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 ;)