Final Post...

First of all, many thanks to all of my classmates for their opinions and advice. This project certainly could not be what it is without all of your help. And special thanks to the MATRF staff for making yourselves so readily available; it is much appreciated.

So as the class ends it is quite impressive what we have to show for it. I'm very excited to see that I am well on my way to getting this whole thesis project started...for many reasons, namely graduation I must confess.

Even though I get to work with grants on a day-to-day basis what I tend to forget is that these are research based grants and there is a huge different among the different kinds of grants that are available. I think I was taking it for granted that the foundations with which I am most familiar are federal funders, and these do not constitute the only kind of funders available. It was interesting to see how the a research proposal vs. a non-research proposal compared. From this I definitely took away the creative aspect that is entirely overlooked in the development of research proposals. You do not have to think about creatively designing research proposals as the guidelines are already laid out for you.

Also, because there are different types of proposals, the amount of emphasis placed in each area or component of the proposal varies. I think the budget is still by far one of the most important components as most reviewers or grantors will be inclined to know how much you are going to spend and if it is feasible and appropriate.

Aside from proposal writing, the class really emphasized the need for many different people to read and review a proposal before submission. The only way to know if it is coherent and sensible is to have many different opinions as many times the reviewers and the number of reviewers is unknown. In the Greg Meyer's article we see how many different ways a manuscript can be read based on the type of audience. Everyone is looking for different things and you cannot appease the masses, but you can tailor the way in which you make your presentation in such a way that reaches all audiences on some level. If anything, the best you can hope for is your proposal to be reviewed and scored. If you achieve this, the possibility of input from the reviewers increases and the possibility of resubmitting at a later time may become an option.

I thoroughly enjoyed this class and certainly the deliverables are wonderful. It offered me another perspective and unhinged my singular view of research proposals.

Week 6, Post 1: Chapter 12

In adding front and back matter to a proposal, it needs to be pertinent in every way to what you are trying to accomplish. Although most of the time these components may not be necessary, if you do choose to use them then you have to make sure that they are serving a purpose. This is part of seeing the document as a whole. The idea of "need to know" must be maintained.

Letters or memos can be very enticing as Johnson-Sheehan points out. They may very well be the first thing that funder sees in regards to your proposal; however, it may not hurt to send this letter well in advance even before you decide to submit a proposal. It never hurts to let your funder know that you even exist. Extending that "handshake" early on can have a very big impact once your proposal is received.

In regards to the back matter, if at all possible, supply an itemized budget, and if anything, without a question, provide a budget narrative. These are simply imperative to your proposal (that is of course if you're requesting money). All proposal authors will have done their research; therefore, a bibliography is almost certainly a must. Also, if your organization has supporting articles related to your proposal and the funders objectives, make sure those are included in the appendices. It can never hurt to build as much credibility as possible.

The revision is the reason why you start a potential proposal as soon as possible. It is during the revision that you finally get to see the proposal for the first time as a whole document. This can be a very rewarding or frustrating time; which is why you want to be revising your document as you write it from the beginning. The revisionary period should mostly focus on the rhetorical elements and rhetorical situation. By this point, you have hopefully thought through what you hope to accomplish and how to meet the funders objective(s) and expectations.

Style Guide

Style Guide

Body Text
Times New Roman, 12 point font

Paragraphs
Headings
First level headings: All caps, 12 point font, Arial, centered
Second level headings: Mixed caps, 12 point font, Arial, centered, underlined
Third level headings: Mixed caps, 12 point font, Arial, left aligned, italicized

Indentation
0.5

Justification
All body text left justified
Headings (see above)

Non-sequential lists
Square bullets, 10 point font, 0.5 tab

Margins
1 inch (top, bottom, left, right)

Page
Running page header: Goergen Prospectus
No page borders
Graphics must be at least half a page, centered
Page numbers centered at bottom of page

Graphics
Captions: 9 point font, bold
Captions for tables: above table, centered, labeled as Table 1:
Captions for Figures: below figure, centered, labeled as Figure 2:
No borders on any graphic
9 point font used in tables, charts and graphs

Document
8.5 x 11 standard paper

Week 5, Post 1: Chapter 11

I think graphics are very underutilized in grantwriting. I think this stems from the fact that most proposal authors hesitate to put in a graphic because there are already so many formatting constraints and/or page limits that they do not want to risk losing the precious space that they do have.

During my study one of the things we encountered was that one of the authors had placed a graphic in his proposal and the graphic was very important to the overall proposal, in fact, most of it hinged upon his graphic. The problem was that the graphic was in color but the proposal was printed in black and white, a minor detail excluded from the RFP, but something that made a huge difference. I think if you're going to make the choice to use a graphic, do so in such a way that if those "minor" details are not included your proposal will not be affected.

As powerful as images can be, in a proposal, under such staunt restrictions, you need to make the graphic count and be worthwile. If it will help illustrate or enhance your message in any way, by all means use it, but I don't see the point in using a pie chart when it says so little. I think Tufte's theory of chart junk should be heeded carefully in this regard. Do not put more on the page than is needed to convey the information.

Week 4, Post 4: Chapter 10`

All of the proposals I have worked with have been federally funded grants and they do not care too much for design quality. So long as you read the RFP, abide by the general requirements, and format exactly like they say too, you can be assured that your abstract will at least be read.

I appreciate well designed documents. One's that are particuarly asethetically pleasing do make the information easier to read and in some cases, enjoyable. But I think in the long run, the actual design should not be the main concern. Proposals are a particular kind of genre and they do have their conventions. You do not want to produce an aesthetically pleasing document that is completely unrecognizable as a proposal either.

Of the different design theories, I do like the grid. It's clean, it's simple, and it does leave an open canvas upon which you can create balance. If a design is adopted a style guide is definitely needed to create consistency and identity. Consider using design aspects, but more importantly, just follow the RFP to a "T."

Week 4: Post 3, Progress Report 3

Date: 05-June 2008
To: Dr. Jan Holmevick
From: Katie Goergen

Introduction
A usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submission Program will be conducted in order better understand how users use these tools. This study will reveal usability flaws and provide recommendations forboth of these interfaces which will in effect improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-award submission phase at Clemson University.

Work Completed
At this point, I at least have a full draft of my proposal. I am currently waiting for comments from Jin and Jan to see how I can improve upon it. I feel most comfortable with the introduction and conclusion and I'm hoping those are preceived as strong. My methodology is perhaps a little weak. I have looked at it several times and I feel as though it needs a little more, I'm just not certain as to what that is as of yet. The literature review also needs some fine tuning. I don't know, for a projct I'm having a difficulty writing because it's not as though I'm helping contribute to any particular field or expanding the research in a particular field, I'm just helping a client produce a better product. So, the literature review is still a bit of a worry for me.

At this point I am still waiting to hear back from Drs. Gallichio and Prizrembel regarding the possibility of a usability test for the OSP website. I'm thinking it will get approved, but there is nothing written in stone as of yet, so on that front, I'm stalled.

Next Steps
I am continuing to look at my proposal and working it to make it better. I have started working on the instrumentation for the study. I feel as though if I at least have something I will have something to work from, which is better than nothing at all. I will also be focusing on my presentation. I think in order for my presentation to have an impact, I need to convey the current situation and show how my project aims to contribute to a possible solution. I'm discovering my project is not about overhauling the entire OSP website as there is not enough time to tackle that, but I can assess the needs of the faculty and staff that could open the door to new possibilities and directions for the kinds of resources Clemson provides for its faculty and staff in the way of proposal writing.

By next week I will have a comprehensive storyboard completed so that I can begin making the actual presentation.

Conclusion
Amazing that this class is almost over. It is kind of a relief knowing that I will be walking away with something that is going to be used to move me on to the next step. I'm looking forward to making the presentation, I think it has potential to be a good persuasive piece. By next week I should have a more refined version of my proposal and a very clear idea about how I plan to construct my presentation.

Week 4, Post 2: Chapter 9

The style is actually an important part, though, sometimes I wonder a) how closely reviewers actually look at it, and b) how much bearing it plays in the entire process. I only say this because the other day while looking at a proposal that was scored within the 1% for NIH (which is unheard of. Meaning they do not come any better) an entire section repeated itself. One of the narratives was in one section of the grant and that same narrative was also located in another section. This was clearly a simple mistake and an oversight, but I wonder if the reviewers even noticed, or if the content was so well structured, so clear, and the idea so thoughtful that they just didn't care.

This is not to say do not focus on the style of your writing when writing a grant. As Johnson-Sheehan points out, how you write is representative of the type of company/organization/individual that you are. It reflects your own attention to detail; how concious you are of the quality of your work; and how much time, effort and thought you put into constructing the overall proposal. It is not to be taken for granted, but I do not think it is one of the most critical pieces.

The book doesn't go too much into the use of metaphors, but I was wondering what you guys thought about the use of metaphors in a proposal. When are they appropriate/not appropriate? Can you be certain that it is common enough your reader will know? (is it worth the risk?) Can you be certain that you've used them in the correct context? I don't know, the use of metaphors seems like a tricky rhetorical device to use. Obviously a proposal is a persuasive piece and rhetorical dynamics are at work, but I was wondering if anyone had any further thoughts on the use of metaphors?

Week 4: Post 1: Chapter 8

The budget is really one of the most essential parts of the proposal if you are involved in a project that is going to cost upwards of thousands of dollars. I think it should be the second thing that you do after you have a good handle of the methodology. In many respects, the methodology and budget will reveal if you are capable of carrying out the project. It will show you if you have the proper equipment, enough man-power to follow through, and have decided to use the funds properly.

The issue of indirect costs can be confusing. That is something that I am just beginning to get a handle on, even though I'm not even sure I understand it fully (yay Virginia's spreadsheets! =) The few times I have done budgets I have been fortunate enough to have templates in spreadsheets from which to work that automatically calculate the costs. It is amazing how many details you have to consider when you sit down to do a budget. If you do not think of it before you submit the proposal, you've missed your opportunity, so it is important to think long and hard before finalizing a budget.

Finally, not really discussed, is that some proposals may last a couple of years and you have to consider inflation rates in order to make sure that you budget enough. If you're not familiar with constructing budgets, I highly recommend you consult someone who is your first few attempts. They can be tricky and they are a very critical piece to the proposal.

Bio

Because my blog insists on being fussy for the moment, I'm temporarily going to put my bio here until it decides to behave and allow me to put it in the "About Me" section.

Katie Goergen

B.A., English, Clemson University
M.A., Professional Communication, Clemson University, Candidate

In the course of my studies I have focused most of my attention on proposal writing. I have conducted a usability test that examines this process as a birth-to-death cycle beginning with the creation of the Request For Proposal (RFP) to the eventual acceptance/rejection of the proposal itself. I have worked with a number of different faculty and grant officers within the university to continue building upon this knowledge to better understand the components necessary to write a winning proposal.

Along with this vested interest in proposal writing, I also have experience creating websites and creating and implementing university programs. While at Clemson, I have participated in a number of faculty’s funded research programs such as the Freshman Alcohol Awareness program, and the Community Coalition research program in which Clemson is working to assist and collaborate with local community coalitions to work towards a healthier community. I assisted in creating and conducting the Research Training Program which is coordinated through Clemson and Voorhees College. In regards to websites, I helped design and currently maintain the department of Public Health Sciences website.

Week 3: Post 8, Progress Report 2

Date: 05-June 2008
To: Dr. Jan Holmevick
From: Katie Goergen

Introduction
A usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submission Program will be conducted in order better understand how users use these tools. This study will reveal usability flaws and provide recommendations forboth of these interfaces which will in effect improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-award submission phase at Clemson University.

Work Completed
Thus far I have the majority of my proposal drafted as the introduction, current situation, and project plan are currently constructed. I spoke with Karen (POC) yesterday and there has been a slight change due to budetary issues. I am now vieing for an assistantship in the Office of Sponsored Programs for the fall semester. What I am battling is the $6000 requested for equipment to complete the study. This $6000 would cover the software program Morae, a laptop on which to install it, a web camera, and a license for Adobe Premiere. Well, risk losing the chance for an assistantship, as much as I would like to use Morae, I'm thinking I can benefit more from the work experience than a program I can read up on and view tutorials online. Besides, Morae is really not the wave of the future in the field of eye-tracking. It's the TOBE eye-tracking system that is currently possible and which is still very expensive (approx. $25,000) and still has technical problems that need to be worked out. So, risk losing the opportunity for an assistantship through the Office of Sponsored Programs, I opted to nix equipment that is not necessary to complete the study. This will not effect my study in anyway as proof from the last study in which I did not use any of that equipment and it still yielded valid and reliable data. But, I am getting closer to getting approval to conduct the usability test. Should have an answer within the next week or two.

Next Steps
I need to now sit down and begin refining my draft and constructing a more formal and finalized version. As I do this, I also need to consider the methodology in regards to eliminating the use of Morae. Again, in place of Morae, I will rely on field notes, video-taping, direct-observation, and talk-aloud protocol, so as you see, it is not a detrimental to remove the Morae component. I need to whittle down my current situation so that I do not exceed the page limit, as well as follow Ron's advice and be sure to separate the more "active" components of the current situation and perhaps apply them to the methodology or even conclusion in identifying future steps. So, by Monday, I will have a complete draft of the entire proposal.

In completing this draft I want to first focus on the current situation and get that down to a reasonable page limit, and then I want to focus closely on the methodology. I feel as though I have identified the major steps and maybe start working on those smaller components, such as the instruments (but that may be a little too much, we'll see). Finally, once these parts are written, I think finally, I will have a very clear idea and understanding of what I am trying to accomplish and I will go back and re-write my executive summary to reflect this.

Conclusion
I am starting to get excited over the prospect of this actually coming to fruition. If the short one page proposal I have submitted to Dr. Gallicciho and Dr. Prizrembel is rejected, I need to start from scratch with this. That's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world, I do have another idea lined up as a back-up, but still, I would really like to see this happen. As of now, I am going to keep working on this proposal and hoping for the best =)

Week 3, Post 7: Chapter 7

Repetition, repetition, repetition. It may sound a little crazy and a little condescending for your audience if you are being so repetitive, but it does work. Reviewers are often busy and have a large volume of proposals to read, and as we've discussed in class, some can be very short while others can be quite long and extensive. Regardless, you want to remind your reviewers of your purpose throughout so that they do not forget. This is why the beginning and conclusion are framed in the same fashion.

The transitions are so vital. You can assume that most reviewers are probably skimming your proposal so use some common transitional words that will alert them and guide them through the proposal. This comes full circle to the importance of repetition because after they are alerted of the transition the next section should continue to build or reiterate your purpose.

Looking to the future and providing your audience with reasons as to how your proposal will benefit them later is essential. It also again, reiterates the purpose of your proposal. You're not just trying to solve a singular issue or problem, but you're offering possible future solutions, or rather, relaying the benefits.

Week 3, Post 6: Chapter 6

The qualifications section can be tricky to write because there is a fine line between telling the reviewers what you want them to know and what they need to know. With that also comes the problem of sounding pompous and selling yourself short. I think the best way to establish trust is to first initiate contact with the program officer. Do not let the first a funder ever even learns of your existence be your proposal. Initiate contact from the beginning in order to show that you have a vested interst in this opportunity. Obviously have a reason for establishing contact, but more times than not, it is a good habit to form.

There are some instances when an actual narrative is not required, but a biographical sketch is. And it is that, a very brief synopsis about how and why you're qualified, such as a condensed vitae. Some of these can be very short, no more than 2-4 pages for example. The point is, is that any information you include had better be pertinent and pertain directly to that opportunity to show how you are properly qualified.

Avoid the boilerplate at all costs. You would not have a generic resume to send out, you have different versions of a resume in order to curtail it to the appropriate organization. It is the same thing here. Boilerplates fail because you cannot portray yourself as unique. If you have a "one size fits all" mentality, you're going to be lumped together with everyone else. The key is to find a way to stand out, or at the very least, prove that you have the credentials to carry out your proposal.

Week 3, Post 5: Project Plan Draft

Project Plan

Write a recommendation report based on the results of the usability study in order to assist in creating a more effective and efficient Office of Sponsored Programs website and Limited Submission Program.

Step One: Associate Research Deans, Committee, and IRB approve proposal

In conjunction with step 1 as this is needed for approval

Finalize the instruments so that they are ready to be used for the study.

Step Two: Create Instruments for study

Pre-and-Post test survey instruments

Scenarios for task-based analysis

Confidentiality releases to participate in study

Confidentiality releases to be videotaped

Step Three: Preparing to conduct usability study

Recruit participants

• URGC reviewers who used Limited Submission Program
  
• Clemson faculty and staff
• Recruit through word of mouth, email invitation, and phone calls

Reserve area in which to conduct the study (409 Daniel – Usability Lab, or meet in a neutral location for participants, such as their office)

Reserve appropriate equipment/make sure is available

• Digital video camera, tripod, blue tooth recorder, headphones


• Morae software


• Adobe Premire for creating highlight reels

Step Four: Conduct Usability Test

Step Five: Analyze data and create recommendation report

Methodology

In conducting a usability test of the Limited Submission Program, this will require the perspective of both the reviewers and authors. To collect this data, pre- and post- test interviews, direct observation, and a read-aloud protocol that is video recorded would be the best means of data collection.

A thorough usability test of the Limited Submission Program would include using those data collection methods listed above with the proposal authors and the reviewers. The pre- and post-interviews will yield perceptions, opinions and suggestions on behalf of the participants. This kind of information proves useful in making recommendations and changes to the writing and reviewing process completed internally at Clemson University. The direct observation and talk-aloud protocol allows for a real-time perspective of the challenges that are encountered when using the Limited Submission Program. Video recording the sessions is helpful in that the sessions can be reviewed, and video clips can be used to create a highlight reel that has potential to be used as a teaching tool in workshops geared especially towards new faculty.

To conduct the actual usability test, the software Morae would be used. An eye-tracking device that calculates, graphs, and codes usability measurements, this software automatically records the session and allows the researcher to code the information in real-time. The advantages of this software include that it is easy to use; it will give a true account of using an online program such as the Limited Submission Program; and problems and challenges that are encountered while using the Limited Submission Program will be captured, recorded, coded and compared to other users ‘experiences.

The purpose of this usability test is to improve the efficiency and ease of use of the Limited Submission Program. In doing so, it becomes more cost effective in regards to authors and reviewers time if they are able to maneuver through the process quickly.

Provisional Project Timeline

June 4 - submit short proposal to Dr. Galliciho for approval to conduct usability test on OSP website

June 3 - submit thesis proposal to chair and committee

July 11 - submit paperwork to IRB

July 21 - begin recruiting participants

July 30 - begin usability testing

August - continue usability testing

September - analyze data and begin writing recommendation report

October - defend

(Maybe too optimistic. It is kind of dependent if it even gets approved by Gallichio in the first place)

July - [hopefully] hear if

Week 3, Post 4: Project Plan Map

Week 3, Post 3: Point of Contact

My point of contact is Karen Pless in the Office of Sponsored Programs and Dr. Tharon Howard as my committee chair.

Week 3, Post 2: Current Situation Draft

Literature Review

In Barton and Barton (1993) and Selfe and Selfe (1994), they discuss the political, economical, societal, and cultural dynamics that build “borders.” These borders can be both literal and figurative in scope and provide explanation as to why and how visuals are “seen as complicit with social-control mechanisms inextricably linked to power and authority” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.53).

The ideological concept of denaturalizing the natural is constructed around the hegemonic process in which “certain meanings and practices are chosen for emphasis, certain other meanings and practices are neglected and excluded” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.53). These concepts are termed the rules of inclusion and the rules of exclusion and they work to identify the “privileged” classes’ role in the development of visual representations (Foucault, 2001, Kaplan, 1994). The rules of inclusion can be defined as those rules that “determine the strategies and formal devices used to symbolize aspects of phenomena chosen for representation” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.55). The rules of exclusion assert that “the map that is not made…warrants as much attention as the map that is made” (As cited in Monmonier, 1982, p. 99). In other words, there were powers at play that determined why certain things were represented in the way that they were and why certain things were excluded entirely.

The goal of Barton and Barton’s (1993) argument seems to be to create awareness regarding the inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics at work. They also identify the powers that are responsible for creating the dual modes that serve as the basis for ideology of the map. Self and Self (1994) do not differ in their argument in “The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones.” Instead of only creating awareness, they suggest that people must be educated to be “technology critics as well as technology users” (484). In becoming critics, we are then able to “map these virtual spaces as sties of ‘multiple and heterogeneous borders where different histories, languages, experiences, and voices intermingle amidst diverse relations of power and privilege’ ” (As cited in Giroux 196). In creating awareness and becoming a critic, it also becomes the responsibility of the individual to note the ethical implications of one’s decisions. Katz argues about the dangers of the “ethics of expediency” in an article by the same name. In an effort to become responsible critic, the ethical implications of one’s actions and goals must be taken into consideration.

Thus far, a theoretical framework has been outlined that discusses the ideologies that are responsible for the construction of visuals. These ideologies can be applied to the current visual argument of the Clemson University Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) website (http://www.clemson.edu/research/ospSite/indexSponsored.htm).

The Visual Argument of the OSP

Overall, the Office of Sponsored Programs has a very weak visual argument. It has been known to be a confusing site and an under-utilized one even though it has pertinent information for faculty, staff and students. This becomes increasingly problematic as Clemson is a land-grant institution and requires faculty to conduct research, but does not provide a well-constructed tool that the intended audience can utilize.

There are three major issues regarding the visual argument of the site:

1) Tufte’s concept of “chartjunk” can be applied to this site;

2) Steve Krug’s first law of usability is completely ignored; and

3) Bitzer’s rhetorical situation is not applied.

In examining these three major issues, it will provide a foundation on which to identify additional variables as well as clearly outline the client’s needs, and how the proposed study will be conducted in order to meet those specific needs.

Tufte’s “Chartjunk”

In applying Tufte’s (2001) concept of “chartjunk” in context to the OSP website, the point is that the site incorporates too many ineffective visuals that distract the user from locating desired information. The design elements do not seem to have been crafted around any particular theme, but rather, scattered around the screen, thus resulting in an overcompensation of trying to identify visual cues, such as links, for the users.
The menu bar is distracting because of the number of words incorporated on such a small area, and the words are difficult to read as the size of the text is too small to read comfortably. Although the font is sans serif, the preferred font for most electronic documents, especially in regards to headings, it interferes with the ease of readability.

Another problem with the choice of font is that there are several different visual cues for links as seen in the image below:

Figure 1: Office of Sponsored Programs home page

If a user was asked to identify the links on the page, one would assume that the blue hyperlinks at the bottom of the page would be the obvious links; however, the rest are not so easy to discern. In creating buttons on the left, and a link menu bar at the top, it creates discontinuity for the user. The “Site Index” and “Search” links are not easily distinguished as links because they are not the same color or size as the other links. Because of this discontinuity, it must have been assumed that buttons were needed to create a visual cue in regards to creating links. The below image is a way in which to eliminate the “chartjunk.”

Steve Krug’s Law of Usability

At first glance, the user is forced to think about the page and what is clickable, a danger because “…when using the Web every question mark adds to our cognitive workload, distracting our attention from the task at hand” (Krug, 2000). This could account for the under-utilization of the website as most users would not want to devote the time or effort to figuring out how to work a site that contained information about an already difficult and time consuming topic.

Another problem is that the homepage does not accommodate for the audiences’ needs:

· showing the user what he’s looking for,

· showing the user what he’s not looking for,

· showing the user where to start, and

· establishing credibility/trust (98).

This site does not fully abide by all of these levels because it has no intended audience. The Office of Sponsored Programs is available to all Clemson faculty, staff and students, and yet, information such as “Faculty Expertise” and “Funding Opportunities” are placed in a prominent location even though they can be considered misleading in the information they provide. “Faculty Expertise” does not necessarily tell a user anything, while the options listed within the “Funding Opportunities” pull-down menu is clearly directed towards an expert audience. Only those familiar with InfoED would understand its purpose. There seems to be no particular hierarchy or order to the option in the pull-down either. This can create confusion and frustration for the user.

Problems such as these can deter users from using the site. One study showed that the “visual appeal can be assessed within 50 milliseconds, suggesting that web designers have about 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression” ( Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006, p.115). The study goes on to suggest that “aesthetics, or visual appeal, factors may be detected first and that these could influence how user judge subsequent experience” (115). With a website like the OSP, the overall first impression is not going to be impressive, and as a result, it may damage the integrity of the site and the information provided.

Another issue with all of the research sites is that they all look exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the information and the links that correspond with that information. That can make navigating the site difficult as there are no significant visual cues that would alert the user if they had managed to switch pages accidently. A tab system based on a color theme may be useful in distinguishing one research page from another.

The website also tends to show the user more of what they are not looking for then what they are looking for. It could be assumed that most users are not looking for “Publications & Reports,” “e-Research Administration,” or “Grant Admin. Training,” or most of the links at the bottom (although they coincide with those links listed at the top, though this is not apparently evident). It would seem that in designing this site it was geared towards an audience very familiar with conducting research at Clemson, as evident by the fact that there is no established starting point. It is up to the user to have a clear sense of what he wants to accomplish before ever arriving at the site. The site seemingly excludes any other type of audience as its hierarchical structure would only make sense to those who work in one of the research offices, and the overall layout is designed to be “simple,” but only for that intended audience in mind.

Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation

There are three components to Bitzer’s (1968) “rhetorical situation.” They are “audience,” “exigence,” and “constraints.” The visual rhetoric as so far described using Tufte (2001) and Krug (2006) sheds some light on the problems plaguing the OSP website, but a full rhetorical analysis will provide a more holistic picture beyond the visual components.

Thus far, the main emphasis has been placed on the visual rhetoric of the OSP website, but the Limited Submission Program must also be considered. The visual design of the Program is not as much of a concern as the functionality and usability of the program, at least at this point and time. A rhetorical analysis can be applied to both.

OSP Website As previously discussed, the site was created for the incorrect audience. The premise of the rhetorical situation hinges upon finding the correct audience that can act and mediate change in light of the exigence and despite the existing constraints. Just based on the current state of the website, a thorough audience analysis was not conducted. A thorough historiography of the OSP website may reveal why this is the case.

Aside from the lack of audience analysis, the purpose of the website must be reevaluated. Currently, information is hard to find and access so it can be assumed that it is not used as a “tool” by the users. One option that will be explored later is to develop a more “customer-oriented” website that allows the users to engage with the website in a meaningful way that decreases the amount of time preparing a proposal and creates a more effective way of going through the process.

Limited Submission Program The Program has two intended uses: one for authors, and one for reviewers. The difficulty in initially assessing this program is that it was an idea to make the process easier and more efficient. The Program was developed in an effort to eliminate the collection and distribution of hardcopies of proposals as they were submitted. It then grew into a program that allowed reviewers to score the proposals online. In many ways this Program is still being developed and shaped and a number of different needs identified by the client pertaining to both the website and the Program can be seen in the table below.

Table 2: Limited Submission Program and Office of Sponsored Programs needs based on the client’s descriptions.

Need	Explanation	Assessment
Data field forms	Information can be input by authors and reviewers	Look at criteria for authors to determine additional fields Look at needs of reviewers and information they would want to know about authors
Track limited submission proposals	Determine if they were submitted externally and if awarded – see if fulfilling the purpose of the URGC	Within the Program, create a feature in which authors must submit their progress report as a component of the URGC funding initiative
Possible modes of success	Make past limited proposals accessible to authors and reviewers	Create a password/username database
Control submission guidelines	Different limited submissions have different instructions that differ from the general instructions provided. Must be able to format guidelines to meet requirements	Make the guidelines and standards for an internal limited submission the same. For example, require vitas for all internal limited submissions (do not pick and choose when it is needed)
Communal environment for reviewers	Create a chat area for reviewers so they can discuss internal pre-proposals that can only viewed by reviewers	Take a look at Google Docs and their chat message capabilities as a model
Develop search engine	This can pertain to looking for authorized signatures, past proposals, current funding opportunities	Will need to assess what audience looks for most often to develop a search engine.
Create authoring environment	Supply form fields with word limits Authors need to be able to access proposals they submitted to make changes/revisions	Will allow authors to provide only that information that is necessary Will enable authors to make revisions/changes without having to talk to a middleman.
Training Registration and Survey Program	Create survey tool and follow-up surveys Create podcasts of training sessions Reports of who participates in training sessions	Surveys can be administered and podcasts watched online for convenience Reports will determine success/effectiveness

The above table addresses some of the needs pertaining to the Limited Submission Program and Office of Sponsored Programs. Aside from rhetorical analyses pertaining to the sites, developing a “customer-oriented” website will require understanding how these types of sites are developed.

There is virtually no literature that addresses the needs of Limited Submission Programs. Porter (2005) evaluates how to manage Limited Submission Programs through 10 recommendations, but he does not offer any suggestions in the way of making it more effective and efficient for users. His suggestions should be heeded because they include things such as better communication among coordinators and principle investigators, providing formatting instructions and guidelines for proposals, encouraging fair assessments of proposals among the committee, and the like. These are good tips for managing the process, but his study ignores how to implement these managerial components. However, these can be used in the redesign of the Limited Submission Program and OSP website, so long as there is a way to measure the usability of these changes.
Other factors to consider in the role of website usability and evaluation include a more business perspective in regards to electronic commerce. Venketash and Argawal (2006) have taken a closer look at what influences and persuades users to use the certain electronic commerce sites that they do. They say that “marketers are concerned not only with identifying the specific evaluative criteria that consumers are likely to use, but also with the relative importance (weights) each individual consumer assigns to these criteria” (372). In an earlier study conducted by Argawal and Venketash (2002), they developed a metric to study the usability of websites that focused on five different categories: 1) content, 2) ease of use, 3) promotion, 4) made-for-the-medium, and 5) emotion. Their study applies the criterion cross several different e-commerce sites. They found that each of the criteria weighed differently for both consumer and business in regards to the usability of the site.

These criteria can be applied to assessing the OSP and Limited Submission program before and after recommendations are implemented, as well as using e-commerce models to promote the new designs and encourage users to visit the site.

The OSP website and Limited Submission Program drastically need to be changed to tailor to multiple audiences needs and not deter users from viewing the site within the first 50 milliseconds. A usability study would reveal a lot of information in regards to how to structure its organization as well as how to make it more enticing and user-friendly through visuals and aesthetics. The different theorists in the field offer reasons for its current structure as well as suggestions for improving its overall visual appeal. The proposed study tries to incorporate these different studies in the redesign of the website and Program.

Week 3, Post 1: Chapter5

Aligning your objectives with the funder's is one of the more crucial parts of the proposal. A RFP is in a way an admittance of help. In most cases, the problem has been identified and the funder wants someone (or a group) who can solve the problem while making them look good. The top-ranked objective must be clearly defined and identifiable as such if the proposal ever has a chance. In defining the smaller objectives, those need to be kept within reason, and they must correlate with the solution. It is simple to list problems and objectify them, but when it comes to solving them you do not want to get in over your head and offer a possible solution that is neither attainable or do-able.

The project plan section describes who you are going to solve the problem, it is the methodology. Audience analysis is important especially if you are an "expert" in the area. Be carefjul about terms that you use and how you use them. You still want to deliver a clear and concise solution while portraying yourself as a reliable source, but at the same time, you do not want to make the reviewer really think about what you want to accomplish; it should be obvious.

The timeline should be considered carefully. When you read the RFP, be sure to read for stipulations such as when the money needs to be spent. In many situations the money may be awarded in installments or in a lump sum, but in almost all cases, there is a deadline in which the money must be spent. It is also at this time you may realize that your goals and objectives may be unrealistic. Be careful to scrutinize your work as you develop it so that you do not hit a major hitch in such a vital section.

Week 2, Post 8: Mind Map

Week 2, Post 7: Purpose Statement

The purpose of this project is to conduct a usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs Website and the Limited Submission Program in order to better understand how users use these interfaces and make recommendations that will improve the usability of both.

Week 2, Post 6: Reader Analysis Worksheets

Readers		Motives	Values	Attitudes	Emotions
Primary Assoc. Res. Dns. Comm. Chair		Assoc. Res. Dns. Improve the existing system; create a more resourceful tool for faculty, staff and students Comm. Chair Help me graduate with a well designed and useful project	Assoc Res. Dns. Improved effectiveness and efficiency of pre-award proposals Comm. Chair Reputation (individual), for me as the student, and the program as a whole	Assoc. Res. Dns. Possible negative reactions; resistance to change; too time consuming; do not interfere too much Comm. Chair Excited to help; realizes the amount of work and potential rate of failure (again, approval from ARDs not easy)	Assoc. Res. Dns. Maybe happy that change is possible, but upset if this is not handled delicately Comm. Chair Hopefully happy that can be a part of an instrument of change ::cross fingers::; may be reputable (individually), for the program, and for me as the student.
Second. Readers Committee Members		Help me graduate; produce a really good, solid project; implement (push) recommendations	Reputation	May be busy and only want drafts, may want to be really involved. Depends on committee, which will be formed (very soon!)	Hopefully excited, if anything, never indifferent. Hopefully passionate about helping a system that is growing too fast, too quickly, at a pace that is exceedingly difficult to handle.
Tertiary Readers Office of Sponsored Programs Staff Peers		OSP More efficient and effective system; hopefully will make things easier Peers Help each other out to product good theses/projects and move towards graduation	OSP The grant world has changed so has Clemson’s expectations in regards to research and it changed so quickly that OSP has not been able to handle the volume Peers Quality of work important for reputation of MAPC	OSP Hopefully positive. See that this is meant to help and that a better understanding and command of the technology will lead to more efficient and effective working environment. Peers Positive because one step closer towards graduation makes everyone smile =)	OSP Potentially upset because of resistance to change, but hopefully optimistic that this can be used as an instrument for change Peers Again, the closer we call come to graduation the happier we will all be =)
Gate- keepers Graduate School Committee Chair MAPC		Grad. Scl. Formatting guidelines Comm. Chair Reputation (individual), MAPC and me MAPC Reputation	Grad Sch. Abiding by formatting guidelines Comm. Chair Producing the best possible product MAPC Reputation	Grad. Sch. Abide by formatting guidelines Comm. Chair Move towards graduation MAPC Reputation	Grad. Sch. Happy if abide by formatting guidelines Comm. Chair Happy if move towards graduation with a good solid project MAPC Reputation

	Physical	Economic	Ethical	Political
Primary Readers	Office or home; probably late at night or after work	How busy Assoc. Res. Dns. and chair and committee members are	Follow CITI training, compliance with IRB, MAPC and all university policies	How occupied committee chair member is
Industry/Community (OSP)	Office or house after work	How busy they are	(See above)	How occupied and any existing conflicts of interest
Writers	At home	How occupied	(See above)	Conflicts of interest

Week 2, Post 5: Progress Report 1

Date: 28-May 2008
To: Dr. Jan Holmevick
From: Katie Goergen

Introduction
A usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submission Program will be conducted in order better understand how users use these tools. This study will reveal usability flaws and provide recommendations forboth of these interfaces which will in effect improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-award submission phase at Clemson University.

Work Completed
As of now, I have an established framework for what I want this project to be as well as constructed materials for the study which I can now go back and refine. I have constructed the current situation and analyzed the rhetorical situation so that I can better understand my primary, secondary and tertiary audiences, as well as those who will serve as gate keepers. I have rhetorical tools to guide me as I begin writing the proposal itself.

Next Steps
I want to start on the literature review but I have to say, because I am doing a project not a thesis, I'm not exactly sure how to approach the literature review section. Simply because the project is unique to Clemson (at least at this current time). So I would like to start working on the section of the literature review that addresses the need, explains past research that has addressed similar problems, and finally reveals the gap in those projects that I plan to address to create a more comprehensive study. At least I would like to start working on this section as I do have preliminary data and research relating to this topic.

However, I think what will be more plausible is to begin piecing together the methodology and the time table (as the two really do go hand-in-hand). By next week I would like to have a detailed outline of the methodology and time frame in which to have these different components completed. Once I have these parts done, I will feel comfortable in approaching faculty members as potential committee members.

Conclusion
I think I may be getting further ahead at this point, but again, I have been thinking about this concept for months and feel as though the rhetorical foundation on which I have built most of my research when it comes to proposal writing will aid me in moving a little further ahead, on to such sections as the methodology. Also, having conducted a usability test before, I feel comfortable forging ahead a bit because I really would like to get my classmates opinions and feedback on the instruments I am producing in conjunction with the proposal, as the instruments will be fundamental in persuading the Associate Research Deans to accept the proposal.

Week 2, Post 4: Chapter 4

I have a bit of an issue with how the author is approaching the "Current Situation" portion of the proposal. This is a particularly important component of the proposal as it is the part in which you address the issue, the expertise you have to assist in solving the issue, as well why your expertise should be sought over anyone else. This is definitely the point at which you either encourage the reviewer to continue to keep reading or toss it aside to the non-scoring pile. My issue with this current description is that I think if you draft in the manner described in the book, you're already well behind where you need to be in order to allow enough time to write the proposal, edit it and finalize it for submission.

I have seen proposals slapped together at the last second and fail miserably because when the author(s) sat down to write the proposal he/she realized that he/she had not yet clearly articulated the purpose let alone the current situation. If you are scrambling to throw together a literature review before the deadline (and they're tight), chances are you yourself do not understand the current situation enough to address the problem. When you sit down to "draft" the current situation, you should be prioritizing not discovering the causes of change, what problems may be ignored, and the ways in which to address these problems (how change is at fault).

Do not underestimate your sources. You may be shocked to learn that reviewers who are experts in the field and happen to get hold of your proposal will rip it to shreds and question your credibility if you cannot find the correct sources and/or use them properly. Also, make use of the fact that many RFPs require personnel profiles/bibliographies. You HAVE to establish credibility, but you have to show how you are qualified to pursue this particular grant. Keep everything in perspective and only share that information in the narrative that is pertinent. You usually have page limits so every word counts. Let your vitae speak for itself in regards to your successfulness as a researcher and proposal author; only highlight those things that will give you credibility in the eyes of these particular reviewers for that particular funding opportunity.

Also, beware that funders are not looking for new and innovative ideas necessarily. You're applying for funding from a funder that is entrusting you to spend it wisely, meet their objectives, MAKE THEM LOOK GOOD, and initiative change for the better. Chances are, funders are not going to fork over a beaucoup of money for something that is untested, really new the field, or has not yet gained popularity in the grant world. Seriously, reputation and connections have as much to do with grant writing as well written proposals.

Week 2, Post 3: Chapter 3

I have never been one to actually sit down and draw out an outline before I being writing. Not to say that I couldn't benefit from doing so, but sometimes I feel as though I get so wrapped up in outlining what I want to do that I lose track of what it is that I'm trying to say. I guess, sometimes it's just easier to say what needs to be said and go back and refine it as the idea becomes more cohesive.

As a MAPC student, and being so grounded in rhetorical foundations, I definitely appreciate the Burkeian and Bitzer approach to audience analysis; however, there are problems with these theoretical frameworks. One of the major flaws I observed is the assumption that the writer is going to know who the readers are going to be. Depending on the funding initiative, you may have a general idea as to who the audience is, but even that can be very broad and very vague. Take for instance the Greg Meyers article. Take a look at how different reviewers evaluated each piece. Some found it interesting, others found it not fully developed, some cared nothing about the article simply because they did not feel the author was a credible source, etc. You can try to scrutinize and analyze your audience, but the cold hard truth is that proposal writing is a genre and most authors are going to stick to the genre conventions simply because reviewers and their reviews are completely subjective.

David Horrobin, a scientist, and critic of the proposal reviewing process, has essentially said that the review process is flawed. First, you may have "experts" in a particular field, but they may not be terribly familiar with your emphasis area. Second, Although many organizations claim that proposals are read blind (meaning, the authors name is omitted before review), if you're being evaluated by people in your field, it becomes quite obvious who-is-who just based on things such as the literature review and they kind of research being conducted/implemented. Finally, the review process is rather "worthless" in one of two ways; 1) authors' proposal that go un-scored never understand what they did wrong, therefore, they are not helped by the review process as there is no constructive criticism; and 2) clearly, there are times when non-experts are recruited to serve as reviewers and do not understand what the author is proposing simply because the research is a foreign concept to them, not because it wasn't written or articulated clearly (Brenner, 1999; Horrobin, 1974, 1996, 2001).

Also, I find the "writer-centered" worksheet to be a bit backwards. Now, as to not contradict myself, it is impossible to know exactly who your reviewers are going to be most of the time, but you can certainly put yourself in the shoes of a reviewer temporarily to understand what it is they may want to see. Honestly, this part is critical, but it's not rocket science. Reviewers are people, so...what makes people tick. What would get your attention? If you were reviewing a proposal, what would you expect? How much detail do you really care about? What are the most important components (and there are ones that are definitely more important), etc... Above all, just follow the RFP to a "T." If your purpose and objectives do not align with the funders, it's not worth your time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Opportunity Worksheet

Project Title: Usability Test of the Office of Sponsored Program Website and Limited Submission Program

Client: Office of Sponsored Programs
Point of Contact (POC): Karen Pless
Deadline for Proposal Submission: At the end of this class
Address for Proposal Submission: Karen's office

Summary of Proposal Opportunity
- test the efficiency and effectiveness of the LSP and OSP website
- test of users use each of these interfaces
- identify usability issues that hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of the LSP and OSP website
- provide recommendations for changes/improvements to the interfaces

Comments and Recommendations
- OSP has had issues handling the changing grant world (especially as it becomes more electronic)
- the website needs to serve more as a resource tool for faculty and students
- more funding opportunities are moving toward limited submission so the office needs to be able to handle the volume and have a working database and repository

Accept or Reject
This proposal has potential to help handle the volume and improve the current proposal submission process at Clemson while perhaps providing insight to grantmanship (especially geared towards new(er) faculty)

Week 2, Post 2: Chapter 2

I know this chapter is just an introduction to Request For Proposals (RFP), but I think it tends to neglect some important aspects, vital ones really.

Firstly, a RFP can serve as the life line to any proposal. When you are looking for a funding opportunity, it is the RFP which is going to inform you if you have found an appropriate one or not. It is not something that you quickly glance over, you read it word for word because it has the potential to provide information not only regarding the opportunity and point of contact, but it may also include formatting instructions, eligibility requirements, time tables, objectives, and most importantly, the funders purpose for providing such an opportunity.

On that last note, it is important to remember that all funders are out to meet their own objectives. It is your responsibility to produce a research/planning/implementation/estimate proposal that aligns with these objectives. All grants are a competition. You have no idea how many other people are competing with you to earn this funding and what their angle is, or their relationship with the funder. To be competitive, you need to establish relationships, FOLLOW DIRECTIONS! (seriously, so easily taken for granted), and leave time to address issues as they arise.

Week 2, Post 1: Executive Summary

This outlines the revision of the Limited Submission Program and OSP wesite. I know this may seem a little choppy and out of place, but this particular abstract would be sent to the Associate Research Deans for approval. I presented my research project to all of them earlier this year and they know this is the direction in which we are heading. So though this may be out of context for my peers, in regards to my target audience, they would understand.

Abstract
The proposed study will provide recommendations and guidelines which will dramatically reduce the time and expense involved in using the OSP website and Limited Submission Program. Using techniques similar to those we used with the URGC program, we will observe how both reviewers and proposal authors use the website and Limited Submission Program, and then provide revision guidelines which will ensure that the program’s interface provides reviewers with the information they need to make fast and efficient decisions regarding submissions. Conversely, we will assist in the revision of the interface so that proposal authors are provided with a simpler and more efficient authoring environment for submitting proposals. The cost savings in time for reviewers, authors, and OSP personnel achieved through our redesign should easily justify the cost of the resources required for this proposed research.

Week 1, Post 1: Introduction

I am actually excited to take this class. It's like Jin said yesterday, we get the opportunity to write our prospectus and start getting that approved so we can start forming our committee, work on our thesis, and as Diana said, graduate =)

I actually have a few ideas rolling around in my head since I have started the program regarding the kind of thesis/project I would like to do. One of them stems from a research project I did a year ago. Just a quick synoposis of what that was.

Every year the university has funding available for new faculty or faculty who are making mid-career changes (such as a new emphasis area or orienting themselves to be more research-based, this is especially visible in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanitites). The Request For Proposals (RFP) is distributed in October and proposals are due at the end of November. The volume of proposals submitted is fairly high, usually over 70 (+) submissions, and only about 7-8 awardees. It differs each year, but I think there was about $80,000 available and each awardee received about $10,000 each to conduct their research, but the money has to be spent by July. This funding opportunity is known as the University Research Grant and the decisions regarding who receives funding is made by the University Research Grant Committee (URGC); a committee comprised of multidisciplinary participants.

As there is only so much funding available there has to be a system in place to handle the volume of applicants as well as a way for the reviewers to have access to them and review them. A system is in place at the Office of Sponsored Programs; it is known as the Limited Submission Program. Basically a data base and repository in which reviewers can access submitted proposals, read, and score them. So now that you have a general idea of the background, here is a quick description of the study.

The purpose of the study was to examine authors perceptions (in regards to what they thought reviewers were looking for in the way of successful proposals) versus reviewers perceptions (how they actually scored the proposal). In order to accomplish this, Dr. Howard and I conducted a direct-observation, talk-aloud protocol conducted with three URGC reviewers and three proposal authors. We had the three reviewers read through the three authors proposals and discuss the attributes they liked and diskliked as well as how they would score it and why. During the sessions with the authors, we provided the feedback (anonymously) provided by the reviewrs and guaged their reactions. From this research we gathered data that revealed how to write better RFP's, the kind of information that could be used at grant writing workshops, and the importance of making sure that the reviewers all understood the purpose of the funding opportunity.

(If anyone is interested, I do have the presentation available to view, just throwing that out there) =)

Anyway, back to ideas for a thesis, the obvious one would be that I could expand on this study and move from an internal funding opportunity to an external funding opportunity. However, that may not be feasible regarding the confidentiality issues surrounding the entire grant writing process - issues of blind reviews, bias, ect. tend to rear their ugly head. I have the preliminary data, I have the study established, it would just be a matter of finding an external funder that would agree to allow me to have access to the proposals, the reviewers and the authors. That could become quite tedious and time consuming.

I suppose I have enough information from the preliminary data and the literature review to write a thesis, but it seems too generalizable and too focused on Clemson to really be of any importance beyond the confines of Clemson University.

From this study, I did learn that the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submissions Program is in dire needs of some revamping. I am also considering conducting a usability study for both the website and the Program in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both.

And finally, I just stumbled across this opportunity the other day. A professor in the Health Sciences Department is trying to create an online research training program for college seniors as a supplement to a three week intensive research training boot camp that is coordinated between Clemson and Voorhees College. For the online training, Karen requires a website, podcasts, training modules and identity branding. This is a project that would be huge in scope, but the nice thing is that a lot of the resources are already organized as I assisted her with the boot camp last year, so its a matter of making them electronic. I wouldn't actually mind collaborating wtih someone on this if anyone was interested. So if you are, let me know ;)