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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your final comments are very reminiscent of Myers' ideas on knowledge claims. And I think you make a really good point about the connections between credibility and reputation; however, I was wondering if the grant review process is occasionally or regularly a blind review process? Are their cases where the literature review establishes more credibility than a vitae? Do you have any advice for first-time proposal/grant writers who don't necessarily have the credentials yet?
Really good questions. I would say for the most part the grant review process is a blind review. I think most foundations and organizations make the effort to eliminate that bias.
As for the literature review establishing more credibility than a vitae, that is an interesting question, one to which I'm not really certain. I'd be interested to hear the answer to that one =)
As for first-time proposal/grant writers (and I refer to those opportunties that extend beyond a prospectus), I would suggest collaboration with someone in the field, if possible. If that is not possible, than try to apply for small awards - this will give you more experience, help you build a strong vitae in regards to your research efforts in the field, as well as develop credibility if you can win the smaller awards.
Post a Comment