Writing Research Proposals

1. Writing Research Proposals Siba K Udgata School of Computer and Information Sciences University of Hyderabad

2. Introduction Research Design Methods I.Introduction A. Main jobs 1. You have an inspiring and convincing project 2. You know what it takes to carry it out successfully 3. You are the right person to carry it out • Have to team good idea and good writing • Parts of the Proposal Dealing with the Science • Title • Abstract • Narrative—may have to follow a specific format for each agency • Introduction • Significance in context of other work • Bibliographic information; prior work • Description of hypotheses to be tested and the methods • Intellectual and other impacts of the research Anticipated Results

3. What are the essential ingredients? The Issue What problem does your research address? Research Design How will the research achieve its objective? Benefit What will the research contribute? Figure adapted from MIT OCW

4. Research proposals make you: OUTLINE steps in your proposed research Provide yourself with intellectual CONTEXT JUSTIFY your research Be CREATIVE THINK through your experiments Anticipate potential PROBLEMS Anticipate a realistic TIMETABLE Figure adapted from MIT OCW

5. Getting started • Title • Outline • Literature Review • Methodology • Methods of data collection and analysis • Ethical Issues • Timeline • Resources • Outcomes • Reference list • Title • Background • Problem statement • Aim and objectives • Rationale and context • Methodology • Plan of work • Resources / Support • Outcomes • Reference list Know the requirements BEFORE you start

6. Principles to keep in mind while writing • Address Three Audiences • The program officer • The expert technical reviewer • The panel of generalists • Anticipate Reader’s Questions • Unanswered questions lead to doubt about your project • If a question occurs to you while writing, answer it • Don’t omit non-science questions: How many students are going to be supported? Does the department have an NMR, High-Value Equipment required? • Use Persuasive Rhetoric • Exposition = clear and accurate idea of your project • Persuasion = problem and your ideas are valid and interesting • Credentialing = you and your institution are the right person/place

7. The Title and Abstract • Carry a lot of weight • First impression • Reviewers have a lot of other things to do • They don’t want to be “mystified” or “amused” • Inform simply and efficiently • The Title • Examples: too short, too long, too cute, and just right • “Application of Wireless Sensor Network” • “Wireless Sensor Network Application for Environmental Monitoring” • “A LORA/ Wi-Fi based wireless chemical and bio-sensor network to study the movement of fish in a different water bodies to monitor the quality of water and environment using machine learning and statistical approaches ” • “Machine Intelligence based water quality monitoring using wireless sensor network ” • Avoid “…”

8. Example • You propose to study the social and economic status of a tribe which lives in the forest using primary data and supplementing with the secondary data available to establish the improvement in quality of life in terms of various economic and health parameters. • We want to study the impact of a baby food product ‘xyz’ in the kids of age group 8 to 16 on their health and mental ability through questionnaire involving parents, teachers and students and also corroborating the facts with academic and hospital records.

9. Abstracts • Job: “…everything scientifically important about your project is revealed…in clear technical language.” • 200-400 words • Context and significance • Hypotheses and how you will test them • Impact • “Road Map of the Proposal” Malaria remains the most devastating infectious disease, particularly in Africa. One reason is that the parasite causing the disease is resistant to all clinically useful antimalarial drugs. We therefore have to devise alternative strategies to target the parasite.

10. Abstract: 2. Tentative decisions are made just from the abstract • Does the project address the agency goals • Who should the program officer send it to for review • Is the proposal focused and organized 3. Does the abstract match the proposal? • If you write the abstract first, things can change as you write proposal • Use abstract as a guide—then revise abstract when done • Disagreement with “Research Proposal Guidelines”—abstract last • Easier to cut down from the proposal than to build up abstract • Freedom to be creative in proposal; not restricted in thinking • Your abstract should answer these questions: • What’s the problem? • Why hasn’t it been done before? • Why can we do it now? • The purpose of this research is…

11. 5. Practice Writing Abstracts • Use the questions above • Cover up the abstract on a journal article and write your own • Go to the agency website and look at successful proposals • The Narrative • Introduction: Engaging Readers • Should not be identical to abstract • Explain theoretical framework; make your experiments meaningful • OK to show your enthusiasm; Aesthetic Appeal • Why is this problem so interesting to you? • “Here…are the weird fish, the cool patterns, the distant worlds that I plan to investigate.”

12. Prior Work and Bibliography • Get them to understand problem as you see it • Vibrant and worthwhile • Show them you’ve done your homework • Citing Literature • “Standing on the shoulders of giants” • Literature should be up to date • Can cite your own past work • Tips • Don’t cite every last article you could—30-50 is usually good • Too little: not an important field; leaving someone out • Too much: can’t tell what’s important; you haven’t ready it all • Read everything you cite; it may say something else • Get the facts and formatting right; wrong reference is really annoying • Research Impact and Significance • How does the interesting problem help other interesting problems? 2. Agencies fund research that leads to new questions • Don’t forget intangible impacts • Training students • Instrument will also be used in undergraduate labs

13. Literature review(State-of-the-Art) This is NOT just a summary of literature Show how your project: ̶̶ Literature SUPPORTS your hypothesis ̶̶ EXTENDS previous work ̶̶ AVOIDS previous mistakes ̶̶ IS UNIQUE to previously followed paths

14. The narrative of a good literature review Reader knows Reader doesn't know

15. Hypotheses and Methods • What you’re going to prove and how you’re going to prove it • Largest part of most proposals • Most technical part of all proposals • Testable Hypotheses vs. Fishing Expedition • “I want to synthesize and characterize this interesting material” • “Will woven polymers increase polymer strength and/or flexibility?” • Yes or no questions that your experiments can answer • Narrower questions are often easier to answer than broad ones. • What you’re looking for, how, where, and how long? • Details about instruments and their limits • Details about synthetic steps • References to known techniques or reactions • Point out any modifications you will make • Establish your expertise if you are one of a few world-wide experts • Every technique must be adequate to answer that question • Don’t forget safety and environmental hazards: • Anticipated further work—you’ve thought it through

16. Budgets and Supporting Information Budgets • Most agencies won’t give you money unless you tell them how you are going to spend it 2. Each agency has its own rules • Commonsense guidelines • Don’t exceed any budget category limit • Don’t ask for something not allowed • Don’t ask for more (or less) than you actually need: they’ll know

17. Budget Contd.. 4. Budgets are just estimates • Impossible to know how much everything will cost or what you will need • You have to put something down • Often, you are allowed to move money between lines if funded 5. Look at previously funded proposals to the same agency 6. Keep in mind that you might get grant, but for less than asked for • Ethical Considerations • Recommending Reviewers • Avoid conflict of interest • Graduate advisor or current colleagues are not acceptable • Can ask that certain people not be used as reviewers • Pending Proposals elsewhere • List current grants and pending proposals—don’t like to double-dip • Honesty is best policy

19. Strategic Considerations • Add-ons and Appendices: DON’T DO IT • Following the rules is important; may send back proposal unread • Reviewers don’t need any more to read • Length Limits • Read the rules: do figures count, do references count • Don’t cheat on margins or font size • Most proposals are improved by shortening • Deadlines • Some are hard and fast (NSF): miss it and they send proposal back • Some are rolling (NIH): miss it and proposal goes into next batch • Why you should aim to beat the deadline by at least a week • You’ll find a mistake just as you are ready to submit • Your institution will take longer to process than you think • You should check office work yourself before allowing to be sent • Servers will go down under the deadline crush • The reviewer you want will already be swamped

20. The Good and Not Good

21. Referees: • Good • Choose referees in your field of research • Choose a scientist/colleague that will be objective but not too critical of the science. • Not Good • Do not choose close collaborators • Do not choose competitors in your field with divergent views. • Do not choose the top scientists in your field since they will not respond and will be too critical in general.

22. Co-applicants Good • This could be strength if you are a junior investigator with a limited track record. • If the investigator lack specific skills, a co-applicant can bring these skills to the research project. Not Good • It is a weakness to add a co-applicant if they just give you a reagent • Co-applicant will do most of the project in their laboratories.

23. Summary of Research Proposal Good • give a short but informative background to justify the research hypothesis and objectives. • Clearly state the hypothesis. • State the objectives and/or aims of this proposal. • State the impact, significance and innovation in this proposal. • Define acronyms as much as possible. Not Good • Technical and condensed phrasing of the project. • No clear statement of what is the purpose of this study.

24. Details of Research Proposal • Goals and/or Objectives of Research Good • This is usually one paragraph telling the reviewer everything they need to know about this research proposal. • This provides the opportunity to gain the reviewers interest and excitement about this proposal. • It should contain the background on why this research is important, hypothesis, and objectives. • Should state the innovation of this proposal. • Finally it should in a clear statement demonstrate why this project is significant and what impact it will have.

25. Details of Research Proposal Not Good • No goal or objective statement at the start of the proposal. • Too technical and condensed will make it hard to read and understand. • Too short will not give the reviewer the needed information to understand the proposal. • Too long will make the reviewer skip to the background and makes the reviewer search for what is important.

26. Details of Research Proposal • Background: Good • Give the reviewer the needed information to understand the objectives and approaches in this proposal. • Structure the background to go from broad information such as cancer kills Canadians to specific information such as my protein is increased in solid tumors. • Build up the background towards answering a specific question that is unknown. • There should be section within the background to discuss preliminary data. • Connect preliminary data to background. • If limited preliminary data, spend time on the innovation such as using unique resources

27. Details of Research Proposal • Background Not Good • Do not expand background to unnecessary information that does not support the hypothesis. • Background should not exceed one third to one half of proposal. • No preliminary data generally negatively impacts the proposal in two ways. • No indication that the proposal will feasible. • No indication the applicant can do the proposed work.

28. Details of Research Proposal • Rationale and Hypothesis. Good • Clearly state the hypothesis or number of hypotheses that will be addressed in the proposal. • Give a rationale why this hypothesis is important to investigate. Not Good • Avoid combining the two together. It could be confusing to the reviewer. • Too long of a hypothesis makes it hard to understand the aim of the research.

29. Details of Research Proposal • Specific Aims Good • Limit specific aims to 2-3. • Make sure controls are added to approaches taken. • Always give what your expected results will be. • Always give alternative approaches since pitfalls happen. • Address feasibility if you have not demonstrated that you can do the experiments proposed. • Address innovation wherever possible. • Justify the use of specific reagents or animal models. • Confirm results with multiple approaches. • Make aim 1 less risky compared to other aims.

30. Details of Research Proposal • Specific Aims Not Good • Many specific aims is bad. This is a two year proposal and if it is too ambitious, will negatively impact on reviewers. • Avoid to many specifics on experiments. • Structure aims so that aim 2 is not dependent on aim 1. • Do not avoid issues within the field of research • Using cell lines for genetic studies is not the same as primary cancer cells and might yield misleading information. Tell the review you understand the limitations and how to address it.

31. Details of Research Proposal • Significance and Impact: Good • Last chance to impress the reviewer on the importance of what you are proposing. • Give a sense of future directions for this research. • Why is this proposal innovative? • Impact on the field and/or on the disease being studied should be stated. Not Good • No significance statement. • Superficial such as this will cure cancer.

32. Applicant’s CV details: Good • List all awards especially awards directly related to your research. • List all publications in the last five years. • Abstracts are an easy why to show productivity. • Give impact factors for publications and citations if any. • Give ranking of journal in your field of research if possible. Not Good • No evidence of research activity or track record. • All middle authors for publications.

33. General Thoughts • All reviewers may not be experts in your field of research. Make the proposal accessible to them. • Get your proposal read by a colleague or someone in your area of research. They might find problems that reviewers will find.

34. Purpose of a proposal presentation? • Persuading evaluators to support your research project • Make your proposal compelling -Convince audience that project is worth doing - Convince audience that you are capable of carrying it out

35. Preparing for the research presentation • Structuring your story • Summarise the content • Preparing and giving the presentation • Concluding your presentation • Questions and answers

36. Structure • Basic rule • Say what you are going to say • 1-3 main points in the introduction • Say it • Give the talk • Then say what you said • Summarise main points in the conclusion • Don’t try to build suspense and then unveil a surprise ending

37. Stick to the Script • Prepare your material so that it tells a story logically • Introduction/overview • Research question • Aim and objectives • Method/approach • Expected outcomes/summary • Prioritise the content • Create continuity so that your slides flow smoothly Your last point on one slide should anticipate the next slide