2007 GSA Research Grant Proposal
Writing Workshop
Joseph Meert
University of Florida
Department of Geology
Gainesville, FL 32611
RULES FOR GSA GRANTS
•
Students will only be allowed to receive a GSA grant once during their Masters and once
during their PhD careers. GSA money should be considered seed money & multiple years of
funding for the same project is not permitted.
•
GSA will attempt to make sure that each proposal is reviewed by a committee member
whose expertise lies in the proposal’s disciplinary area.
•
(1) Clearly state the problem(s) to be addressed, the hypothesis or hypotheses to be tested,
and the overall objectives of your proposed project. (1,200 character limit):
•
(2) Discuss the previous work on your problem(s) that (1) places the project in a disciplinary
and, if appropriate, regional context and (2) documents the importance of your project.
(2,500 character limit):
•
(3) Concisely state how you plan to address your problems and test your hypotheses (2,500
character limit):
•
(4) Must be GSA Member. Deadline is Feb 1, 2008 11:59 pm.
Your proposal might address…
• Testing & improvements—based on outcomes there may be
need for revisions of hypotheses, experiments, or methods; the
scientific process is iterative…
• Verification—research or work will become accepted only if
they can be verified…
• Reevaluation—all scientific knowledge is in a state of flux
because new evidence can be produced that contradicts a long
held hypothesis…
• In other words, there is always some sort of context or
background, not just a search for something that has not been
found
A successful proposal…
• Should have clearly written hypotheses or a wellexplained problem(s) to be addressed…
• Should demonstrate that your research outcome will
have regional (or global!) application, not just local
significance…
• Should concisely & clearly spell out how you will
falsify the incorrect hypothesis or address the
problem(s) to be solved…
• Show reviewers that the research project has a definite
end point & it can be solved…
Reviewer’s Evaluation Checklist
•
•
•
•
•
•
Definition of hypothesis or problem
Significance and quality of proposed work
Methodology or plans
Budget
Presentation Quality
Overall review—potential for producing significant
research that will interest others in the subfield or
general geological community
– From High, very good, reasonable, limited, to low…
– Results translate into the Grants Scoring Sheet…
Think!
•
•
•
•
What- What is it you want to accomplish?
Why- Why is it important?
How- How will you accomplish your goals?
Where- Where will the research take place?
– If the reviewer can’t find clear answers to these
questions, you may not be funded.
RANKING
RECOMMENDED FUNDING
Proposal
Number
Amount
Requested
Smith
Jones
Average
Smith $
Jones$
Average $
Diff. $
341
$1,500
3
4
3.5
$600
$1,000
$800
$400
342
$2,755
5
6
5.5
$1,600
$2,000
$1,800
$400
343
$1,897
4
3
3.5
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$0
344
$1,551
5
5
5
$1,300
$1,000
$1,150
$300
345
$2,685
6
6
6
$2,500
$2,200
$2,350
$300
346
$2,500
5
5
5
$1,600
$1,400
$1,500
$200
347
$2,400
3
4
3.5
$600
$1,200
$900
$600
348
$5,575
5
6
5.5
$1,600
$2,000
$1,800
$400
349
$2,500
5
5
5
$1,600
$1,800
$1,700
$200
350
$1,900
4
2
3
$1,000
$900
$950
$100
351
$2,606
5
5
5
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$0
352
$4,150
5
5
5
$1,600
$2,000
$1,800
$400
353
$2,000
4
4
4
$1,000
$1,500
$1,250
$500
354
$2,400
5
5
5
$1,600
$1,800
$1,700
$200
355
$3,500
5
4
4.5
$1,600
$1,700
$1,650
$100
356
$7,000
2
3
2.5
$0
$1,500
$750
$1,500
357
$2,000
4
3
3.5
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$0
358
$3,460
4
3
3.5
$1,000
$1,200
$1,100
$200
359
$3,000
4
4
4
$1,000
$1,500
$1,250
$500
360
$2,272
5
5
5
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$0
PRINCIPLES OF POOR
PROPOSAL WRITING
• Ignore your reviewers - it is your research after all!
• Write it quickly and don’t rewrite - you are busy!
• Assume your reviewers know what is important in your field Darn-it, we are all geoscientists
• Ignore the literature - those old dudes were wrong anyway!
• Inflate the budget - steak is better than hamburger!
• Science and hypotheses are all about salesmanship-stating
multiple testable hypotheses takes up too much space
• Instructions are for losers - this isn’t Geology 101 anymore
• A research project that is a search for something is good
geology
• Never plan or anticipate your results - then you won’t be
objective
For a good proposal - read the
literature
• Preparing to do research is essential
• Another researcher may already have shown that your
hypothesis is wrong
• Another researcher may have shown your methodology to be
flawed
• The work may have been done already
• Published literature is your most convincing argument to back
up any claim you make - because it already has gone through
peer review (prove that the material is available, prove that
the problem is important, prove that you know what you are
talking about and will be successful)
Grant winners always follow
the instructions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Follow them to the letter to get the highest rating
Definition of hypotheses or problem
Significance and quality of proposed work
Methodology or plans
Budget
Presentation quality
Overall review—potential for producing significant
research that will interest others in the subfield or
general geological community
If you really do want a grant Don’t ignore your reviewers. Write
for your audience
• Reviewers are not all in your field
• Be sure to define or avoid jargon (What is jargon?any term you don’t learn as an undergraduate)
• Be sure to convey the nature of your field
• Be sure each point being evaluated is addressed
• Treat the proposal as an exam-write it as if the
reviewers are grading you on the basis of the
questions asked
Writing for success
• Even a few typos gives a bad impression and could
make your reviewers uPsEt or grUmpy :)
• Have colleagues read it over for you and give their
impressions
• Rewrite it and adjust it
• Make it short if you can
• Check grammar and punctuation
• Organize it to put your major points up front
Writing for success
• What is asked for on the proposal form
is answered clearly and right away don’t make the reviewer search for it
• For example, if it asks ‘why is this work
important’ you could write ‘This work is
important because….’
• After you answer the posed question,
additional support can be given
The importance statement convey importance to the
reviewer outside of your field
•
•
•
•
Conveying importance is tricky and challenging
Just saying it is important is not enough
Don’t make your readers hunt for significance
Convince them that this work has to be done - remember, all
scientists start off being skeptical
• Be specific about importance (NOT we need to know about
plate tectonics; we need to know about evolution, x will
provide information on y, this has not been done and needs
to; this has not be quantified and needs to; this needs to be
studied more - WHY IS THE QUESTION)
• Teach the reviewer something about what is happening in
your field and why
A Poor Importance Statement
• I plan on studying the magnetic fabric
formed in buckle folds. This has not yet
been attempted and will improve our
understanding of buckle folds. Buckle folds
are important structural features in need of
study.
A bit better, but still….
• The Jurassic Bonanza island arc is extensively exposed on the
west coast of Vancouver Island. The volcanic portion of this
arc offers an unprecedented opportunity to study geochemical
variations across 500 km of exposed strike length.
Documenting & analyzing the geochemistry can offer insights
into along-strike variations of mantle input & crustal processes
that can occur in the subduction setting.
• Why are these insights important?
Example of an importance
statement…
• Scree-mantled slopes are a common feature in mountain
belts. The amount of sediment produced by these slopes
suggest that the small rockfall events that produce these
slopes are of geomorphic significance. However, the
magnitude of the contribution of small rockfalls to the
erosion of mountain ranges needs to be quantified.
• Why?
To get the $$$ - make the
budget accurate
• Reviewers in the know will see if your budget is not
accurate
• It is all about credibility - if a reviewer catches you on
one inaccuracy, that reviewer will be skeptical about
success of your work
• Take time to get quotes
• Grants are typically awarded if cost is low and
research payout is high
• If your advisor is funded and your project is a subset
of that proposal, don’t ask for money.
Budgets that raise Red Flags…
You need to detail your expenses, costs, & number of samples to
be analyzed as well as cost per sample
Budgets that raise Red Flags…
You need to detail your expenses, costs, & number of samples to
be analyzed as well as cost per sample
Hypothesis statements and
testing statements
• If you can, state multiple testable hypotheses
• This is a matter of having a scientifically open mind - rather
than trying to support your favorite hypothesis, you convince
the readers that you are open to alternative explanations
• This leads to having fallback positions that you can point out
to reviewers, where no matter what the outcome, your
research will result in an answer - if you start with only a
single hypothesis, the reviewer may doubt your ability to
come to a conclusion
Fishing is for fishermen - not
geologists - not hypotheses
• Never give the impression of a fishing expedition.
• Prove to the reviewers that you know what among
several possibilities you expect to see.
• Let’s say you are collecting fossils in an area, you
will need to convince reviewers that the rocks are in
fact fossiliferous.
Spend time thinking
Brain storm with …
How do we explain higher-thanexpected temps??
1) Elevated geothermal gradient (50oC/km)
2) Additional burial not recognized in existing
burial histories
3) Injection of hot fluids from deeper parts of the basin
Successful proposals follow the
scientific method
• Four essential elements of the scientific method are
iterations and recursions of the following four steps:
–
–
–
–
Observation
Hypothesis—theoretical, hypothetical explanation
Prediction—logical deduction from hypothesis
Experiment, Test
Your proposal will be judged on how well it follows
the Scientific Method: testing hypotheses or
addressing problems to be solved…
What are hypotheses?
• Hypothesis—is a proposed explanation of a
phenomenon
• A provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated…
• In the hypothetico-deductive method a hypothesis
should be falsifiable, possible to be shown to be false by
observation…
• An hypothesis is not a question—a major
misconception among many people…
• Several hypotheses should be proposed as
explanations of a phenomenon…
What are hypotheses?
• Hypotheses require more work by the researcher in order
to either confirm or disprove them…
– Note: if confirmed, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven but
remains provisional...
– An example: A person enters a new country and observes only
white sheep. A hypothesis might be that all sheep in that country
are white…
– This is falsifiable by observing a single black sheep, provided that
the observer did not mistake a goat for a sheep or correctly
interpreted the hypothesis (exclude rams?)…
What are hypotheses?
• Hypotheses should provide generally a causal
explanation or propose some correlation…
• Hypotheses are based on a pattern in observations or
suggested by preexisting data…
• There are no definitive guidelines for the production
of new hypotheses…
• Some projects, like testing rates, refining techniques
or ages, and exploring new areas, are harder to frame
as hypotheses…
– Here, many refer to these as problems or questions to be
answered…
– It is best, however, to put these types of research into
hypotheses as well…
Incomplete hypothesis statement
• The Huron-Erie Lobe of the Laurentide ice sheet advanced into
Indiana during the late Wisconsin Stage. After several minor retreats
and subsequent advances, it finally fully retreated to the northeast
leaving behind a succession of moraines, including the Fort Wayne
moraine near the Ohio border. Fraser and Bleuer (1988) reported that
the Fort Wayne moraine acted as a dam to ancestral Late Erie
(proglacial lake Maumee) and that the moraine was eventually
overtopped and rapidly eroded resulting in an outburst flood in the
Wabash River valley.
• The hypotheses to be tested could include:
• The statement is correct; the statement is not correct; other than this
one flood, other glacially related, outburst paleofloods occurred;
outburst paleofloods occurred repeatedly rather than just once
because…; the magnitude of the paleoflood was… and it had…effect
on the landscape; there is an x relationship with y landforms in
Indiana; paleofloods constrained the present course of the upper
Wabash River
Poor hypothesis statement
• The Hiemstra Quarry site near Delta, Iowa has been
tied to other Late Mississippian fossil sites in the
Midwest, as well as in Europe and Australia, as all
have early land vertebrate fossils. This study will
compare other taxa (mainly fishes) found at the
Hiemstra site, in concert with a study of the unusual
sedimentology, to help understand Iowa’s Late
Mississippian stratigraphy.
This example of a hypothesis or
problem is better…
• The Hiemstra Quarry site near Delta, Iowa has been tied to
other Late Mississippian fossil sites in the Midwest, as well as
in Europe and Australia, as all have early land vertebrate
fossils. The hypotheses to be tested are: 1) Taxa at the
Hiemstra site correlate with taxa in Europe demonstrating that
this stratigraphic interval in Iowa is Visean (Late
Mississippian) in age; & 2) The unusual stratigraphic
sequences at the Hiemstra site correlate with sequences in
Europe that represent global sea-level rise, suggesting a
Tournaisian (Early Mississippian) age.
To test hypotheses - Plan and
anticipate
• Plan step by step what you are going to do
• Imagine what you might expect to see as results
• Show how those results allow you to distinguish
between (test) your hypotheses
• Prove to people it is possible by exploring every
outcome
• Convince the reader that there will be an answer, no
matter what you find
• Establish fallback positions that are still useful if what
you initially expect is not found
How do we explain higher-than-expected temps?
and
•TESTS (look for these):
•Geochemical evidence of enhanced fluid flow near faults
(support)
•Record of recurring fluctuations in temp, salinity (support)
•Record of higher temps. near faults (support and disproof)
•Record of paleogeothermal gradient (support and disproof)
•Record of pressure (support and disproof)
Elevated geothermal gradient of 50 C/km
Additional burial not recognized in existing burial curves
Injection of hot fluid from deeper parts of the basin
Plan and anticipate
• Consider generating a logic tree so you know
you will have an answer
Testing Predictions…
• Useful hypotheses enable predictions to be made by
deductive reasoning that can be assessed …
• If results contradictory to the predictions are found,
that hypothesis under test is incorrect or incomplete—
requires abandonment or revision…
• If results confirming a hypothesis are found, the
hypothesis might be correct but is always subject to
further test…
• Thus, the reason for multiple hypotheses to be tested
is to leave you with alternatives…
Example of poor test statement
• As a test of the hypothesis that a negative feedback between silicate
weathering rates and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (CO2atm) is
responsible for maintaining a relatively stable climate through much
of Earth’s history, my project will collect and use river geochemical
data to calculate chemical weathering rates and CO2 fluxes in the
Canadian Cordillera. Initial results show that pyrite oxidation coupled
with carbonate weathering is an important process in the region. This
is a potential source of CO2atm that could completely offset silicate
weathering CO2 drawdown in the region; it is also a process not
currently considered by global carbon budget models. Identification
and quantification of the sources of the riverine sulphate (SO4) is
essential to determine the magnitude of pyrite-carbonate CO2 fluxes.
This may be an important key to understanding Earth’s climate
evolution. The requested funding will be used for isotopic analyses to
enable SO4 source determination.
• What will they do?
Examples of poor test statement
• Previous research on Lower Kane Cave of Wyoming has established
that sulfur cycling plays an important role in the geomicrobiological
dynamics of this karst system, as well as active cave formation by
sulfuric acid speleogenesis (1). Data from the cave shows elevated
concentrations of sulfidic gases and rapid loss of aqueous sulfide,
beyond what can be accounted for by abiotic mechanisms. The
presence of prolific microbial mats in the cave system, combined with
measurements of aqueous and gaseous sulfur, implies a significant
biological influence on sulfur cycling within the cave. Sediment
associated with sediment, biomass, aqueous and gaseous sulfur will
provide information on the mechanisms of sulfur cycling with this
cave and the biochemical pathways of the microbial population.
Microbial mediation of the sulfur cycle may also affect transport and
sequestration of other metals within the Lower Kane Cave system.
• What is the specific hypothesis to be tested?
Things to remember…
• Now is the time to learn good proposal writing
skills…
• Practice, practice, practice—learn from the
reviewers’ feedback…
• Proposal writing and success rates will only
become more difficult in time because of more
proposal writers and fewer research dollars…
Good luck with your future
research grant proposal writing
endeavors…