Research Grant Writing (HCS 7372)

RESEARCH GRANT WRITING (HCS 7372)

Writing the proposal.

Make sure your entire proposal is on a BACKUP disk as well as on your primary storage disk (hard drive or drive C; whatever you use). Back it up frequently throughout the writing process. Make a 2nd BACKUP and keep it at another site if it'll help you feel less anxious. You DO NOT want to replicate months of work on the day the grant is due if a hardware glitch occurs!

Before you start writing a proposal, it is a good idea to gather as much information as you can. Obviously, you have the information about your particular project or subject area. But have you called the agency to which you are applying and talked to a program officer? Have you reviewed a sample or two of successful proposals? Have you looked at the agency's list of previously funded projects? Have you talked to someone else in your field who has received a similar grant?

Set a positive tone when writing a proposal. Using conditional language only gives a tentative outlook for your project: "We would like to..." "We may include..." "Possible results might be..." "Dr. Jones may be invited to..." Instead, march boldly forward in your proposal with positive language such as: "We will..." "Programs will include..." "The results will be..." "Dr. Jones will participate..." Your proposal will be much stronger if your writing reflects confidence in your project and in the forthcoming funding.

Planning:


       What do you intend to do?
       Why is the work important? (So what? What difference will it make?)

       To whom is the work important? (Who cares?)

       What has already been done and written?

       How are you going to do the work?

Preparation:

1. READ the program announcement, including ALL instructions, before you begin. This cannot be emphasized enough! READ the program announcement!

2. TALK to everyone who can help you. They become your support team.


    ORSP (for overall guidance, samples of successful proposals, contact names, etc.)
       The Program officer at the funding agency (very important!)

       UTD Animal Care or Human Subjects IRB Committee, via ORSP

       Sponsor/Department Chair/Dean

       Colleagues on or off campus who has been successful in grant seeking, 
             either in your field or another.

Writing:

Create folders for each component of the application. As you have ideas of what to include, write yourself a note and put it into the folder. When you are finally ready to write, it will be easier to organize your thoughts.
Address every 'bullet' or criterion listed in the guidelines.
What are your SPECIFIC AIMS? What is the HYPOTHESIS to be tested, and what objectives will test the hypothesis?
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: What is the current relevant literature? What is your evaluation of the existing knowledge? What are your long-term objectives? What is the relevance to health (NIH)?
What PRELIMINARY DATA, or evidence do you have to support your hypothesis? Have you done preliminary work? When and where?
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS: How do your methods relate to the aims of your project? Demonstrate your awareness of potential problems and solutions. Demonstrate your familiarity with methodologies; document your adaptations.
You must have clear COMMITMENTS from any collaborators (sponsors) and attach appropriate letters of support.

Abstract -or- Summary

This summary of your project is the most important element of your proposal.
Write it last!
It should be succinct, logical, accurate and be able to stand alone.
Avoid using the first person, or sounding like a commercial. Use a professional tone.
The abstract should be a condensed version of the proposal, usually about 250 words suitable for publication. It should state concisely the significance of the project, what will be accomplished, how it will be accomplished, and the proposed period of performance. The abstract is vital in creating a favorable first impression. I stress again: write the abstract last!!!

References: (i.e. Character references)

Recommenders should be experts in your field, not a good friend in an unrelated field.
They should be visible, active scholars in your field.
They should know you, your project, and the field.

What panelists/reviewers look for (besides those listed under specific aims):

Principal Investigator's competence and record of accomplishments
Adequacy of institutional resources (facilities)
Institutional commitment and administrative support
Collaboration
Model that can be replicated
Use of new technologies
Process of students learning through guided research

This page is under construction. Last updated June 16, 1999, 8 a.m.