|
|
Proposal Development: Drafting Stages
Beyond the strictly
scientific content of the proposal, you can strengthen the narrative
portion of your proposal by keeping the following in mind:
- Proofreading counts!
- Sponsor space, type, margin
and font requirements must always be respected. Proposals are rejected
outright if you try to squeeze things; the NSF Fastlane
system will not allow a proposal to be submitted unless its
requirements are strictly observed.
- Know your audience. Scientific review panels
are typically composed of both experts in your research area and
experts in your general discipline. Define terminology that may be
unfamiliar to non-experts. This is even more critical in curriculum
development and institutional proposals, where the reviewers are
likely to be drawn from among experts in education rather than a
particular discipline.
- Write the proposal in
"one voice." E-mail has made it considerably easier to work on
proposals with collaborators at other institutions. However, it is
jarring to reviewers if the component sections of a proposal differ
widely in tone or style and may lead to doubts about the
collaborators' ability to coordinate their activities. The problem is
particularly acute in interdisciplinary proposals, in which
collaborators may have entirely different professional vocabularies.
In such instances, use the vocabulary most appropriate to the agency
to which you are applying.
- Avoid
"boilerplate" language or statistics in the proposal
narrative
(though boilerplate is often necessary in other sections).
Institutional and programmatic proposals will typically need
information about the College, its mission, facilities, faculty and
student body that you will need to cull from other sources. It is
important to select only the information that has a direct bearing on
your proposal, even when other information sounds impressive.
- Look for opportunities
throughout the proposal to stress the ways in which your project meets
the stated objectives of the sponsor. Many proposals state at the beginning that
they address one or another funding priority and never allude to those
priorities again. More than simply stating which priorities your
proposal will address, sponsors like you to
demonstrate how specific aspects of your proposal meet their
priorities. While it is probably counterproductive to structure your
proposal around such a demonstration, there will almost certainly be
natural places where the contiguities between your proposal and
sponsor goals can be emphasized as you revise subsequent drafts.
- Evaluation and
dissemination plans are key factors during the review of institutional
and program development proposals. Reviewing proposals in your area
funded by the same sponsor is almost always a worthwhile step,
especially if you have never submitted a proposal of this type before.
Investigators will usually respond favorably to requests for copies of
their proposal on those occasions when the proposal is not readily
available on a sponsor web site.
In addition to the
narrative portion, there is certain standard information sponsors typically
request with a proposal:
- Biographical Sketches. Federal proposals typically
limit biographical information to just two pages per key project
personnel. This limitation is significantly shorter than the typical
academic vita. It is a mistake to create an all-purpose two-page vita
for use with all your grant applications. There may be small
differences in the information requested each time and each
application biography should be tailored to highlight those elements
of your professional background most directly relevant to the
proposal. Sometimes this emphasis can come at the expense of
mentioning more prestigious professional attainments if they have no
direct bearing on the proposal or occurred more than five years ago.
- Current and
pending support. Investigators with substantial support already in place or
pending may raise questions in the sponsor's mind as to whether they
would be able to perform the work involved. If you report more than
one or two current or pending awards, include information on course
release and the percentage of your effort reported on each of them.
Effort on all projects plus teaching and other duties cannot exceed 100%.
- Facilities and resources. These include any
resources or services the College provides that can contribute to the
project. Don't mention facilities or equipment that have no direct
application to the project, but don't overlook things such as
computing facilities, which are relevant to almost any project.
- Review of the literature. At a recent talk given by
former Federal review panelists, there was a consensus that nothing
dooms a proposal more effectively than a failure to cite a panelist
who feels they should have been cited. Unfortunately, there is no way
to be certain who will ultimately review your proposal, and NIH is the
only agency that routinely publishes lists of its review panelists. To
minimize this possibility, make sure your references list is thorough
and up to date. If you are consciously failing to cite a particular
researcher's work for scientific reasons, you should request that
person not be asked to review your proposal.
- Potential reviewers. Sponsors will usually honor
your wishes when it comes to people whom you don't want to review your
proposal. You should use this section to name anyone who might have a
conflict of interest in reviewing your proposal. Sponsors are less
likely to honor requests regarding whom you do want to review your
proposal, but there is never any harm in asking.
|
 
 
 
 
|
