At the beginning of this class we defined stasis – two sides agree to have a discussion. The qualifications sections can be the deciding factor for the funder if they want to "have a discussion" with the applicant or not. When a funder sees a proposal as promising the next step is to look at the qualifications. This can be the deciding factor to not fund a proposal if the funder does not see the team as credible or capable of carrying out the project.
Focusing on what makes your team different and attractive is more important that one may think. When developing a proposal for a federal funder, talk to the program officer, or participate in a conference call. Often times if you listen carefully and read between the lines they will give advice on what they are looking for, or what other types of proposals they anticipate receiving. This is the team’s time to step up and make themselves more attractive than the other submissions. This is not an area of the proposal let go until the last minute. This section of the proposal is as much about rhetorical strategy as the current situation and the project plan.
Just as a resume is revised depending on the positing and company that is targeted, so too should the qualifications section of a proposal. It is not wise to submit the same qualifications page to two different funders. One should always compose a qualifications document specific to the funding agency and audience targeting.
Boiler plates are common in federally funded projects. Often times this section is limited so the writer only has a compacted amount of space to put a great deal of information. Know your audience and tailor your qualifications to the audience you are targeting. When preparing this section remember to keep in mind what they funder needs to know, not what you want to tell them.
Just as a resume is revised depending on the positing and company that is targeted so to should the qualifications section of a proposal. It is not wise to submit the same qualifications to two different funders. One should always compose a qualifications document specific to the funding agency and audience targeting. Know your audience.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Project Plan Outline
Step 1 – Enlist support of department chairs for project
Dean and ADR to meet with each chair to support project
Provide a better understanding of the research expectations of the University
Step 2 – Write the manual
Enlist suggestions from AAH Faculty Research Facilitators
Interview successful researchers in each department for suggested content
Submit to POC for final approval
Write the manual
Step 3 – Develop multimedia project for the AAH Research website
Determine the best format
Lean software
Develop the project
Step 4 – Develop workshop
Determine the best media for workshop
Determine if funding is needed for the workshops
Develop the workshop
Dean and ADR to meet with each chair to support project
Provide a better understanding of the research expectations of the University
Step 2 – Write the manual
Enlist suggestions from AAH Faculty Research Facilitators
Interview successful researchers in each department for suggested content
Submit to POC for final approval
Write the manual
Step 3 – Develop multimedia project for the AAH Research website
Determine the best format
Lean software
Develop the project
Step 4 – Develop workshop
Determine the best media for workshop
Determine if funding is needed for the workshops
Develop the workshop
Chapter 5 Project Plan
Now that the draft of the current situation is complete it is time to focus on the organization of the plan. I feel like my POC, Dr. James London will be heavily involved in these decisions based on his expectations and the office work load. I think after reviewing the current situation with him again, we will want to revisit the TRO. There is the possibility of revising them.
Just as we mapped the current situation, we will want to map out the project plan. We will look at the most promising solution to our problem as a starting point, in this case a guide for AAH on proposal development. We will then ask if our mapping meets our revised TRO. If in fact it does we will have answered the HOW stasis question. We can then move on to asking ourselves WHY are the steps we laid out in the project plan map necessary. Are they the proper steps we should take or should we try doing it a different way? Once we are comfortable with these answers we have a solid project plan.
The next step is to focus on a realistic timeline. In my case, the client, Dr. James London will relay expectation and goals. These goals will be weighed against other deadlines and projects our office is currently working on.
Just as we mapped the current situation, we will want to map out the project plan. We will look at the most promising solution to our problem as a starting point, in this case a guide for AAH on proposal development. We will then ask if our mapping meets our revised TRO. If in fact it does we will have answered the HOW stasis question. We can then move on to asking ourselves WHY are the steps we laid out in the project plan map necessary. Are they the proper steps we should take or should we try doing it a different way? Once we are comfortable with these answers we have a solid project plan.
The next step is to focus on a realistic timeline. In my case, the client, Dr. James London will relay expectation and goals. These goals will be weighed against other deadlines and projects our office is currently working on.
POC
My point of contact for my project is Dr. James B. London, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities
Current situation rough draft
Anytime a paradigm shift occurs, problems will arise and will have to be addressed. Research at Clemson University has become a necessity instead of an option. With state funding dropping from ____ in 1990 to around ___ in 2008, our institution must find other ways of funding, and that funding is research. The state budget will continue to be cut and those cuts will be passed down to the departments.
AAH is not known as a research college; however there are research dollars out there for our college. Since research has not been a priority, tools to assist those individuals interesting in research are available, but they are not widely know. Personnel have been added over the last few years and workshops and assistance are being developed to facilitate the research. Over the last seven years research has steadily increased in our college as you can see by the table below. With this increase comes the reality that steps need to be taken to do everything we possibly can to help our college succeed in this area.
This project proposes to develop a set of guidelines for the new grant writer in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities to use in developing an idea that conforms to the larger overall goal of the funding agency. Successful grantsmanship is critical to the economy of the academic research institution. This project will not contain instructions on how to do research. This guide will focus on how to seek out funding opportunities and write a winning proposal. A new grant writer needs to be able to identify the needs of the targeted funding agency or approach an agency with an unsolicited request. This project will look at successful versus unsuccessful proposal submissions, and attempt to understand how the project fits into the philosophy and mission of the agency or organization targeted. This manual is designed as a new reference document that will be housed in the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. It will also be available on the AAH Research web site, and will be incorporated into the training cycle conducted by the research office staff.
The goal of this manual is to be the only reference guide needed on a long road to preparing a successful proposal. A great deal of effort will go into showing that a good idea is necessary but not sufficient and that a successful proposal is an exercise in good communication. This guide will show how to gain insight from seasoned grant writers that know the system. Students will be able to understand the importance of finding a way of differentiating their grant proposal from run-of-the-mill applications.
Because of the diversity of the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities no one funding agency is identified for our guide. Each year there are more and more demands for research dollars and the competition for these dollars is great. Each year the number of proposals submitted by Clemson University’s CAAH increases.
This project will benefit CAAH in that a manual will be available for reference when writing proposals. Readers can employ different methods in using this manual depending on their needs and experience. This project will integrate writing, communication, rhetorical analysis, and the importance of research itself.
The purpose of this literature review is to summarize ideas about the research on writing successful proposals. Numerous books, how to listings, and guides offer insights to novice grant writers and even those with experience, however, it is believed one manual tailored for CAAH research would be a useful tool that can offer assistance and insight to both the novice and experienced grant seeker.
Successful grantsmanship is critical to the economy of the academic research institution. A new grant writer needs to be able to identify the needs of the targeted funding agency or approach an agency with an unsolicited request (Carlson,12). This project proposes to develop a set of guidelines for the new grant writer to use in developing an idea that conforms to the larger overall goal of the funding agency. This guide will be readily available for anyone in CAAH. It is expected that this guide will save time and increase efficiency for faculty and students in that they will have one location to go to for guidance. This review will focus on the importance of compiling a manual that focuses on the importance of communication rather than research ideas.
A proposal must reflect a well-planned project. The cost must be reasonable. Often, the most common flaws grantmakers find in proposals are lack of clarity about what the writer is trying to achieve, the importance of the need, and the plan for meeting that need cost effectively (Lauffer, 103). The funding agencies are sending a clear message that the grant seekers will be expected to demonstrate solidity in long-term financial success of the project to be funded and of the funding agency itself (A Proposal Writing Short Course). Funding agencies fund work that furthers their mission. In addition, getting to know the grant officers, funding limits, and previous funded grants from those agencies are critical (Wason,144).
Reviewers become frustrated at having to read and reread a research plan before understanding a project. Carter and Quick, co-authors of How to Write A Grant Proposal, have written four books on the subject. They spend a great deal of effort illustrating how grant seeking is primarily project development, research, and positioning. The writing of the proposal actually comes last. They stress that “one should never write the first line of a proposal until the project is fully developed and at that point the proposal writes itself.” In addition to getting to know the funder, one must also understand what all is involved in the proposal process. As stated above, writing the text of the research is only a fraction of the work. Assembling budgets, tables, and getting the proposal through internal reviews are critical (New, 202). These references show the more effort and time the funder has to devote to figure out the proposal application, the less energy they will have to review the proposal itself. This also brings a key point: never assume the reader knows what the writer means (Rasey, Writing the Grant). She states, “explain it as clearly as possible but without insulting his/her intelligence.” One should keep abbreviations, acronyms, and discipline-specific terminology to an absolute minimum.
Consulting someone with experience is key to help understand what makes a grant successful (Whalen,116). Experienced grant writers not only can share past experiences, they can also provide key connections with funding agencies. Bauer, author of How to Evaluate and Improve Your Grant Effort, interviewed veteran grant writers and listed a variety of reasons for seeking grants. Among their reasons were the following:
· Grants allow exploration of interest.
· Grants help move a department toward its goals.
· The department/school needs the results that grants generate, such as equipment, personnel and research findings.
· Grants can get things that the institution cannot afford to purchase (e.g., equipment, graduate students, post doctorial employees, and course release.
· Grants can lead to publishing, the deliverance of papers at professional meetings, and travel.
Experienced writers can advise on how not to make the same mistakes they made. A study in Getting Funded: A Complete Guide to Proposal Writing, found from interviews that some proposal writers deliberately set out to dazzle readers with their mastery of technical terminology and overblown phrases. He also discovered some writers try to make a simple, routine job sound complex and difficult in hopes the funder will think they are getting more for their money. Tips included from the interviews for making a more understandable proposal are:
· Say the most important thing first.
· Summarize often.
· Present general concepts, conclusions, major points first; then present the details.
· Use simple, familiar words.
· Use short sentences.
· Keep paragraphs short.
· Write in an active voice.
· Write in the first-person plural.
· Repeat, repeat, repeat.
· Use high-connotation words and phrases.
· Fine tune the first sentence.
Exponential growth in academic grants efforts is another area to carefully consider when planning a proposal. On one hand the idea of “growth is good” (more money, more indirect costs, more research, more publications and more prestige for the university) and on the other, “there is no limit to where research funding can take the university” (Bauer,1995,11). It is important to factor in the reality of the infrastructure to support exponential growth. One must take into account if there are adequate labs to house the research and space for the potential growth and the problems associated with this type of growth (Locke, et al, 186).
One area that is repeated in a great deal of the literature is the importance of following the rules set by the funder. The guidelines for the organization will indicate what to include in a grant proposal. Most funders want the same basic information, even if they use different words or ask questions in a different order. Checking the funders website often will produce all instructions, templates and guidance for assistance needed to submit a proposal to that funder. This guide will house an outline that should meet the needs of most funders, or guide the writer when approaching a funder with no written guidelines.
My primary focus from this will be to write a manual to guide the newcomer and to help an individual understand that one cannot simply identify a funder and write a proposal. There is no substitute for a good idea, but successful proposal writing is an exercise in communication.
AAH is not known as a research college; however there are research dollars out there for our college. Since research has not been a priority, tools to assist those individuals interesting in research are available, but they are not widely know. Personnel have been added over the last few years and workshops and assistance are being developed to facilitate the research. Over the last seven years research has steadily increased in our college as you can see by the table below. With this increase comes the reality that steps need to be taken to do everything we possibly can to help our college succeed in this area.
This project proposes to develop a set of guidelines for the new grant writer in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities to use in developing an idea that conforms to the larger overall goal of the funding agency. Successful grantsmanship is critical to the economy of the academic research institution. This project will not contain instructions on how to do research. This guide will focus on how to seek out funding opportunities and write a winning proposal. A new grant writer needs to be able to identify the needs of the targeted funding agency or approach an agency with an unsolicited request. This project will look at successful versus unsuccessful proposal submissions, and attempt to understand how the project fits into the philosophy and mission of the agency or organization targeted. This manual is designed as a new reference document that will be housed in the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. It will also be available on the AAH Research web site, and will be incorporated into the training cycle conducted by the research office staff.
The goal of this manual is to be the only reference guide needed on a long road to preparing a successful proposal. A great deal of effort will go into showing that a good idea is necessary but not sufficient and that a successful proposal is an exercise in good communication. This guide will show how to gain insight from seasoned grant writers that know the system. Students will be able to understand the importance of finding a way of differentiating their grant proposal from run-of-the-mill applications.
Because of the diversity of the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities no one funding agency is identified for our guide. Each year there are more and more demands for research dollars and the competition for these dollars is great. Each year the number of proposals submitted by Clemson University’s CAAH increases.
This project will benefit CAAH in that a manual will be available for reference when writing proposals. Readers can employ different methods in using this manual depending on their needs and experience. This project will integrate writing, communication, rhetorical analysis, and the importance of research itself.
The purpose of this literature review is to summarize ideas about the research on writing successful proposals. Numerous books, how to listings, and guides offer insights to novice grant writers and even those with experience, however, it is believed one manual tailored for CAAH research would be a useful tool that can offer assistance and insight to both the novice and experienced grant seeker.
Successful grantsmanship is critical to the economy of the academic research institution. A new grant writer needs to be able to identify the needs of the targeted funding agency or approach an agency with an unsolicited request (Carlson,12). This project proposes to develop a set of guidelines for the new grant writer to use in developing an idea that conforms to the larger overall goal of the funding agency. This guide will be readily available for anyone in CAAH. It is expected that this guide will save time and increase efficiency for faculty and students in that they will have one location to go to for guidance. This review will focus on the importance of compiling a manual that focuses on the importance of communication rather than research ideas.
A proposal must reflect a well-planned project. The cost must be reasonable. Often, the most common flaws grantmakers find in proposals are lack of clarity about what the writer is trying to achieve, the importance of the need, and the plan for meeting that need cost effectively (Lauffer, 103). The funding agencies are sending a clear message that the grant seekers will be expected to demonstrate solidity in long-term financial success of the project to be funded and of the funding agency itself (A Proposal Writing Short Course). Funding agencies fund work that furthers their mission. In addition, getting to know the grant officers, funding limits, and previous funded grants from those agencies are critical (Wason,144).
Reviewers become frustrated at having to read and reread a research plan before understanding a project. Carter and Quick, co-authors of How to Write A Grant Proposal, have written four books on the subject. They spend a great deal of effort illustrating how grant seeking is primarily project development, research, and positioning. The writing of the proposal actually comes last. They stress that “one should never write the first line of a proposal until the project is fully developed and at that point the proposal writes itself.” In addition to getting to know the funder, one must also understand what all is involved in the proposal process. As stated above, writing the text of the research is only a fraction of the work. Assembling budgets, tables, and getting the proposal through internal reviews are critical (New, 202). These references show the more effort and time the funder has to devote to figure out the proposal application, the less energy they will have to review the proposal itself. This also brings a key point: never assume the reader knows what the writer means (Rasey, Writing the Grant). She states, “explain it as clearly as possible but without insulting his/her intelligence.” One should keep abbreviations, acronyms, and discipline-specific terminology to an absolute minimum.
Consulting someone with experience is key to help understand what makes a grant successful (Whalen,116). Experienced grant writers not only can share past experiences, they can also provide key connections with funding agencies. Bauer, author of How to Evaluate and Improve Your Grant Effort, interviewed veteran grant writers and listed a variety of reasons for seeking grants. Among their reasons were the following:
· Grants allow exploration of interest.
· Grants help move a department toward its goals.
· The department/school needs the results that grants generate, such as equipment, personnel and research findings.
· Grants can get things that the institution cannot afford to purchase (e.g., equipment, graduate students, post doctorial employees, and course release.
· Grants can lead to publishing, the deliverance of papers at professional meetings, and travel.
Experienced writers can advise on how not to make the same mistakes they made. A study in Getting Funded: A Complete Guide to Proposal Writing, found from interviews that some proposal writers deliberately set out to dazzle readers with their mastery of technical terminology and overblown phrases. He also discovered some writers try to make a simple, routine job sound complex and difficult in hopes the funder will think they are getting more for their money. Tips included from the interviews for making a more understandable proposal are:
· Say the most important thing first.
· Summarize often.
· Present general concepts, conclusions, major points first; then present the details.
· Use simple, familiar words.
· Use short sentences.
· Keep paragraphs short.
· Write in an active voice.
· Write in the first-person plural.
· Repeat, repeat, repeat.
· Use high-connotation words and phrases.
· Fine tune the first sentence.
Exponential growth in academic grants efforts is another area to carefully consider when planning a proposal. On one hand the idea of “growth is good” (more money, more indirect costs, more research, more publications and more prestige for the university) and on the other, “there is no limit to where research funding can take the university” (Bauer,1995,11). It is important to factor in the reality of the infrastructure to support exponential growth. One must take into account if there are adequate labs to house the research and space for the potential growth and the problems associated with this type of growth (Locke, et al, 186).
One area that is repeated in a great deal of the literature is the importance of following the rules set by the funder. The guidelines for the organization will indicate what to include in a grant proposal. Most funders want the same basic information, even if they use different words or ask questions in a different order. Checking the funders website often will produce all instructions, templates and guidance for assistance needed to submit a proposal to that funder. This guide will house an outline that should meet the needs of most funders, or guide the writer when approaching a funder with no written guidelines.
My primary focus from this will be to write a manual to guide the newcomer and to help an individual understand that one cannot simply identify a funder and write a proposal. There is no substitute for a good idea, but successful proposal writing is an exercise in communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)