Successful Proposal Writing

Planning
Preparation
Abstract
Budget
References
Writing Tips
What Panelists/Reviewers Look For
Resubmission

Planning

• What do you intend to do?
• Why is the work important? (What difference will it make?)
• To whom is the work important? (Who cares?)
• What has already been done and written on the topic?
• How are you going to do the work?
• How does the current project fit into your long-range teaching-research plan?

Preparation

1. Long range preparation includes volunteering to be a reviewer. Call a program officer at an agency that funds your discipline and volunteer.
2. Keep your résumé up to date. It is a good idea to keep several versions of your up-to-date résumé on file for quick access. Some proposals require a one- or two-page résumé, while others require a complete curriculum vita, all in outline form. Some call for a brief narrative biography. If you keep these current, you can quickly give them to possible collaborators, publishers, or potential funders. Summer is a great time to get this aspect of preparing a proposal out of the way.
3. Seek appropriate funding sources and review the deadlines. The Office of Foundation, Corporate and Government Relations can help you with this search.
4. Recognize the deadline as an opportunity to further your work, not a reason to start work.
5. Read the program announcement carefully, including ALL instructions, before you begin.
6. Talk to everyone who can help you. They become your support team.
   
   • Office of Foundation, Corporate and Government Relations (overall guidance, samples of successful proposals)
   • Program officer at the funding agency (very important!)
   • Department Chair
   • Campus Animal or Human Subjects Committee as appropriate
   • Colleagues on or off campus who are successful grant recipients.
     READ and CALL
     An interesting note - of approximately 360 pre-proposals received by one deadline for the NSF Collaborative Research in Undergraduate Institutions, more than 100 were returned without review because they were felt to be "noncompliant with the program announcement, inappropriate for the National Science Foundation, or inappropriate for the Biological Sciences or Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorates." Think how much work (averaging a total of 40 pages of narrative, budget, and other information) and disappointment could have been avoided by reading the guidelines and calling a program officer.
7. Consider Collaboration - with another professor within your department, another department, another university, a community organization, a K-12 school or teacher, even colleagues in another country.
   As government and private funders further target their funding efforts, a great idea that involves collaboration is often the winning combination. Here are the elements of a successful collaboration, as outlined by Winsome Hawkins, senior program officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Community Foundation (from Foundation and Corporate Grants Alert, November 1995):
   
   • A clear statement of goals, objectives and outcomes to which all partners subscribe.
   • Clear identification of each partner's roles and responsibilities.
   • Regular meetings to provide feedback and share or exchange information.
   • Concrete benchmarks to monitor progress and maintain focus.
   • Patience to survive periods of frustration and seeming lack of progress.
   • Open, effective channels of communication between partners.
8. Include Undergraduate Students to assist you with your research projects. The impact on the research and training environment should include preparing students for mainstream study, not work on arcane or obscure research. For NSF projects DO NOT underestimate the importance of the NSF-RUI Impact Statement.

Abstract

1. This summary of your project is the most important element of your proposal. Write it last!
2. It should be succinct, logical, and accurate and be able to stand alone.
3. Avoid using the first person, or sounding like a commercial. Use a professional tone.
4. Make sure you include:
   
   • Broad, long-term objectives
   • Specific aims
   • Research design and methods

Budget

Budget worksheet in Microsoft Excel format

1. EARLY in the process, meet with the Office of Foundation & Government Grants. We can advise on all budget categories, including fringe benefits, indirect cost rates, summer salary rates, etc.
2. Make sure budget is REALISTIC. Get discounted prices from vendors. Reviewers generally will know the prices of equipment, supplies, etc., and unrealistic prices will put them off.
3. If cost sharing is required, it is very important and indicates that the University has bought into your project. Matching funds must be cleared in advance through the Dean's office.
4. Involve the Purchasing Department -- for furniture, special electrical wiring or plumbing, etc.
5. The University of Richmond's federally negotiated indirect cost rate is 53% of salaries, wages and fringe benefits. In some cases a percentage of the total direct costs may be used. Check with the Office of Foundation, Corporate and Government Relations.
6. The University's fringe benefit rate is 28% during the academic year for full time employees; 8.5% for students, faculty/summers, and part-time employees.

References

1. Those who recommend you should be experts in your field, not good friends in unrelated fields.
2. They should be visible, active scholars in your field.
3. They should know you, your project, and the field.

Writing Tips

1. As you develop your idea, create folders for each component of a grant application. As you have ideas of what to include, write yourself a note and put it into the folder. When you are finally ready to write, it will be easier to organize your thoughts.
2. Address every 'bullet' or criterion listed in the guidelines.
3. What are your SPECIFIC AIMS? What is the HYPOTHESIS to be tested, and what objectives will test the hypothesis?
4. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: What is the current relevant literature? What is your evaluation of the existing knowledge? What are your long-term objectives? What is the relevance to your field or to others?
5. What PRELIMINARY DATA, or evidence do you have to support your hypothesis? Have you done work on this topic already? When and where?
6. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS: How do your methods relate to the aims of your project? Demonstrate your awareness of potential problems and solutions. Demonstrate your familiarity with methodologies; document your adaptations.
7. Make a clear case for why YOU should do this project at this time. Clearly state your qualifications, honors and experience.
8. Create a realistic TIMETABLE.
9. EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION:
   
   • Establish baseline and end points;
   • Document meaningful changes in the student's experience;
   • Actively promote your new information (not just a web site linked to/from other web sites, but also workshops on/off campus, personal contact including visits to other campuses, possible beta test sites at other schools, use of consortia to which UR belongs - ACS, VFIC);
   • External evaluators who are qualified to produce a realistic assessment of your work.
10. You should have clear COMMITMENTS from any collaborators and attach appropriate letters of support. A partner from another institution should obtain the appropriate sign-offs from that institutional grants office.
11. Review your proposal for the use of POSITIVE LANGUAGE. You want to set a positive tone when writing a proposal. Your proposal will be much stronger if your writing reflects confidence in your project and in the forthcoming funding. Using conditional language only gives a tentative outlook for your project:
    

    Not "We would like to..." but "We will..."
    Not "We may include..." but "Programs will include..."
    Not "Possible results might be..." but "The results will be..."
    Not "Dr. Jones may be invited to..." but "Dr. Jones will participate..."

12. Make sure your entire proposal is on a BACK-UP disk. Back it up frequently throughout the writing process.
13. Links to grant writing resources on the Web.

What Panelists/Reviewers Look For

At NIH, NSF and most other agencies, panelists look for projects that are:

• Innovative
• Exciting
• Well-documented
• Detailed
• Well-focused
• Realistic
• Well-developed
• Currently relevant
• Not too ambitious
• Not too narrow

Other important criteria include:

• Principal Investigator's competence and accomplishments
• Adequacy of institutional resources and facilities
• Institutional commitment and administrative support
• Evidence of Collaboration
• Model that can be replicated
• Plan for evaluation and dissemination
• Impact on national infrastructure
• Use of new technologies
• Process of students learning through guided research
• Is PI the right person to conduct this project at this point in time?

Charles Glassock of the Carnegie Foundation referred to the publication Scholarship Reconsidered and listed the following that may be used to evaluate all forms of scholarly work. All of these are also very applicable to the crafting of proposals for external funding, so we list them here to emphasize their importance.

The four forms of scholarship are:

• Discovery (research)
• Integration (interpretation, making connections)
• Application (creative analysis, reflection in action, engagement of the scholar, apply to real problems)
• Teaching (expanding intellectual dimensions)

The six shared themes for evaluation are:

• Clear goals (significant, feasible, honest)
• Adequate preparation (current, depth of understanding of subject matter)
• Appropriate methods (choose wisely, revise judiciously; methods are scientifically sound, flexible with changing situations)
• Significance of results (contribution to field, recognition by others)
• Effective communications (teaching becomes 'community property,' shared information, effectively written, widely disseminated, appropriate forums for intended audience)
• Reflective critique (evaluation, opinions of others).

The three necessary qualities are:

• Integrity
• Perseverance
• Courage.

  (Faculty Colloquy, 8/20/98)

Resubmission

• Be prepared to resubmit your proposal if it is turned down the first time.
• Call Program Officer to get reviewers' comments, meet with your support team (Grants Office, colleagues, collaborators, etc.) to determine how and where to adjust the proposal for the next round.

Back to top