Research Proposal: Writing and Style

Transcription

1 Research Proposal: Writing and Style Department of Evaluation and Research Services Library Education Administration Development Magdalena Swanson, MSc Research & Grant Development Facilitator Evaluation & Research Services 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. 1

2 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

3 The purpose of a research proposal

4 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

5

6 Research Proposal Sections Introduction Background Previous work / preliminary data Study justification Study significance

7 Overview

8 Research Proposal Sections Research Question & Hypothesis Aims / Objectives SMART: Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-bound

9 Research Proposal Sections *Methodology* study design subjects: recruitment, sampling data collection data analysis

10 Research Proposal Sections Alternate approaches Considerations

11 Research Proposal Sections Response to previous review Team (qualifications + roles) Knowledge dissemination plan Research environment Future plans

12 Research Proposal Sections Timeline References Appendices tables figures data collection tools

13 Other Research Application Components Letter of Intent / Registration Cover letter Forms + signatures Abstract / lay summary

14 Other Research Application Components Budget Budget justification CVs / resumés Ethics approval

15 Other Research Application Components Letters of support Letters of collaboration Attachments published papers sample consent forms

16 In more detail

17 Background Context for problem Statistics Literature review completeness relevance to research plan Should support study justification

18 Timeline What you will do and when

19 KT Plan Conference presentation or poster Publishing Meetings / workshops / educational events Promotional / educational video Website content Policy, guidelines, procedures

20 KT Plan Who should hear your message?

21 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

22 Budget Matching research activities to $$$

23 Budget Components Research Personnel Research Assistant Research Coordinator Statistician Clinician

24 Budget Components Research Personnel Trainees Undergraduate student / Co-op student MSc, MPH, MA, PhD, PharmD student (etc.) Clinical student FTE rate + benefits x # hours

25 Budget Components Applicant Time rarely can applicant time be paid for usually, applicants are not paid salaries some agencies will pay backfill

26 Budget Components Services Health records Microbiology lab Pharmacy Decision support Printer

27 Budget Components Services Survey company Statistician Facility rental Honoraria Catering

28 Budget Components Supplies / Equipment Office supplies (research related) Medical supplies (research related) Postage Digital recorder Laptop

29 Budget Components Travel: Conference, team meetings, etc

30 Budget Preparation A spreadsheet is helpful Personnel $ requested Funding from other sources n salary benefits total cash in-kind TOTAL Research Assistant Summer student Services video development web posting catering Supplies office material long distance (interviews) interlibrary loan $74, $ 7, $82,250.00

31 Budget Justification Explanation & 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.

32 Signatures Principal Applicant(s) Co-applicants Institutional Financial officer

33 Signatures: FH Research Policy Applicant Applicant s Director VP Medicine or designate

34 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

35 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

36 Meaning of Applicant Signatures CIHR Agrees 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

37 Meaning of Institutional Signature CIHR He or she is authorized to bind the institution The institution agrees with the content of the application and will provide the committed resources

38 Meaning of Institutional Signature CIHR The 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

39 Meaning of Institutional Signature CIHR The 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

40 A word about format

41 Literature Review Team CVs Letters Methods Budget Forms Proposal Signatures * * 1 Time 2 3 * 4 photocopying / mailing Application Deadline Red numbers = critical path to obtain signatures (a draft of the proposal is sufficient) Asterisk = time to complete task very often underestimated

42 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

43

44 Workshop Activity - Budget Personnel n salary benefits TOTAL Services Supplies / Equipment

45 Workshop Activity - Letter Letter of Support Internal person External person

46

47 Cannot succeed without great content Readability also important Leonardo da Vinci

48 Audience Keep the audience in mind what is their area of expertise? what is their level of expertise?

49 Audience Keep the audience in mind busy + tired people make it easy for them

50 4 Cs Clear Concise Correct Compelling

51 Clarity

52 Clarity: First Page Short introductory paragraph problem, statistics (= justification) Goal Hypothesis, Research Question Objectives / Aims Significance

53 Clarity: Proposal Headings Spell out abbreviations 1 st time Avoid long sentences Get to the point Transitions between paragraphs e.g. however, moreover, in addition to, conversely

54 Concise Avoid a brain dump: need to know vs nice to know Organize with headings and subheadings Use graphics

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

56 Figures A B C D

57 Figures

58 Figures 15% 15% 15% 5%

59 Correct Research plan Statistical plan Spelling and grammar *Read guidelines in detail

60 Compelling Highlight: Significance Feasibility Innovation Qualifications

61 Compelling Read the review criteria Ensure all review criteria are addressed Make review criteria items easy to spot

62 Compelling State how your research addresses priorities funder your institution government advisory groups health / professional associations

63 Compelling Abstract First page Be careful with clever titles Put the most important sentences at the beginning and the end of paragraphs

64 Style Use serif font for proposal text abcd Use sans-serif for figures + tables abcd Font size 12 (unless figure/table) Leave 1 margins

65 Style Use only left justification Use max 2 highlighting styles together Be consistent with formatting

66 Leave white space avoid pages of wall-to-wall text Don t make lists in sentences use bullets Use a formal tone Don t use I Style

67 Style Try to get your hands on examples

68 Writing & Editing Iterative process First draft: don t self-edit After 1 st or 2 nd draft, get content feedback Later drafts, clean up spelling, grammar, flow employ non-expert readers

69 Writing & Editing Do an outline Write the abstract last Write the background second last

70 It s a learning curve Start small Don t get discouraged

71 Why Proposals Get Rejected 58% 16% 73% Approach Investigator Other Problem 55% University of Michigan Proposal Writer's Guide by Don Thackrey

72 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)

73 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)

74 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)

75 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)

76 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)

77 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)

78 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)

79 Never Fear The Methodology Unit is on the case!