What should be included in a proposal?

Most people include lots of information about their company and their products when
they write a proposal. But understand that customers want to know about you products
and your company, but only within the context of how its going to help them solve their
problem. In other words, you proposal needs to be customer focused, not product or seller
focused.

With that said, every proposal should include these sections:

1. Cover letter
2. Title Page (that gets their attention)
3. Table of Contents (so they can easily find whichever part is most interesting to them)
4. Project Review that focuses on the issues they're trying to solve and the outcomes they
expect (so they know that you understand their project).
5. Recommendations (a description of the solution you are proposing). This section
should also include price, any logistics or timing issues, and the next steps you or they
need to perform.
6. Explanation (why and how the solution you are recommending will actually help them
to overcome the issues they face, and achieve the outcomes they seek).
7. Strengths (why your solution is better than any other solutions they may also be
consider.
8. Contact information (who they should contact if they have questions).
9. Attachments, including contracts, statements of work, project plans, etc. Remember
that a proposal is not a project plan, a brochure, a contract, etc., it is a sales tool used to
persuade someone to purchase the solution you are proposing. Anything that doesn't
directly support this effort necessarily impedes this effort. So take good hard look at all
those documents that you might otherwise include in your proposal. Exclude them if they
dont' make sense. If you do want to include them, include them as attachments, not part
of the body of the proposal.

There are other things you can include in your proposal if necessary--such as a company
history, success story, customer references, etc.--but only include these if you think they
are necessary to persuade the decision maker.

Proposal writing tips

Grant Proposal Writing TipsThe Corporation for Public Broadcasting evaluates hundreds
of proposals each year for a variety of funding purposes. This publication is an easy guide
to the basic elements of grant proposal writing and is offered to assist applicants to CPB
and to other funding sources. It offers guideposts to help you through each stage of the
process.
These guideposts are transferable to a variety of grant applications. However, we
encourage you to carefully read the guidelines written for each grant you select.

Successful grant writing involves the coordination of several activities, including

planning, searching for data and resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting
a proposal to a funder, and follow-up. Here are some steps that will help.

Preparation
You are likely to find preliminary grant writing steps to be the most time consuming, yet
most vital aspect of the process. If done well, your prepartory work will simplify the
writing stage.

1. Define your project

Clarify the purpose of your project and write a concise mission statement.

Define the scope of work to focus your funding search.

Determine the broad project goals, then identify the specific objectives that define how
you will focus the work to accomplish those goals.

Example:

Goal: To improve production quality.

Objective 1: Recruit advanced production talent.

Objective 2: Train mid-level producers.

Objective 3: Upgrade production equipment.

These goals and objectives suggest the proposal will request support for recruitment
activity, production training, and equipment purchase. In contrast, a different proposal
with the same goal might focus only on equipment upgrades.

Decide who will benefit. Benefits may extend beyond the direct beneficiary to include the
audience, other institutions, etc.

Draft expected project outcomes in specific measurable terms.

Draft a timeline that includes the planning phase, the period of searching for funds,
proposal writing, and the intended project start date. Periodically update the timeline as
you learn more about submission deadlines, award timetables, etc.

2. Identify the right funding sources

Foundation centers, computerized databases, station development offices, publications,
and public libraries are some of the resources available to assist your funding search.

Do not limit your funding search to one source.

Look for a match between your project and the grants you seek by looking for
consistency between the purpose and goals of your project and the funder. In addition,
pinpoint specific funding priorities and preferences.

Make direct contact with funders to support projects like yours.

Request proposal guidelines. Also request a list of projects previously funded through
this specific grant program. Perhaps an annual report is available.

Inquire about the maximum amount available. Also, find out the average size and funding
range of awards.

Determine if funding levels of the grants you select are appropriate for your project. Note
whether there is a funding floor or ceiling.

Find out whether the funder has other grant sources for which your project is eligible.

3. Contact the funders

Think of the funder as a resource.

Identify a project officer who will address your questions.

Some funders offer technical assistance, others do not. Ask for technical assistance,
including a review of proposal drafts.

Inquire about how proposals are reviewed and how decisions are made.

Inquire about budgetary requirements and preferences. Are matching funds required? Is
in-kind acceptable as a portion of applicants' share? What may be counted as in-kind, and
how might it be applied? Learn about payment processes, including cash flow.

Remember, the contacts you make may prove invaluable, even if not for now.

4. Acquire proposal guidelines

Read the guidelines carefully, then read them again. Ask the funder to clarify your
questions.

Guidelines usually tell you about:

submission deadlines
eligibility
proposal format: award levels forms, margins, spacing, evaluation process and
restrictions on the number criteria of pages, etc.
review timetable
budgets
funding goals and priorities
award levels
evaluation process and criteria
whom to contact
other submission requirements
5. Know the submission deadline

Plan to submit your proposal on or preferably before the deadline.

Determine what format the funder requires for submission.

Be realistic about whether you have time to prepare a competitive proposal that meets the
deadline.

Know the funder's policies on late submissions, exceptions, and mail delays.

Find out how the funder will notify you about the receipt and status of your proposal.
Factor this information into your timeline.

6. Determine personnel needs

Identify required personnel both by function and, if possible, by name. Contact project
consultants, trainers, and other auxilliary personnel to seek availability, acquire
permission to include them in the project, and negotiate compensation. Personnel
compensation is important budget information.

7. Update your timeline

This is a good point at which to update your timeline, now that you know about
submission deadlines and review timetables. Factor into your schedule time to write
multiple drafts, solicit project officer for review of draft, gather relevant and permissible
materials, and prepare an impartial critique of your proposal for clarity, substance, and
form.

Writing the Proposal

Structure, attention to specifications, concise persuasive writing, and a reasonable budget
are the critical elements of the writing stage. There are many ways to organize proposals.
Read the guidelines for specifications about required information and how it should be
arranged. Standard proposal components are: the narrative, budget, appendix of support
material, and authorized signature. Sometimes proposal applications require abstracts or
summaries, an explanation of budget items, and certifications.

1. Narratives

Statement of need

Purpose, goals, measurable objectives, and a compelling, logical reason why the proposal
should be supported. Background provides perspective and is often a welcome
component.

Approach

Method and process of accomplishing goals and objectives, description of intended scope
of work with expected outcomes, outline of activities, description of personnel functions
with names of key staff and consultants, if possible.

Method of evaluation

Some require very technical measurements of results. Inquire about expectations.

Project timeline

Paints a picture of project flow that includes start and end dates, schedule of activities,
and projected outcomes. Should be detailed enough to include staff selection and start
dates.

Credentials

Information about the applicant that certifies ability to successfully undertake the
proposed effort. Typically includes institutional or individual track record and resumes.

Tips on Writing the Narrative:

Narratives typically must satisfy the following questions:

What do we want?
What concern will be addressed and why it is important?
Who will benefit and how?
What specific objectives can be accomplished and how?
How will results be measured?
How does this funding request relate to the funders purpose, objectives, and priorities?
Who are we (organization, independent producer) and how do we qualify to meet this
need?
The HOOK:

There are many ways to represent the same idea. However, the HOOK tailors the
description of the idea to the interest of a particular [Link] HOOK aligns the project
with the purpose, and goals of the funding source. This is a critical aspect of any proposal
narrative because it determines how compelling reviewers will perceive your proposal to
be.

2. Budget

Budgets are cost projections. They are also a window into how projects will be
implemented and managed. Well-planned budgets reflect carefully thought out projects.
Be sure to only include those things the funder is willing to support.

Funders use these factors to assess budgets:

Can the job be accomplished with this budget?

Are costs reasonable for the market - or too high or low?
Is the budget consistent with proposed activities?
Is there sufficient budget detail and explanation?
Many funders provide mandatory budget forms that must be submitted with the proposal.

Don't forget to list in-kind and matching revenue, where appropriate. Be flexible about
your budget in case the funder chooses to negotiate costs.

3. Supporting materials

Supporting materials are often arranged in an appendix. These materials may endorse the
project and the applicant, provide certifications, add information about project personnel
and consultants, exhibit tables and charts, etc. For projects that include collaborations or
partnerships, include endorsements from the partnering agencies.

Policies about the inclusion of supporting materials differ widely among funders.
Whether to allow them usually depends upon how materials contribute to a proposal's
evaluation. Restrictions are often based on excess volume, the element of bias, and
relevance.

Find out if supporting materials are desired or even allowed. Be prepared to invest the
time to collect resources, produce a tape, document capability, update a resume, collect
letters, include reference reports or whatever is needed.

4. Authorized Signatures
Authorized signatures are required. Proposals may be rejected for lack of an authorized
signature. Be sure to allow the time to acquire a needed signature.

5. Specifications

Tailor proposal writing to specifications found in the guidelines. Include only the number
of pages allowed. Observe the format. Is there a form to complete? Must the proposal be
typed, double spaced, on 8-1/2 x 11 inch pages? Are cover pages allowed or desired?
Caution! — the beautifully bound proposal is not always appreciated or allowed. Be
concise. Elaborations should add depth and scope, not page fillers. Be prepared to write
one or more drafts.

6. Submission checklist

The complete proposal must be submitted on time in the requested format with the
requested number of copies and original authorized signatures.

Address the proposal as directed in the guidelines.

Be sure to include required documentation.

Follow-up
Contact the funding source about the status, evaluation, and outcome of your proposal. It
is important to request feedback about a proposal's strengths and weaknesses, although
this information is sometimes unavailable, especially with a large volume of submissions.

Reference information may also be useful if you choose to approach the same or different
funder again with your

TIPS FOR PROPOSAL WRITERS

Deneb Karentz (email: dkarentz@[Link], phone: 703 292-7418)
Associate Program Manager, Antarctic Biology and Medicine, Office of Polar Programs
National Science Foundation
This handout was compiled from information provided by:
• Dr. Philip D. Harriman, Program Director for Microbial Genetics and Microbial
Observatories
Division of Molecular & Cellular Biosciences, NSF
• Dr. Pamela Talalay, Johns Hopkins University
• Dr. Dennis Peacock, Head of Antarctic Sciences Section, Office of Polar Programs,
NSF
• National Science Foundation website ([Link]
Other sources of information:
• NSF Guide to Programs [Link]
• NSF Grant Policy Manual [Link]
• Upcoming Deadlines [Link]
• Custom News Service (sign up for weekly e-mail updates)
htpp://[Link]/home/cns/[Link]
(customize it the way you want, you will be notified immediately of new
initiatives/programs)
• NSF E-Bulletin [Link]
• Antarctic Program New Investigator Proposal Workshop
[Link]
PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITERS
1. Start early. (But, don’t assume that if you will not be able to meet a submission
deadline or target date that you must miss a review cycle. Call the agency before the due
date, explain your problem, and ask if there is a procedure for submitting late.)
2. Read the instructions carefully (before you write, while you are writing, and when you
have finished writing).
Not including all required information or not following the designated format will be
noted by reviewers and program officers.
Use the agency’s maximum page limits as an indication of the detail expected in a
proposal. Don’t exceed it
or try to fit the limit by squeezing too many words onto a page or eliminating spacing. At
the other extreme, a proposal that is substantially shorter than the limit is probably
lacking in necessary details. Keep within stated guidelines. Avoid jargon and unnecessary
abbreviations. Be liberal with headings to break up the text.
(If you use number or letter designations be sure that they match in each section.)
3. Use the same care in preparing your proposal as you would for a manuscript being
submitted to a journal.
(Reviewers will comment on typos, not using standard formats, missing references, etc.)
Send glossy photos of illustrations if critical detail is lost in printing copies of the
proposal (ask how many are needed). Fast Lane currently does not print reviewer copies
in color.
4. Make your goals specific and clear: What questions are you asking? Constantly keep
these goals in focus.
Devote at least a paragraph to putting your proposed experiments in a long-term context.
Distinguish between your overall interests and objectives and those you wish to achieve
during the tenure of the proposed grant.
Proposing much more work than can possibly be achieved during the requested grant
period is one of the most common mistakes made by first-time applicants.
5. Ensure that you have an appropriate rationale for each study: Why is your work
important?
6. Describe previous experiments carefully and clearly: Are you a careful and critical
scientist? Have you included appropriate controls for every experiment?
7. Design your experiments with exquisite care. Discuss pitfalls, interpretations and
strategies. How are you going to do the work? Do you have enough experience with the
techniques proposed? Have you suggested appropriate methods, not ones that you think
are in fashion? Make very clear which experiments you consider to be the most important
and which you will drop if they appear unproductive.
8. Get as much help as possible from colleagues, peers and mentors from your laboratory
or campus, NSF publications (Program Announcements, Grant Proposal Guide, Web
Pages, Funded Project Abstracts, Reports, Special Publications), program officers
(incumbent and former “rotators”), previous panelists, serve as a reviewer, etc.
9. If you are continuing work initiated as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow, make
it clear that your work will not be competing with that laboratory. If possible, include a
letter from your mentor stating that the project is now yours to pursue or that you will
work in cooperation, not in competition. (Collaborators from other departments, industry
cooperation, letters of support and matching funds are not requirements; however, they
can help you make your case.)
Handout for DIALOG 2001
2
10. Revise relentlessly, remove verbiage and unnecessary detail - be simple and concise.
At the same time give enough information in each section to ensure that your reader does
not have to refer constantly to other sections.
11. Remember that “The ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the
understanding” (Francis Bacon) and “The more words there are, the more words there are
about which doubts may be entertained” (Jeremy Bentham).
12. Be sure to give credit to all your sources. For example, if you use several paragraphs
taken directly from a review article in your introduction, put it in quotes and cite the
source (a reviewer of your proposal may have written the article!).
13. If you have papers submitted for publication, ask if you can attach them as
appendices. NSF does not currently allow appendices for regular research proposals.
Some agencies require that manuscripts be accepted in order to be included. Avoid listing
many papers as “in preparation” as it will appear that you have a problem getting your
results down on paper (and the term is virtually meaningless).
14. If you are applying to several granting agencies, avoid partially overlapping
proposals. Funding of one would probably prevent the funding of the second, even
though the second may contain portions that are unique to that proposal.
Track your proposal through the NSF Fast Lane system (electronic submission of
proposals is required by NSF).
If it is mis-assigned to a program or review section, try to get it changed as soon as
possible. If you have a substantial breakthrough in your research between the time of
submission and review, submit a brief update to your proposal (call the agency first to
determine the necessary format and deadline).
Myth: You need to figure out what research the NSF Program Director wants.
Reality: Your primary audience is the reviewing community. Panelists are each reading
10-15 proposals. The proposals they remember are ones they learn something from and
the proposals they rank highly are ones they remember.
Myth: You need to “psyche out” the formula for a successful NSF proposal.
Reality: There is no “one” formula. Proposals that do best are ones that explain proposed
work in simple, logical progression. Don’t leave important questions out. If you know
something is important, but don’t know exactly how to handle it, it should be discussed.
Extraneous information turns reviewers off. Have your proposal read by someone outside
your field.
Myth: Novel ideas can’t win.
Reality: Nothing excites reviewers more than a new idea explained well. A great idea
poorly presented is indistinguishable from a not-so-great idea however presented. You
may know that your idea is brilliant, but you have to convey it clearly to the reviewer, in
print. Novel ideas CAN win!
REQUIRED SECTIONS OF AN NSF RESEARCH PROPOSAL
See the NSF Grant Proposal Guide for details (available at the NSF website
[Link]
• Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and co-Principal
Investigators/co-Project Directors
• Deviation Authorization (if applicable)
• List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional, but very helpful in
the review
process)
• Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
A. Project Summary
B. Table of Contents
C. Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)
D. References Cited
E. Biographical Sketches
F. Proposal Budget (cumulative and annual budgets, including subaward budget(s), if
any, and up to three pages of Budget Justification)
G. Current and Pending Support
H. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
I. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation
J. Appendices (Include only if approved in advance of proposal submission by NSF
Assistant
Director/Office Head, or designee, or by program solicitation)
You are allowed 15 pages to justify and describe the proposed work. You may structure
this section any way you
wish, but it usually includes information on the following:
Results from Prior NSF Support
Handout for DIALOG 2001
3
If you have never had an NSF grant, this section will not be applicable. However, if you
do have preliminary data that have not been published and they relate to the proposed
work, be sure to include these in the Project Description.
What do you intend to do?
You should start with a brief introduction that states the overall objectives of the
proposed research to put your reviewers into the picture at once. Make your aims as
succinct and as clear as possible, they should be well thought out and feasible. Do not
make your reviewers struggle through complex questions or tortuous prose.
Why is the work important?
Contrary to popular belief and practice, this is not merely a literature survey of the
background of the field. To
answer the question why the work is important requires the following:
• A description of the research activities that led you to the work you are proposing, such
as an extension
of work already in progress or exploration of a new trend.
• A means of showing that you are thoroughly familiar with the field and have a balanced
knowledge of it. Be selective and discriminating in your choice of references rather than
being all-inclusive.
• A good background and literature survey will permit you to emphasize the areas where
there are gaps in knowledge that you intend to fill and hence will lead you to.
• How your proposal will verify (or refute) your hypothesis and or yield new conclusions
of a general
biological or practical significance.
What has already been done?
This section permits you to show (1) the feasibility of your proposed studies; and (2) your
qualifications as an investigator. Indeed, in times of fiscal constraint (that is, almost
always), your reviewers will feel much more confident about your capabilities if you can
show them some pertinent preliminary experiments. But, particularly
for a new investigator, they must be meticulously carried out and presented. Do not ruin
good work by a poor
description of it.
How are you going to do the work?
Again, contrary to popular belief and common practice, this section is not like the
“Materials and Methods”
portion of a paper, but rather is concerned with demonstrating that the applicant can
design an appropriate
research protocol, show the strategy planned and the procedures to be used (and their
advantages and
limitations), is familiar with potential difficulties, has considered alternative approaches
and included pertinent
statistical analytical methods, and has discussed interpretation of the results. Can the
proposed experiments
answer the study questions?
NSF Review Criteria
Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding
within its own field or across
different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the
project? (If appropriate, the
reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed
activity suggest and
explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the
proposed activity? Is there
sufficient access to resources?
Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting
teaching, training, and learning?
How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented
groups (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure
for research and
education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results
be disseminated
broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits
of the proposed
activity to society?
PIs should address the following elements in their proposal to provide reviewers with the
information necessary
to respond fully to the above-described NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give
these elements careful
consideration in making funding decisions.
For specific examples of activities that address criterion 2 see
[Link]
WHY PROPOSALS FAIL
1. Absence of innovative ideas and/or hypotheses. Surveys, preparation of standards,
screening of cDNA
libraries, isolation and maintenance of cell lines do not in themselves constitute novel
ideas, even if the work
has not been done before. Money may be requested for these studies, but usually only as
part of an overall
scheme.
2. Errors in logic and experimental design. The experiments will not provide the results
that they are purported
to do. The methods are not described properly. Adequate controls are not included. The
methods may be
Handout for DIALOG 2001
4
“fashionable” but are inappropriate for the proposed studies - simpler “old-fashioned”
methods will give better
results more quickly and cheaply. Too few samples for statistical analysis.
3. Errors in presentation and expression. So poorly written that the reviewers miss the
point, or cannot tell what
questions are being addressed, or find statements ambiguous. Overcrowded writing that
obscures your
message. Insufficient background to support studies. Sloppily written with errors in
experimental detail so
that reviewers have little faith in the author’s abilities.
4. Not exciting.
5. The author has attempted to enter a new area without the background and/or expertise
to make the project
feasible.
6. Unrealistically ambitious (even after taking into account the inexperience of a new
investigator).
7. Wholly unjustified budget.
8. Proposal incomplete or incorrect (e.g., lack of information on current and pending
support, no letters of
support from named collaborators, etc.).
9. In the wrong program or not directed toward the mission of the granting agency.
REVISING A PROPOSAL
1. Keep calm!
2. Read the reviews very carefully. If your project was described poorly, your reviewers
may have
misunderstood your intent.
3. Answer all pertinent questions or criticisms and correct errors and omissions.
4. Add any new preliminary studies.
5. Based on the reviews, consider adding new experiments, but do not write a new
proposal. If it goes to the
same reviewers, as it probably will, they will find it more difficult to review a proposal
that is rewritten
entirely, than one that is revised appropriately.
6. If one component of your proposal is clearly undesirable, remove it and improve on
other aspects or add a
new one (but only if it is excellent).
7. If reviewers have mistaken your intent (see 2), revise the writing.
8. If reviewers question your expertise, emphasize where you can obtain training and/or
help and collaboration
from your colleagues.
9. If reviewers criticize your budget, your resources, your commitment, change them (but
only if the criticisms
make sense).
10. For all of the above, get advice from colleagues and mentors in your own field, in
related and unrelated
fields, and from administrators at your own institution and the granting agency (the NSF
Program Director
has a lot of experience in the field and is a great source of construction advice).
Hopefully you won’t need the advice on this page. I wish you success in your proposal
writing and career!
The Art of Writing Proposals: Some Candid Suggestions for Applicants to Social
Science Research Council Competitions
By Adam Przeworski and Frank Salomon

Writing proposals for research funding is a peculiar facet of North American academic
culture, and as with all things cultural, its attributes rise only partly into public
consciousness. A proposal's overt function is to persuade a committee of scholars that the
project shines with the three kinds of merit all disciplines value, namely, conceptual
innovation, methodological rigor, and rich, substantive content. But to make these points
stick, a proposal writer needs a feel for the unspoken customs, norms, and needs that
govern the selection process itself. These are not really as arcane or ritualistic as one
might suspect. For the most part, these customs arise from the committee's efforts to deal
in good faith with its own problems: incomprehension among disciplines, work overload,
and the problem of equitably judging proposals that reflect unlike social and academic
circumstances.

Writing for committee competition is an art quite different from research work itself.
After long deliberation, a committee usually has to choose among proposals that all
possess the three virtues mentioned above. Other things being equal, the proposal that is
awarded funding is the one that gets its merits across more forcefully because it addresses
these unspoken needs and norms as well as the overt rules. The purpose of these pages is
to give competitors for Council fellowships and funding a more even start by making
explicit some of those normally unspoken customs and needs.

Capture the Reviewer's Attention?

While the form and the organization of a proposal are matters of taste, you should choose
your form bearing in mind that every proposal reader constantly scans for clear answers
to three questions:

What are we going to learn as the result of the proposed project that we do not know
now?
Why is it worth knowing?
How will we know that the conclusions are valid?
Working through a tall stack of proposals on voluntarily-donated time, a committee
member rarely has time to comb proposals for hidden answers. So, say what you have to
say immediately, crisply, and forcefully. The opening paragraph, or the first page at most,
is your chance to grab the reviewer's attention. Use it. This is the moment to overstate,
rather than understate, your point or question. You can add the conditions and caveats
later.
Questions that are clearly posed are an excellent way to begin a proposal: Are strong
party systems conducive to democratic stability? Was the decline of population growth in
Brazil the result of government policies? These should not be rhetorical questions; they
have effect precisely because the answer is far from obvious. Stating your central point,
hypothesis, or interpretation is also a good way to begin: Workers do not organize
unions; unions organize workers. The success, and failure, of Corazon Aquino's
revolution stems from its middle-class origins. Population growth coupled with loss of
arable land poses a threat to North African food security in the next decade.

Obviously some projects are too complex and some conceptualizations too subtle for
such telegraphic messages to capture. Sometimes only step-by-step argumentation can
define the central problem. But even if you adopt this strategy, do not fail to leave the
reviewer with something to remember: some message that will remain after reading many
other proposals and discussing them for hours and hours. She's the one who claims that
Argentina never had a liberal democratic tradition is how you want to be referred to
during the committee's discussion, not Oh yes, she's the one from Chicago.

Aim for Clarity

Remember that most proposals are reviewed by multidisciplinary committees. A reviewer

studying a proposal from another field expects the proposer to meet her halfway. After
all, the reader probably accepted the committee appointment because of the excitement of
surveying other people's ideas. Her only reward is the chance that proposals will provide
a lucidly-guided tour of various disciplines' research frontiers. Don't cheat the reviewer of
this by inflicting a tiresome trek through the duller idiosyncrasies of your discipline.
Many disciplines have parochial traditions of writing in pretentious jargon. You should
avoid jargon as much as you can, and when technical language is really needed, restrict
yourself to those new words and technical terms that truly lack equivalents in common
language. Also, keep the spotlight on ideas. An archeologist should argue the concepts
latent in the ceramic typology more than the typology itself, a historian the tendency
latent in the mass of events, and so forth. When additional technical material is needed, or
when the argument refers to complex ancillary material, putting it into appendices
decongests the main text.

Establish the Context

Your proposal should tell the committee not only what will be learned as a result of your
project, but what will be learned that somebody else does not already know. It is essential
that the proposal summarize the current state of knowledge and provide an up-to-date,
comprehensive bibliography. Both should be precise and succinct. They need not
constitute a review of the literature but a sharply focused view of the specific body or
bodies of knowledge to which you will add. Committees often treat bibliographies as a
sign of seriousness on the part of the applicant, and some members will put considerable
effort into evaluating them. A good bibliography testifies that the author did enough
preparatory work to make sure the project will complement and not duplicate other
people's efforts. Many proposals fail because the references are incomplete or outdated.
Missing even a single reference can be very costly if it shows failure to connect with
research directly relevant to one's own. Proposal writers with limited library resources are
urged to correspond with colleagues and libraries elsewhere in the early stages of
research planning. Resource guides such as Dissertation Abstracts International and
Social Science Periodical Index are highly recommended. For many disciplines, annual
reviews (e.g., Annual Review of Anthropology) offer state-of-the-art discussions and rich
bibliographies. Some disciplines have bibliographically-oriented journals, for example
Review of Economic Literature and Contemporary Sociology. There are also valuable
area studies-oriented guides: Handbook of Latin American Studies, International African
Bibliography, etc. Familiarizing yourself with them can save days of research. Powerful
bibliographic searches can be run on CD-ROM databases such as the Social Science
Citations Index, Social Sciences Index, and Modern Language Association International
Index. Also, on-line databases such as CARL and ERIC, available by library or network
access, greatly increase your bibliographic reach.

What's the Payoff?

Disciplinary norms and personal tastes in justifying research activities differ greatly.
Some scholars are swayed by the statement that it has not been studied (e.g., an historian
may argue that no book has been written about a particular event, and therefore one is
needed), while other scholars sometimes reflect that there may be a good reason why not.
Nevertheless, the fact that less is known about one's own chosen case, period, or country
than about similar ones may work in the proposer's favor. Between two identical projects,
save that one concerns Egypt and the other the Sudan, reviewers are likely to prefer the
latter. Citing the importance of the events that provide the subject matter is another and
perhaps less dubious appeal. Turning points, crucial breakthroughs, central personages,
fundamental institutions, and similar appeals to the significance of the object of research
are sometimes effective if argued rather than merely asserted. Appealing to current
importance may also work: e.g., democratic consolidation in South America, the aging
population in industrialized countries, the relative decline of the hegemony of the United
States. It's crucial to convince readers that such topics are not merely timely, but that their
current urgency provides a window into some more abiding problem. Among many
social scientists, explicit theoretical interest counts heavily as a point of merit.
Theoretical exposition need not go back to the axiomatic bases of the discipline, proposal
readers will have a reasonable interdisciplinary breadth, but it should situate the local
problem in terms of its relevance to live, sometimes controversial, theoretical currents.
Help your reader understand where the problem intersects the main theoretical debates in
your field and show how this inquiry puts established ideas to the test or offers new ones.
Good proposals demonstrate awareness of alternative viewpoints and argue the author's
position in such a way as to address the field broadly, rather than developing a single
sectarian tendency indifferent to alternatives.

Use a Fresh Approach

Surprises, puzzles, and apparent contradictions can powerfully persuade the reviewer
whose disciplinary superego enforces a commitment to systematic model building or
formal theorizing: Given its long-standing democratic traditions, Chile was expected to
return to democracy before other countries in the Southern Cone, and yet . . . Is it because
these traditions were already extinct by 1973 or because the assumption on which this
prediction was based is false? Everyone expected that One Big Union--the slogan of the
movement--would strike and win wage increases for workers. Yet statistical evidence
shows just the contrary: strong unions do not strike but instead restrain workers' wage
demands.

It is often worthwhile to help readers understand how the research task grows from the
intellectual history or current intellectual life of the country or region that generated it.
Council committees strive to build linkages among an immense diversity of national and
international intellectual traditions, and members come from various countries and
schools of thought. Many committee members are interested in the interplay of diverse
traditions. In fact, the chance to see intellectual history in the making is another reason
people accept committee membership. It is a motive to which proposals can legitimately
appeal.

It pays to remember that topics of current salience, both theoretical and in the so-called
real world, are likely to be a crowded field. The competitors will be more numerous and
the competition less interesting than in truly unfamiliar terrain. Unless you have
something original to say about them, you may be well advised to avoid topics typically
styled of central interest to the discipline. Usually these are topics about which everyone
is writing, and the reason is that somebody else has already made the decisive and
exciting contribution. By the time you write your proposal, obtain funding, do the
research, and write it up, you might wish you were working on something else. So if your
instinct leads you to a problem far from the course that the pack is running, follow it, not
the pack: nothing is more valuable than a really fresh beginning.

Describe Your Methodology

Methodological canons are largely discipline-specific and vary widely even within some
disciplines. But two things can safely be said about methodological appeal. First, the
proposal must specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will
interpret the results of these operations in terms of your central problem. Do not just tell
what you mean to achieve, tell how you will spend your time while doing it. Second, a
methodology is not just a list of research tasks but an argument as to why these tasks add
up to the best attack on the problem. An agenda by itself will normally not suffice
because the mere listing of tasks to perform does not prove that they add up to the best
feasible approach.

Some popularly-used phrases fall short of identifying recognizable research operations.

For example, I will look at the relation between x and y is not informative. We know
what is meant when an ornithologist proposes to look at a bird, but looking at a relation
between variables is something one only does indirectly, by operations like digging
through dusty archive boxes, interviewing, observing and taking standardized notes,
collecting and testing statistical patterns, etc. How will you tease the relationship of
underlying forces from the mass of experience? The process of gathering data and
moving from data to interpretation tends to follow disciplinary customs, more standard in
some fields than in others; help readers from other fields recognize what parts of your
methodology are standard, which are innovative. Be as specific as you possibly can be
about the activities you plan to undertake to collect information, about the techniques you
will use to analyze it, and about the tests of validity to which you commit yourself. Most
proposals fail because they leave reviewers wondering what the applicant will actually
do. Tell them! Specify the archives, the sources, the respondents, and the proposed
techniques of analysis.

A research design proposing comparison between cases often has special appeal. In a
certain sense all research is comparative because it must use, implicitly or explicitly,
some point of reference. Making the comparison explicit raises its value as scientific
inquiry. In evaluating a comparative proposal, readers ask whether the cases are chosen
in such a way that their similarities and differences illuminate the central question. And is
the proposer in a position to execute both legs of the comparison? When both answers are
positive, the proposal may fare particularly well.

The proposal should prove that the researcher either possesses, or cooperates with people
who possess, mastery of all the technical matters the project entails. For example, if a
predominantly literary project includes an inquiry into the influence of the Tupian
language on rural Brazilian Portuguese, the proposal will be checked for the author's
background in linguistics and/or Indian languages, or the author's arrangements to
collaborate with appropriate experts.

Specify Your Objectives

A well-composed proposal, like a sonata, usually ends by alluding to the original theme.
How will research procedures and their products finally connect with the central
question? How will you know if your idea was wrong or right? In some disciplines this
imperative traditionally means holding to the strict canon of the falsifiable hypothesis.
While respecting this canon, committee members are also open to less formal approaches.
What matters is to convince readers that something is genuinely at stake in the inquiry,
that it is not tendentiously moving toward a preconceived end, and that this leaven of the
unknown will yield interesting, orderly propositions.

Proposals should normally describe the final product of the project: an article, book,
chapter, dissertation, etc. If you have specific plans, it often helps to spell them out,
because specifying the kind of journal in which you hope to publish, or the kind of people
you hope to address, will help readers understand what might otherwise look like merely
odd features of the proposal. While planning and drafting your proposal, you should keep
in mind the program guidelines and application procedures outlined in the brochure
specific to the Council program to which you are applying. If you have specific questions
about the program, you may wish to consult with a staff member. Your final proposal
should include all requested enclosures and appendices.
Final Note

To write a good proposal takes a long time. Start early. Begin thinking about your topic
well in advance and make it a habit to collect references while you work on other tasks.
Write a first draft at least three months in advance, revise it, show it to colleagues. Let it
gather a little dust, collect colleagues' comments, revise it again. If you have a chance,
share it with a seminar or similar group; the debate should help you anticipate what
reviewers will eventually think. Revise the text again for substance. Go over the
language, style, and form. Resharpen your opening paragraph or first page so that it
drives home exactly what you mean as effectively as possible.

Learner-Centered Education Program

Arizona Board of Regents
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FORM

Trii-University Collaboration on Learner-Centered Practice: Creating Learning

Proposal Title: Communities Among Faculty and Students

Institution: University of Arizona DEPT/Unit: University Teaching Center

Multi-Campus/University Projects
List other participating agencies:
(check other campuses or universities
participating)
_x_ ASU Main _x_ UA

___ ASU East ___ UA South

___ ASU West _x_ NAU

Briefly describe the program and the development plan.

The intent of the project is two-fold: (1) to develop a critical mass of faculty who will engage
collaboratively in the study of learner-centered instructional practice, apply what they learn, assess the
impact of wheat they learn, and share their learning with other faculty, and (w2) for those faculty to
develop and implement an LCE advocacy plan for each of their campuses that will ultimately bring faculty
and institutional culture to actively embrace more learner-centered approaches to college education.

Funding Category
Indicate a primary (P) and, if applicable, secondary (S) funding category:
Professional Development __P____ Program or Course Development/Modification __S____
LCE Research ______ Improved Assessment of Learning Outcomes ___S___

Authorizations
Project Director

Signature:
 University of Arizona, University Teaching Center, PO Box 210102, Tucson, AZ
Mailing Address: 85721-0102

Name: Elizabeth Harrison Title: Associate Director

Phone: 520-626-3500 Fax: 520-626-7314 Email: eharriso@[Link]

Department Chair / Unit Director/ College Dean/Provost

Name: Terri Riffe Title Director, University Teaching Center

__________________________________
Signature

Official Authorized to Enter into Contractual Obligations

Signature

Name: Title:

Phone: 520-626-6000 Fax: 520-626-4137 Email: sponsor@[Link]

c/o Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Avenue, Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Tri-University Collaboration on Learner-Centered Practice:

Creating Learning Communities Among Faculty and Students

Abstract
The primary goal of this project is for the three state universities to collaborate in a
learning community comprised of faculty, academic professionals, graduate teaching
assistants, and students to accomplish three major objectives: 1) exploring, identifying
and implementing learner-centered teaching strategies in a minimum of 70 classes in the
Fall of 2004; 2) applying existing classroom assessment models and techniques to
determine which instructional approaches best produce the desired learning outcomes;
and 3) developing a faculty development process model through which the continued
exploration and implementation of learner-centered instructional practice can expand to
become commonplace in higher educational environments in which the lecture method
still dominates. Secondary goals include:
 increasing the use of learner-centered instructional strategies and understanding
how learner-centered instructional strategies enhance student learning;
 increasing faculty use of classroom assessment techniques to determine the
effectiveness of their instructional practices;
 stimulating dialogue on each campus and among campuses to gain insight about
what factors would increase both the faculty’s implementation of learner-centered
instructional strategies and the use of classroom assessment strategies in the tri-
university system.

This project builds on an ABOR LCE grant awarded to the three universities in Spring
2002. That grant provided an opportunity to demonstrate that the faculty initially
involved in learning and implementing learner-centered instructional and assessment
strategies experimented enthusiastically with learner-centered strategies, collaborated
effectively at all three state universities, saw positive results in their students, and have
continued to embrace LCE principles in their teaching, as reported to ABOR, by
invitation, at the September 25, 2003, board meeting.

The intent of the current project is to develop a critical mass of faculty at the three
institutions who will engage in the study of learner-centered instructional practice, apply
what they learn, assess the impact of what they learn, and share their learning with other
faculty through workshops, mentoring, web-based materials, and videotapes at their own
and each other’s universities. They will also develop a plan to promote learner-centered
instructional philosophies and practices to their own departments and colleges. This will
ensure broader institutional commitment to and wider adoption of learner-centered
instruction and assessment strategies within our state university system.

We request funding of $100,000 for the second phase of this project in recognition that
transformative change in long-standing instructional practice is a major challenge that
cannot be accomplished in a semester or two.

Identification of Need
Patricia Cross and Thomas Angelo (1993) state in Classroom Assessment Techniques: A
Handbook for College Teachers that, “Faculty have an exceptional opportunity to use
their classrooms as laboratories for the study of learning and through such study to
develop a better understanding of the learning process and the impact of their teaching
upon it.” (p. xiv) LCE, characterized by direct involvement of learners, deeper
understanding of content, and retention of skills readily transferable to life and work,
provides a rich environment for students and teachers to engage in continuous monitoring
of student learning. The recent national LCE initiative has certainly engaged some
faculty, administrators and academic professionals in dialogue and institutional visioning.
However, a coherent approach for wider adoption, implementation, and assessment of
learner-centered instructional practices has not been undertaken within the university
system in Arizona. A multi-university learning community committed to studying,
implementing, assessing, and sharing the impact of learner-centered instructional
strategies on student learning will stimulate wider commitment to LCE in the same way
that faculty “early adopters” help to inspire other faculty in the use of technology as
learner-centered instructional tools.

Reviews of faculty development endeavors nationally conclude that 1) faculty

development efforts are the most effective in resulting in changes in instructional practice
if they are led by faculty, and 2) the most beneficial aspect of faculty development
experiences are the interactions and collaboration with other faculty. Whereas research in
the higher education faculty culture is often collaborative, teaching has traditionally been
an insular and isolated experience. This explains faculty members’ enthusiasm about
faculty development programs that provide a community of scholars or a collaborative
approach in which common instructional issues and challenges can be discussed freely
and where shared insights are accepted and appreciated. Therefore, supporting faculty in
a collaborative learning community in which they will develop and implement specific
working models of learner-centered teaching practice and assessment is critical.
Additionally, testing a faculty development process for expanding the implementation of
LCE in post-secondary classrooms is a viable project to operationalize the vision of a
learner-centered state university system.

Currently, the three state universities target faculty development efforts through the
University Teaching Center at The University of Arizona, the Center for Learning and
Teaching Excellence at Arizona State University, and the Faculty Development Program
at Northern Arizona University. Yet, there is no formalized collaboration between these
units, and there is no formalized, systemic process to guide faculty in working
collaboratively to explore, define, identify, test, revise, and assess learner outcomes that
result from LCE practice. Faculty members, for the most part, have been “out there”
engaging in isolated and individualized efforts. Moreover, although many current faculty
development efforts focus on improving learning, most individual faculty, following the
lead of higher education itself, do not systematically assess the impact of these efforts on
learning and learners. Thus, in addition to teaching strategies, this project aims to provide
faculty with assessment techniques and tools that will provide insights into and evidence
of enhanced student learning. In Cross and Angelo’s (1993) experience, implementing
assessment techniques “makes faculty more systematic and sensitive observers of
learning in the classroom, and the opportunity to discuss their observations with
colleagues leads naturally to questions and tentative theories about teaching and
learning.” (p. xiii-xiv)
Forty-five faculty from the three state universities participated in the first round of our
project. We seek funding for the second round, in which we will bring thirty-six new
faculty together with nine returning faculty participants from the first round (plus two
graduate teaching assistants, teaching center/faculty development program faculty, and
academic professionals from each of the universities). UA and ASU will include
participants from Sierra Vista and ASU East and West in their groups of participants. We
include returning faculty in order to maintain continuity and to promote faculty-to-faculty
mentoring. Each campus will also include undergraduate students in the on-campus
activities to the extent possible; undergraduates will participate indirectly by providing
feedback in classes. Project participants will work together to formalize the elements of
LCE practice and assessment and to refine the faculty development model explored in the
first round to provide a process for infusing instructional practices at their respective
universities. Returning faculty will play a lead role in developing and delivering
workshop sessions for new faculty. This process will lead the learning community to
explore learning theory and the relationship between theory and practice enriched by the
first-hand experience of returning faculty.

The project will provide all participants with materials and resources about learner-
centered instructional practice (what it is, how to implement it through innovation and
collaboration) and classroom assessment (how to get started using it, and the insights it
provides in understanding the complexities of learning). Given typical faculty teaching
loads, we estimate that approximately 70 new classes and 3500 students will participate
in learner-centered classroom environments at The University of Arizona in 2004-05
because of this new round of the project. These classes and students will be in addition to
those taught by faculty who participated in the first round of the project (for estimation
purposes we used a class size of 50, but we speculate the number of students will be
much larger as we include faculty who teach large general education courses).

This project supports the Learner-Centered Education Initiative as a professional

development opportunity designed to prepare faculty to implement principles and
strategies of LCE practice and assess them in learning environments with specified
learning outcomes. The first round has provided some specific models for instruction and
assessment that any interested faculty member can tailor to their own learning
environment. Links between various instructional methods and the learning outcomes
they promote will continue to be clearly identified and actively distributed during the
second round. In addition, as a result of their learning faculty are poised to share their
insights and findings with other faculty as well as instructional units within their own
university and across the state university system. In the second round of the project, we
propose to focus on providing the learning community with a structure and a
collaborative faculty development process that will infuse learner-centered instruction
into the university system.

Techn cical Needs

A database will be developed to capture findings and to begin a longitudinal process for
collecting data about LCE at our universities. A computer technician will be employed to
continue developing the database. Faculty will be supported by the Learning
Technologies Center at the University of Arizona in the creation and/or use of
instructional technology tools as needed for the learner-centered strategies they choose.
Specific materials will be provided to all participants including Cross and Angelo’s
Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (1993), Huba and
Freed’s Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from
Teaching to Learning (2000), and Svinicki’s Teaching and Learning On the Edge of the
Millennium: Building On What We Have Learned: New Directions for Teaching and
Learning (2000). If needed, an in-house assessment consultant will be used in designing
aspects of assessment of the overall project.

Work Plan
Date Project Goal Objectives
Feb/March Planning Faculty development units at the participant universities work with
2004 each other and with first round participant faculty to develop the
content and process for the second round.
April 2004 Selection Identify 12 new faculty, 3 returning faculty, 1 graduate student
and 2 undergraduate students from each university.
May/June Initial learning Learning community convenes in Flagstaff for a two-day meeting
2004 community meeting in late May or early June to:
1. Learn LCE strategies, and then identify specific strategies that
Date Project Goal Objectives
participants will explore in their Fall 2004 classes.
2. Explore and select appropriate assessment models for
measuring student outcomes.
June – August Preparation Participants refine their work plan and prepare materials for use
2004 when classes begin in August.
August 2004 Summer Work Report Convene in Flagstaff (two days) to report on the results of summer
Meeting work and share and critique plans for implementation of learner-
centered principles in Fall 2004 classes.
August – May Sharing Use technology (active web site, possibly teleconferencing) to
2004 support inter-university collaboration such as:
1. Sharing reports of participants’ experiences are making.
2. Identifying challenges and possible solutions.
3. Providing peer support.
August – May Individual Institution Participants at each university:
2004 Activities 1. Attend and lead regularly scheduled 1 ½ hour meetings to
discuss progress and problems. Invite other interested faculty
and graduate students to attend.
2. Plan and lead two interventions per semester in which they
advocate for the use of LCE principles in teaching. Examples:
workshops for other faculty, presentations to and
demonstrations for department meetings and administrators.
January 2005 Dissemination Participants from both rounds meet in Tempe (one day)
to:
1. Present and discuss results of following LCE
principles in their classes.
2. Plan an open forum to be hosted at each campus at
which they will discuss what they have learned
with interested faculty, graduate students, and
administrators.
3. Develop a working model for advocacy of LCE on
each campus.
Participants will be encouraged to and assisted with
publication of outcomes and results in journals such as
the new Communication Education journal that calls
for submission on learning outcomes associated with
instructional practices across disciplines.

Key Personnel
Terri Riffe, PhD, Director, University Teaching Center, The University of Arizona
1017 N. Mountain, Tucson, AZ 85721, (520) 621-7788, riffe@[Link]
Elizabeth Harrison, PhD, Assoc. Director, University Teaching Center, The University of Arizona
1017 N. Mountain Ave, Tucson, AZ – 85721, (520) 626-3500, eharriso@[Link]
Jeane Spada-Allgood, PhD, Interim Director, Faculty Dev. Program, Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 4131, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, (928) 523-3886, [Link]-allgood@[Link]
Judy Grace, PhD, Director, Center for Learning & Teaching Excellence, Arizona State University
P.O. Box 870101, Tempe, AZ, 85287-0101, (480) 965-3555, [Link]@[Link]
Other key staff members will be drawn from each unit listed above. Faculty participants,
graduate teaching assistants, and undergraduate students will be selected by each
university once the project is funded. A diverse representation of disciplines will be
targeted in order to facilitate the broadest campus impact of students and to initiate
dialogue across many departments and colleges.

Expected Results and Outcomes

At the individual faculty level, the expected outcomes of this collaboration are (1) greater
exposure to LCE strategies and techniques, (2) active experimentation with and
implementation of learner-centered education in classes, and (3) knowledge and
implementation of LCE assessment practices. Both quantitative and qualitative data will
be collected from formative and summative evaluation processes used in the classroom
with students and during project sessions with faculty participants.

At the institutional level, the expected outcomes are (1) development of an LCE
advocacy plan for each institution, (2) development of advocacy support materials from
data collected by faculty participants, and (2) initial stages of activity based on the
advocacy plans. The goals of the plans will be developed during the course of the project
but are expected to include (a) greater understanding at administrative levels
(departments, colleges) of the benefits of LCE to students, faculty, and institution, (b)
greater administrative support for faculty attempting to reorient their teaching according
to LCE principles, and, ultimately (c) a shift in faculty and institutional culture to
embrace LCE.

Quantitative data will include numbers of participating faculty, courses, and students as
well as types of instructional and assessment approaches used. Pre- and post- assessments
of faculty attitudes toward LCE will be given. Qualitative data will include the formative
assessment activities of individual faculty as they engage in the cycle of planning,
implementing, revising, and documenting what they learn from this process about their
own teaching as it relates to student learning outcomes. Summative data of all faculty
activity, in both quantitative and qualitative forms, will be summarized and a catalog of
learner-centered approaches and their assessment options will be created which will form
a searchable database for other faculty to use. Faculty will be videotaped using learner-
centered approaches in order to provide teaching materials for use with other faculty.
Finally, documentation of the specific ways in which student learning is enhanced
through learner-centered instructional strategies will be provided. Parallel kinds of
quantitative and qualitative data will be collected as project participants begin
implementing their advocacy plans on their campuses.