KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name INCM 9611/ICM Grant Writing and Evaluation
Department College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Degree Title (if applicable) Ph.D. in International Conflict Management
Proposed Effective Date Fall 2012
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Approved
Deborah A. Smith, Ph.D.
Faculty Member
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number INCM 9611______________________
Course Title ICM Grant Writing and Evaluation
Credit Hours 1-0-1
Prerequisites Admission to the Ph.D. Program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course will focus on the research and writing skills needed to
discover funding opportunities and prepare competitive proposals for
them. Students will apply these techniques by developing a proposal that
responds to an actual call for applications. Students will write a narrative
portion that is ready for submission with a detailed outline of all other
pieces that will be required, plus an implementation timetable to meet the
sponsor’s deadline. Depending on the deadline and the level of approval
required from the University, the proposal may be submitted upon
completion of the class with permission of the instructor.
III.
Justification
This course provides the student with the knowledge to excel in forms of
persuasive writing that are essential to critical thinking, in whatever
setting the student’s interests in international conflict management will be
based: academia, government, policy centers, research institutes, or
nonprofit organizations. From practical exercises and through the reading
and understanding of a diverse set of literature, students of this course will
be able to apply their mastery of convincing argument to secure support
for a variety of purposes, including funding, publication, fellowships, and
policy briefs.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Deborah A. Smith, Ph.D.
Text:
Prerequisites: Admission to the Ph.D. program
Objectives: Students who take this course will be able to:
 Distinguish the distinctions and roles of the U.S. public, private, and nonprofit sectors
in providing support for basic and applied research
 Review the literature on proposal development and evaluation
 Research online databases for government and foundation support
 Apply methods for writing concisely, quickly, and convincingly
 Appraise the criteria that proposal reviewers apply in evaluating applications
Instructional Method

Class discussion and exercises; group project (literature review); individual
assignments and presentations
Method of Evaluation

V.
Participation, presentations, and final projects
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
No new faculty lines are required. The instructor holds a 12-month contract with the
expectation in her annual FPA that 20% of time is teaching. The University already
subscribes to the online databases. Books not in the library already are readily available
through inter-library loan.
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
INCM
9611
ICM Grant Writing and Evaluation
1-0-1
Fall 2012
Regular
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
INCM 9611: ICM Grant Writing and Evaluation
Ph.D. Program in International Conflict Management
Kennesaw State University
I. Professor Contact Information
Deborah A. Smith, Grants and Contracts Special Assistant to the Dean, CHSS
Lecturer, Department of Political Science and International Affairs, MD 2201, Bldg. 22, Rm. 5007
Phone: 678-797-2463, Email: dsmit228@kennesaw.edu
II. Course Pre-requisites, Co-requisites, and/or Other Restrictions
Admission to the Ph.D. program. Enrollment capped at 10 students.
III. Course Description
This course will focus on the research and writing skills needed to discover funding opportunities and
prepare competitive proposals for them. Students will apply these techniques by developing a proposal
that responds to an actual call for applications. Students will write a narrative portion that is ready for
submission with a detailed outline of all other pieces that will be required, plus an implementation
timetable to meet the sponsor’s deadline. Depending on the deadline and the level of approval required
from the University, the proposal may be submitted upon completion of the class with permission of the
instructor.
IV. Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes
Upon completion of this course, students should:
 Understand the distinctions and roles of the U.S. public, private, and nonprofit sectors in
providing support for basic and applied research
 Be familiar with the literature on proposal development and evaluation
 Be able to research online databases for government and foundation support
 Know methods for writing concisely, quickly, and convincingly
 Understand the criteria that proposal reviewers apply in evaluating applications
V. Textbooks and Materials
There are no required texts for the course. Instead, all students will participate in a class project to survey
the literature and produce a collectively written review. Each student will contribute by reading and
annotating books and articles on: the history of and current trends in funding/philanthropy, basics of
proposal writing, evaluation, and dynamics of review panels.
Each student will read 100 pages selected from the list of books (following page) and/or the Grant
Professionals Certification Institute bibliography (more than 60 titles; this is the recommended reading
list for those intending to take the GPCI examination for certification as “grant professionals”):
http://www.grantcredential.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/GPCI-Lit-Review-2011final.pdf
Students may propose other books/articles for the literature review with the instructor’s permission. The
100 pages may be any combination of book chapters and journal articles. The assignment for the
publications that are reviewed is to write 300-500 words per piece, analyzing the article/chapter in terms
of its strengths and weaknesses, author’s perspective or bias, comparison to other literature in the field,
and utility (or lack) for various purposes/fields. The goal is a collectively written product that will be a
useful reference of the literature to date; hence, assignments for this project will attempt to cover the
diversity of fields in the literature while considering students’ personal interests and avoiding duplication.
Book list:
Boulmetis, John and Phyllis Dutwin. The ABCs of Evaluation: Timeless Techniques for Program and
Project Managers. San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 2005.
Dahler-Larsen, Peter. The Evaluation Society. Palo Alto, CA” Stanford University Press. 2012
Friedman, Lawrence J. and Mark D. Mcgarvie, eds. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in America.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Hastie, Reid K. and Robyn M. Dawes. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of
Judgment and Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010
Lamont, Michele. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Saegert, Susan with J. Phillip Thompson, and Mark R. Warren, eds. Social Capital and Poor
Communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001.
Salamon, Lester M. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,
2001.
Sudbury, Julia and Margo Okazawa-Rey, eds. Activist Scholarship: Antiracism, Feminism, and Social
Change. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2009.
Other works:
Selected from Michael Wells, Literature Review for Developing Standards for a Grant Professional
Certification Examination: Major Trends and Current Concepts, 2006. Prepared for the Grant
Professionals Certification Institute (GPCI) and The Institute for Instructional Research and
Practice, University of South Florida
Other class materials
The primary searchable databases used by students will be the Foundation Directory Online (KSU Office
of Grants and Contracts has 3 licenses—will require signing up for blocks of browsing time), Community
of Science, grants.gov, and the AASCU Grants Resource Center.
VI. Course Outline
The class is designed as a compacted course, with 20 contact hours taking place over 6 weeks.
Participants Day
All Students
1st Friday
One-on-one
Following
week
All Students
2nd Friday
All Students
Following
week
All Students
3rd Friday
One-on-one
Following
week
All Students
4th Friday
One-on-one
Following
week
2 wks after
4th Friday
All Students
Topics
Hours
Overview of US funding scene: public agencies, private
foundations, corporate sector. Introduction to searchable
databases. Reading list assignments (for reports back to
full group).Writing exercises for concision and clarity.
Meet with instructor to discuss individual goals for the
course (topic/purpose for which the student will write a
proposal). Working independently (no contact after onehour meeting with instructor), each student will identify 2
to 4 prospective funding sources before second session
Class presentations: each student analyzes pros/cons of
each funding source on his/her list, justifying priority
order for pursuing one of them. Discuss challenges
students discovered in using databases. Review examples
of declined/successful proposals for grants and other
types of support
Students work on their part of the literature review and
on detailed outlines for their narratives. Outline due to
instructor via Email by 9 AM Thursday
Discuss reviewer attitudes/skills/strategies; exercises in
scoring, ranking. Possible guest speaker (faculty member
who has served as panel reviewer)
Meet with instructor to discuss narrative outline.
Students begin writing first draft based on outline. Draft
due via Email by 9 AM Thursday
Annotations of reading assignments are due (maximum
2,000 words). Each annotator reports to class on reading
assignments; full group discusses readings. Instructor
shares common problems/challenges that were evident in
the first drafts; full group discusses.
Meet with instructor to discuss first draft of narrative and
implementation timeline for actual submission
Proposals and implementation plans due at 5 PM
(revisions of first draft, ready to submit). Optional:
students may meet with instructor once more if desired
4 (total
hours to
date for
class)
1 (5)
4 (9)
No
contact
4 (13)
1 (14)
4 (18)
1 (19)
1 (20)
VII. Grading Policy
Students will read 100 pages from the literature (see above, under Textbooks and Materials), lead two
class presentations, and prepare two writing assignments.
 In the first presentation, students will describe two to four possible funding sources for the student’s
project, justify the choice of one for which the student will develop a proposal, and lead a discussion
on the rationale.
 The second presentation will report to the full class on the student’s annotations of the reading
assignments, and in particular what was most helpful and least helpful in preparing an actual
proposal.
 The first writing assignment is to annotate (not merely summarize) the readings (300-500 words per
piece reviewed).

The second writing assignment is the narrative portion of a proposal that responds to a sponsor’s RFP
and is ready for submission, with a detailed outline of all other pieces that will be required, plus a
timetable to meet the sponsor’s deadline. The student will meet with the instructor three times
regarding the second assignment and will turn in an outline of the narrative prior to the second
meeting, and a draft of the complete narrative prior to the third meeting. The instructor’s evaluation
of the final proposal will thus take into account the student’s progress through all stages of its
development.
Grades will be calculated as follows:
Participation:
1st presentation on funding source
2nd presentation on literature reviewed
Written contribution to literature review:
Final Proposal:
15%
15%
10%
10%
50%
Grading Scale:
A = .90 or better
B = .80 - .8999
C = .70 - .7999
D = .60 - .6999
F = less than .60
VIII. Academic Integrity
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct
addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and
cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University
records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials,
malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification
cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the
University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member,
resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of
Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
IX. ADA Statement
Any student who, because of a disabling condition, may require some special arrangements in order to
meet the course requirements should contact the instructor as soon as possible to arrange the necessary
accommodations. Students should present appropriate verification from KSU disAbled Student Support
Services. No requirement exists that accommodations be made prior to completion of this approved
University process. Accommodations are arranged on an individualized, as-needed basis after the needs
and circumstances have been evaluated. The following individuals have been designated by the President
of the University to provide assistance and ensure compliance with the ADA. Should you require
assistance or have further questions about the ADA, please contact:
Carol Pope, Asst. Dir. for disAbled Student Support Services
770-423-6443, 770-423-6667F, 770-423-6480TTY
cpope@kennesaw.edu
disAbled Student Support Services Website
http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/dsss/dsss.html