research proposal: writing and style - fraser health proposal: writing and style ... research...

11

Research Proposal: Writing and Style

© Fraser Health Authority, 2012

The Fraser Health Authority (“FH”) authorizes the use, reproduction and/or modification of this publication for purposes other than commercial redistribution. In consideration for this authorization, the user agrees that any unmodified reproduction of this publication shall retain all copyright and proprietary notices. If the user modifies the content of this publication, all FH copyright notices shall be removed, however FH shall be acknowledged as the author of the source publication.

Reproduction or storage of this publication in any form by any means for the purpose of commercial redistribution is strictly prohibited.

This publication is intended to provide general information only, and should not be relied on as providing specific healthcare, legal or other professional advice. The Fraser Health Authority, and every person involved in the creation of this publication, disclaims any warranty, express or implied, as to its accuracy, completeness or currency, and disclaims all liability in respect of any actions, including the results of any actions, taken or not taken in reliance on the information contained herein.

Magdalena Swanson, MScResearch & Grant Development FacilitatorEvaluation & Research Servicesmagdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca

Department of Evaluation and Research Services‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Library | Education | Administration | Development

Objectives

1. Understand the basic criteria that define a good research proposal and grant application

2. Understand the key components of a grant budget

3. Become aware of effective writing styles

The purpose of a research proposal

The purpose of a research proposal is to:

convince a reviewer/funder to entrust $$$

communication tool to present to others

create a sound plan to follow

apply for ethics approval

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com

Research Proposal Sections

Introduction

Background

Previous work / preliminary data

Study justification

Study significance

Overview

Research Proposal Sections

Research Question & HypothesisAims / Objectives

SMART: SpecificMeasurableAchievableRelevantTime-bound

Research Proposal Sections

*Methodology*

study design

subjects: recruitment, sampling

data collection

data analysis

Research Proposal Sections

Alternate approaches

Considerations

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com

Research Proposal Sections

Response to previous review

Team (qualifications + roles)

Knowledge dissemination plan

Research environment

Future plans

Research Proposal Sections

Timeline

References

Appendices

tables

figures

data collection tools

Other Research Application Components

Letter of Intent / Registration

Cover letter

Forms + signatures

Abstract / lay summary

Other Research Application Components

Budget

Budget justification

CVs / resumés

Ethics approval

Other Research Application Components

Letters of support

Letters of collaboration

Attachments

published papers

sample consent forms

In more detail…

Background

Context for problem

Statistics

Literature reviewcompleteness relevance to research plan

Should support study justification

TimelineWhat you will do and when

http://www.uwgb.edu/research/PreparingaProposal

KT Plan

Conference presentation or poster

Publishing

Meetings / workshops / educational events

Promotional / educational video

Website content

Policy, guidelines, procedures

KT Plan

Who should hear your message?

Letters of Support

Make each different and personal

Describe the problem the research project would address and its importance

State how the research project addresses priorities: FH, BC gov’t, associations…

Specifically state what support will be provided

BudgetMatching research activities to $$$

Budget Components

Research Personnel

Research Assistant

Research Coordinator

Statistician

Clinician

Budget Components

Research PersonnelTrainees

Undergraduate student / Co-op student

MSc, MPH, MA, PhD, PharmD student (etc.)

Clinical student

FTE rate + benefits x # hours

Budget Components

Applicant Time

rarely can applicant time be paid for

usually, applicants are not paid salaries

some agencies will pay backfill

Budget Components

ServicesHealth records

Microbiology lab

Pharmacy

Decision support

Printer

Budget Components

ServicesSurvey company

Statistician

Facility rental

Honoraria

Catering

Budget Components

Supplies / EquipmentOffice supplies (research related)

Medical supplies (research related)

Postage

Digital recorder

Laptop

Budget Components

Travel: Conference, team meetings, etc

http://www.grouptravelspecialist.com.au

Budget PreparationA spreadsheet is helpful

$ requestedFunding from other sources TOTAL

n salary benefits total cash in-kindPersonnelResearch Assistant 1 49000 11760 60760 0 0 60760

Summer student 1 5950 0 0 0 5950 5950

Servicesvideo development 9000 0 0 9000

web posting 500 0 500 1000

catering 2700 0 0 2700

Suppliesoffice material 1200 0 1200 2400

long distance (interviews) 0 0 200 200

interlibrary loan 240 0 0 240

$74,400.00 $ 7,850.00 $82,250.00

Budget JustificationExplanation & Rationale

eg) Research Assistant

$55,353 ($55,800 salary at 0.8 FTE plus 24% benefits)

A research assistant is requested at .80 FTE for the one year duration of the funding. The assistant will be responsible for subject recruitment, data collection, and maintenance of the research studies database.

This individual will be supervised by the PI.

The scope of this position demands a trained individual with significant experience in the coordination of research. A Master’s degree is preferred.

Signatures

Principal Applicant(s)

Co-applicants

Institutional

Financial officer

Signatures: FH Research Policy

Applicant

Applicant’s Director

VP Medicine or designate

http://research.fraserhealth.ca/

Meaning of Signatures

FH Research Policy• the applicant is eligible to apply• the applicant has sufficient space and

resources to do the research• if an award is made, FH is able and willing to

administer the funds on behalf of the granting agency in accordance with the guidelines of the granting agency

• if an award is made, the awardee agrees to abide by the award regulations of the granting agency

Meaning of Signatures

FH Research Policy• if an award is made, FH will not release

funding to the awardee until all award conditions of the granting agency and the FH have been met, including regulatory requirements

• if an award is made, the awardee will use the award only for the purposes for which the award was made

• if an award is made, the awardee will notify FH Research and the granting agency if there is any change in their status that affects the award

Meaning of Applicant Signatures

CIHRAgrees to assume responsibility for the legal and

ethical conduct of the research, for the integrity of the research activities and reported data, and for communicating the results of the research recognizing the contributions of other persons working on the project

Meaning of Institutional Signature

CIHRHe or she is authorized to bind the institution

The institution agrees with the content of the application and will provide the committed resources

Meaning of Institutional Signature

CIHRThe institution will provide grant-holders with the

necessary time to do their research

The institution agrees to comply with CIHR's data protection requirements and has adequate safeguards in place to protect sensitive information

Meaning of Institutional Signature

CIHRThe institution agrees to the public release of a

summary of the grant and to the publication of the organization's name as a supporter of the initiative

A word about format

http://homepages.sover.net

Team Methods Budget Forms Proposal Signatures

Application Deadline

CVs Letters

1

23

4

Red numbers = critical path to obtain signatures (a draft of the

proposal is sufficient)Asterisk = time to complete task very often underestimated

photocopying  / mailing

* *

*

Literature ReviewTi

me

Give Yourself Time

Don’t wait for funding announcement to develop research plan and team

Short notice on many RFAs

Anticipate 3x the expected time

Workshop Activity - Budgetn salary benefits TOTAL

Personnel

Services

Supplies / Equipment

Workshop Activity - Letter

Letter of Support

Internal person

External person

http://static.open.salon.com

Cannot succeed without great content

Readability also important

Leonardo da Vinci

Audience

Keep the audience in mind

what is their area of expertise?

what is their level of expertise?

Audience

Keep the audience in mind

busy + tired people

make it easy for them

4 Cs

ClearConciseCorrectCompelling

Clarity

http://www.cgu.edu/images

Clarity: First Page

Short introductory paragraph

problem, statistics (= justification)

Goal

Hypothesis, Research Question

Objectives / Aims

Significance

Clarity: Proposal

Headings

Spell out abbreviations 1st time

Avoid long sentences

Get to the point

Transitions between paragraphs e.g. however, moreover, in addition to, conversely…

Concise

Avoid a brain dump: ‘need to know’ vs ‘nice to know’

Organize with headings and subheadings

Use graphics

Figures

Graham, I. D. et al. (2006) J Contin Educ Health Prof, Vol. 26, No. 1

Figures

A B C D

Figures

http://www.nysdra.org

Figures

15%

5%

15% 15%

Research plan

Statistical plan

Spelling and grammar

*Read guidelines in detail

Correct

Highlight: SignificanceFeasibilityInnovationQualifications

Compelling

Read the review criteria

Ensure all review criteria are addressed

Make review criteria items easy to spot

Compelling

State how your research addresses priorities

funderyour institutiongovernmentadvisory groupshealth / professional associations

Compelling

Abstract

First page

Be careful with clever titles

Put the most important sentences at the beginning and the end of paragraphs

Compelling

Use serif font for proposal text

Use sans-serif for figures + tables

Font size 12 (unless figure/table)

Leave 1’’ margins

Style

abcd

abcd

Use only left justification

Use max 2 highlighting styles together

Be consistent with formatting

Style

Leave white spaceavoid pages of wall-to-wall text

Don’t make lists in sentences • use bullets

Use a formal tone

Don’t use ‘I’

Style

Try to get your hands on examples

Style

Iterative process

First draft: don’t self-edit

After 1st or 2nd draft, get content feedback

Later drafts, clean up spelling, grammar, flowemploy non-expert readers

Writing & Editing

Do an outline

Write the abstract last

Write the background second last

Writing & Editing

Start small

Don’t get discouraged

It’s a learning curve

http://rlv.zcache.com

73%

55%

16%

58%

ApproachInvestigatorOtherProblem

University of Michigan Proposal Writer's Guide by Don Thackreyhttp://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgrejected.html?print

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Problem (58 percent)

The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information (33.1)

The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound (8.9)

The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize (8.1)

The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research (4.8)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Problem (58 percent)

The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study (3.1)

The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation (3.0)

The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim (2.6)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Approach (73 percent)

The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective (34.7)

The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation (28.8)

The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out (14.7)

The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration (8.1)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Approach (73 percent)

The approach lacks scientific imagination (7.4)

Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately described (6.8)

The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the objective of the study or is difficult to obtain (3.8)

The number of observations is unsuitable (2.5)

The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable (1.0)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Investigator (55 percent)

The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this research (32.6)

The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods (13.7)

The investigator's previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence (12.6)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Investigator (55 percent)

The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates (5.0)

The investigator is spreading himself too thin; he will be more productive if he concentrates on fewer projects (3.8)

The investigator needs more liaison with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields (1.7)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

Other (16 percent)

The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic (10.1)

It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of sufficient time and attention to this research (3.0)

The institutional setting is unfavorable (2.3) Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are

adequate in scope and amount to cover the proposed research (1.5)

Why Proposals Get Rejected

The Methodology Unit is on the case!

Never Fear