Persuasive Proposal Writing Tips:
Ensure that this language appears well before the headings of Significance. It should be peppered throughout:
Don’t be afraid to bold key sentence fragments. This is especially effective for long narratives where the key message can become buried. Use words like: “critical need”, significance of our study or project, the long term impacts of our research will be, our central hypothesis, innovative (defend this), expected outcomes, specific aims, etc.
Begin all aims with active voice:
- Identify
- Describe
- Determine effects of…
- Improve…
- Impact industry through…leading to…
Identify all preliminary data and predecessor data and why we need to build on it
Why is it “critical to perform this study or project”?
Where has this been done before and why is this different? This appears to be a common ding from the federal government.
Our findings will demonstrate the impact of…
In the Significance section, start as broad as possible. The human population will reach XX and we need to feed everyone. Climate change has lead to XX and we need to reverse the trend. Dairy production is down by XX% leading to food shortages and measurably poorer nutrition in XX region.
Our study will improve quality, increase understanding, improve xyz, reduce xyz (including costs), lead to broader xyz…
Our rationale for doing this work…
We expect our outcomes to identify…to contribute to industry knowledge, leading to…
Methods and Design:
Should be as detailed as possibleDetail, detail, detail provides reassurance that the fund’s money will be well-planned, well-allocated, well-spent, with specific, measurable outcomes.
Remember to describe how our design builds on previous studies, data, or implementations. Show that we are leveraging previously funded work to create better outcomes (and draw prestige to the fund).
Management Plan:
Who is ultimately responsible? Who designs the program? How is sampling done? How are data collected and synthesized? How is information shared? How are data and conclusions disseminated? Where are data housed?
** How will this project be sustained in the future? Do we have our eye on future grant applications? What conferences, presentations, and research publications do we have scheduled? Are we planning industry collaborations as a result?
Data Management Plan:
Letters of Support – I can create a template for this.
The author describes their relevant experience and link to the project. Identify their institution and previous successes. State your commitment to the project if funded. Include any planned support, such as labor, expertise, facilities. Finally, describe in some detail the significance of this project in the author’s opinion and perspective, both from a short-term and long-term impact perspective.
Finally, make sure that the Logic Model matches the Narrative matches the Budget. They must all describe the same inputs.
Innovation:
This section describes the ground-breading or unique about our research or project. Be careful about “this is the first study of its kind…” because this is difficult to prove against all historical scientific study. Discuss instead how this research will lead to improved outcomes to those delivered in the past, how our organization is spearheading, how we are in a leadership role with this study, why the outcomes are better than those of past studies, how our aims are more broad or more specific/targeted than other work, and what that leads to in terms of accomplishment. We can describe how we are uniquely qualified in honors, past studies, certifications, awards, etc.
Or does our work challenge an existing hypothesis, or think current thinking?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies?
Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?
Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Evaluation:
Significance:
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?
Is there a strong scientific premise for the project?
If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigators:
Are the PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?
If the project is collaborative or multi-PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise?
Innovation:
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies?
Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?
Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach:
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves human subjects and/or clinical research, are those plans justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Are there appropriate plans to protect human subjects from research risks?
Environment:
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?
Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Budget – Are funds to be used efficiently and effectively to achieve project goals?