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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment