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)