Preparing the Research Brief
Published by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde
Acknowledgements
The material in this booklet has been developed from discussion groups and
interviews with the research staff of Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities
The advice and contributions of Dr Avril Davidson, Mr Keri Davies, Prof George
Gordon, Mrs Janice Reid, Dr Alan Taylor, Mrs Sheila Thompson and Dr. Nigel Thorpe
are acknowledged.
The advice of the project Steering Group: Prof Michael Anderson, University of
Edinburgh; Dr Nuala Booth, University of Aberdeen; Dr Ian Carter, University of
Glasgow; Ms Jean Chandler, University of Glasgow; Dr Avril Davidson, University of
Glasgow; Prof George Gordon, University of Strathclyde; Prof Caroline MacDonald,
University of Paisley; Prof James McGoldrick, University of Dundee; Dr Alan Runcie,
University of Strathclyde; Prof Susan Shaw, University of Strathclyde; Dr Alan Taylor,
University of Edinburgh; Prof Rick Trainor, University of Glasgow is also
acknowledged.
The project was funded by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
Other titles in Series
Gaining Funding for Research
Gathering and Evaluating Information from Secondary Sources
Interpreting and Documenting Research and Findings
© Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde 1999
Cartoons D. Brown & W. L. Wilson
ISBN 0 85261 689 9
Printed by Universities Design and Print
Introduction
This booklet is one of a series of four aimed at researchers in the early stages of
their career life cycle. The comments within the booklet are based upon information
collected at a series of discussion groups and interviews in Abertay and Glasgow
Universities. The questions put to the discussion groups were broadly based upon
the performance criteria and knowledge requirements identified in the report "Draft
Occupational Standards in Research" (Gealy et al, 1997).
The booklet is in two sections. The first, "Select Ideas Worthy of Investigation",
considers the various characteristics of a good research proposal. This section
considers how to ensure that your proposal is at the cutting edge, the proposal’s
practicality, and the potential value of the results which may accrue from its
completion. The second section "Preparing and Presenting the Research Agenda",
falls into two parts. The first discusses how interested parties may be identified and
approached, the second examines the nature of the proposal’s written emphasis.
The booklet is not intended to be read in one fell swoop, but rather to be dipped into
as and when the occasion arises.
Both sections within the booklet are subdivided into subsections each of which
consist of:



Introduction
Points of advice, and examples from experienced researchers to highlight
these points (colour linked). Information for the second section was collected
through a series of interviews and discussion groups, which were formed
from lecturers, PhD students, and Contract Research Staff (CRS).
Bullet points, which highlight the main points, refer to the points and
examples preceding them.
The booklet is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. The issues raised are
those which most exercised the minds of the researchers providing the comments for
its preparation. These comments do offer interesting contrasts of opinion, either
because commentators disagreed about the best way to approach a certain issue, or
because researchers from different subjects took different approaches in their
methodology. The nature of the examples provided in the booklet are a reflection of
the interests of those taking part in the discussions and interviews and possess no
greater significance than that.
Contents
SELECTING IDEAS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION .................................5
HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT YOUR NEW RESEARCH PROPOSAL IS AT THE CUTTING EDGE? 5
Introduction ......................................................................................... 5
Points to Consider ................................................................................ 5
WHEN CONSIDERING A NEW STUDY, WHAT FACTORS DO YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN
DETERMINING ITS FEASIBILITY? ...................................................................... 6
Introduction ......................................................................................... 6
Points to Consider ................................................................................ 6
HOW DO YOU REALISTICALLY ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH? .......... 10
Introduction ....................................................................................... 10
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 10
IN YOUR FIELD, COULD YOU PRIORITISE POTENTIAL IMPACTS? .............................. 12
Introduction ....................................................................................... 12
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 12
HAVE YOU EVER MODIFIED ANY OF YOUR IDEAS TO INCREASE THEIR UTILITY? ........... 13
Introduction ....................................................................................... 13
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 13
PREPARING AND PRESENTING THE RESEARCH AGENDA ...................15
HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY, OR RESPOND TO, THE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS IN YOUR
RESEARCH? .............................................................................................. 15
Introduction ....................................................................................... 15
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 15
WHEN MOVING BETWEEN DIFFERENT AUDIENCES HOW DO YOU VARY YOUR APPROACH?17
Introduction ....................................................................................... 17
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 17
WHEN PREPARING THE RESEARCH AGENDA, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHICH ASPECTS TO
EMPHASISE?............................................................................................. 19
Introduction ....................................................................................... 19
Points to Consider .............................................................................. 19
REFERENCES .......................................................................................22
Selecting Ideas Worthy of Investigation
How do you ensure that your new research proposal is at the
cutting edge?
Introduction
If your research ideas are to be translated into a successful research proposal it is
vital to ensure that your proposal lies at the cutting edge of your field. With the
competitive element constantly on the increase and the corresponding increase in
secrecy, it is becoming ever harder to be certain of who is doing what, and just
where the field is heading. Below are a few suggestions as to how this essential
information may be obtained.
Points to Consider
You can use the Internet to keep track of new work. However, with increased
competition between research groups, there is an inevitable parallel in increased
secrecy. Most, though not all, of the researchers in our discussion groups considered
it unlikely that anything on the Internet would be genuinely leading edge. Generally
the Internet tends to detail papers near completion, or completed, and awaiting
publication.
Similarly, publications in journals are rarely on the very cutting edge. These tend to
be published, at best, within six months of the research being completed. However,
journals should not be discounted. Many journals will now e-mail their contents to
you. Information on which journals provide this service can be found in electronic
databases (e.g. BIDS).
Talk to others in the field.
Check out institutional web pages for details of departmental and individual research
interests.
Refer to the web pages of funding bodies.
Check electronic journals.
One of the easiest ways to acquire access to other researchers in the field is by
conference attendance. You may gain information and ideas from speaking to people
about their presentations or, alternately, from people speaking to you about your
own interests.
Increasingly there are informal discussion groups forming on the Internet.
Check with co-workers in the field, both within and outwith your own
institution, to locate these discussion groups.
Example: A Researcher was a member of an Internet discussion group involving
people in the same area and she has found this useful in a number of ways:
1. You can get people to comment on your written work, or seek their views
on the work of others.
2. If proposals are being put into the same funding body, group members can
ensure either that there is limited overlap between the proposals, or they can
decide to collaborate on a single project.
3. There is readily available advice on how best to proceed with research
proposals to funding bodies. The researcher found this particularly useful
when applying for the first time for European Commission funds. She was
able to use the group to obtain wide ranging advice on how to complete the
forms from those members who had previously submitted proposals to the
Commission.
The majority of research funding bodies publicise the grants that they have awarded.
It is possible to write to funding bodies (especially charities), to request information
on the areas they are funding. Such bodies will often supply a brief abstract that
refers to novel findings, or a new hypothesis. Funding bodies often publish annual
reports providing details of their funding patterns which delineate areas of funding.
The annual reports may include details from laboratories on research grants awarded
and work undertaken (the latter may include some data). This information can be
useful in maintaining an awareness of developments (as yet unpublished in the
literature) in other research laboratories with which you are not in direct contact.
This is helpful because it allows you to target resources towards areas that are
currently being funded, or to look elsewhere because the area is ‘over-subscribed’.
More importantly, some of the grants may be speculative, and the abstract may
allow you to predict where a body of work may be heading over the next three to
five years, rather than where it was six months ago (as with published work).
Funding bodies are increasingly publishing details of grants on the web. Keep a
regular check on your favoured sites. Contact your Research Support staff for
information - they will hold copies of funding body annual reports and literature.



Publications are rarely on the leading edge. To find out where the field is
heading today it is necessary to talk to fellow students and experts in the
field of interest.
Keep an eye on what topics are being funded, or submitted for funding.
Network.
When considering a new study, what factors do you take into
account in determining its feasibility?
Introduction
Before undertaking the writing and planning of a new project it is important to
ensure the effort will be worthwhile. The following sub-section discusses a series of
points which should be considered before proceeding too far down the preparation
road. Will the proposal be able to attract the necessary funding? Are the essential
resources available?
Points to Consider
Can your project aims be achieved? You may survive having a complete failure of a
project, because you underestimated the length of time required, or the task you set
yourself was impossible. However, although your reputation may survive one failure,
you cannot afford too many. Generally in the early stages of a research career it is
advisable to seek advice from more experienced researchers on the practicality of
projects before writing a proposal.
What has been done before? Bear in mind that although it is difficult to know of
projects which are underway it is important that you make every effort to try and
find out about them. It is by no means unheard of for researchers to find half way
through a project that another research group has been working on a similar project
for several years. Unless you wish to modify the original hypothesis, or examine
some dubiety in the original work, it is a waste of time to submit a proposal for work
already in progress or near completion. Some funding bodies will advise you if they
have funded (or are funding) similar projects.
Before submitting a project it is important to check that the funding
bodies will actually have an interest in your area. Many funding bodies
have quite specific objectives, of which it is wise to take cognisance of
prior to preparing a new project.
Example: About five years ago a researcher submitted a project proposal to a
government department. The project aimed to examine the department’s internal
structures and how it communicated both internally, and externally with other
government departments and with the general public. The main aim of the proposal
was to analyse how risk information was produced at government level for public
consumption. The reaction was unenthusiastic. Some four years later the department
requested that the project be resubmitted. In the intervening period there had been
a major incident and the department now wanted to re-examine its communication
strategies. It had developed a sudden urge to provide a new strategy of ‘openness’,
which required that the policy arena had to become more visible, the intention being
to provide an enhanced appearance of trustworthiness. Though the researcher
benefited, she has had to move away from the area of most interest to her in order
to do so. Her preparedness to shift fields, and her quickness of response, gained her
the funding.
Documents in historical research often have a history of their own. When calculating
the time likely to be required for a research project it may be necessary to allow for
time to locate the documents in question. In the case of documents in other
languages, to have them translated.
The outcome of the research has to justify the time spent on the research. If you
cannot produce an adequate publication list from a three year project then you may
have damaged your prospects of gaining future funding for your research.
It is important when considering a new proposal to ensure that all the
necessary expertise is available for the project to be properly completed.
Not only must the expertise be available, it must also be of a satisfactory
quality.
Two examples:
(i) The Whistler Centre at University of Glasgow is currently annotating thousands of
the artist Whistler’s letters, putting them in their historical context, and making them
available to other researchers by putting them on the Internet. Initially the team
looked at editorial projects in Britain and America which were using text mark-up
procedures, hoping to find a computer programme which could simply be imported.
However, the team, could not find a suitable programme and was obliged to create
one. At this point there were two choices. Allocate a team member to the task of
getting up to speed on the different systems available, and then making a decision
based on the expertise that the team member had acquired. Or, going for a simple
system on which the team could get up to speed on quickly. The initial decision was
to take the easy route and use a simple system. This system proved inadequate, and
lacking any expertise in the field the team was obliged to hire an outside consultant.
However, part of a presentation intended to demonstrate the whole system in use
failed to work, and as their IT advisor was out of the country, the team had to
abandon that particular part of the demonstration. In retrospect the team’s
avoidance of appointing a member to look at the available computing systems, and
the initial decision to use the ‘simpler’ Hypertext Mark up Language (HTML) system,
was an inconvenience.
(ii) In historical research, problems can arise when the researcher has to deal not
only with the native language of the author of the documents, but also the
languages of those who have made significant contributions to the understanding of
the documents. Thus it is possible that knowledge of, or the availability of expertise
in, a raft of secondary languages may be required. If that expertise is unavailable
then the project becomes much less tenable.
Ethical considerations are an important factor when considering whether or not to
proceed with a project. Both for the well-being of your experimental subjects, human
or otherwise, and for your own reputation you need to seek early ethical approval
from the appropriate authorities for regulating research in your area.
Can you demonstrate the technique, or its likelihood of success? Do you
have adequate resources in terms of equipment, laboratory space, running
costs? If you cannot demonstrate the likelihood of a successful outcome,
then the probability of gaining research funding declines. See "Gaining
Funding for Research" which is part of this series of advice booklets for
researchers.
Example: The prosthetic heart valve has a complex pattern of motion, and it is not
a simple matter to predict the stress/strain fields. Regions of particularly high stress
or strain are likely to lead to the early failure of a valve, but these are hard to predict
in advance of long-term failure testing. A project was designed to detect structural
changes in the polymer, on a local basis, related to the stress/strain field.
Examination of the polyurethane heart valve influx required an infra-red
spectrometer and infra-red microscope. This made the equipment costs prohibitive.
The research team possessed an infra-red spectrometer, but to add a microscope to
that would have cost between £40,000 and £50,000. Although the potential existed
to produce a very useful tool, the high capital expenditure for a project, which was
completely speculative, could not be justified. In the end this forced the
abandonment of the project. In this example part of the problem was that there was
no way to run pilot studies to attempt to determine likely success before the capital
expenditure became necessary.
The choice of potential collaborators is an important consideration. If you are lacking
any of the key skills, expertise or methodologies, then identify ways of collaborating
in those areas. When your own department lacks the basic equipment, and
collaboration with other departments is necessary, check who your collaborators are
going to be.
Remember that your needs (e.g. time to write papers, attend conferences, holidays)
must be present in the proposal. Try to avoid having to write up the current project
as you embark on the next one.
Industrial competitions, where companies invite one-off bids for funding,
can present a minefield of problems to the unwary.
Example: One researcher was invited by a local company to help it set up a
competition. However, when the researcher enquired as to the sum of money
involved, he concluded that the funding on offer was trivial. A conclusion borne out
by the fact that there were only one or two bids submitted. The competition was a
scheme which was intended to support two-three bids of £50K each. However, with
industrial competitions there can be catches. Industrial bids do not generally fit the
format of normal Research Council bids, and thus cannot easily be offered to
Research Councils if the competition bid fails. Most Research Councils are unlikely to
fund genuine industrial research with an applied focus, often excusing it as too
specific. Thus if the bid fails the effort involved in writing the proposal may have
been wasted. A further disadvantage of industrial competitions is that entering into
the competition can involve the surrender of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Be
wary of being taking advantage of - this can be avoided by contacting your Research
Support Office. It is important to seek IPR advice before entering such competitions.
You must contact your own Research Support staff before approaching companies
for research funding. These professionals can advise you on the benefits and pitfalls
of all aspects of research funding











Can it be done?
Identify the availability (or otherwise) of essential resources, human and
other.
Can adequate funding be raised?
Will the outcome of the project be justifiable in terms of time spent and its
effect upon your future career?
Identify gaps in your own knowledge base before submitting any proposals,
and identify collaborators who can provide the necessary complementary
skills.
Is the funding being offered adequate to cover all the costs?
Are your potential collaborators of a collaborative nature?
Know what has or has not been done in the field.
The terms and conditions attached to industrial contracts should be very
carefully evaluated before accepting funding.
Check the practicality of the proposal with others in the field, e.g. more
experienced colleagues.
Check your project complies with the professional, and your own, ethical
standards.
How do you realistically assess the potential for future
research?
Introduction
There are a variety of methods by which the ‘future’ potential of your project may be
assessed. Where the project lies in terms of current trends may give some indication
of its likelihood of being cited in the short or medium term. However its ‘future’
potential is assessed, a high likelihood of future reference will often be a significant
addition to the value of the project.
Points to Consider
In some fields there may be clear expectations of general trends, thus new
engines have to be twice as powerful, or use half as much fuel.
Example: In electronics there is a ‘roadmap’ of progression. Every 18 months the
size of memories and other features double. You know broadly where the field is
going to be in ten years time, so you can see if your project fits or, if not, what the
physical limitations might be.
The degree to which research will be used or cited in the future may add
substantially to the proposal’s potential. It is important to consider the
long term - as well as the short term - potential for a new project.
Consider the possibility that the results may be used in a manner which is,
at the present moment, unpredictable.
Example: A university library held a series of unique renaissance manuscripts. A
researcher decided that a study of the illuminations within these manuscripts would
be a useful addition to the literature on the renaissance traditions in manuscript
illumination. In this field the provision of scholarly introductions to the development
of illumination traditions works cumulatively. Researchers work to the commonly
agreed theoretical basis for this area of research, and expand existing knowledge of
artistic activity by adding to this framework. Manuscripts, for example, represent only
one part of the available visual artistic enterprise of a period. There will be strong
influences on the development of illuminations from other mediums. There may, for
instance, be a discovery of classical coins which will generate its own area of
contemporary activity and research. But the designs of the coins may have had some
impact on the designs of manuscript illuminations. If the design of the coins can be
related to the development of a new technique in illumination, then this may provide
another source for accurately dating manuscripts.
One method of estimating the extent to which research will be used or cited in the
future is the number of publications produced from the proposal. This might be
estimated from the research questions posed in the funding application form.
However, as well as estimating publications it may be important to consider the likely
impact factor of the journals within which you hope to publish.
Commercialisation may be an important factor in assessing the viability of a project.
It will be more difficult to generate interest in a project concerned with some lesser
known regional artist than with more well known art figures such as Whistler or Van
Gogh. Similarly, if the project is an applied project in, for example, the medical field,
funding probability (depending on the source) may be increased if the end product
has definite commercial prospects. There may well be less potential in producing a
vaccine which nobody wants or drugs for rare diseases.
There can be a tendency to rate your own work more highly than everyone
else. Generally, work may be regarded as more significant when it actually
expands the field, rather than simply filling in the fine details. Sometimes
at the writing up stage it will become clear that the project has merely
demonstrated an earlier hypothesis, with your results only adding a little
bit more. In other cases, your work may reveal an error in the original
interpretation. It may be, however, that the project reveals a whole new
avenue which has hitherto been unexplored. In the latter circumstance it
is not unusual for the full potential for further research only to become
apparent at the writing up stage.
Example: A research group felt that it they had made a breakthrough when it was
discovered that there was a fish which altered its total activity schedule with
changing temperature. Temperature fluctuations could alter activity from diurnal to
nocturnal. The group was the first to show that it was related to temperature, and
that it was possible to make the fish switch activity patterns. This spawned many
different studies demonstrating why that happened and how widespread it was.
Since then there has been further development around the original hypotheses by
the research group and others, for instance, demonstrating the phenomenon in
another species. But this work has been limited to just another demonstration of the
same phenomenon, and not, therefore, as interesting as the initial project.
A topic needs to be measured against the current trends in the discipline, always
with a view to the possibility that a topic should set a new trend. The intellectual
support for the ideas needs to be there. The person concerned needs to be up to
speed with the established focus of thought and documentation, without which it will
be difficult to make a sensible progression.






Try to estimate the number of publications the project will produce, and their
likely impacts.
When you consider the potential for future use of the results (or product)
consider the short, medium and long term potential.
Try to keep the potential for future exploitation of the project as wide as
possible.
The full potential of the research may only become apparent when nearing
completion of the project.
Will the results set a new trend?
Colleagues may be able to identify potential in your project which you have
missed, or advise you that you are wasting your time.
In your field, could you prioritise potential impacts?
Introduction
The most obvious impact of any project is its novelty value, but to assess a
proposal’s value solely on novelty may result in a significant underestimation of its
potential. Bear in mind that a proposal’s appeal may vary depending on the
audience. When assessing its potential impact it is essential to consider all potential
users of the results.
Points to Consider
Although novel hypotheses invariably appear more attractive, proposals
which confirm earlier findings have potential for significant impact.
Example: In a project considering the interaction between weight management and
angina, the link between weight reduction and decreased risk of angina was
confirmed. Although this link had been identified, the project findings were
significant because they revitalised an old idea. This ensured that the hypothesis was
reconsidered by peers in the field, especially younger workers, to whom the idea
may have been new or little considered.
When prioritising the potential results of a project try to vary the emphasis
placed upon the different results according to the perspectives of the
recipients.
Example: In their grant application the investigators stated that although vocational
guidance was important in helping people into, or to improving their position within,
the labour market, those most in need of assistance were those least likely to seek
help. The proposal was targeted at enhancing access, i.e. letting people know about
careers and vocational guidance, persuading them to take guidance, and helping
them once they were in the process. The project arose from an earlier project which
examined provision of, rather than access to, vocational guidance. This second
application was successful because, although the information on access was there,
nobody had previously thought to collate it. Previous efforts had concentrated on
provision. This successful project has, in turn, led to a third follow-up bid for funding.
The researchers now propose to build a pilot module for in-service teacher training.
The third project can be sold at three levels: the advantages to users who would not
otherwise have/take access to vocational guidance; the assistance to guidance
workers in helping those who would otherwise be neglected; and the provisions to
policy makers of ‘best value’ for money.
Another booklet in this series, "Gaining Funding for Research", identifies
the importance of the objectives of the research being topical in order to
enhance the fund raising prospects of the project. In the example below
the impact for the funding body was not the novelty of the idea, but that it
was a collaborative project.
Example: Some years ago a researcher submitted two applications for funding to a
Research Council. The applications were in fish biology, and involved collaboration
with government research laboratories. One application was successful, the other
was rejected. A year later one of the Research Councils ran a special initiative on
fresh water biology, within which they advertised funding for new fellowships. Part of
the condition for application was that the proposal had to incorporate a level of
collaboration with government-run laboratories. The old (failed) proposal was
modified and resubmitted - its time had come.


Although novel hypotheses always appear more attractive, the opportunity to
disprove, or confirm, earlier hypotheses should not be underestimated.
When prioritising potential impacts it is important to consider
scientific/artistic/social ‘sex appeal’ as part of the evaluation.
Have you ever modified any of your ideas to increase their
utility?
Introduction
In the competitive world of research funding all options need to be considered. If
you can widen the appeal of your proposal you can heighten the chances of securing
funding support. Three approaches are considered: adding a practical component to
an academic project; ensuring that the potential of the output of the project has
maximum longevity; and relative market sizes.
Points to Consider
Often projects can be modified to appear less ‘academic’ and of more practical value.
The practical nature of the project need not be immediately applicable. Modifying a
project so that the interested parties may more clearly see the potential for
application, may be enough to gain further support for the project.
Example: The original proposal was to run a clinical study in a ‘research setting’
examining obesity and its relation to dietetic practice. This idea was later modified to
increase its utility to the National Health Service (NHS) by making it a study of all
patients attending a dietetic clinic. The aim was to affect current practice ‘on the
ground’, and thereby avoid the project being regarded as distant and academic by
NHS professionals.
Consider the market at which you are aiming your research. Perhaps by re-targeting
the subject of your study there may be a wider market for the results and greater
availability of funding. If American multinationals are funding artistic research, try
converting that proposal on Constable into a proposal on an American artist such as
Whistler.
When aiming to produce work that is intended to provide a basis for
further research the utility of the results can be improved by ensuring that
present methodologies are not a limitation on future uses. Try to keep the
presentation and accessibility of the work in as flexible a format as
possible.
Example: The aim of the Whistler Project was to provide researchers with ready
access to a collection of documents which had hitherto only been available in certain
media. When the project was proposed it was suggested that an electronic edition
with scans of the original letters and works of art would be produced - a multi media
edition. The system initially utilised Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML), a simple
system which did not stretch the team’s expertise, yet allowed the material to be
made available on both CD-ROM and the web. However, they found that as the
number of references grew, the HTML system became too labour intensive to
update. With any single change, when dealing with 10,000 documents, there is a risk
that after cross-referencing the change will have to be made 10,000 times. The team
became concerned at the upward compatibility of the electronic system. The
question arose as to whether, in the medium term, the HTML system could be
exported to whichever programme updates or replaces HTML. The evidence grew
that HTML was a system which was might cause problems in the future. At this point
the team considered moving to the Standard Generalised Markup Language (SGML)
system. The SGML system was the nearest that the team could expect to get to a
system which would be proof against variations in platform and programme.
Although it was a more complicated system and they lacked the expertise within the
group to switch to SGML, the decision to switch was taken from the longer term
perspective. Whilst the result might be that the project will overrun, the alternative
could have made further expansion of the work very difficult.



Academic work can often be given an applied value alongside its theoretical
justification.
Try to ensure that present approach does not limit future use.
Consider the relative shift of ‘markets’ before choosing the subjects for study.
Preparing and Presenting the Research Agenda
How do you identify, or respond to, the relevant stakeholders
in your research?
Introduction
Stakeholders might be funders, employers, subjects, supervisors, Heads of
Department, users of the research, policy-makers and legislators. Other beneficiaries
might be government departments, other academics, collaborators, tax payers,
colleagues and the public.
Hereafter we examine several groups that may, one way or another, have an interest
in your activities.
Networking is essential. Why spend months looking for interested parties when ‘the
colleague that gave the talk’ can name them all in five minutes? If you can identify
an essential resource from which you can gain the names of the research teams
using it, then that will certainly make life easier; and lastly, but not least, think
laterally.
Points to Consider
Look for companies which serve a section of the public which in turn may
have an interest in your field of research. For example, pest control
companies for rat behaviour, or U.S. companies may wish to be seen
sponsoring artistic work associated with the States.
Example : These can be identified by a variety of means: one research group uses
industrial conferences, another the Yellow Pages.
The number of stakeholders can increase or decrease as the project
progresses.
Two Examples:
(i) One research team was dealing with a government department which in turn was
communicating information to the public, thereby making the public a second
stakeholder. The department then sent another set of initial research plans, asking
the team to submit a further proposal. The team agreed to do so. The research team
was approached by a second government department that stated if the initial plans
were modified the project would also be of interest to them.
(ii) One researcher was visited by a company that, having heard of progress,
wanted to come aboard as a collaborator, and become a further stakeholder.
The general public may well have a legitimate interest in your activities, either from
an ethical perspective, or as above, because your activities have a likelihood of
directly impinging upon their lives.
Research with human subjects can carry the added complication of
political overtones. Data, results and conclusions should not be modified
for political purposes, but neither can researchers deny that their
conclusions are liable to be used for such purposes. Where vulnerable
groups are involved, consideration should be given as to how the project
will be presented.
Example: Prostitutes are a stigmatised and vulnerable group. A research group
tested a number of prostitutes for HIV and came up with a relatively low percentage
level of infection, about 3%. However, had that percentage been 50% then that
would have raised a completely different set of ethical issues.
Your colleagues may be stakeholders, or they will certainly feel that way if your
research has implications for key issues, groups or resources. Try to identify and
defuse any potential conflicts in advance.
Another group of stakeholders are the human participants in the research,
thus it is important to consider the degree to which you can disrupt their
lives.
Example: In dietary studies unreasonable demands might include a very restrictive
dietary regime, food which is difficult to prepare, or a study in which participants are
obliged to attend overly frequent interviews/examinations. In this example the plan
was to have volunteers collect samples of their own faeces and transport them to the
research centre. This approach was eventually dropped as it was considered that
participants would use the inconvenience of transporting one’s own faecal material to
hospital as a rationalisation for dropping out of the year long study.
At the early stages of a career your number of contacts may be limited and chance
meetings may be the most likely method of locating people interested in your
proposal. On the other hand, chance can be helped. As always it is vital to remember
that an important aspect of conferences is networking, start this as soon as possible.
Talk to colleagues in your department, they may well know people who share your
interests.







Placing unreasonable demands upon the human participants of a study is
likely to result in a short and small study.
Look for industrial companies which may have an interest in your work.
Bear in mind that the number of stakeholders can increase or decrease as
your study progresses.
The subjects of your study have a vested interest in your activities, they too
are stakeholders.
Your colleagues are definitely stakeholders, and you have to live with them.
The general public may be a stakeholding group.
The greater the variety of stakeholders, the more complexity is introduced,
and the more care required in keeping them all on board.
Identify a central/critical resource which other workers in the field need
to utilise. If it is possible to obtain the names and addresses of those using
this resource then it can, in effect, be used as a ‘dating agency’ - a centre
for putting you in contact with other researchers with similar interests. It
will readily identify those that must be spoken to if a clear understanding
of present and possible future trends in that field is to be obtained.
Example: The Whistler Centre collections at Glasgow University and the
Smithsonian Museum in Washington are the two main archives of Whistler material.
Acquiring the addresses of those contacting either of these centres will identify
workers presently active in the field.
Consider alternate methods of seeking information, perhaps methods you
might use outwith research but might not usually consider.
Example: One research group admitted to using Yellow Pages. Another researcher
remarked that he had approached Greenpeace after it had shown an interest in a
solar cell for sounding. Scottish Enterprise was a favoured approach route for
another group.
Brainstorming sessions can be useful. One research team participates in such
sessions with engineers at the local plant. Identifying groups likely to be interested in
your field and finding out what they want, or think they will want in the future, may
generate some interesting ideas.




Networking is vital if you wish to maximise your knowledge of potential
contributors.
Think laterally when possible.
Think about the best and most effective ways of networking and forming
useful links to other organisations and researchers.
Think about future potential stakeholders. Where will the subject be in 10
years?
When moving between different audiences how do you vary
your approach?
Introduction
The important point here is to remember to consider the interests of the people to
whom you are speaking. Industrial sponsors are unlikely to be as interested in the
exploratory nature of a project as your academic colleagues. Make sure that you
identify in advance exactly what the interests of your audience are, and vary your
language according to their knowledge base.
Points to Consider
Talking to members of the audience will provide some idea of the language
they use, and of their common points of reference. Try to target your
presentation accordingly.
Example: A researcher presented data on her project to her CASE (Co-operative
Award in Science and Engineering) funding partner, a fish farming company, she
altered the emphasis of the presentations. The presentation was more or less the
same as that which she made at scientific conferences, but with one significant
difference. Scientists think in terms of the length of fish, whereas fish farmers think
in terms of weight. Thus for the presentation to fish farmers she re-analysed her
data to take account of the difference in approach.
When applying for research funding you need to ensure that the research which is
being proposed is presented in a lively fashion. You must be certain that a general,
non-specialist audience, can understand where the proposal is coming from, what
you are doing, and where you are going. Remember that within a funding body there
are technical officers who understand, and are keen to see the logic behind the
processes which you are presenting, but there are non-specialists who may make the
final funding decisions. Contact the technical officers of an organisation before going
along to make a presentation to them. Try to evaluate the level of interest in
particular methodologies and aims. In some cases the technical officer may show a
great deal of interest in some rather small point, in other instances something very
much more general is required. Advanced contact with the appropriate funding
bodies can be useful to evaluate their culture, and how you can best fit your
proposal within that.
Try to tailor your research to the interests of the group, bearing in mind
that different groups may have quite separate interests in your work.
Example: Two groups which will have very different interests in the presentation of
the Whistler letters are documentary editors and art historians. The first group, the
documentary editors, have a greater interest in the processes of the work, the
principles of editorial intervention, rather than in the content of the work itself. How
far the text is left as it is, and how far it is amended. Not so much the use of
individual words, which can always be explained in notes, as in those alterations
which in some editorial enterprises are done silently. For instance, spellings can be
created silently in some editions. This is not a view with which the researcher himself
agrees, believing that the mis-spellings impart information regarding the education
and background of the writer. With art historians, on the other hand, there is a finite
time they have to get to terms with an artist and a period. It would be a very great
investment of time to read 10,000 letters. To sell the research to art historians it is
necessary to persuade them that if they have not looked at the original sources of
biographies and studies of artists, then they should make an attempt to do so. At
least from the perspective of testing whether a statement made by other scholars
stands up.


Check the language and frames of reference of your audience before making
a presentation to them.
Approach end users of your work and ask them what they need to know.
When preparing the research agenda, how do you decide
which aspects to emphasise?
Introduction
If you do not believe in your project then nobody else will. Try to find what you have
and what they want, match the two if you can, but if you can do something nobody
else can, then make sure that you, me, everybody, knows it. Remember you are
‘selling’ your project and yourself!
Points to Consider
On team projects the scale of work may be a significant factor, especially if
the nature of the project is such that it would not be possible to carry out
this research as an individual.
Example: In the Whistler project, an attempt to properly document 10,000-12,000
letters of the artist, the disclosure of the original documentation (in facts and
thoughts) which the team can produce is beyond the scope of the individual. Further
the broad range of expertise on the project makes it possible to produce material of
interest to a broad spectrum of researchers outside the initial artistic area.
What are the downstreaming impacts of the research? For an industrial body novelty
is likely to be less important than application, whereas for an academic body the
novelty or ‘purist’ interest is likely to have a greater impact.
Take care not to confuse aims and objectives when writing the proposal. An aim may
be to repair the car, a more specific objective is to repair the radiator leak to stop
the engine overheating.
Set the overall importance of the project in its historical context. It must be
emphasised that, for whatever reason, this work has not been done before. Although
there may be earlier contributions around the edges of your proposal, this proposal
is, nonetheless, the first to delve deep of such waters.
If you have the correct buzz words they can operate a bit like an Armani suit to the
fashion conscious. Alternately you might like to consider the application process as a
tribal entry ritual, do you know the right codes, possess the ‘in’ knowledge? You
need to be sensitive to the themes and the priorities, and in fact the language that is
being used in the public domain, which reflect on your own area of interest. You will
be expected to show some awareness of the most up-to-date concepts and ideas,
and to reflect that in the vocabulary you use to describe your project.
Engineers recommend the simplicity of the solution as an important priority. Anybody
can provide a complex solution.
Pilot studies can be very useful in convincing funding bodies of the
potential of your proposal.
Example: Prior to completing a project a researcher trialled a vaccine which she felt
offered the possibility for further study. As this trial neared completion it became
clear that the vaccine offered considerable potential. Thus when the researcher
wrote her grant application for a study of the vaccine she could confidently assert
the likelihood of success. Inclusion of pilot data make a grant application more likely
to be funded.
A proposal will often have to appeal to several audiences. The main part of the
proposal will go to referees who are experts in the subject, but it is necessary for a
proposal to possess a summary and ‘marketing’ section for the broader audience.
The latter audience is unlikely to know the technical terms of your specialist area, so
in this case keep jargon to a minimum.
It may be important, especially if you have no track record in this field, to show that
you have cleared the ground, and that you are in a position of having done the
preparatory work, and are able to begin work on the proposal immediately. It is
useful to have a clear idea of what you are going to produce at various points along
the road to completion.
If your team or institution has unique capabilities make certain that you
emphasise these in your agenda.
Example: Glasgow University has the best electronic electro-beam lithography in
Britain. This is a major piece of technical equipment, a big machine which allows the
university to carry out studies which are impossible in other universities (size does
matter) which would not be able to support such a major resource.



Do not be shy in emphasising your strengths.
Use pilot studies to demonstrate the feasibility of novel approaches.
Keep the proposal simple and ensure that it can be understood by nonspecialist audiences
References
Gealy, N. and Clarke, D. (1998) Development of an Interim Workplan for the
Researcher’s Lead Body. Maloney and Gealy, 24-26 Mossbury Rd. London. 30 pp.
Gealy, N., Westlake, D., & Clarke, D. (1997) Draft Occupational Standards In
Research. Maloney and Gealy, 24-26 Mossbury Rd. London. 59 pp.
Skelton, F. and Walker, L. (1995) Pilot Study to Assess the Benefits of Gathering
Evidence of Research Competencies for PhD Students to Improve Their Subsequent
Employability. Glasgow University. 21pp.