Application writing – tips and tricks -
Writing approach The importance of the first page – and getting started What do evaluators want anyways? Contacting Grant Programme Officers
What makes a proposal competitive?
Significance (important area of research) Original approach Strong likelihood of success i.e. will make a significant contribution to the field Knowledge and experience in the discipline Experience in essential methodology Succinct, logical and focused project plan Realistic amount of work Sufficient detailed Cost effective
Reasons for failure
60 pct. of all applications are rejected because the proposal did not match programme and proposal did not follow directions Lack of original ideas Diffuse, unfocused or superficial research plan Lack of knowledge of relevant published work Lack of experience in essential methodology Uncertainty concerning future directions Questionable reasoning in experimental approach Absence of acceptable scientific rationale Unrealistically large amount of work Lack of sufficient experimental detail Uncritical approach
The Killer Criteria Before starting – compile a list by going through the call text to identify all the killer criteria meaning all those criteria listed different places in the call that will cause the proposal to be dismissed.
For more information on funding opportunities and this guide please consult: www.southdenmark.be
Writing Approach1 Success in grant writing means paying attention to the language the proposal is written in. Of course one proposal cannot make it simply on grounds of the language, but the shame of not getting a grant because of the language is simply unbearable, yet quite possible. The overall thing to have in mind when writing a proposal as a scientist or an academic will be to remember that the language that made them scientist/academic is not the language that will make them grant holders. A proposal should sell itself and thereby be “of service” for the receiver. The receiver is the one giving the grant, which means that the project should service and fulfill the objective of the grant. To clear out how academic language is compared to the desired grant language, see the following table:
Academic writing
Grant writing
Researcher-centered: Scholarly passion
Sponsor-centered: Service attitude
Past oriented: Work you have done
Future oriented: Work you wish to do
Expository: Explaining to reader
Persuasive: “Sell” to the reader
Impersonal: Objective dispassionate
Personal: Convey excitement
Individualistic: Usually solo activity
Team-oriented: Feedback needed
Verbosity rewarded: Few length constraints
Brevity rewarded: Strict length constraints
Specialized terminology: Insider jargon
Accessible language: Broad audience
World of ideas: Thesis, theme, theory
World of action: Project, activities, outcomes
A few overall pointers can be useful regarding the approach:
A world of action: In order to serve the evaluator it is preferable to use direct statements and an actual reference to yourself and the team in first person will only make the proposal more enthusiastic and hence persuasive. With an active voice (using I/we) you will have a more energetic proposal with greater possibility of getting a grant. Selling the proposal: The grant language is all about selling a ‘product’, which has not yet been ‘launched’ and therefore aims at convincing the reader of the need for getting this new product through the abstract, which might benefit the proposal if it has an optic of an elegant ‘Sales Pitch’. Evaluators: Even though a great deal of a proposal might be of technical matter, it is important to understand that the evaluators are a diverse group of readers. Most will be generalists, and not read further if they are forced to stop and clarify something or read sentences several times in order to understand the overall proposal. Clear and concise sentences in accessible and persuasive language are desirable. More on what evaluators want in the next sections. How should you imagine the reader: Assuming an uninformed but intelligent reader will in all matters of the proposal mean avoiding any internal jargon and acronyms. The evaluator should never have the feeling of not being able to understand the idea of the proposal because of technical terms.
1
This section is based on the article ”Why Academics Have a Hard Time writing good grant applications” (Porter, 2006). Find it here.
For more information on funding opportunities and this guide please consult: www.southdenmark.be
The importance of the first page – and getting started2 Experienced grant reviewers are quick to decide if they like a proposal or not. For this reason the success of a given proposal very much depends on the first page’s ability to sell the idea to the grant reviewer. If the reviewer first has established the notion of ‘do not fund’ it is very difficult to switch back to a ‘fund’ mindset for this reviewer. A way to construct this first selling page is to follow the three elements below: 1.
Set the stage – Lay out the Problem (“Who Cares?”): Applicant must introduce a problem of unquestioned importance to an academic discipline or to society as a whole. Also it is essential to convince the reviewer that this is of utmost importance. a. Get the reviewer interested at the outset: The first sentence must immediately catch the attention of the reviewer. b. Identify the importance and stress the need: Cite widespread recognition of the problem and a sense of urgency to address it. c. Summarize the state-of-the-art and its limitation: Raise the reviewer’s awareness of the current practice and why it is not sufficient. d. Describe challenges to solving the problem and potential benefits: Underline why the current practice fails and benefits of solving it.
2.
State the Theme – Your Solution: The introduction of a credible approach to finding a solution. e. Introduce your concept and establish its credibility: A simple and direct overall summary of the research idea. Use active voice. f. Describe your project’s fundamental rationale: The core of the research idea.
3.
Create a Vision (So What?): If the project is funded, what will be the impact. g. Show how your work will advance the field: Summarize how the research will advance the field. h. Envision the world with the problem solved: Strong return of investment both economically (job creating potential) and of research findings.
This first page is a good way of taking the first steps, when wanting to develop a project. Besides being used as the first page of the application it is also valuable in order to: -
2
Use for feedback from colleagues and research professionals, and Use, when contacting programme officers.
This section is based on the article ”Crafting a Sales Pitch for Your Grant Proposal” (Porter, 2011). Find it here.
For more information on funding opportunities and this guide please consult: www.southdenmark.be
What do evaluators want? 3 Whenever evaluators are handed a project proposal, most evaluators will want to have a quick feeling of the project idea and whether it fits the programme. Many has emphasized that the first impression is essential for their judgement, and therefore should the first page always draw the reader’s attention. Failure to comply will in some situations mean that the evaluator will not read through.
Neat and easy: Evaluators recommend proposal writers to make the document as neat and easy to read as possible. In concrete terms this means that the proposal font size should not be less than size 11 and the writers should never try and get more text in the proposal by widening the margins. Some evaluators have stressed that putting a lot of effort into proofreading the proposal as well as reading the call text at least a few times more than expected will make the proposal easy to read for the evaluators. The evaluator can always tell if the proposal has been read through several times, and sloppiness and thereby lack of dedication is one of the worst things to express to an evaluator. In order to prevent this situation, proposal writers are in general advised to begin the serious proposal writing earlier.
A direct tone: Speaking directly to the evaluator is a trick that will in most cases draw positive attention towards the objective of the proposal in an enthusiastic and persuasive way. The ability of awakening a similar enthusiasm in the evaluators’ stomach, as the proposal writer has is ultimate. The evaluator should ideally feel a need for the project to be done, and perhaps even be regrettable that the he himself did not come up with the idea before. There should be a desire in the evaluator to give the project money. If the proposal is furthermore teaching the evaluator it is very positive.
Proving your skills: Technically evaluators recommend the proposal writers to provide proof that they will be able to manage the implied project assignments. Giving the evaluator the feeling that the research plan of the proposal is too vague or that the researcher will not be able to fulfil the requirements set in the proposal is a common mistake. Evaluators assume that this mistake is a consequence of inability or not worked through material, which will not lead to funding. A proposal should therefore always show commitment by proving that the persons involved will be able to do the tasks involved in the project.
The proposal’s alignment with the specific programme is of course important in order to get the funding. Being able to make specific references between the proposal and the programme will tell the evaluator that the proposal is able to achieve the programme goals and objectives, and make it more likely to get funded.
3
This section is based on the article ”What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway?” (Porter, 2004). Find it here.
For more information on funding opportunities and this guide please consult: www.southdenmark.be
Contacting Grant Programme Officers (PO)4 In order to avoid spending time on writing a research proposal that does not actually fit the programme, it can be a valuable investment contacting the grant programme officer in the early phase of application in order to get advice on what is ‘actually’ supported. The advantages of contacting the POs: -
The written material is usually the “Official line” for the programme, and thus may not reflect underlining considerations. POs and review panels can develop certain preferences and dislikes that are not translated into the written material. Programme priorities can change over time, but not necessarily be reflected in written material. POs can often give valuable advice on budget, collaborations and project structure. POs can often suggest a better suited alternative for the proposal if the existing basis for the conversation is not a good match.
The seven steps on how to contact the PO: 1.
2. 3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
4
Identify the grant programme. Find the programme which matches your idea the most. Study vision and mission of the programme office and be prepared to make some alteration to your project to ensure a good match. Look into existing awards and see how your project matches or supplements the existing portfolio. Write a brief pre-abstract. Max ½-1 page. Preferable using the ‘first page’ above. Always use clear accessible language stressing the proposed project’s uniqueness. Start with an e-mail. Send an e-mail to relevant PO indicating why your project will achieve the programmes objective. End by asking if your work is the kind the programme might support. You might be sent to a completely different programme. You should have a reply 1-2 days later. Make the call. After the PO has replied to your e-mail, you should follow up after 2-3 days by calling the PO. Describe your project again and say that you have a few questions you would like to discuss based on the issue raised from the programme officer. Say you are planning a trip to xxx and would like to stop by within a few weeks. Most POs will meet. Before the meeting extend the pre-abstract into 1-2 pages white paper. Take advantage of professional meetings. Besides contacting POs at their offices researchers should also do so at events where PO’s participate. Conducting a successful conversation. No matter if on the phone or in person the questions you are looking to get answers to are: a. Does my project fall within your current priorities? b. What would you recommend to improve my chances for a favorable review? c. What is the anticipated proposal success rate? d. Do you expect last year’s average award amount to change this year? e. What are the common reasons for proposal rejection? Follow-up. A short thank you e-mail is more than just good manners. It’s a way to keep the lines of communication open. Here it’s also a good idea to repeat your desire to serve as a reviewer and attach a one page CV.
This section is based on the article ”Can We Talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers” (Porter, 2009). Find it here.
For more information on funding opportunities and this guide please consult: www.southdenmark.be