Faculty
Useful Hints for Developing Pilot Research Projects
There are certain general rules which apply to the preparation of successful research proposals. Although details vary from discipline to discipline, attention to these rules should substantially enhance your ability to write a successful proposal which will ultimately be funded. These suggestions are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide a set of guidelines that you might find useful.
- Be prepared to spend a significant amount of time on your proposal. Writing a successful grant proposal requires almost as much time and thought as writing an article to be published. A final version which is a revision of a revision of a first draft is much more likely to convince reviewers of the worthiness of your project than a hastily-prepared submission.
- Before writing, thoroughly read the guidelines for the program to which you're applying. Be sure the narrative addresses the issues stressed/stated. If a specific format is outlined follow it.
- Before you submit a proposal to a granting agency, have a draft "critiqued" by: (a) someone familiar with your topic; (b) a colleague outside your field; and, if possible, (c) someone with experience in reviewing proposals. These individuals may raise questions, and the answers to these can be incorporated into a revised draft. Reviewers of proposals will never call to find out what you mean by a particular statement; they will simply set aside your proposal in favor of another application which is more clearly presented.
- All proposals must convince the reviewers of four things: (a) that your project is of sufficient importance; (b) that you have done a thorough review of literature in the field and have a well-designed plan of study; (c) that the project is of manageable size and can be carried out within the time frame of the proposal,; and (d) that you are capable of completing the project successfully.
- Introduction/Abstract. Remember that reviewers read a very large number of proposals in a very short time. Accordingly, remember to state in the first few sentences of your project what you propose to work on (i.e., describe goals and objectives).
- Background and significance. Explain why your project needs to be done. Sketch the background, including references to the literature, of your proposal. Estimate strengths and limits of previous research in the area. Emphasize your own contributions to the field. Describe the ways in which your approach is an improvement or how it will fill gaps in existing knowledge.
- Research Plan (Outline of project). Describe the experimental design in detail. Make it clear that your laboratory has the facilities necessary to do the work and include a comprehensive list of instruments available at [your institution]. Indicate how much work you have already completed and how much remains to be done.
- Principle Investigator qualifications. The PI’s qualifications are reflected in a comprehensive “biosketch.” Do not be modest! Refer to all relevant publications, unpublished data, aspects of your doctoral dissertation, and results of teaching, if appropriate. Be sure to include comprehensive curriculum vitae
- Use language comprehensible across disciplinary boundaries. The reviewers who read your proposal will not necessarily be experts in your specific field and, therefore, may not understand technical jargon and discipline-specific abbreviations and symbols. This piece of advice is not generally applicable to proposals in the sciences. Include a list of all acronyms used.
- Strive for a balance between conciseness and detail. The more specific you are about what you plan and what you have already done, the more impressive your proposal will be. Adhere strictly to page limits specified in the guidelines.
- When preparing the final draft for submission, be sure it is neat, clean, and easy to read. Have someone check for grammar, spelling, and typographical errors. Whether it should or not, physical appearance does make a difference.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Significance of Proposed Research:
Does the study address an important problem (i.e., basic research or public health related)? What will be the effect of this study on the concepts or methods that drive the field?
Approach:
Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses (i.e., descriptive or inferential statistics, univariate analysis, bivariate analysis, etc.) adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the projects? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? Is the literature review critical and current, including identification of gaps in the knowledge?
Innovation:
Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
Investigator:
Appropriateness of principle investigator’s training and experience level for the proposed work.
Environment:
Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Does the proposed study take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support? Are there plans to acquire or gain access to the necessary resources to conduct the research?