how to write proposal.pdf

8/12/2019 how to write proposal.pdf

1/47

How to write a winningresearch proposal

PPT presentation by prof. dr. J. Feyen

March 2003


2/47

Content

Why research ? Why should this be in a competitive context ? Why a research proposal ? Getting started

What makes a good proposal ? Writing your proposal How to structure your proposal ? The review process

Allocation of funding What next ? Getting help with your proposal ? Quick TIPS for writing a good proposal


3/47

Content





4/47

Why research ?

Why is the development of research withinuniversities a must ? To maintain the quality of teaching programs.

Provide the basis for undergraduate and graduatethesis research projects.

Universities should be more than degree

delivering institutions. Universities should be the basket for new

knowledge and developments.


5/47

Content





6/47

Why should this be in acompetitive context ?

Do universities have the financial capacity todevelop and support research activities ?

Where can the money be found to develop

and support research ?

How can the society gets the highest return

on investment ?


7/47

Content





8/47

Why a research proposal ?

Convince others the project you havedesigned is important, worth the effort.

Convince others that you have the ability to

carry out the research design and report thefindings.

Generate funds to sustain the research unitsoperation.


9/47

Content





10/47

Getting started

Know your subject. The reviewers will lookfor an up-to-date knowledge of the researcharea.

Know your funder. Be aware of the prioritiesand interests of the funder you approach, andknow that funders are unlikely to support thesame idea twice.


11/47

Getting started

Consult colleagues. Dont be afraid to discussyour proposal with colleagues, or even withthe grants officer at the funding body. Early

discussions can ensure that your proposal istargeted appropriately.


12/47

Content





13/47

What makes a good proposal ?

A well-prepared application should requireminimal effort on the part of the reviewer.

Proposals must demonstrate high scientific

quality.

The requested funds must be in proportion

to the proposed project (cost-effectiveness).


14/47

Content





15/47

Writing your proposal

Allow plenty of time to prepare yourproposal. A good starting point is to write aone-page summary of the whole project. This

may take a while to get right, but oncecompleted it will serve as an invaluable toolfor writing your full proposal.

Use your proposal to show the need and thenfill the gap.


16/47


Present your proposal in terms of the aimsand objectives of the funder and not just yourown make it clear how you will be helping

them to fund their priorities. Consider the questions the funder will be

asking: Why fund you ? Why fund this ?Why now ? ... and make sure that theproposal answers them!


17/47


Be aware that you will have limited to noneopportunities to answer queries arising from areading of your proposal.

Consult the funders website and read clearlythe call for research proposals as well as thecriteria against which your proposal will bejudged.


18/47


Although it is the content that matters, goodpresentation is often crucial to making yourproposal accessible to reviewers and keeping

their interest. Use diagrams and tables to add clarity;

Bullet points and sections can break up text;

Keep to page, word and font size restrictions; and

Activate the spell checker while writing.


19/47

Content





20/47

How to structure your proposal ?

Check guidelines carefully failing to meetthe funders format and specifications is oneof the most common reasons for applications

being returned. A common proposal structure normally

consists of: title, abstract, background, aims

and objectives, methodology, work program,resources, outcomes (outputs &dissemination), project management,

reviewers.


21/47


Title: This is the first impression the readergets. The title should be short and clear, andthe reviewer should be able to understand

from the title the intentions of the research. Acatchy title posing a question or including anapparant contradiction or acronym may be

more easily remembered by a reviewer.


22/47


Abstract: Should be a concise summary of theWHOLE project. Use the abstract to identifythe need for this research, state what you

intend to do, and how you intend to do it. Donot include unnecessary detail; make eachphrase count. And remember it is the first

impression a reviewer gets of an applicantsworth!

TIP - Ask a colleague to readyour abstract. If the abstract iswell written they should be ableto understand the essence of theproject from the abstract alone.


23/47


Background: This section should be used toput the work into context: what has beendone before, and how will the proposed work

add to it ? What is the innovative aspect inthe research project ? Build your case bydemonstrating your capability and familiarity

in the area.


24/47


Aims and objectives: The aims shoulddescribe what you intend to achieve by doingthis piece of work. Your objectives are the

small steps you need to reach in order toachieve your aim. Aims ad objectives shouldbe realistic, consistent, and link them to

methods, timetable, and outcomes.


25/47


Methodology: Methods should be detailedand well thought through. Explain why youhave chosen a particular method. Base your

explanation on literature references. If yourown experience of a methodology is limited,consider working with collaborators.


26/47


Work program: Make use of a Pert chart toillustrate the building blocks work packages

of the research project. Be detailed in the

description of the content of each workpackage (why, objectives, method(s), duration,

when are you going to carry out each WP,

partners involved in the realization, sequenceof WP, etc.).


27/47


28/47


Work program: This section contains also adiagrammatic work plan, called a Ganntchart. The Gannt chart or diagrammatic work

plan should also be accompanied by a writtendescription.


29/47

Example of a Gannt chart (= diagrammatic work

plan) deliverables


30/47


Resources: The proposal should contain adetailed budget. The budget asked should be inproportion to the volume and complexity of the

work activities. Be aware that funders vary as towhat they are prepared to pay in terms of directproject costs, such as staff and equipment, andindirect costs, such as overheads. The fundermight request to approve beforehand owninputs or inputs from other institutionsparticipating in the project.


31/47


Outcomes, outputs (+ deliverables) anddissemination: In this section one shoulddescribe the contribution to knowledge and

importance for future research, the benefits tousers, and the broader relevance tobeneficiaries. Highlight how results will be

disseminated (publications, conferences,commercial exploitation, websites, ....).


32/47


Project management: This might not berequired for small projects. However forprojects in which several partners are

involved sufficient information has to beprovided on how the project will be managed(timescales, milestones, communication,

criteria to measure progress, how crisissituations and conflicts will be handled, etc.).


33/47

Example of Project Organization chart

TIP A PO chart alone is not

enough. Should be usedalongside a written description.


34/47


Reviewers: Often requested to suggest nameof referees.

Choose people who know you and your work;

Dont use reviewers within your own institution; Use international reviewers; and

Be aware that applicants own referees writeunfavourable reports.

TIP Ask a colleague to conduct

a dummy review beforesubmitting. Their input may helpto improve the clarity of your

proposal.


35/47

Content





36/47

The review process

Expert assessment: Traditionally applicationswill be assessed by 2 to 3 reviewers selectedfrom the pool of experts. Reviewers will make

an independent assessment of the scientificquality of the proposal. To be selected forfunding at least 2 of the 3 reviewers should

provide a positive assessment.


37/47

The review process

What are reviewers looking for ? High scientific quality;

Proposals that meet the funders priorities or fill a

knowledge gap; Novelty ad timeliness;

Value for money;

A clear and well thought out approach; and

An interesting idea catch their attention!


38/47

The review process

Awards committee: Ranks the submittedproposals on the basis of the reviewersreports. Their operation and procedures can

be very variable from funder to funder. Theymight for policy reasons of the funder deviatefrom the reviewers assessment.


39/47

Content





40/47

Allocation of funding

Position in the ranking is important it couldmean the difference between success andfailure. Proposals are often ranked into the

following categories: Fund;

Fundable;

Invite resubmission (used by some funders); or

Reject.


41/47

Content





42/47

What next ?

If the project is retained for funding

OK. If the project is found fundable ???

If invited for resubmission revise proposal

feedback from the reviewers panel.

If rejected Can be very frustrating

do not give up, try to get feedback

remember it is a learning process !


43/47

Content





44/47

Getting help with yourproposal ?

Many URLs ... http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9891/nsf9891.htm http//www.scre.ac.uk/tpr/observations/obs4/obs4harlen.html http//www.esrc.ac.uk/rgbgui.htm http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/misc/sitemap.dtl

http//www.twu.ca/spsy/faculty/wong/graded/pproposal.html http//www.wested.org/tie/granttips.html http//www.yale.edu/tri/researchguides.pdf http//www.cpb.org/grants/grants.writing.html

http//www.epa.gov/seahome/grants/src/grant.htm http//www.sfasu.edu/orps/proposal.writing.htm Etc. > 1000 sites


45/47

Content

Why research ?

Why should this be in a competitive context ? Why a research proposal ? Getting started




46/47


47/47

how to write proposal.pdf

Documents

Transcript of how to write proposal.pdf