1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The best way to proceed is to give careful consideration to the donor’s critiques and decide whether you should reapply or not. Before you decide what to do, you need to determine whether the application is fixable.

How to Decide What to Do

• Contact the Program Officer for feedback. Ask him/her: (1) what his/her assessment of your proposal is; (2) whether the panel reviewers were enthusiastic about your idea; (3) if there are additional problems not addressed in the reviewer’s summary document sent to you; and (4) what your options may be.
• If the reviewers noted many fixable problems, it is good news, as it demonstrates that they are interested in your idea and that the application is worth fixing.
• If you have to revise more than 50% of your proposal, it is best to rewrite it altogether. If the revisions required are less extensive, then it is best to follow the rules for an amended application.
• If the scores of your proposal are strong, consider amending and resubmitting as soon as possible.

How You Should Proceed

• If your decision is to revise the original application, you should retain most of what you submitted, while addressing the reviewers’ concerns. That way, the next review group will look at the application in the context of the previous critiques and how you addressed them.
• In the resubmission, capitalize on your strengths and eliminate or revise the noted weaknesses.
• Respond to all reviewers’ comments and suggestions, even if you disagree with some. If you disagree, explain why and, if possible, provide additional information.
• Add new findings and make adjustments that you believe will strengthen your proposal.
• Address all items mentioned in the summary statement sent to you; however, remember that you are not limited to those.
• There is always the possibility of not resubmitting right away. The reasons might be: (1) you need to wait until you have the strongest possible application; and (2) you need time to polish your application.

Ultimately, the decision to resubmit depends on the various factors mentioned above. If the application has flaws outside of the idea itself, you should fix them and proceed with a resubmission. If, on the other hand, the idea is flawed, weak or not innovative, you should go back to the drawing board.

Most importantly, you should not be discouraged, as success rates for first submissions can be as low as 12%; thus, you are not alone. The encouraging news is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has anecdotal evidence that applicants who resubmit have as much as 50% greater chance of being funded.

The post Proposal Rejection – Next Steps appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The pre-review steps are:

• A rigorous review of your grant by one or more of your trusted colleagues, who are equally knowledgeable in your discipline.
• Comments from a naïve reader, who is a professional outside your field. If that person does not understand 50% of what you are trying to say, your grant is in trouble. The reason for this is that often, the donor reviewers who score your proposal are not necessarily knowledgeable in your area of expertise.
• Proofreading by a professional editor, who will check for correct grammar, transitions, effective language, and the fit for the audience you will be addressing.

Alternatively, you can enlist the services of an organization that conducts professional grant reviews for a small investment. This type of grant review will encompass all three colleague reviews described above in one package.

Following is the pre-review process further broken down into key elements:

The Content Reviewer(s)

Experts in your field should be your first reviewers. My recommendation is that you select one or more trusted colleagues, who will be critical, have received grants in your area, and who serve on review panels on an ongoing basis. They will give you invaluable information about the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal, and how to address any problems.

We follow this process at the Grant Training Center. In many cases, our pre-reviews are more extensive than the donor review process your grant will undergo. We rigorously address each sentence and paragraph, along with the totality of the proposal, according to the RFP/RFA directions and the review guidelines. Once you receive this methodical feedback, you will be in a much better position to assess what needs to be changed and proceed accordingly.

The Naïve Reviewer

It is a good practice to have your grant reviewed and scored by those who may not be in your field. Consequently, you will be able to gauge how much of your grant can be understood by an educated layperson through their comments. They could be professionals who have been funded in the past, but in other areas of expertise. As is the case with most foundations, you might not know who the reviewers of your grant will be; it could be the program officer or perhaps some of the board members, who may not necessarily be knowledgeable in your specific discipline. Thus, it is essential that when you write, you write for a broad audience that will need your assistance in understanding your proposal. I have seen very complicated research grants that were written so effectively that they could be understood on a variety of expertise levels.

The Editor

Editing the proposal is the last phase of polishing your final product. Editing should take place after you have made all content changes and simplified your concepts for a larger audience. This phase is much more extensive than just grammar corrections. The editor should address effective transitions, make sure sentences are short and meaningful, and ensure the overall professional appearance of your grant. This person may not need to share your area of expertise, but should be a professional editor/writer who does editing on an ongoing basis. Editors can be found at your institution, through professional associations of editors, or through organizations such as ours.

You may wonder if money spent on review services could be better utilized in other ways. The reality is that the pre-review process dramatically improves your chances of being funded the first time. Thus, the time and resources that you will save more than justify the cost.

Even if you chose to hire an external organization, the amount of money you will spend on a grant review should be a small fraction of the grant budget. Hence, my strong recommendation is that you include this pre-review step in your timeline for preparing your proposal.

The post The Final Step to Avoid Grant Rejection appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Lack of significance

To help reviewers better understand the significance of an application, investigators should make an effort to address the following questions: Why is the work important? How will it push the field forward? What is the potential long-term effect that this research will have on science and public health? If an applicant does not clearly articulate these points, reviewers will likely lose enthusiasm for the application. Ultimately, the applicant must present a convincing case that the proposed research is worthy of reaching the top of the competition.

Lack of original ideas

Even senior investigators may fall prey to the criticism that their proposal does not demonstrate innovation. When applying to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant seekers should look at examples of what these agencies consider to be paradigm shifts in science. As a consequence, showing that you will address the current knowledge gaps in the field will go a long way in convincing the reviewers that you are making a real contribution.

Overambitious problem

Limiting your application to only a few Specific Aims/objectives keeps you clear of the very common mistake of being overly ambitious. It’s much better to think small and propose less than to do the opposite. Start broadly with an emphasis on significance, and then focus on your specific hypothesis, to be followed by methodology that the reviewers can readily assess. While you could design a project around two to four Specific Aims/objectives, most researchers recommend three.

Investigator does not have experience

Your qualifications lay the foundation for your grant-seeking efforts– whatever you write in your application is immaterial unless the reviewers deem you able to complete the work you propose. They will scrutinize your application for your credentials, publications, and presentations at scientific meetings to determine whether you are a new investigator or an experienced one breaking into a new field. You may need outside collaborators to round out the technical expertise that your research demands.

Lack of direction

Once you have developed your Specific Aims/objectives and you are confident that they are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), what will be the experiments necessary to address those Aims/objectives? Note that your experimental design should convince the reviewers that you can reach your Aims/objectives. It will greatly help if you carefully consider the following questions: who, what, when, where, and how much money will you need to achieve your goal? Also, it is key to consider potential pitfalls or alternative approaches to your methodology.

In summary, to write a successful research proposal you need to: present a clear plan for carrying out your research, including your methodology and resources; and specifically address significance, innovation, direction, focus and experience.

The post Five Lethal Research Grant Flaws appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Not allowing sufficient time to write: Allowing enough time to do the research, effectively writing the proposal, and ensuring that all the letters of recommendation and forms requested are appropriately completed are key components to success. It has been demonstrated that those who submit their proposals three or more days prior to the deadline have a 37% greater chance of getting funded than those who submit at the last minute.
2. Not paying attention to instructions: It is extremely frustrating to be rejected for something as simple as margin width or font size, yet this is a common occurrence. 50% of the proposals that are submitted to various federal agencies are immediately eliminated because directions were not followed.
3. Poor writing: Grammatical errors are not the only sign of poor writing. There are many more, such as the use of acronyms and jargon, wordy sentences, long paragraphs, and making readers fish for the main reason the request is being made.
4. Failure to edit the application: This problem can easily be remedied if a prospective grantee gives his/her proposal to a qualified editor to proofread before submission. Although reviewers are not charged to score an application for grammar, poor writing reflects sloppy work and lack of attention to detail.
5. Failure to convey to the reviewers that your research is interesting: The Principal Investigator (PI) should be enthusiastic about the project. Lack of enthusiasm is contagious; reviewers will feel it and will lose interest in your project.
6. Lack of preliminary data or research: If you are writing a research grant, preliminary data is essential in proving that your hunch or hypothesis is plausible. If you are writing a project grant, thorough research of your subject matter is what makes your proposal credible.
7. Project that is too ambitious: Lack of focus is clearly reflected both in the scope, as well as the writing. Your preliminary data and research will be a good guide for how to narrow the focus of your proposal and do what is possible within the allotted time. Another good restrictive measurement is the budget.
8. Lack of experience in the field: The credibility of your proposal depends on those who will implement it. Thus, you must include the most qualified personnel. Reviewers are looking for project directors or principal investigators who are trained in their field, have succeeded with similar projects in the past, are recognized for their contributions, and have a proven record of efficiently working in a team.
9. Selecting a project that will have limited impact: A project that will have broad impact demonstrates that the money awarded will serve a large population that needs the intervention. Limited impact on the other hand, can be costly, not sustainable, and restricted to a small population.
10. Limited support from your institution: Institutional support demonstrates that your project is part of the institutional mission, and that it will be sustained in the future. Furthermore, projects that your institution financially and philosophically supports have a much greater chance of success.

Many of the aforementioned mistakes can easily be committed if you are in a rush. Knowing who you are, what you wish to accomplish, and delineating how you will accomplish your tasks is extremely important. Ultimately, professionalism, attention to detail, and enthusiasm will be the characteristics that will advance your proposal to the top of the competition.

The post 10 Errors That Will Disqualify Your Grant appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Before You Begin

• Assume that it does not take long to write the proposal, and that you can quickly gather what is needed to submit the grant in a few days.
• The Request for Application (RFA) is not meant for you to review carefully. It is just gibberish that some office at your institution will figure out and just let you know what is important for you to follow. This is secretarial work, and you received your doctorate, which makes you above all of these beside-the-point particulars.
• Don’t bother to ask the opinions of your colleagues about your project. They may steal your good idea and then you will not be able to be promoted and get tenure. Be certain to keep your ideas to yourself. The more you share, the more vulnerable you will be.

Writing the Proposal

• Don’t bother stating a goal, hypotheses and objectives. Just assume that the reviewers are smart enough to understand what these are via your methodology.
• Remember to use specific aims and objectives that are all dependent on each other. This way you can use the experiments over and over again.
• It is important to speak about innovation and transformative ideas, especially if you are writing to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Just tell the reviewers that your proposal is transformative and that it constitutes “out of the box” thinking. If you say it enough times, they will understand and believe that it is transformative. After all, if you say so, it must be so. It would be good if you bold and underline these words because the reviewers want them to stand out.
• Since you have done this research so many times, why not cut and paste from other grants, so you can prove that you have worked on your proposal before? Really, do not be concerned about formatting. Reviewers will understand that busy people do not have time to pay attention to such irrelevant details. They will know you are too important to be bothered by such immaterial minutiae.
• Don’t forget to use lots of jargon and acronyms and don’t bother to define them. If, on the other hand, you want to help the reviewers, who in your opinion should know what you are talking about, just define your jargon somewhere in the middle of the proposal. Be certain to write in long paragraphs, and include your definitions somewhere in that narrative. After all, the reviewers need to work for the money they receive to review your proposal. Serving as a reviewer is not a vacation, and your proposal will give them something to do.
• It is important that you talk about things that all good scholars talk about, such as publications and conference presentations. Just let the reviewers know that when the time comes, you will publish in important journals and give many presentations.
• Don’t bother with such miniscule fine points as discussing what you will do if your data does not turn out the way you expect. After all, things always go as planned.
• If your project involves work that you have done before, don’t bother to mention your preliminary data because you will just be repeating yourself. Everyone should assume that the difficult design you are presenting is justified.
• Impress upon reviewers your concern for global warming by using all the space on each page. Leaving white space on a page is just wasteful. If you are a good steward of the environment, you should abide by this rule at all times.
• Don’t bother with grammar, spelling, transitions, and uniformity. A good idea is a good idea, and a nice informal writing style will make reviewers feel like they are reading an email from an old friend.

Illustrations

• Using illustrations and graphs is a waste of good space. Use them as little as possible, and just include them on some pages without references. After all, the reviewers can get some good exercise by moving their fingers from page to page.
• In your illustrations use as many extra boxes and arrows as you can to demonstrate how well you can draw complex ideas. Try to stay clear of narratives that explain these visuals. The more complex a visual is, the more it will impress the reviewers.

Second Submissions

• If your proposal is a second submission, tell the reviewers off. They just did not get the point, and this will be your chance to let them know that they do not know what they are doing, especially since they have turned down a proposal that you said was transformative.

Reviewers

• Since panelists want to prove how smart they are, don’t bother speaking about experiments and tests. The smart ones will figure these out and tell the group, so they can shine with their remarks.
• Use interesting subheadings and label your objectives. Then label your methodology in a way that does not relate to the objectives. This will be an important challenge for reviewers. It will even further confirm their intelligence.
• When it comes to citations from your literature, use them from as many sources as possible, whether they pertain to your project or not. You want to demonstrate that you are a well-read scholar and can use citations from everyone. Your reviewers will be impressed by the Renaissance researcher that you are.

Submitting the Proposal

• When submitting through Grants.gov, wait until everyone else has submitted, so that you have an easy time with the process that others think is so difficult. A good time to start this is somewhere between 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., the day that it is due.

One would not think that the above offenses are routinely committed by proposal writers. It is however a given that grantees are often rushed, not quite prepared, overestimate their abilities and underestimate the complexity of the process. The above 20 faulty approaches will guarantee the rejection of your proposal.

The post 20 Ways to Fail at Grant Proposal Writing appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1) Dates and Submission Procedures

Knowing and adhering to the deadline for proposal submission is critical. This section will also contain directions on where to submit the proposal, which in most cases will be through Grants.gov. If directed to submit through this venue, understanding how to do so is extremely important, otherwise it can be a difficult and taxing experience.

2) Eligibility

RFPs contain very specific parameters specifying who is eligible to submit proposals and who is not. It is vital to follow these requirements. One of the worst rejection reasons you can receive is that you are not eligible for the competition in the first place. This will occur if you or others on your team did not do their homework.

3) Instructions on Details of the Proposal

In this section you will find the instructions for formatting, organizing, and submitting your proposal. Whether or not including appendices and other components is allowed will also be described here. It is not unusual to see as many as 50% of submitted proposals rejected due to applicants not following these directions. It is highly frustrating to be eliminated for using the wrong font or incorrect margins.

4) Statement of Work

The RFP will define the goal and, in many cases, the objectives of the project. What the agency wants to fund and in what areas will be spelled out in this section. If your own goals and objectives do not exactly fit, you should have a conversation with the program officer to ensure that your approach will be allowed.

5) Budget

The amounts and categories for the request will be clearly outlined in the RFP, including matching requirements, amounts that can be charged for administration and other related categories. This will also be the section where you are told how to format your line items, what your budget justification should include, and what forms need to be completed.

6) Scoring Criteria

These are the criteria that determine how your proposal will be scored. When reading this section, look for the scoring method, score weighting and evaluation process. Knowing how your proposal will be assessed will give you an understanding of where to direct your efforts and how best to write your narrative. Ultimately, by understanding these criteria, you will be able to write in a way that reviewers can easily locate the areas for scoring. At all costs you should avoid making the reviewers work.

These six elements are the major sections of the RFP that pertain directly to writing the proposal. There will, however, be other information you will need to know and complete, such as certifications and various forms. The RFP tells you what the federal agency wants and expects in the grant solicitation. It is then up to you to inform the federal agency how you will carry out the program. Becoming a student of the RFP and paying attention to all the specifics will ensure that you will not be rejected because of minor details such as an incorrect font, or in the worst case scenario, for not being eligible for the competition in the first place.

The post Your First Step: Understanding the Request for Proposal appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Time – Above all else, the most common predicament everyone has is with last-minute applications. If you can prepare a timeline of how long it takes to complete the proposal and follow it, chances are that you will not fall prey to this setback. Remember that applications submitted 4-5 days prior to the deadline have a 37% greater chance of being funded than last-minute submissions.
2. Rejection – At some point in time, everyone who writes proposals will be rejected. A submission may be rejected for any number of reasons, and – rather than speculate – you must speak with the donor to learn what went wrong. If the reviewers of your proposal thought your idea was sound, then your chances for a resubmission are excellent. However, if your idea is flawed, the prognosis is not good. Either way, you need to hear it from the donor, and follow their advice on what could be corrected.
3. Money – I hear time and again: “we need the money and have to apply for grants to exist.” This is one of the most common realities and falsehoods about proposal requests. Grants are not about chasing the money, but about your good idea. If you have a project grant based on a good idea that will make a difference for your constituents, then the money will be forthcoming. If, on the other hand, you have an infrastructure grant, you need to prove excellent stewardship in serving your constituents in order to receive the funds. Unfortunately, foundations that live on the precipice have a greater chance of falling than those who don’t.
4. Length – One major complaint is that the RFP does not allow for full explanations and limits pages. Grants are about saying less rather than more. If you can describe your idea in a succinct and precise manner, reviewers and donors see it as the hallmark of your proposal being well thought out.
5. Substance – Believing that your idea is good without research often stems from a false sense of security. A proposal has substance and depth that originates from your well-designed plan and is supported by data from others in the field. Demonstrating that you will improve the well-being of your constituents or add to research in your area is the only way to convince reviewers you have a well-developed roadmap.
6. Size – Many want to bypass smaller grants and take on more competitive ones that will bring more money. A track record is extremely important when it comes to success. It is easier to develop your record via smaller grants that may not be as competitive. Once you have a proven record of excellence, you can easily transition to the larger and more extensive proposals.
7. Conspiracy – Interestingly, I have been told many times that the reason for failure of the out-of-the-box ideas is a conspiracy by the medical community, and especially the pharmaceutical companies. The latter do not want their existing drugs disproven and the established medical community does not want to risk what currently exists. Some research may threaten established approaches, but when submitting to such federal agencies as the NIH, transparency and integrity usually prevail.

How you deal challenges such as these will often be a determining factor in how successful you are in your proposal submissions. While obstacles come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, the seven listed above are self-imposed and can therefore be avoided. As grantees, you must have the patience to step back and see the problem at hand through broadened observation and circular vision. You need to see around, beneath, and beyond the problem itself, and well beyond the obvious.

The post Seven Obstacles That Kill Your Proposal appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Failure to follow submission guidelines

Many Federal agencies, including the NSF, will return proposals without review. The simple reason given is that the guidelines were not followed. Few events are as frustrating as losing a grant competition because the margins on your proposal were a quarter-inch too wide or a mandatory section was missing. This is perhaps the easiest flaw to address in a rejected proposal. Researchers must become students of the Request for Application (RFA) to ensure their applications do not stop at this stage.

2. Poorly written proposals

Proposals that make the reviewers question the author’s credibility as a researcher are fatal. Poorly written proposals, including mistakes such as poor grammar and misspellings, can detract from your idea. If you have a good idea, you must present it in the best possible light to beat the competition. Ideally you can have your proposal professionally reviewed and edited. Alternatively, you should send it to a naïve reader and a grammarian. Each will provide necessary information that pertains to the readability and communication of your ideas to the reviewers.

3. Failure to immediately address the purpose of the proposal

The first sentence of the first paragraph should be what the proposal is about. Unfortunately, it is not unusual to not see the purpose of the research until several sentences into the first paragraph. Since the ratings of your proposal often depend on the ease of finding the information about your request, you must be obvious and direct. It is imperative that you begin the first paragraph with: “The research objective of this proposal is…”

4. The scientific investigation is not methodical, repeatable and verifiable

The probability of reaching your objectives depends on your methodology. You must be able to clearly state how your project will unfold, and describe how you will conduct your research. Success also depends on your project being repeatable by other researchers. With the wave of rescinded grants and questionable research results making their way into mainstream news, accountability and complete objectivity are absolute necessities. Your research must be verifiable. In other words, can you show that the results you claim are true?

5. Not stating the research objectives appropriately

The statement of your research objective should lead you directly to your methodology. If it does not, you don’t have a clear statement of your research objective. To quote the NSF, the acceptable ways to state a research objective are:

1. The research objective of this proposal is to test the hypothesis H.
2. The research objective of this proposal is to measure parameter P with accuracy A.
3. The research objective of this proposal is to prove the conjecture C.
4. The research objective of this proposal is to apply method M from disciplinary area D to solve problem P in disciplinary area E.

At the end of the day, it is important to understand that a research proposal submitted for funding is not a manuscript, a paper for publication, nor a novel. It is a request with clear objectives and methodology. Also, adhering to the RFA guidelines may require sections that are not directly related to your research, such as Broader Impacts and the inclusion of underrepresented groups. Selling your idea depends on remembering that you have to convince the reviewers of the need for your research in the clearest, most understandable, and logical manner. As the NIH asks us to remember: “Think of yourself as a used car salesman, selling a used car to a group of seasoned used car salesmen.”

The post Why Did My Research Proposal Fail? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.