Transcript Guide to making research grant applications Dr Luke Strongman / Aaron Jarden | 2009

Guide to making
research grant
applications
Dr Luke Strongman / Aaron Jarden | 2009
How grants fit in the research
program for the researcher
• Grant applications form one part of a planned research program
• They may compliment existing research projects as a separate and distinct effort
• Each application and project may be a stepping stone to the next
• Having decided to make a grant application, they require a systematic approach
• They can be seen as an integral part of a researcher’s professional responsibilities
• They are part of the researcher’s professional growth strategy to:
• 1.) Build credentials
• 2.) Establish a track-record of funding
• 3.) Work on teams with more experienced researchers
• 4.) Are a part of long-range personal development
Background: Approaching
grant applications
• Each grant agency sets its own priorities for research and educational
programs.
• Many have specific areas to award funding applications to. The
researcher has his or her own interests. Often it’s a matter of finding
where they intersect.
• Often you have to modify your research proposal area to match the
interests of the grant agency.
• Research Interest + Grant Agency + Proposal = Application
Approaching funding agencies:
• Grant agencies vary in the information they require
• Basic information such as names, addresses, contact details, present
occupation, present employer/CV/ information about educational
background is often needed
• A statement of purpose or objectives for study and a rationale is
often required
• Background context
• Related research/Literature review
• Description of how study is carried out
• Significance of study
• Resources needed
• Benefits of study – don’t exaggerate
Background questions to approach
grant applications with:
• Is there an underlying legislative purpose for the grant organisation?
• Is there a background statement from the grant organisation of
national need?
• Is the background statement and rationale of the grant organisation
appropriately researched and referenced?
• Is your research project appropriate, innovative and effective?
• What are the objectives of your project?
• Are the project objectives concisely stated?
• Is the research measurable? Are the project goals and terms of
reference clearly achievable?
• Is the methodology integrated and compatible with the objectives?
• What is the budget justification?
• Have you drawn-up a project management plan?
Selecting a funding agency
• There are different kinds: Government targeted/ bequests/
community trusts/prizes/awards/scholarships/private contracts
• Develop knowledge of funding sources
• Find the information you need to know from funding agency:
• Purpose for funding
• Closing date for receiving applications
• Length of consideration process
• The form and duration the grants take: seeding grants, project
grants, targeted grants, consultancies, scholarships
• Application procedures (conditions under which grants are made)
• Accountability for money / reports on progress / termination
conditions / Acknowledgment of funding agency in publications /
• Clarify ownership of data/results
The grant/topic match
• Identify your topic area
• Develop a list of potential funding agencies
• Evaluate resources
• Narrow your area of interest
• Write abstract or contract paper
• What organisational support is there? Internal: RF, CAD, DEAN.
External: Peer review, referees
• Be prepared to reshape ideas based on conversations and literature
reviews.
• Be prepared to write several drafts
• Work collaboratively where possible
Constructing an application
framework:
• Each body has its own criteria
• Ask what will your research add to overall body of knowledge?
• What are the research questions to be addressed, or problems explored, in the
course of research?
• What are the objectives in terms of answering the hypothesis questions?
• What is the research context – why is it important for these questions to be
answered?
• Will the research confirm what we know already, will it deepen our understanding?
• Will it invalidate existing evidence or interpretations or substitute a new paradigm?
• Will it provide practical application of the knowledge?
• What other research has been done in the area?
Project concept checklist:
Overview
• What is your project about?
• Why is it important?
• What will you do? What are the objectives?
• How will you do it?
• What will it cost?
• Why will it cost what it does?
• Why are you the best person/team to do it?
Key considerations:
• Aside from the basic idea, methodology and dissemination strategies are the most
important aspects of your grant application.
• Follow research funders’ guideline for applications – if it says ‘set out your research
methodology in detail’ do not write in brief
• Is the methodology feasible? Are the timescale and budget realistic? Be realistic in
your assessment of the grant proposal aims and specifications
• Have a strategy for handling problems and set backs
• Pay attention to the aims of the research funder – grant bodies want different
things, look for clues as to their requirements, be literal in your response to them
• Increasingly you need to justify the findings to all audiences, focus on main
themes, make research accessible and useful, applied and practical
• Include imaginative ways of disseminating research. These days research is not
just for other academics, make the research available to other user groups
• Generally those just out of PhD will be more suited for small grants. Don’t apply
unless you have a clear idea in your head
• Grant applications take a long time to finish. Prepare to have your application
bounced – only about 5% are ever successful
Project concept checklist:
Detail
• Are the goals/objectives/aims clearly defined?
• Do the objectives taken together, define the goals of study?
• Are the aims written as concise, testable statements?
• Are the key concepts defined?
• Does the hypothesis when tested, address the aims of the study?
• Are the dependent/independent objectives operationally defined?
• Is the terminology used for definitions clear and unambiguous?
• Are the hypotheses/objectives stated in reasonable terms?
• Are the hypotheses/objectives based on sound theory?
• Are the hypotheses/objectives stated as measurable ideas?
• Do the hypotheses clearly predict a relationship between variables?
Necessary Conceptual
Elements
• An innovative idea or approach
• A significant question
• Familiarity with other work in the field
• A clear statement of the research question
• A theoretical framework
• A methodology which matches the question
• A clear understanding of methods
• A vision for use or for benefits of research
• Does the project: - Add significantly to present knowledge? Does it:
- Improve ways of doing things?
- Provide ways to use fewer resources without loss of efficiency
or efficacy?
Grant application contents
checklist:
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Goals/Objectives/Specific Aims
• Background/Significance/Importance
• Literature review/Theory
• Methodology/research plan
• Grant management plan
• Dissemination plan
• Investigate team credentials/qualifications/research history
• Budget/budget justification
• References
• Appendices materials
Guidelines for statement of
project methods:
• Are the methods/activities clearly related to the objectives of the
project?
• Are the methods/activities to accomplish the objectives clearly
stated? Do you have letters of support?
• Are there commitments for co-operating institutions with letters of
support?
• Are the methods/activities outlined in the proposal effective to
accomplish the objectives?
• Have the methods/activities been assigned to responsible staff?
• What is the timetable for research?
10 Top Tips
• Read the application form and take it seriously
• Pay attention to the granting objectives and criteria
• Write clearly
• Be succinct
• Avoid ambiguities
• Package the application material well
• Be honest
• Have your application critically reviewed by colleagues
• Spend time of the application
Literature review and study
questions
• Does the literature review present important background information
about the proposal?
• Does the literature review critically evaluate and synthesize existing
knowledge?
• Are study gaps in knowledge addressed by the study program?
• Does the literature review provide the basis of support for the
hypothesis or research question?
• Has the need for the proposal been documented?
• Does the literature review appear complete and up-to-date?
• Is the literature review logically and systematically developed and
presented?
Research methodology: Design
• Overview of research design –scientific relationships between
variables, to test hypotheses and observations/ internal consistency
between method, phenomena, research question.
• Sample description and selection:
• a.) inclusive and exclusive criteria
b.) recruitment plan
• Materials, procedures, data collection
• Human subjects – Ethical approval?
• Study validity and reliability
• Assumptions and study limitations
• Time table of key research activity
• A statistical analysis for each study aim?
Research methodology contd:
• What methods are to be used in the research?
• Why have they been chosen?
• How will you set about answering the questions?
• Are the research aims clear, can they be realised?
• Management:
• Does the research team have the requisite knowledge and
experience?
• Are the necessary facilities available?
• Have the ethical and confidentiality issues been addressed?
• Is the budget realistic?
• Are the reporting arrangement satisfactory?
Research methodology contd:
• Value for money:
• Will the knowledge gained justify the money spent?
• Will the hypothesis be sufficient for a rigorous research design?
• Background research:
• Do your objectives tie-in with those of the funder?
• The actual idea is the key to the proposal’s success?
• Is it innovative, imaginative, does it make a real contribution to
knowledge.
• Talk to people
• Have your own peer review process
Research methodology: Data
collection instruments
• What is the data set’s published reliability?
• What is the data set’s published validity?
• Are they extensively used in research?
• Why did you chose them?
• Data collection strategies
• How will you collect them?
• If you are conducting interviews, what procedures would you use?
• Have your proposal read by colleagues in your department and
colleagues in your research office.
Preparing budgets:
• Equipment – purchase or hire, fees, costs
• Computing – charges for access time, purchase of PC/software
• Communication – telephone/fax
• Salaries and wages: Researcher/ research assistant/secretarial
services/consultants/data entry & analysis
• Stationary – paper or consumable products/printing and
photocopying cots/postage
• Travel – Fuel
• Overheads – 10-20% is usually charged by recipient institution for
accommodating the grant
• Audit fee – may be required if institution requires accounts to be
audited
Preparing budgets continued:
• Keep salary costs limited to appropriate award for type of skills
sought
• On-costs are included in calculations: Payroll tax, superannuation,
leave loading and workers compensation insurance
• Contract arrangements for short-term employment flexible
• Current rates quoted for all consultant or professional service fees
• Equipment costs should be based on actual quotations at current
prices
Preparing applications:
• Applications always take longer than you think – seek help from
colleagues; read successful applications; check criteria/guidance
carefully
• Consult sources of external funds; discuss project, funding source,
timing with the Research Facilitators; Centre manager’s; Dean; Chair
of Research Committee
• Make sure you have identified the right grant for the project
• Read guidelines/notes for applicants
• Obtain at least one copy of a successful application to your chosen
scheme
• Identify any additional documentation required: Case for support, list
of publications, CV – begin preparing
• Will you need referees/ nominated assessors? Identify an appropriate
person – it is not a good idea to use referees only from your own
organisation
Preparing applications
continued:
• Build-up application in a series of word files and load onto form
• Obtain advice on your draft, send to RF, CM, Chair of the Research Committee for
review
• Redraft in the light of criticisms received – view criticisms positively
• Submitting the application:
• Make sure you make at least two copies of the printed form
• A successful outcome: Money used for replacement teaching is usually managed by
the centre, other monies through the research committee
• An unsuccessful outcome, resubmit: Don’t be disheartened, you may be funded
next round
• Not successful: Consult colleagues, obtain advice, send proposal to a different
funder, reconceptualize project, bring in co-investigator
Preparing applications/
Managing the grant
• Develop a grants calendar
• Build a track record
• Pre-develop your proposals
• Make multiple applications if necessary
• Follow-up on success – review why you think the grant was
successful
• Follow up on rejection – ask the agency for feedback on application
• Managing the grant
• If successful, it is a matter for the funding agency to decide how the
money is to be paid
• Accountability of researcher: Keep a record of what is expected
(contract)/Make copyright arrangements/keep financial statements
Common failings
• Applicants do not have a profile for the work
• Applicants are from a state/city/institution that has already had a lot
of contracts and the national body needs to award to a different
source.
• Applicants fail to demonstrate knowledge of a specific context (for
example current policy, or institutional hierarchies)
• Regardless of what is in application, the known profile of the
researcher or research institution is politically less attractive than
from another source
• Application does not address all elements of the project brief
• The design of the approach does not appear convincing in its ability
to address objectives or appear to general reader as reliable
• Application itself is academic rather than ‘real world’
• Application is not well presented or appears ‘sloppy’
References:
• Yates, L. (2004). What does Good Education Research look like?
New York: Open University Press.
• Gitlin, L., & Lyons, K. (2004). Successful Grant Writing. 2nd ed. New
York: Springer.
• Hamilton, H. (1996). A guide to successful grant applications.
Deakin: Royal College of Nursing, Australia.