Generic Advice for Grant Proposals
While this advice might seem obvious, these are questions that I frequently find myself asking when reviewing proposals (at all levels). A/ By the end of the first page summary of the case for support:
1) Why is the overall problem relevant and important?
2) What is and ISN’T known about the problem to be addressed? The latter is the most important but a good understanding of the existing knowledge base is important to demonstrate. The gaps in knowledge and how they will be filled should be explicit in relation to the state of the field. This should be expanded on in the background section, but should already be clear from the summary.
3) What is the specific motivation for each stated objective? Objectives shouldn’t come as a surprise but as a logical extension of the background presented. The summary on the first page of the case for support should at least allude to each major aim. Poor practice a lot of people make is copying the objectives from the proposal directly onto the objectives section on the summary pages. This often leaves the objective isolated without motivation, so it is better to rewrite the objectives for the form pages and include motivation and the basic approach to be used there so they stand alone.
4) What is unique or novel about the approach used to address the problem? People are often too close to their subject and don’t know why everyone doesn’t find it fascinating. This basic sell job is often not sufficient to convince a broad panel, even if it seems obvious to experts. B/ Based on the overall case for support and budget:
5) Has the specific approach and study system been clearly justified?
6) Does each method described clearly map onto one of the objectives? This is critical—there should be no isolated methods that are not related back to an objective and it should be crystal clear what techniques and analyses will be used to address each objective.
7) Have details about the experimental design (including sample sizes and analytical approaches) been provided so that they can be related to the budget calculations? It is often difficult to relate the experimental details to the budget and so costs per sample are often best to include (where relevant) for the justification. Alternatively, some people include details about sample sizes only in the budget and not in the case for support, which can also be difficult to follow.
8) Are the objectives and experimental plan achievable in the timeframe of the grant and with the resources requested? There is a common tendency to write proposals in complex language and with complicated, multi-part objectives. However, “simple and elegant” is often how the strongest proposals could be described. Three questions for three years is often a good rule of thumb.
9) Does the previous track record explain why each person is included, in relation to the specific approach used in the proposal? There is a tendency just to use a generic CV-like list of each person’s achievements; it is better to include how they will contribute to the current proposal and provide details of previous work directly relevant to it. Pilot data can be good to include in the previous track record as well, to save space in the case for support. The appropriateness of the research environment is also important to include, particularly if there are particular reasons that the work can best be done at the institutions included in the proposal.
10) Have the investigators thought of possible contingencies, and clearly outlined the management plan? Particularly for proposals more than one institution, it is important to specify what each person will do, how progress on the grant will be monitored, and what will be done if the anticipated outcomes are not found.