Preparing Proposals for Funding

1. Preparing Proposals for Funding Prof. Dr. Roger W. Harris

2. Agenda • Identifying research that is likely to be funded. • How to structure a good proposal. • What to include. • Tips on writing. • Common mistakes. • How applications are judged. • What judges look for.

3. How to identify research that is likely to be funded (i) • Systematically evaluate current research and evidence to ensure that questions identified have not been previously answered and are not being studied by others • Track the cfps from funders in your field • Identify the hot areas which are more likely to be funded • Be aware of current research in your field before it is published and so avoid duplicating existing projects; =attend conferences. • Read published research papers for recommended further research • Look at what has recently been funded. • Ask peers; dept head, senior colleagues, staff on review boards • Follow current affairs

4. How to identify research that is likely to be funded (ii) • Research the background of funding bodies: • Current objectives • Current trend of projects funded • Success rates - both for your institution and generally • Average size of awards • Closing dates for submissions • Who has previously been awarded funds? • What is the review process and who decides what is to be funded? • What do they fund in terms of resources and overheads?

5. How to structure a good proposal • A proposal has three parts: • the research problem (the ‘what?’) • the research plan (the ‘how?’) • The research outcomes (the ‘so what?’) • The same ‘what’ can have several ‘hows’ • The problem should be clear and focused • There will probably be specific guidelines; follow them to the letter.

6. What to include • The Issue • What problem does the research address? • Research Design • How will the research achieve its stated objectives? • Benefit • What will the research contribute to existing knowledge? • Research Proposal

7. Tips on writing • Each section should have a bold text heading • Differentiate between problems, goals, aims, purpose, objectives, intentions, etc and be consistent • A background section sets the context • A section on significance justifies your proposal • The design section convinces the funder of your competence • The methods section convinces them you will deliver useable results

8. Tips on writing; the title • Presents a quick view of the major aspects • Don’t be ambiguous, don’t try to be clever • Focus on the most significant words first • “Indigenous Musicians and their Preference for Musical Style” • The focusappears to be indigenous musicians • “Musical Style Preference of Indigenous Musicians” • The focusappears to be musical style preference • You don’t have to write the title first.

9. Tips on writing; goals, purpose, aims and objectives • Goals are long-term aims that you want to accomplish • Goals without objectives can never be accomplished while objectives without goals will never get you to where you want to be • Goals can be measured • A purpose has no deadline, it is the reason one aims at to achieve a goal • Purpose is directly influenced by the values and beliefs one holds • Purpose is deeply rooted in a person • Aims are more vague, have no time frame • Aims are general statements that identify research targets • Objectives are specific attainments that can be achieved by following a certain number of steps • Objectives can be measured and are set to a time frame • Objectives are SMART; Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Reasonable and in Time 

10. Goal: Eliminate HIV/AIDS • Purpose: I want a healthier world • Aim: Understand the life-cycle of the HIV virus • Objective: Develop a vaccine by 2015

11. The Issue: Background and Significance • Narrow down quickly from the goal to the objective • Demonstrate a grasp of the topic and familiarity with previous work • Bring out background theories to frame a problem that needs to be solved • Explain how your proposal extends previous work • Identify gaps in knowledge • Specify the rationale for your proposal • Explain why you are a suitable person to conduct this research • Provide a convincing case for funding your proposal

12. The Design • Explain how you will solve the research question • State any hypotheses • Describe the intended methods for collecting data • Explain your sampling strategy • Specify equipment and staffing requirements • Elaborate on ethical aspects • Lay out a timetable

13. Common mistakes • Applying to a funding body because it is there • Adjusting a proposal to make it appear more suitable for a particular funder • Outcomes are uncertain; excessive risk • In the haste to get on with “the real work”, throwing together a poorly conceived proposal • Setting unrealistic / unattainable objectives • Proposal is not well focused • Padding a proposal up to the maximum allowable budget • Proposing ideas that are unoriginal • Presenting a weak rationale for the enquiry and/or budget • Vagueness in the writing • Problem is unimportant/trivial /already solved

14. More Common Mistakes • Fail to provide the proper context to frame the research question • Fail to delimit the boundary conditions for your research • Fail to cite landmark studies • Fail to accurately present the theoretical and empirical contributions by other researchers • Too much detail on minor issues, not enough detail on major issues • Rambling; the best proposals move forward with ease and grace • Too many citation lapses and incorrect references • Too long or too short • Not enough time to get requisite signatures

15. Dealing with the Funder • Refereed followed by peer review panel • 3 months is quick; 6-9 months is more realistic • Need official notification before you can start • If you're unsuccessful, try to find out why • Award conditions should be followed closely • Keep the funder informed • Look out for successor projects in good time • Ensure your findings are properly protected

16. Industrial Funding • Consultancy • The use of personal, professional expertise to give advice to and/or solve problems without use of a laboratory. • Contract Research • The provision of a set piece of research or laboratory work, or the provision of analytical or testing services, usually with clear goals and to set deadlines. • Collaborative Research • Normally closely related to the expertise and current line of research of the academic individual or group, as well as being tightly bound to the sponsoring company’s product development aims. • Donation/Sponsorship • Gifts in cash or kind (e.g. materials, equipment, infrastructure); donations to research groups who are involved in early stage work which is related to the interests of that company.

17. Talking to Industry • Need a ‘commercial CV’ • Visual presentation skills • Business attire • Visible commercial endpoint • Prospect of useable results • Legal advice on intellectual property rights • Informal contacts help, e.g., at conferences

18. How applications are judged ESRC-DFID Joint Scheme for Research on International Development (Poverty Alleviation)

19. Research agenda • The significance of the question the research is designed to answer • World class research design that shows specificity, clarity and coherence between research questions, research methods and anticipated intellectual outcomes • Clear and rigorous articulation of appropriate research methods and data analysis regime • Gender analysis and use of disaggregated data where relevant across a range of variables including gender, ethnicity, age, disability and spatial geography • Clarity as to how, and by whom, the research findings will be used (eg in terms of conceptual understanding, theoretical or methodological development, application of research-based knowledge to policy or practice and/or development of inter-disciplinary approaches etc).

20. Project management • Are the project management plans and configuration of roles and responsibilities reasonable, appropriate and credible for the given project? • Do the credentials of the investigators and host institutions appear appropriate to deliver the project? • Are the resources requested reasonable to deliver the project?

21. Capacity building • Does the project include appropriate training and development opportunities for research staff in lead and partner organisations both in the UK and overseas and/or development of skills and capacity in local communities? • Where an application includes a linked doctoral student does the application: • Demonstrate sufficient evidence of an appropriate research environment and infrastructure for doctoral work? • Are the arrangements for the supervision of students adequate and appropriate (including the suitability of the proposed doctoral supervisor(s)? • Is the research conducted by a doctoral student a discrete piece of work which is clearly of a standard to be submitted as a doctoral thesis, but that will also produce synergy and added value to the main research project?

22. Pathways to Impact, stakeholder engagement, and outputs • Does the project have real potential for impact on poverty reduction? • Has the applicant defined a credible, feasible and appropriate Pathways to Impact plan? • Is there effective demand for the research from policy makers and other stakeholders beyond the academic community? • Is the analysis of who the stakeholders/potential end users of research outputs are and the processes and means for engaging with them appropriate, at all stages of the research process? • Have plans been included for an inception workshop with key stakeholders? If not, is there sufficient justification in the ‘Pathways to Impact’ Statement why a stakeholder workshop is not appropriate for this project? • Does the ‘Pathways to Impact’ Statement present a set of clear, well-funded activities for genuine collaboration with a variety of stakeholders throughout the life of the project? • Are there clear plans to make findings available to target audiences and to maximise research uptake?

23. Value for money • Overall assessment of the likely value for money for the sum sought: • Is there a clear understanding of the problem/issue to be addressed through this research? • Is the proposed approach appropriate to address this issue/problem? Have alternative solutions/approaches been considered? • Time commitments of research participants: • Are appropriate staff doing the appropriate level of work? Is the amount of senior staff time on the project appropriate? • Is the mix of the team right? • Are the daily fee rates for research staff reasonable? • Specification and justification of research budget: • Is the travel and subsistence budget justified and reasonable? • Are the research uptake activities adequately funded? • Is there an appropriate balance between funding field work and funding analysis tasks?

24. Research partnerships • What is the nature of any proposed partnership or collaboration? • Are the benefits derived from partnerships reciprocal and proportionately distributed? • Are the roles and responsibilities of partners and collaborators proportionate and balanced? Where there are international partnerships, to what extent have all the research partners been fully involved in the design, management and execution of the research?

25. What judges look for • Investigators Principal Investigator Co-Investigators • Objectives • Summary • Academic beneficiaries • Staff duties • Impact summary • Ethical information • Other support • Related Proposals/ Previous proposals • Staff • Resources • Equipment • Other Directly Incurred Costs • Project partners • Timetable • Data collection • Reviewers • Strategic priorities • User involvement • Attachments • Case for support ; introduction , detailed research questions , proposed research methods , datasets review , framework and methods for analysis , expected outputs • Gender analysis and data disaggregation: • Justification of Resources • Pathways to Impact • Clear mapping of beneficiaries and target audiences • Analysis of demand for research outputs • Strategy for engagement with target audiences • Methods for communication and engagement • Opportunities for collaboration • Monitoring and evaluation of impact plan activities. • CV • List of publications • Data Management Plan

26. Logical Framework • Describes the causal (linear) relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. • Dominates planning, design, implementation, evaluation and management of development projects. • Criticized; • Inflexible, reductionist and unable to capture unexpected outcomes or changes. • Simplifies complex social processes • Non-participatory; evades the importance of process • Squeezes out data related to local culture and context • Understates the role of informal interactions and external influences • Grounded in a worldview largely associated with Western positivist thinking, which is alien to the rest of the world

27. Logframe matrix THEN IF AND THEN AND IF THEN IF AND

28. Quiz 1 True or False

29. Replicating previous research is a good tactic for getting funded False. Funders generally look for proposals for original research Funding bodies are all the same when it comes to approving proposals False. Each body has its own preferences and priorities Colleagues and fellow researchers are a good source of advice in deciding a research topic True

30. A proposal has three parts True They are; ‘who?’, ‘why?’ and ‘when?’ False They are; ‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘when?’ False They are; ‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘so what?’ True