Writing a Grant Funding Proposal :General Overview, Choosing the topic, Abstract and Executive Summary RT Erasmus

Outline of talk

• Some Basics of Scientific Writing

• Overview of writing a grant proposal

• Tips to writing a good proposal

• Writing an abstract/executive summary

• Introduction Section of a proposal

Scientific Writing: Some Basics

• "In science, the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs."

• --Sir William Osler

• "Writing is an art. But when it is writing to inform it comes close to being a science as well."

• --Robert Gunning,The Technique of Clear Writing

• What makes good writing?

• Good writing communicates an idea clearly and effectively.

• 2. Good writing is elegant and stylish.

• Clear writing starts with clear thinking

• Before you start writing, ask:

• “What am I trying to say?”

• When you finish writing, ask:

• “Have I said it?”

• Once you know what you’re trying to say, then pay attention to your words!

• “The secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that’s already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence - William Zinsser in On Writing Well, 1976

• .

General Principles (Overview)

• Read the grant call thoroughly

• Study how the grant should be structured

• Give attention to the abstract/executive summary

• Structure the budget according to the funders’ instruction

• Meet the deadlines

• Choose the members of your team carefully

• Ask a senior colleague to read the grant and advise

• Ensure that there are no grammatical errors

• Emphasize clarity

Eight Basic Questions Reviewers Ask

• How high are the intellectual quality and merit of the study?

• What is its potential impact?

• How novel is the proposal? If not novel, to what extent does potential impact overcome this lack? Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts or confirm existing hypotheses?

• Is the hypothesis valid and have you presented evidence supporting it?

• Are the aims logical?

• Are the procedures appropriate, adequate, and feasible for the research?

• Are the investigators qualified? Have they shown competence, credentials, and experience?

• Are the facilities adequate and the environment conducive to the research?

10 tips to writing a successful grant application

• Read the eligibility rules

• It's important to understand what can be funded and what can't on a particular call

• Take a hard look at the priorities of the funding body you are applying to. It is the knack of linking what you want to do, with what they want to know

• Leave plenty of time to prepare

• Most people would be better off submitting fewer grants but putting far more effort into the ones that they do

• It's important to remember individual behaviour versus what the rest of the crowd is doing.

• No unexplained jargon

10 tips to writing a successful grant application • The review is conducted by your peers, so advice we give on grant

writing is about getting your message over in the clearest way in the available space

• Make sure the reviewer "gets it" and is excited about what is proposed, rather than infuriated by having to wade through to find the nub of the idea

• Get other people to read it :Having the application read by someone you trust who is not a specialist in your field often helps to highlight areas where the application could be better expressed.

• Mock funding panels are very effective in helping people understand how hard it is to communicate in writing,

• This exercise takes less than 90 minutes and helps researchers understand what happens to their applications as they pass through the grants' committee process, and how they need to structure and write an application to succeed.

10 tips to writing a successful grant application

• Explain why research is needed

• It's good to explain why it is important for a piece of research to be done now (at the time of application), for example to take advantage of the opportunity to interview people alive now who won't be around forever,

• Network effectively : Networking both within your university and subject area allows you to develop the support that you need to work your way up the research funding ladder,

• The best way in is Phil Ward's blog which has an excellent blogroll. If you are inexperienced in getting funding from a particular body, collaborate with people who have that experience

10 tips to writing a successful grant application

• Justify extra time or resources

• You have to justify the time and cost of any additional specialist staff, says Adam Staines. I have seen many panels supportive of 10% – 20% time of a bioinformatician or technician. Things tend to go wrong when you ask for 100% time and don't need it, or ask for any time and don't justify it in the case for support.

• Participate in funding panels

• It can be a real eye-opener in terms of what you need to do to stand out. You should develop a style that communicates your proposed work quickly and effectively, a contributor advises. It's also a good idea to get your proposal reviewed internally by someone you trust to give good feedback, particularly on the summary sections which will be read first.

General Overview of a grant proposal

• Detailed proposal is necessary for any grant application.

It has several components which include

• Project title

• Specific research question

• Background to the research question

• Literature Review

General Overview of a grant proposal (2)

• Study Design, study site and recruitment

• Budget and its justification

• Benefits and anticipated output

• Ethical considerations

• Timelines

Criteria for Selecting a Research Topic

• Relevance

• Avoidance of duplication

• Feasibility

• Political acceptability

• Applicability

• Urgency of data needed

• Ethical acceptability

Project title

• Project to be carried out will relate to the grant funder’s application call

• Title must relate to the specific research question that is being studied

• Usually emerges when the proposal has been completed

Summary/Abstract

• Applicant states why the research is going to be conducted

• How the research will be conducted

• What applications might the research have

• What may be the implications of the research

Summary/Abstract/Structure

Provides the most important message you want to convey

Entices reader to read more about the proposal

It’s a condensed version of your proposal

Since author has limitations on words……

Challenge is to make the most effective use of these words

Should follow “Problem- Purpose of the study-Method- Application” structure

Overall it should not be verbose

Clear and easy to understand

Balanced: all the major areas are covered

Focused: no superfluous information is covered

Summary/Abstract

• Can borrow sentences from introduction into abstract

• Background info from introduction should parallel that in abstract

• A reader who is reading the summary must be able to understand the rationale behind the study and what information will the study provide that can have an impact on health outcomes

Common Mistakes

• For such a short section, its easy to go wrong

• An abstract should not be an introduction- it’s a summary of the whole grant application -don’t panic about not including enough background

• Missing information: applicants often forget to include the purpose of the proposed study and what methods will be used

• Too much information: 2 sentences for each area should be sufficient

• Abstract should be short, snappy and succint, if details are wanted, they will be in the main application

When should the summary be written

• Some applicants may like to write it before writing the full grant as they believe that it encapsulates the major points being considered

• However if written too early it may end up containing info not found in the main text

• Logical time is to write if after all the details of the proposal have been written

• Also allows you to link the abstract and title

Summary/Abstract

• President Woodrow once said that he needed 1 week to prepare a 10 min talk, 3 days for a 15 min talk, 1 day for a 30 min talk and could give a 1 hr talk now

• The same applies to writing a grant application. Condensing information to 2-3 paragraphs can be very challenging and requires a lot of thought and time

• But a good abstract is worth it

Introduction • Proposal begins by explaining the subject area in which research be

conducted • Researcher must describe the research problem and thoroughly

understand what the research will be about • An argument must be made as to why this research must be conducted

and its importance • Must provide all the information for the reader to understand the rest of

the application • Applicant must give background to the subject, discuss previous research

done on the topic • Problem and its background must be given attention • Explain in no uncertain terms exactly what this research will address, why

and how • At the end of the 1st paragraph reviewer should know the broad topic that

this application will address • Introduction may be 1-2 pages long

Introduction

• Narrower topic: background and problem.

• Next, the author should zero in on the specific problem his/her paper will address. This should be done as bluntly as possible, i.e.: “This study examines . . .” or “This paper focuses on . . .”

• In the next several paragraphs, the author should discuss this narrowed topic and must include the following:

• Clear Statement of Hypothesis. This is the “If-Then” statement that

underlies the author’s whole study. If rampart craters on Mars form

because of groundwater then we should see a correlation between

groundwater and rampart crater distributions.

Introduction

• Most authors forget this. The author need not write “We hypothesized that…”. The hypothesis can be something as simple as an “If-Then” statement of what they were looking for

• For example: “Previous studies have suggested that the lobate ejecta blankets that characterize rampart craters form because of groundwater or ice in the subsurface. If this is true, then areas with more groundwater or ice should have more rampart impact craters and areas with no groundwater or ice should have no ramparts.”

Introduction (con’t)

• Previous Research : The author should summarize the results and findings of other studies in this area. What research has been done on this topic? How will this study differ? What other studies on similar topics might influence this study?

• The author should provide enough discussion on previous research for the reader to understand the bigger picture, but not too much.

• This is not a review paper - the author should only discuss those papers that truly are relevant to his/her study.

• Depending on the topic, the discussion of previous research might run for two paragraphs or two pages.

Purpose

• Inform reader the reasons for the proposal

• The value it adds

• Provide a brief background of the field and where it is headed

• Summary fails its goals if it lacks sufficient useful info

• The reviewer as much detail as possible

Importance of your research

Think how your research

• May resolve theoretical questions in your area

• May develop better theoretical models in your area

• May influence public policy

• May change operations

• What is it you plan to investigate?

• What are the general goals of the study? Define the problem.

• Why study this problem?

• What uses, or contributions, will this investigation make?

• NEED FOR THE STUDY or SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

• STUDY

• What impact will this have in the future?

• When the research is finished, what are the questions to which reasonable answers can be expected?

Research /Problem Statement

• Forms a foundation for further development of the research proposal (Objectives. Methodology etc.)

• Makes it easier to find information and reports from similar studies

• Explains why the study is important when presented to stakeholders

• Description of social-economic and culture

• Nature of the problem( the discrepancy between what is and what should be

• Convincing argument that available knowledge is insufficient to solve it

• What have been done in the past, present and why further research is needed

• Information expected and its use to solve the problem

• List of abbreviations

Introduction: what is the question? • A study must have primary question(s)

• Planning of study depends on the primary

question

• V often objectives are clear but specific question may not clear enough

• Primary question may be framed in the form of a hypothesis

• Question should be written in advance and clearly defined

Hypothesis Formulation

• Three Methods of hypothesis formulation

• i. Method of difference; If the disease frequency is significantly different between two sets

• ii. Method of agreement; If a single factor is common in a number of circumstances

• iii. Method of concomitant variation; If a factor varies in proportion to the frequency of disease causal association can also be suspected

Goals and Objectives

• Goals are broad statement of what is ultimately to be accomplished

• Objectives are more specific aims which the project is to achieve

• General objective or purpose of the research identifies in general terms what is to be accomplished by the research project and why

• The specific research objectives identify, in greater detail, the specific aim of the research project. Broken down into smaller clear, logical and measurable components.

• Research objectives are stated as positive statement or hypothesis

Objectives

• Explains what is the purpose of the study

• Objectives are divided into two main

• categories:

• i. Broad objective

• ii. Specific objective (How are we going to reach there). What do we want to archive in specific terms.

Summary of Introduction Background Information: • Enough Information: a non-specialist undergrad could understand this paper • Relevant Information: all of the information needs to be there

Previous Studies Described: • Enough Information: an interested reader could use this as a starting point • Relevant Information: all the previous studies are actually relevant to this one

Statement of Problem: • Clearly Stated: there is no doubt in the reader’s mind of what this paper will

study Motivation for Research: • Clearly Stated: there is no doubt in the reader’s mind of why this was done

Significance of Research: • Clearly Stated: there is no doubt in the reader’s mind of why we care

Hypothesis: • Clearly Stated: the reader understands the logic behind the author’s study

Structure: • The Introduction Follows the General Structure: “Broad Topic - Narrow Topic -

Hypothesis - Purpose of This Study - Implications/Impact”

Common mistakes in Introduction Section • Lists. A common temptation in Introductions is to list material,

either in paragraph or bullet format. Sometimes this is unavoidable. Usually it is not. Try to avoid lists and describe your study in prose instead.

• Confusing Structure. Authors often throw all sorts of information into an Introduction without thinking thru the organization. The result is a confusing read. Remember to follow the structure outlined above: Big problem – my portion of that big problem – hypothesis (logic underlying my study) – description of my study – why the reader should care about this study

Common mistakes in Introduction Section

• Too Much Information : Authors sometimes include far too much information in their Introductions. Only information related to the subject should be included.

• Not Enough Information : Another common mistake authors make is to

assume that their audience knows more than they do. Authors often do

not explain concepts, do not provide enough background information, or

do not discuss enough

• Previous studies: reading a paper where the author assumes you know thing you don’t is incredibly frustrating and pointless. Don’t make your readers struggle to understand your paper – make yourself clear.

• Unclear What Study Is: Often, authors will build a thorough Introduction, but it is unclear what the rest of their paper will cover. The author needs to bluntly state what this paper will cover, how, and why. Phrases like “This study examines…” or “In this study…” are valuable.

Method

• Refers to design to be followed in order to achieve the set objectives and eventually the overall goal of the project

• Strategy may be broken down into its components each of which uses certain methods.

• The methods section of a research needs to be ‘Shifflett proof' others should be able to replicate your work just by reading your methods section.

Research Designs

• Depending on the type of health problem to be investigated

• Are divided into two broad categories:

• 1. Observational studies

• 2. Experimental ’’

• ♣These are the commonest form of

• epidemiological studies

Descriptive Studies

• Describe disease situation in a particular area e.g. the distribution in relation to age, sex, time, place, and other characteristics

• Studies are not necessarily time limited

• Information is continuously collected and kept for use whenever needed (Registries)

• May also carried out at a single point in time

• Are useful in studying the natural history of disease

Analytical Survey Studies

• Or explanatory surveys try to explain an observed situation

• Explain the determinative processes of diseases.

• e.g. Why does the disease occur in persons having it and not in the persons not having it?

• Examples of analytical studies are cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control

Experimental Studies

• Are experimental studies are investigations in which the researcher, wishing to study the effects of exposure to or deprivation of a defined factor, decides which subjects will be exposed to or deprived of, the factor.

• If exposed and not exposed subjects to a certain factor are investigated, the study is a controlled experiment. Intervention studies and clinical trials are examples of experimental studies

Longitudinal Studies

• Whether descriptive or analytical, longitudinal surveys provide data concerning events during a period of time e.g. In determining the natural history of a disease e.g. tuberculosis or AIDS individual are followed up through acquisition of the disease and appearance of signs and symptoms to recover chronicity, development of various complications or death.

Cross Sectional Studies

• Are carried out at a certain point in time and in a given population or geographical area.

• A single examination of population in which the sick and healthy, or exposed and unexposed are not distinguished until the results are examined

• Limitation: Inability to sort out cause and effect relationship since both are found in the study population at the same time.

Ethical Issues

• Promises - Do not make them lightly

• Informed consent - should be structured for mutual protection

• Continued program participation

• Legal liabilities

• Political repercussions

• Confidentiality - Think carefully in advance about how the data will be analyzed and reported.

• Data - who owns and has access to the data?

Governing Laws

• All research proposals involving human subjects must be submitted for review and approval to multidisciplinary committees independent of the investigators. The committee would assess whether the investigators have identified and addressed themselves to the ethical issues their proposal have raised, and how adequately the investigators have responded to such issues. Reviewers are guided by guidelines and apply judgment to the proposal according to interactive principle.

Beneficiance

• A scientifically sound research that advances scientific knowledge is considered beneficial if it advances an ethical goal provided that it does not offend ethical principles in its procedures

Informed Consent

• All material information must be disclosed, so that, a legally and ethical consent from the prospective subject can be obtained.

• Method and how it will affect the subject

• explain why individual subject are being invited to participate

• Risks and inconveniences involved

• Protection of confidentiality

• Right to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason

Confidentiality

• The investigators are ethically bound to keep promises of confidentiality they have given except when disclosure is so required by law. The intention for disclosure should be communicated to the subject

• If medical records are to be used in research, the patients must give consent to use the data. Must sign a form that he/she/ is willing or not willing for the information to be used.

Budget and Justification

• All budget items in the proposal must be justified relating them directly to the activities to be carried out

• Unjustified budget tend to be rejected by funding agents

• State clearly the need for each budget item

• i.e. why do you prefer an ultracentrifuge instead of regular bench top type. 4xWD and not 2xWD or a m/cycle

• Unexpected expenses and events

• Treatment for study subjects

• Emergency treatment of project staff

• NB: 5-10% contingency budget item is reasonable

• Most donor agencies insist on dollar budgets, others prefer both for local and for dollars.

Citation and References

• Before submitting grant proposal ensure that all references are cited correctly

• No reference has been cited twice in the list of references

• Appropriate and relevant references must be quoted so that reviewers can better understand the study and critically evaluate how the proposed study can make useful contribution

• Poor citations and references hurt the chances of an application getting higher evaluation points

Citations and References

• References should be cited correctly

• Maximal clarity should be the goal when deciding where to use citations and references

• Make sure you read every paper that you to intend to cite

• Make sure that what you are quoting is absolutely correct

• Make sure that the article is the original source of information

• Ensure that the author and journal titles are stated correctly

• Avoid citing personal communications

Conclusion

• Both the summary/abstract and introduction sections are a critical part of the research proposal and adequate time should be spent crystallising the applicant’s thoughts

• Attention should be given to the methodology and budget