Heidi Julien, Ph.D.
The University at Buffalo
To articulate a research plan
To convince others that the plan is sound
 Funders
 Colleagues
 Supervisors
Convincing proposals are
 Conceptually strong
 Based on demonstrated value
 Based on feasible and logical plans
 Submitted by demonstrably competent proposers
 Tailored to the specific requirements of the evaluator(s)
2
• Doing what’s asked
• Doing it well
•
•
•
•
thoroughly
with attention to conceptual and logical consistency
with attention to detail
with an eye to demonstrating you are competent
• Doing it on time
• Aligning your research and organizational purpose to the
funder’s purpose
3
• Review Criteria:
• Evidence that the literature review includes relevant research and/or projects
• Evidence that the needs assessment clearly articulates the project audience and
its needs
• Evidence that project activities and goals directly address the needs of the
identified audience
• Evidence that the project will increase the number of qualified professionals
for employment as librarians or archivists
• Evidence that it will build greater skills and abilities in the library and archives
workforce
• Evidence that it will contribute to results or products that benefit multiple
institutions and diverse constituencies . . .
4
• Justification – answering the “so what” question
• Make your case convincingly
• Refer to short-term and long-term value
• Contextualize your study
• What are the important theoretical and practical questions?
• What does the literature have to say about your questions?
• Can you demonstrate a need for your research?
• Articulate research questions
• These should flow logically from the research problem and context
• Specific the research design
•
•
•
•
How will the research questions be addressed?
What is the theoretical perspective being taken?
What data collection methods are proposed?
How will data be used and secured during and after the project?
5
• What do you know about the funder/agency?
• What do they like to fund?
• What sort of projects are they encouraging?
• Analyze your own proposal ideas
• What’s been done before-by you and by others?
• Why is this important? What is the value? Who may benefit? How might
they benefit?
• Have your methods and operational details clearly in mind
6
Methodology
and methods
Research questions
Research problem and
literature review
7
• Articulate answers to:
•
•
•
•
•
Who
What
Where
When
How
• Describe ethical issues, and how these will be addressed—is
there a policy to be followed?
• Is formal approval needed?
• From what body or institution?
• Is an application required?
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How this project differs from previous work
Known limitations of the study
Parameters established (what’s in, what’s not)
Assumptions being made
Methods being used to ensure trustworthiness, validity, reliability
Projected venues for dissemination of results
Timeline
Budget (funding, equipment, personnel, supplies)
Detail who’s doing what
• Address each team member’s competencies
• Discussion of partners or advisory / oversight groups?
• References (use recommended style, be honest about the current status of
your publications)
9
• ALWAYS follow agency/institutional guidelines
• Be realistic, justify expenditures
• Do not ask for more than you need—inflated budgets are
obvious to experienced reviewers
• Ensure correspondence between your narrative and budget
requests
• Project if you need to (e.g., for salary increases, inflation—
make percentage changes uniform)
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
Writing style
Structure and layout
Argument
Attention to detail
Attention to stated requirements
Attention to unstated requirements
11
• Write for comprehension
•
•
•
•
•
Be clear and concise
Be consistent and logical
Use future tense (“I will do”)
Be confident, but not grandiose
Use active verbs
• Know whether you can use first person or need to use third person
• Write for an educated but not expert reader
• Do not make assumptions about shared understandings or background
knowledge
• Seek feedback on drafts to ensure completeness and accuracy—NO
grammar, syntax, or spelling errors!
• If you are writing in a second language, take extra care
12
• Present your argument logically
• Follow directions about sections required
• Include all sections required
• Carefully consider whether adding “extra” sections is appropriate – the
answer is usually NO
• Use sub-headings to guide reader
• Follow layout instructions (do not get creative)
• Do not use font < 12 pt.
• Use white space, leave margins
• DO NOT EXCEED PAGE OR SECTION LENGTH LIMITS
13
Rhetorical moves
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Establish the importance of the issue or question
Establish a gap in the work so far
Define novel contributions of the proposed work
Demonstrate feasibility of plan
Demonstrate knowledge of the issue or question
Demonstrate record of success (individual and/or
team)
7. Show one’s unique positioning to complete the work
8. Demonstrate fit with the grantor and opportunity
14
•
•
•
•
•
Prevalence of the problem
Burden of the problem
Cost of the problem
A hard problem that has resisted easy solution
Social benefit if the problem were solved
15
A. Assessment of Need
Access to health information is, unfortunately, differential in
communities across the United States. And those groups who
have the most difficulty obtaining needed information are often
those who experience worse health outcomes (“health
disparities”). Increasingly, research has revealed that
community-level health disparities may be linked to the
environmental features of the neighborhoods in which many
socio-economically disadvantaged people live—communities
like Inkster, Flint and Northwest Detroit in Michigan…
16
• …Yet little is known about the role that information exchange
dynamics and infrastructures may play in community-level
access to health information.
17
• To aid in greater understanding of these issues, this project will
be the first to investigate the health information
access/exchange/use characteristics of three urban communities
from the point of view of their “community health information
infrastructures.” This novel conceptual approach will build on an
assumption that this infrastructure is amenable to description,
intervention, and change.
18
• Health information is a critical resource for people facing
health issues. For example, health information can help
people to: make decisions (Fox, 2009; Livneh & Martz,
2007); solve problems (Endler & Parker, 1994; Farber,
Mirsalimi, Williams, & McDaniel, 2003; Folkman & Greer,
2000; Stanton, Revenson, & Tennen, 2007); pursue or
coordinate new lines of action (Schaefer, Coyne, &
Lazarus, 1981; Siegel & Krauss, 1991; Skinner, Edge,
Altman, & Sherwood, 2003); gain mastery over health
challenges (Folkman & Greer, 2000; Skinner, et al.,
2003); use resources more effectively (Moos & Tsu,
1977); change their behavior (Fox, 2009); share social
support with one another (Berkman & Glass, 2000); and
provide informal health care to others (Fox, 2009).
19
• This project will adopt a mixed methods approach similar to
that used in the PI’s previous research (Veinot, 2008).
• Pilot work, especially if published.
20
• F.2 Personnel
• Dr. Tiffany Veinot, Assistant Professor, University of
Michigan School of Information (SI). To accomplish the goals
of this study, Dr. Veinot draws from her experience as an
Investigator for five extramurally funded grants and from her
strong publication record. The proposed project will particularly
build on and extend approaches and insights from Dr. Veinot’s
award-winning research regarding health information behavior
in communties and families. Dr. Veinot has ten years of
professional and managerial experience in non-profit
information organizations, which will help ensure this project’s
effective management, as well as its effective relations with
community partners.
21
• …The proposed planning project aims to capitalize on the
commitment of local libraries and other community
organizations….
22
• C. Support for the priorities of the National Leadership Grant
Program
• C1. Projects address key needs and challenges that face
libraries. The IMLS argues that “there has never been a greater
need for libraries...to work with other organizations in
effectively serving our communities…” and that libraries should
“…[b]ecome increasingly embedded in the community in order
to create lasting partnerships that address 21st century
audience needs” (Institute of Museum and Library Services,
2009, p. 37). Professional literature also suggests that libraries
should adopt a more systematic and proactive approach to
partnerships (e.g., Crowther & Trott, 2004).
23
• Know the politics of the adjudicators
• Reference to (or avoiding) particular methods, approaches, theories,
viewpoints
• Reference to particular authors, literature
• Avoiding certain jargon or terms (e.g., “training” in educational contexts)
• If you can suggest adjudicators’ names, choose wisely
• They should be familiar with your work and field
• They should be authoritative within your field
24
• Express appropriate appreciation for the complexity of
proposed work
• Anticipate possible problems, and state how to address
• If there are many interdependent activities, provide a
contingency plan
• Explain how all expertise needed for project is represented on
team
• Ensure fit between prominence of an activity and financial
support for it
• Thoroughly respond to earlier reviews
25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accomplished
Dedicated
Knowledgeable
Conscientious
Fair
Overcommitted and overworked
Exhausted
Under-compensated
Skeptical and critical
Looking for ways to make reviewing easier
26
• Plan to draft several iterations, so start early
• Seek advice from experienced adjudicators, and successful
colleagues
• Give reviewers plenty of time to read
• Consider suggestions carefully – you don’t need to accept all advice, but
think about it
• If you have a question about the funding program, consult with
the program officer, and your institutional support personnel
• If your project is not funded, use the feedback and advice
provided to re-apply
27
• Know why the collaboration makes sense – articulate the
reasons, the advantages
• Clarify expectations
• goals for the project
• authorship, travel, publication venues, timelines
• Communicate clearly and often, and don’t make assumptions
• Value the expertise and skill set that each partner brings
• there may be differences in training, experience
28
• Cautions
• Terminology – do not make assumptions about shared understanding
• Disciplinary differences may include norms regarding:
• Assigning authorship
• Productivity
• Roles, responsibilities
• Working styles
• Appropriate publication venues
29
• require competence on the part of all the collaborators (that
competence can rest on different strengths, of course)
• mutual understandings (or agreements) about working style
(e.g., deadlines, form and quality of work products)
• a shared and mutually understood goal
• mutual respect, tolerance and trust
• the creation and use of shared spaces (real or virtual)
• multiple forms of representation (to enhance shared meaning)
• opportunities to “play” with ideas without commitment or fear
of ridicule
30
• continuous, flexible communication (not necessarily continual),
• often require both formal and informal for interaction
environments
• clear lines of responsibility (but not rigid boundaries)
• recognition that
• decisions do not have to be consensual
• physical presence (though useful) is not necessary
• selective use of outsiders for complementary insights and information can
be beneficial
• collaborations end (they are purposeful and when that purpose is
achieved, the collaboration ends)
31
• At many agencies, fewer than 10% of proposals get funded
• Reviewers are experienced and highly critical, so are looking
for opportunities to reject proposals
• What does NOT get funded:
•
•
•
•
High risk projects
Ideas that have been extensively explored previously
Bad ideas
Poorly written proposals
32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of sufficient commitment/time
Problem isn’t shown to be important
Insufficient knowledge of literature
Lack of essential experience of applicant
Diffuse, superficial, unfocused approach
Applicant did not follow instructions
Unrealistic amount of work proposed
Uncertain outcomes and future directions
Unrealistic budget
Not relevant to mission of funding agency
Reader-unfriendly application
Misinterpreted deadline for submission
Applicant did not address review criteria
Work already done by others
33
• Proposal and grant-writing success comes from:
•
•
•
•
Doing what’s asked
Doing it well
Doing it on time
Aligning your research and organizational purpose to the funder’s
purpose
34
Questions?
35