Writing Research Proposals in the
Natural and Biomedical Sciences
November 13, 2007
Libby O’Hare
eohare@ucla.edu
Ph.D. Candidate, Neuroscience
UCLA GWC Writing Consultant
PART 2 Outline
1.) Part 1 Review:
-NRSA format
-Literature reviews
2.) Writing the Experimental Design & Methods Section:
-tips and strategies for the methods section
3.) Bringing it all together
-four sections that will set your proposal apart
4.) Common Reviewer Complaints
-things to keep in mind
Part 1 Review
NRSA components
The Background & Significance Section
(Literature Reviews)
NRSA Grant Proposals
Have specific and standard format:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Specific Aims and Hypotheses
Background and Significance
Methods and Experimental Design
Conclusions and Interpretations
We will add components to this format slightly to make your
proposal even more compelling and hopefully more successful
(1) Broad Summary Statement of
Project
•
1-2 paragraphs
•
Place the overall research question in perspective
•
Attention grabbing
•
Use lay language and avoid references when possible
(2) Specific Aims and Hypotheses
•
Usually 2-5 specific aims are listed
•
Identify the project goals and main hypotheses to be
tested
•
Should list aims using numbers and simple, specific
sentences
•
Helpful to use different formatting tools (boldface,
italics) to identify specific aims and hypotheses
(3) Background and Significance
•
Review of the current literature relevant to the proposed project
•
Putting the research question into perspective
•
Explicit explanation of the potential scientific impact of the project
•
How does your research question address a hole in the literature
(how is your question novel)?
•
What progression of experiments that led to your project?
•
Clear and well organized--use subheadings where possible
(4) Preliminary Data
•
If applicable and available
•
If included, should be brief
•
Use images, graphs, tables
•
Main goal is to demonstrate that you can perform the
technique/analysis/procedure you are proposing
•
Secondary goal is to indicate that your initial data is
coming out as expected
(5) Methods and Experimental Design
•
Description of research design
•
Include information on:
-Materials
-Subjects
-Instruments
-data collection procedures
-data analysis methods
•
How will you address possible experimental confounds in your design?
•
Look at previous grant proposals from your lab to get a sense of the
scope and details needed
(6) Expected Results and
Possible Caveats
•
What are your expected results?
•
Given these results, what is your interpretation?
•
How does this interpretation fit with the concepts you have
developed in the background and significance section?
•
What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental
design?
•
Discuss alternative approaches that may be used to address this
confounds and caveats
(7) Broad Conclusions and Implications
•
1-2 paragraphs
•
Place the overall research question in perspective
•
Spell out exactly how the proposed research will
advance the field
•
Use lay language and avoid references when possible
(8) Timeline or Work Plan
•
Chart format is helpful
•
Include information on the duration of experiments,
activities that will be conducted
•
Optional for NRSA grants, but extremely helpful to
have for yourself
Functions of Literature Reviews
•
Placing the current study within the wider disciplinary conversation
•
Illustrates the novelty and importance of the project
•
Explains how your research questions and/or research approach is
different from those previously published
•
Justifies your methodology
•
Demonstrates your familiarity with the topic and your ability to study
it successfully
Tips and Strategies
•
Categorize your sources into topic clusters
•
Look for trends and themes and synthesize related information:
• Develop the positions that are relevant for your project
• Build on conclusions that have led to your project
• Identify holes due to flawed assumptions or improper methods
•
Include a certain amount of simple reporting of previous results, but
remember
• You are writing discursive prose
• Your primary goal is to critique
Tips and Strategies (Cont.)
•
You can’t include every single study that has ever been
published on your topic!
•
Avoid polemics, praise, and blame
• Focus on justifying your research questions and
methodology
Exercise: Literature Review Checklist
(getting ready to write)
Writing the Background &
Significance Section
Critical Questions
1.) why does the proposed research need to be
conducted?
2.) how is it different from other studies?
3.) where does the proposed research fit within the
current knowledge?
4.) what will the proposed research contribute to the
field?
Part 2
The Methods & Experimental Design Section
Writing the Methods and Experimental
Design Section
•
Definitions
•
Functions
•
Types/Styles
•
Tips and Strategies
(5) Methods and Experimental Design
•
Description of research design
•
Include information on:
•
•
•
•
•
Materials
Subjects
Instruments
data collection procedures
data analysis methods
•
How will you address possible experimental confounds in your design?
•
Look at previous grant proposals from your lab to get a sense of the
scope and details needed
Methods and Experimental Design
What is experimental design/methodology?
description of the specific procedures you will use to
address your specific aims
Organization and clarity are fundamental!
Functions of Methods Sections
•
Describe the overall methodological approach
•
Illustration of how methods will answer your research
questions
•
Development of rationale or scientific strategy
•
Description of specific methods of data collection
•
Explanation of data analysis methods/strategies
•
Address potential limitations and interpretations
Suggested Format
Specific Aim #1
Rationale:
•
how does this design relate to your overall hypothesis?
Methods:
•
data collection, data quality control, data management, statistical
analysis
Expected Results:
•
How will you interpret the expected outcome?
•
What are some different possible outcomes?
•
How will these be different outcomes be interpreted and
addressed?
(repeat for each specific aim)
Exercise 1 (10-15 minutes)
Methods and Experimental Design Checklist
•
Are the methods I chose feasible and within my competence?
•
Have I made sure my experiment can yield statistically significant results?
•
Did I address difficulties I may encounter with the proposed approaches, show I can handle
them, and propose solutions and alternatives?
•
Did I consider how the limitations of the approaches may affect my results and data?
•
Did I discuss methods for gathering and interpreting data?
•
Did I describe the kinds of results I expect and how they support continuing my project?
•
Did I show I am aware of the limits to and value of the kinds of results I expect?
•
Have I convinced will be able to interpret my results?
•
Did I define the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of each experiment?
•
Did I state the conditions under which my experimental data would support or contradict my
hypothesis?
Part 3
Setting Your Proposal Apart
4 Sections to Set Your Proposal Apart
(A)
Opening statement
(B)
Summary and integration of background literature
and preliminary data (if applicable)
(C)
Possible caveats and confounds
(D)
Final take-home message
(A) Broad Summary Statement of
Project
•
1-2 paragraphs
•
Place the overall research question in perspective
•
Attention grabbing
•
This section sets up the reader for why your project is
unique and deserves funding
(B) Expected Results and Possible
Caveats
•
What are your expected results?
•
Given these results, what is your interpretation?
•
How does this interpretation fit with the concepts you have
developed in the background and significance section?
•
What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental
design?
•
Discuss alternative approaches that may be used to address this
confounds and caveats
(C) Summary and Integration of
Background Literature and Preliminary
Studies
•
1-2 paragraphs
•
Place the overall research question in perspective
•
Spell out exactly how the proposed research will
advance the field
•
You have illustrated how previous research remains
insufficient, AND how your preliminary data has
positioned you to make the advance that your field
needs
(D) Broad Conclusions and Implications
•
1-2 paragraphs
•
Place the overall research question in perspective
•
Spell out exactly how the proposed research will
advance the field
Final message to leave reviewer with should be
positive and should reinforce why the project is unique
and deserves funding
•
Part 4
Common Reviewer Complaints
Common Reviewer Complaints
•
Lack of original or novel ideas
•
Scientific rationale not valid
•
Project lacks focus, studies are not logically related,
experiments do not follow from one another
•
Proposed studies based on shaky hypotheses
•
Alternative hypotheses are not considered
•
Proposed experiments are descriptive and do not test
specific hypotheses
Common Reviewer Complaints
(cont.)
•
Lack of alternative methodological approaches in case
the primary approach does not work out
•
Insufficient methodological detail to suggesting
applicant doesn’t know what she/he are doing
•
No recognition of potential problems and pitfalls
•
Proposal lacks critical literature references, reviewers
think that applicant does not know the literature
Session 2 Summary
1.) Reviewed and discussed experimental methods and
design section
2.) Discussed 4 sections that will set your proposal apart
3.) Reviewed common reviewer complaints and how to
avoid them
4.) Reviewed the background and significance section
(from Part 1)
UCLA Grant Writing Resources
Graduate Writing Center (GWC)
Individual Writing Consultation Appointments
http://gsa.asucla.ucla.edu/gsrc/gwc/index.htm
Grad Division’s Extramural Fellowship Proposal Consultants
Dr. Chuck Olmstead (physical and life sciences)
310-835-5094
brainone@ucla.edu
Acknowledgements
UCLA Graduate Writing Center
Marilyn Gray
Christine Wilson
UCLA Academic Technology Services
Christine Wells