HOW TO WRITE RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL
Research Project
What is research? ď Ż Research is the systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of data to answer a certain question or solve a problem
What is a scientific project proposal? ď Ż A request for financial assistance to implement a scientific project (inspired from [Belmain, 2012])
Why write research proposals? ď Ż To have money to do research and give your contribution to understanding the world (Scientific career: should be centered in the creation of knowledge)
Why write research proposals? Important indicator of external approval of your activities Raise your academic prestige
Increase the number of scientific publications
ď Ż Why is the development of research
within universities a must ? 1. To maintain the quality of teaching programs. 2. Provide the basis for undergraduate and graduate thesis research projects. 3. Universities should be more than degree delivering institutions. 4. Universities should be the basket for new knowledge and developments.
What to investigate in a project? • A new idea, e.g., a first solution to an impacting problem • A better solution to a known problem – E.g., a better‐performing algorithm (accuracy, speed, etc.)
• Multidisciplinary ideas • Knowledge gaps
Good Research Project
What makes a good scientific project proposal? ď Ż Key questions (adapted and extended from [Cardoso,2012) 1. Is the research new? 2. Is the research significant to the field of research? 3. Does it clearly motivate and clearly formulate the research question? 4. Does it outline the current knowledge of the problem domain, as well as the state of existing solutions? 5. Does it present clearly any preliminary ideas, the proposed approach and the results achieved so far?
What makes a good scientific project proposal? ď Ż Key questions; 6. Does it sketch the research methodology that will be applied? 7. Does it point out the contributions of the applicant to the problem solution? 8. Does it state in what aspects the suggested solution will be different, new or better as compared to existing approaches to the problem? 9. Does it state how the expected results will be evaluated or compared to existing approaches to the problem? 10.Does it state how and by whom the expected results can be applied?
Budget Your Time Solid partnerships
Innovative project
80% planning the project
Communicate
Define your budget
20% writing the proposal
Preliminary Work
Sections of the Proposal Summary
Methods
Hypothesis
Bakcground
Management
Budget
Research Topic Selection of research topic is based on the SMART concept: S = Specific. M = Measurable. A = Achievable. R = Realistic. T = Time specific
Title of Research Project Good Concise title that gives reviewer a general sense of what you are investigating. For example: Understanding the role anti-cell death protein BNIP3 plays in brain cancers.
Title of Research Project Reject Too long and technical of a title will not gain the reviewer’s attention or interest. Too short and broad a title will make the reviewer too critical of grant. Example: Determining the mechanism of action of Bcl-2 family members in regulating apoptotic signaling complexes within the mitochondria leading to a cure in cancers.
Non-Scientific Summary Good This is used for press releases. Avoid acronyms Clearly state why this project is important. Declare the impact this research will have on cancer or other diseases. Give it to a non-research friend to read.
Reject Using technical language is a negative. Do not use acronyms even if you define them.
Summary of Research Proposal Good give a short but informative background to justify the research hypothesis and objectives. Clearly state the hypothesis. State the objectives and/or aims of this proposal. State the impact, significance and innovation in this proposal. Define acronyms as much as possible. Reject Technical and condensed phrasing of the project. No clear statement of what is the purpose of this study.
Summary of Research Proposal ď Ż Tip ď Ż Ask a colleague to read the abstract. If the abstract is well written, they should be able to understand the essence of the project from the abstract.
Details of Research Proposal Order of Proposal:
Goals or objectives of proposal Background Rationale and hypothesis. Specific Aims
Rationale Hypothesis (optional) Approach Expected Results Pitfalls or Alternative approaches.
Significance and/or Impact of this proposal.
Goals and/or Objectives of Research Good This is usually one paragraph telling the reviewer everything they need to know about this research proposal. This provides the opportunity to gain the reviewers interest and excitement about this proposal. It should contain the background on why this research is important, hypothesis, and objectives. Should state the innovation of this proposal. Finally it should in a clear statement demonstrate why this project is significant and what impact it will have.
Goals and/or Objectives of Research Reject No goal or objective statement at the start of the proposal. Too technical and condensed will make it hard to read and understand. Too short will not give the reviewer the needed information to understand the proposal. Too long will make the reviewer skip to the background and makes the reviewer search for what is important.
Background Good Give the reviewer the needed information to understand the objectives and approaches in this proposal. Structure the background to go from broad information such as cancer kills Canadians to specific information such as my protein is increased in solid tumors. Build up the background towards answering a specific question that is unknown.
Background Good There should be section within the background to discuss preliminary data. Connect preliminary data to background. If limited preliminary data, spend time on the innovation such as using unique resources at CCMB for this proposal.
Background Reject Do not expand background to unnecessary information that does not support the hypothesis. Background should not exceed one third to one half of proposal. No preliminary data generally negatively impacts the proposal in two ways. No indication that the proposal will feasible. No indication the applicant can do the proposed work.
Rationale and Hypothesis. Good Clearly state the hypothesis or number of hypotheses that will be addressed in the proposal. Give a rationale why this hypothesis is important to investigate.
Reject Avoid combining the two together. It could be confusing to the reviewer. Too long of a hypothesis makes it hard to understand the aim of the research.
Specific Aims Good Limit specific aims to 2-3. Make sure controls are added to approaches taken. Always give what your expected results will be. Always give alternative approaches since pitfalls happen. Address feasibility if you have not demonstrated that you can do the experiments proposed.
Specific Aims Address innovation wherever possible. Justify the use of specific reagents or animal models. For example: If you use a cell line why that cell line If you use an animal model why that animal model.
Confirm results with multiple approaches. Make aim 1 less risky compared to other aims.
Specific Aims Reject Many specific aims is bad. This is a two year proposal and if it is too ambitious, will negatively impact on reviewers. Avoid to many specifics on experiments. Structure aims so that aim 2 is not dependent on aim 1. Do not avoid issues within the field of research Using cell lines for genetic studies is not the same as primary cancer cells and might yield misleading information. Tell the review you understand the limitations and how to address it.
Methods This section of your proposal has multiple parts
Design Sample/Sample size Setting Protocol Analysis Plan
Detailed enough so that the reviewers could conduct the study
Methods - Design Describe your study design Design examples
Prospective vs. Retrospective Descriptive Observation Intervention clinical trial Surveys, interviews, questionnaires Focus groups, field studies Others
Example
We plan a prospective randomized controlled trial of meditative music vs. no music
Methods – Sample/Sample Size Who are the study participants? Describe inclusion criteria Example: Adult men and women inpatients with stage IV heart disease Who is excluded? Example: Patients who do not speak English
Methods – Sample cont’d How will participants be recruited?
Convenience sample Flyers in research offices Advertisements Electronic Records search
How many participants are needed? How will you justify the sample size? Has there been a power analysis? Do you have a comparison or control group?
Definition of variables
Measurement of observations Describe how, when and where the observations are made? Describe instruments used! Questionaire (attach to the protocol) Type of interview (describe structure of the interview) Laboratory test (refer to literature or personal knowledge, if established test, or describe in detail, if not established) Clinical examinations (describe gadget/procedure)
Data management and analysis Based on objectives consider: Coding for variables/ type of variables Analysis plan depending on type of variables Statistical tests implicated (Style of presentation i.e. tables, graphs) Data safety and storage
Significance and Impact Good Last chance to impress the reviewer on the importance of what you are proposing. Give a sense of future directions for this research. Why is this proposal innovative? Impact on the field and/or on the disease being studied should be stated.
Reject No significance statement. Superficial such as this will cure cancer.
References/Bibliography Use of standard referencing system: Harvard style
Name and publication year in text Alphabetical bibliography
Vancouver style
Numbered references Continous referencing in text
Make use of software Reference Manager Endnote software
Budget: Good Give a detailed account of where you will be spending the money. Approximately one third of the budget should go to supplies.
Reject Graduate students should not be used in budget support since it is an easy target for reduction due to alternative funding sources. Do not justify spending all the budget on personnel.
All other Operating Grants Good Declare all operating grants. Declare 0% or 100% overlap. In this granting environment it is reasonable to apply from multiple sources to get funding.
Reject Do not state 25-50% overlap with operating grant. The review committee going to treat this grant as 100% overlap.
Setting Describe the sites where you plan to conduct the study Do you have support from the administration of the site to conduct the study? Letters of support from site
Protocol What are you going to do to study participants? Detailed, step by step explanation Include how you will identify participants, obtain consent, and collect data If there is an intervention, describe it in detail Will you use measurement tools? Describe the tools, including reliability and validity and include a copy of the tools with your proposal Include the time frame for implementing the study
Timeline Describe how long it will take to do your study Provide timeline benchmarks Example: Months 1 – 3 Months 4-10 Months 11-12
Prepare study tools Collect data Analyze data
Example Project STDF format
Common pitfalls to avoid
Missing aims or purpose Not enough detail about protocol Write your proposal so anyone reading it can understand your plan Is your study significant? Does it answer the larger “So what” question? Why should researchers care about this work? Underpowered sample size Describe why you are using the sample size and justify it Invalid or unreliable instrumentation Has your instrument been tested with the population you are studying? If not, will you test it within your study? Improper statistics Are you using the appropriate statistical analysis?
Resources Page
Summary of physical space, equipment, personnel, & other resources essential to study completion Letters of support required for shared resources critical to proposed work Justify reliance on external resources
http://stdf-egypt.org/ for STDF of egypt http://www.kacst.edu.sa/ar/Pages/de fault.aspx kind abdulaziz city for science and technology
Further reading • A. Yavuz Oruc (2011). “Handbook of Scientific Proposal Writing”, Chapman and Hall/CRC – A. Yavuz Oruc (2011). “Handbook of Scientific Proposal Writing”,Chapman and Hall/CRC – FP7 (2012). “Template for Description of Work”, Microsoft Word document – Belmain S. (2012). “How to write a scientific proposal: Responding to competitive calls”, Presentation, URL: http://www.nri.org/projects/adappt/docs/McKnight/WritingGrantPr oposals.pdf – TURBO (2010). “How to start a successful proposal under FP7?”, Presentation, Turkish Research and Business Organizations, URL: http://www.turboppp.org/home.do;jsessionid=298565811203FFEA0 FB0326BE9D8598F?ot=5&rt=10&sid=0&pid=0&cid=9429