Principles of Effective Grantsmanship, Part 5 of 5:  Write and Rewrite

Proposal writers have the challenging task of needing to be concise, compelling, and jargon-free while also providing necessary detail about complicated hypotheses and research plans. Then, the final product must be complete, compliant to the guidelines, and error-free.

General Rules

Leave plenty of time for review and revision. Applicants should circulate proposals for comment at least twice. On a three-month proposal development calendar, share the first draft two months before the deadline, even if it is incomplete. This review will help clarify a good fit with the sponsor and a strong research plan. Circulate a “final” draft one month before the deadline, which leaves ample time to perfect a strong narrative and take care of administrative details.

Don’t be vague in your language. If you are going to do something, don’t just say that you will do so, say why, how, who, and what the precise outcomes will be.

Avoid jargon and write in short, clear sentences. “Science gobbledygook—‘We will study the MLC2 Ser-18-Ala Nyquist B-process at pCas 7.5-5.5 +/-MLCK’-will not enamor reviewers, even if they do understand what you’re talking about.”

Keep objectives to a minimum. According to program officers with the National Institutes of Health, most successful proposals have 2-4 specific aims or objectives.  Establish these early and keep bringing the narrative back to these unifying outcomes.

The novelty or distinctiveness of your project should be clearly explained. Compare it to other work or approaches, especially those supported by the sponsor.

Don’t assume that your proposal’s relevance to the grant program’s goals is self-evident. Describe relevance early and often.

Understand your audience: Even if reviewers are peers, they might not understand the technical detail. A layperson board at a foundation will require a different proposal than an NIH review panel. Be sure you understand who will be reviewing your proposal and tailor your tone and level of technical detail accordingly.

Understand the reviewer’s challenge: Reviewers are working on a high volume assembly line, often tackling dozens of proposals at a time, but are simultaneously charged with providing the ultimate decision makers with a detailed analysis. Don’t risk them missing key points or necessary elements. Understand the review criteria and make it easy for reviewers to find what they are seeking.

Parts of the Proposal

Title: The title is often overlooked, but is quite important. It should provide a one-phrase summary of the work and set the tone for the entire document. Too often titles don’t give the reviewer a clue about the work or outcome, just the subject. Be sure that your title is a one-phrase summary of the project and contains a verb, preferably one that suggests innovation.  Also be certain that it meets any character limitations or else the “Correlational study to parcel out how participant-centered training leads to getting highly motivated learners,” might leave reviewers questioning how participant-centered training leads to getting high…

Abstract: Most guidelines call for an abstract and even if they do not, be sure that your narrative has a summary/overview early in the document that will help reviewers understand all pertinent aspects of a project on page one. Some decision makers will only read the abstract or first page of your narrative, so it is critically important that this is clear and complete.

Send your abstract to someone who is not familiar with the specifics of your work and ask if it explains the problem you are addressing, your hypothesis and the evidence to support it, your research plan, how this work is distinctive or novel, your unique qualifications, how the outcomes will benefit science and humanity, and how it serves the grant program’s goals.

Background, Research Plan, and Outcomes: You should always keep in mind that you are writing for the reader; even reviewers in your field might not know the specifics of your research. Provide basic information and walk readers through your thought process and research plan. But, keep it concise.

A clear, compelling research plan that leaves no lingering questions is essential to all proposals. The underlying logic is just as important as the work you plan to do. Whether describing preliminary work or plans, after the description of each activity, ask yourself “why?” or “so what?”. If your draft doesn’t answer those questions, add further explanation. The plan should be realistic in its ambition and describe what may not work and what you will do in response.

Budget. Work with your college/departmental proposal support staff in developing a budget that is appropriate to the scope of work proposed, in line with sponsor requirements, and that is in congruence with CSU’s budgeting practices.

Biographical Sketches/Vitae. Describe your training and mentorship relationships as this is evidence of your pedigree and continuing development.

Letters of Support: Determine what letters of support are required, allowed, and prohibited, and develop a plan for requesting and securing these letters early on in the process. Be prepared to draft these letters on behalf of the letter writer, or, at a minimum, provide some key bullet points that you would like to have highlighted in the letter. Letters of support may have separate submission processes and deadlines.

Attachments. Proposals require a great many supporting documents. These will be articulated in the RFP, and your college/departmental proposal support staff can also help you identify these. Don’t underestimate the amount of time and effort that will be needed to ensure that you have provided all required attachments and supplementary documents. Build these into your overall proposal development timeline. The good news is that many of these can be gathered early in the process, which will allow you to focus on the meat of the proposal itself as deadlines approach.

Don’t neglect additional required parts of the application, like an education component or program assessment/evaluation. Reviewers can detect vague and incomplete explanations. These components are often just as important as the technical piece of what you are proposing.

Not enough emphasis can be placed on beginning early, talking with the program officer, writing to the review criteria, and having someone double and triple check your work.  As a reminder at the end of this series, there are a number of CSU resources that can assist with your research and sponsored programs endeavors.  Just give us a call!