Impacts addresses how your work will benefit society. NSF provides examples: improving STEM education, increasing public scientific literacy, developing a diverse STEM workforce, building partnerships, improving national security, increasing U.S. economic competitiveness, and enhancing research infrastructure.

Here’s Part 2:

Each segment in the series addresses a specific aspect of proposal writing, from early planning questions to building budgets. Watch for Part 3, which will cover additional components of a complete and competitive NSF proposal.

The presentation series reflects conditions as of October 7, 2025. NSF programs and guidelines change, so verify current requirements for your program of interest before and during your writing.

Disclaimer: These opinions and advice are mine! They reflect my experience writing proposals, not official NSF guidance or institutional policy. What worked for me may need adjustment for your field or project.

Agentic Commerce: Can AI Shop Better Than You?

You send a text: "Reorder my usual coffee when I'm running low." An AI agent checks your inventory, compares prices across 50 retailers, selects the best option, and completes the purchase. you receive a notification after it's done.

 That's agentic commerce. AI software acts on your behalf to shop, compare, and buy without you clicking through websites or entering payment information for each transaction. You set preferences and spending limits. The agent operates within those boundaries.

 

The technology uses large language models to understand requests, APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) to access product catalogs and payment systems, and machine learning to improve recommendations over time. Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Amazon, and Google have all launched or have plans to launch agentic commerce platforms (see Links to Watch below) in 2025. The agents can handle simple tasks like grocery reordering or complex ones like researching neighborhoods when you relocate.

 

Advantages

Time savings: You delegate research, comparison, and execution to software. No browser tabs, no manual price checks.

Price optimization follows: Agents scan thousands of retailers instantly and find better deals than human shoppers typically locate. They monitor price drops and act when conditions meet your preset criteria. Some negotiate pricing directly.

Personalization improvements through pattern recognition: Agents learn your preferences, budget constraints, and purchase history. They filter options against your actual behavior rather than generic demographic data. Recommendations get more accurate over time.

Cart abandonment drops: Friction disappears when agents complete multistep processes automatically.

 

Disadvantages

Trust gaps: Only 24% of US consumers feel comfortable letting AI complete purchases, according to Bain research. Liability remains unclear when an agent makes an unauthorized or incorrect purchase. Who pays when the bot orders the wrong item or books a nonrefundable flight you can't use?

Fraud risks: Agents can be tricked by fake listings, manipulated reviews, or spoofed sellers. Payment credentials become more vulnerable when stored for autonomous access. Data poisoning can skew agent decisions across many transactions.

Merchant disintermediation: Retailers lose direct customer relationships when agents make data driven purchase decisions. Brand loyalty weakens. Small and midsize retailers face higher costs to optimize product data for machine readability.

Pricing pressure increase: Agents search for the best deals automatically, which forces margins down across categories. Impulse purchases decline because agents buy only what you need.

Privacy concerns:  Agents require extensive behavioral data to function effectively. Transparency about data collection varies. Regulatory frameworks lag behind the technology.

You'll need parallel shopping systems: one for humans, one for bots: The transition period creates complexity without guarantees that consumer adoption will follow.

Links To Watch

Here are links to some major agentic commerce platforms:

Visa Intelligent Commerce: https://corporate.visa.com/en/products/intelligent-commerce.html

Mastercard Agent Pay: https://www.mastercard.com/us/en/business/artificial-intelligence/mastercard-agent-pay.html

PayPal Agentic Commerce (PayPal.ai) https://paypal.ai/

Amazon Buy for Me: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-shopping-app-buy-for-me-brands

Google AI Mode Shopping: https://blog.google/products/shopping/google-shopping-ai-mode-virtual-try-on-update/

Some Notes On These: Amazon's Buy for Me is currently in beta testing with limited users. Google's agentic checkout feature was announced at I/O 2025 but has not fully rolled out yet.

Writing NSF Grant Proposals Video Series: Part 1

A few weeks ago, I gave a talk at one of my favorite places that I’ve had the opportunity to  teach - the University of Hartford - about writing NSF grant proposals. I've written many proposals over the years, made plenty of mistakes, learned some things, and still learning. I decided to share what I know more broadly. 

This is Part 1. The presentation reflects conditions as of October 7, 2025. NSF programs and guidelines change, so verify current requirements for your program of interest before and monitor during your writing.

 

The video covers the fundamentals. I focus on practical writing strategies that help you secure funding, including how to address intellectual merit and broader impacts without using generic language.

 

One disclaimer: these opinions and advice are mine. They reflect my experience writing proposals, not official NSF guidance or institutional policy. What worked for me may need adjustment for your field or project.

 

Parts 2 and 3 will come soon. Each segment addresses a specific aspect of proposal writing, from early planning questions to building budgets.

If you're preparing an NSF proposal, I hope this helps. Watch for Parts 2 and 3 coming soon and good luck! Email me if you have questions at gordonsnyder@gmail.com

Lost in Seattle With Mete Mario

Me, Lynn Barnett, and Mete Kök
at the 1998 NSF ATE Conference in Washington, DC

The drizzle came down on the rental. Mete drove and Alberto sat beside him looking at his
watch. I was in the back seat.

"Six o'clock," Alberto said.

"I know it."

Mete's face was set. His jaw was tight but his hands were loose on the wheel. We had been driving through the neighborhoods for some time. There was no map. I had said I knew the way from the hotel but I did not know it. The houses were small with well kept yards. The streets all looked the same in the drizzle.

We had meetings for three days. Microsoft and the American Association of Community Colleges had set up a program called Working Connections. The three of us were community college faculty. Our colleges were part of the program. 1998 was a good time. The internet was taking off. Everyone was building websites. Microsoft was fighting Netscape for the browser war and spending big. Y2K was coming and everyone needed help. Windows NT was everywhere. Microsoft was winning and they knew it. You could feel the energy. The campus in Redmond was new buildings and green lawns. Long meeting days but they treated us like royalty. Community college faculty getting the executive treatment. Everything was first class. They fed us well - I fondly remember the swizzle sticks for our coffee. and of course - the chair massages. The presentations were sharp. Everyone wore business casual. One guy wore a kilt. No ties. The hotel was downtown Seattle. Marble floors and doormen. The beds were comfy. Views spectacular. We bussed back and forth to Redmond. Now, we were lost in the neighborhoods where people lived.

"Turn left," I said.

"You know?"

"No."

He turned his head but his eyes never left the road. He did not look worried. The street curved back. Alberto watched his watch. The drizzle was steady now.

"We need to ask," I said.

Mete was already stopping. He knew what to do. An old man came out with his dog. He had no umbrella. Nobody uses them in Seattle. The drizzle was on his head and shoulders. The dog was wet. Mete rolled down the window.

"The airport?"

The man came closer. He looked at us through the drizzle. Water was on his face.

"Sea-Tac?"

"Yes."

"End of the street. Turn right. Five blocks to Aurora. Go south. You'll see the signs for the interstate."

"Thank you."

Mete's face changed. Now he knew. His shoulders relaxed. He drove like he knew. We found Aurora. Then the signs. Then the highway. The drizzle kept coming. Mete's hands were steady on the wheel. His eyes were focused and calm. He moved between the cars and did not use the brakes much. The wipers went back and forth. He never rushed and he was efficient. There was no question we would make it. You could see it in his face.

Alberto looked at his watch at the airport exit. Mete did not look at anything but the road. He knew the time without looking.

Mete pulled to the curb at departures. Smooth. Perfect. Alberto took his bag and got out. The drizzle hit him. He ran for the doors.

We watched him go inside.

I climbed into the front seat.

"Will he make it?"

Mete looked at me. His face was calm. It had been calm the whole time.

"He will."

(He did)

I looked at Mete. He had driven like Mario Andretti. The racing driver. Fast and smooth and never rattled.

"Mario," I said.

"What?"

"Mete Mario."

He smiled a little. It was good.

What I Tell Students About AI and Their Careers

Yesterday I wrote about my experience meeting with first year engineering students at Wentworth Institute of Technology. Here’s a bit more on what was discussed. 

AI always comes up. Whenever I talk to students - AI - it's something we are all concerned about. We worry about career security, whether we will be replaced by a bot, how fast it is moving. I have my own opinions on this from both a career perspective and a classroom perspective. Here's my take.

 

AI is now standard equipment. You'll use AI to draft reports, run design iterations, and analyze data. These tools are already normal day to day for many engineers. I like to compare AI to CAD. In the 1980s, senior engineers worried that CAD would eliminate drafting jobs. It did. But it created more engineering jobs because projects got cheaper and faster. Engineers who learned AutoCAD (arguably the first CAD program to gain widespread adoption is the 1980s) early had an advantage over those who clung to drafting tables. The same pattern applies now.

 

Computers can't make decisions that matter. AI suggests solutions based on parameters you provide. You decide which parameters count. You recognize when outputs look correct but fail in reality. You know when code conflicts with physics. You take responsibility when designs fail. Software doesn't do that.

 

Hands-on work resists automation. Site inspections, equipment troubleshooting, and field verification require presence. Civil, mechanical, and construction engineering involve messy reality. Sensors lie. Materials behave unpredictably. You verify assumptions with your hands and eyes.

 

Communication grows more valuable. Clients need translation between technical reality and business needs. Regulators need convincing. Teams need coordination. AI generates text; you read people and adjust strategy accordingly.

 

Choose your specialization carefully. Deep technical knowledge in stable domains (structural analysis, thermodynamics, electromagnetics) pairs well with computational tools. You provide expertise; computers handle calculations. Broad systems thinking also works. You connect disciplines; software optimizes within constraints you define.

 

Skills that will protect your career with reference to AI:

·       Learning new tools quickly

·       Critical evaluation of automated outputs

·       Client and stakeholder management

·       Hands-on troubleshooting

·       Ethical decision making

·       Cross-disciplinary thinking

 

Many engineering faculty disagree on this topic. Now for the fun stuff. Some professors ban AI tools in their courses. They have concerns about academic integrity and skill development. I understand the concerns and have the same ones, but this stuff is not going away. Employers today expect engineers to use AI tools day one, so I've shifted (and continue to shift) my courses to incorporate AI into assignments and labs. Students need practice evaluating AI outputs and knowing when to trust them. Learning these skills in school sure beats learning them under deadline pressure at a first job.

 

Advice to students. Use AI tools in your coursework when allowed. Learn their limitations through experience. Discover where they fail. If a professor bans AI, respect that rule. But seek out courses that teach you to work with these tools effectively.

Your generation will work alongside AI throughout your careers. Good engineers get better with better tools.

Some Things First Year Engineering Students Need to Know

I met with a class of first year engineering students in Professor Javdekar's (excellent) class at Wentworth Institute of Technology this morning. Civil, electrical, mechanical, computer, and biomedical engineering students filled the room. They asked some great questions about education and careers. Here's a short summary of some of what we discussed.

Your coursework builds foundations that last. Math teaches you to model change. Physics shows you how systems behave under stress. Biology teaches you systems. Chemistry explains material properties. These aren't obstacles to graduation. They're part of the vocabulary you'll use to describe and solve real problems. 

Hands-on matters more than grades suggest. You learn to troubleshoot when experiments fail. You discover that theory doesn't always match reality. You practice translating observations into conclusions. These skills transfer directly to fieldwork. Real projects fail in unexpected ways. Your ability to diagnose and adapt comes from that hands-on experience.

Problem sets teach decision making. You learn which equations apply to which situations. You estimate before calculating. You check if answers make physical sense. Engineering isn't about memorizing formulas. It's about judgment under constraints. Every problem set builds that muscle.

Group projects prepare you for collaboration. You coordinate schedules. You divide work among people with different strengths. You resolve conflicts over approach. These frustrations are excellent training not just for your careers but for life. Real projects involve coordinating dozens of people with competing priorities.

Skills that compound over time:

• Technical fundamentals from your core courses
• Hands-on troubleshooting from labs
• Communication from presentations and reports
• Systems thinking from design projects
• Time management from balancing coursework

You're not just collecting credits. You're building capabilities. The math feels abstract now. The lab reports feel tedious. They're teaching you to understand and document decisions that matter.

The engineers who thrive know what to build, not just how to build it. Your education is teaching you both.

Building Systems, Teaching Students: Why Academic Leaders Need Both

I spent twenty years as a community college administrator, directing an NSF center of excellence from 1998 to 2018. We partnered with industry leaders to bring emerging technologies - fiber optics, wireless communications, network security, advanced data systems - to community colleges nationwide. We trained hundreds of faculty, helped establish cutting-edge programs at hundreds of colleges across the country, and built frameworks that are still shaping technical education today.

That work was essential. We accomplished things that couldn't have been done from inside a single classroom.

Then I returned to teaching students full-time.

That work was equally essential. And it revealed a truth every educational leader needs to understand.

The Power of National-Level Work

At the NSF center, we operated at a scale that created real change. We worked directly with telecommunications companies, security firms, and system integrators - networking, fiber optic manufacturers, cybersecurity leaders. They showed us what was coming: 5G deployment, fiber expansion, evolving threat landscapes, mobile infrastructure. We translated that into curriculum frameworks, faculty development workshops, and equipment standards.

We helped hundreds of colleges launch programs that didn't previously exist. Networking programs. Cybersecurity tracks. Fiber optic technology courses. We connected campuses with industry partnerships. We created pathways that led directly to employment.

Faculty attended our workshops supported by institutional budgets and professional development funding. They returned to their campuses with new skills, current knowledge, and industry-aligned curriculum. The impact rippled across the country.

This work mattered enormously. You cannot build that infrastructure from a single classroom.

What Only the Classroom Can Teach

But you also cannot build effective educational systems without understanding what happens in that classroom.

Students face different questions than faculty do. Many work full-time while taking 15 credits. They raise children. They choose between an associate degree that gets them earning quickly and transfer preparation that might open more doors later. They often make these choices in their first semester, before they fully understand what the careers involve.

I met the student who can configure a router beautifully but struggles with signal processing mathematics. She needs to decide: get her network technician AS degree now, or push through two more years for university engineering transfer? The framework we built doesn't answer that question.

I worked with the student who could transfer to computer engineering but needs income immediately. His Cisco certification could start him at $80K. He also needs to pay rent next month. The equipment standards don't address that reality.

I encountered the student who didn't know network administration existed as a career path. We'd helped build hundreds of these programs nationwide. But this student - sitting in my classroom - had never heard of this field until his advisor suggested this intro course.

The Questions That Shape Policy

The student who emails at 11pm asking whether he needs Calculus for networking if he's just pursuing Cisco certifications.

The single parent who misses lab occasionally because childcare fell through.

The returning adult who asks whether a two-year security degree will limit her options if she wants to advance later.

These aren't edge cases. These are community college students. They often work 30-40 hours weekly. They wonder whether they belong in STEM at all. They need someone who can answer not just "what's the curriculum" but "how does this fit my actual life?"

You cannot design programs for these students solely from administrative offices, no matter how well-intentioned or industry-informed those designs may be.

Why Leaders Need Both Perspectives

The NSF center work gave me systems thinking. National reach. Industry connections. The ability to see patterns across hundreds of institutions. Understanding of how emerging technologies should flow into curricula. That perspective is invaluable.

The classroom work gave me something equally invaluable: understanding what students actually need from those systems.

Both matter. Both are necessary.

But here's what I learned: educational leaders who stay disconnected from classrooms make decisions based on incomplete information. They design beautiful systems that don't account for the 11pm email. They create pathways without understanding how students actually choose between them. They implement policies that assume students have the resources, time, and knowledge that faculty in professional development workshops have.

When I returned to teaching, my perspective shifted immediately. I stopped thinking exclusively about cutting-edge protocols and started asking why students struggle to afford textbooks. I stopped only designing pathways based on industry needs and started helping individuals figure out which pathway fits their actual circumstances. I started understanding the difference between "this program exists" and "this student knows this program exists and understands whether it's right for them."

The Call to Action

Educational administrators and leaders need both perspectives. The broad institutional view and the individual student view. The systems design and the human implementation.

Attending conferences matters. Presenting at professional meetings has value. Working with industry partners creates essential connections.

But teaching an introductory course to students who work full-time, whose last math course was in high school, who will lose financial aid if they don't pass—that's equally essential leadership work.

Do this and you make better decisions at every level. Your policy discussions become grounded in reality. Your program designs account for actual student lives. Your resource allocation reflects what students truly need, not just what looks impressive in a grant application.

The administrative work I did was valuable - genuinely valuable. We changed technical education across the country. But I would have made better decisions during those twenty years if I had remained connected to the classroom throughout.

Other administrators might benefit from the same reminder.

A Practical Proposal

Educational leaders should teach at least one course every two years. Not as a guest lecturer. Not as an administrator observing. As the instructor of record, responsible for student outcomes, answering the emails, navigating the same systems students navigate.

NSF center work taught me how to build systems at scale. Teaching students taught me whether those systems actually work for the people they're meant to serve.

Both lessons are essential. Neither is optional for effective educational leadership.