HOW TO WRITE A HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPASAL RESEARCH PROPASAL

Prof. S.O. McligeyoProf. S.O. McligeyoDeputy Director, BPSDeputy Director, BPS

Prof. P.M. KimaniProf. P.M. KimaniCAVS Representative, BPSCAVS Representative, BPS

University of Nairobi ISO 9001:2008 1 Certified http://www.uonbi.ac.ke

The general standard ofresearch proposals is lowSo it is not hard to shine

Although, sadly, that still does not guarantee a grant.

Good luck!

http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/Proposal.html

Good news

Your application is here.

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is your plan It describes in detail your study Decisions about your study are based on

the quality of the proposal Research funding Approvals to proceed by the Institutional

Review Board

Sections of the Proposal

Summary Need Budget

Plan

EvaluateMethod

Budget Your TimeBudget Your Time

80% planning the project 20% writing the proposal

Solid partnershipsSolid partnerships

Innovative Innovative projectproject

CommunicateCommunicate

Define your Define your budgetbudget

Avoid Plagiarism

• Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s ideas or words as though they were your own.

DANGEROUS!!!!

Research Proposal Elements Background/ significance Research Question/Aim/Purpose Methods

Design Sample/Sample Size Setting Protocol Analysis plan

Timeline

Background/ Significance

Why is your study important? Describe the significance of the

research question or problem Answer the “so what?” question

Literature review

What is the state of the science/art on this problem? Are there gaps in the literature? How will your study fill those gaps? Synthesize recent literature (within the

past 5 years)

Purpose Identify simply what you plan to do in your

study The purpose can be framed as a research

question or an aim Examples:

What is the impact of meditative music on agitation in hospitalized elders?

The purpose of this study is to show the impact of meditative music on agitated elders.

Methods This section of your proposal has

multiple parts Design Sample/Sample size Setting Protocol Analysis Plan

Detailed enough so that the reviewers could conduct the study

Methods - Design Describe your study design Design examples

Prospective vs. Retrospective Descriptive Observation Intervention clinical trial Surveys, interviews, questionnaires Focus groups, field studies Others

Example We plan a prospective randomized controlled

trial of meditative music vs. no music

Methods – Sample/Sample Size

Who are the study participants? Describe inclusion criteria Example: Adult men and women

inpatients with stage IV heart disease Who is excluded? Example: Patients who do not speak

English

Methods – Sample cont’d How will participants be recruited?

Convenience sample Flyers in research offices Advertisements Electronic Records search

How many participants are needed? How will you justify the sample size? Has there been a power analysis? Do you have a comparison or control group?

Setting

Describe the sites where you plan to conduct the study

Do you have support from the administration of the site to conduct the study? Letters of support from site

Protocol What are you going to do to study

participants? Detailed, step by step explanation Include how you will identify participants, obtain

consent, and collect data If there is an intervention, describe it in detail Will you use measurement tools? Describe the

tools, including reliability and validity and include a copy of the tools with your proposal

Include the time frame for implementing the study

Data Analysis

Describe your analysis plan What statistical tests will you use? Be sure your statistics are appropriate

for your study design

Timeline

Describe how long it will take to do your study

Provide timeline benchmarks Example:

Months 1 – 3 Prepare study tools Months 4-10 Collect data Months 11-12 Analyze data

Common pitfalls to avoid Missing aims or purpose Not enough detail about protocol

Write your proposal so anyone reading it can understand your plan

Is your study significant? Does it answer the larger “So what” question? Why should

researchers care about this work? Underpowered sample size

Describe why you are using the sample size and justify it Invalid or unreliable instrumentation

Has your instrument been tested with the population you are studying? If not, will you test it within your study?

Improper statistics Are you using the appropriate statistical analysis?

Evaluation of proposals

Proposals reviewed based on specific criteria defined by the IRB The research design must be sound enough to

yield the expected knowledge The aims/objectives are likely to be achievable in

the given time period The rationale for the proposed number of

participants is reasonable The scientific design is described and adequately

justified

Factors to Consider

1PRACTICAL

CONSIDERATIONS 2HUMANCONSIDERATIONS

3COMPREHENSION4

QUALITY5COMPETITIVE EDGE

Grants are important

• Research grants are the dominant way for academic researchers to get resources to focus on research

• INVARIANT: there is never enough money

The state of play

• Even a strong proposal is in a lottery, but a weak one is certainly dead

• Many research proposals are weak

• Most weak proposals could be improved quite easily

The vague proposal

1. I want to work on better type systems for functional programming languages

2. Give me the money

You absolutely must identify the problem you

are going to tackle

2. Blowing your own trumpet• Grants fund people

• Most researchers are far too modest. “It has been shown that …[4]”, when [4] is you own work!

• Use the first person: “I did this”, “We did that”.

• Do not rely only on the boring “track record” section

2. Blowing your own trumpetExpress value judgements using

strong, but defensible, statements: pretend that you are a well-informed but unbiased expert

• “We were the first to …”• “Out 1998 POPL paper has proved

very influential…”• “We are recognised as world

leaders in functional programming”

2. Blowing your own trumpet

Choose your area...• “We are recognised as world

leaders in – functional programming– Haskell– Haskell’s type system– functional dependencies in Haskell’s type system– sub-variant X of variant Y of functional dependencies in Haskell’s

type system”

Improving Your Odds

Read guidelines for grants if available Monitor institutions research priorities Contact grant officers in target institution(s) Discuss your ideas vs. their needs

Improving Your OddsALWAYS submit cover letter (paper & electronic)

Suggest specific study group for review Suggest one or more target institutions Refer to grant officer with whom you have been working Identify yourself as a new investigator, if so.

Improving Your OddsNew investigators are NOT penalized New investigators allowed higher payline priority score More emphasis on research potential than on track record More emphasis on research plan than on preliminary results

The arrogant proposal1.I am an Important and Famous Researcher. I have lots of PhD students. I have lots of papers.

2.Give me the money

•Proposals like this do sometimes get funded. But they shouldn’t.•Your proposal should, all by itself, justify your grant

Improving Your Odds

Seek “feed forward” before writing Identify 2-4 specific aims Discuss hypothesis & approach with grant-funded colleagues & biostatistician Contact fiscal/grants administrator

Improving Your OddsUse short, concise sentences Make points clearly Use diagrams to illustrate models Use tables to summarize data NEVER assume reviewers “know what you mean” Never create additional work for the reviewer

Improving Your Odds

Organize application for logical flow of ideas & actions Everything fits together Nothing is superfluous Nothing is omitted Time table is detailed & realistic

Improving Your Odds

Why you would not want funding: Must think of innovative ideas Must do the work Must publish papers Must submit grant progress reports Must write yet more grants for

continued funding

Improving Your Odds How to Avoid Funding Recycle old ideas Skip literature review Avoid all contact with grant providers Do not let anyone else read grant Wait until due date to contact research

administration Save time – don’t read instructions Include jargon & sweeping generalities

Key Personnel Page Key personnel are paid to participate in

the grant-funded work Other significant contributors include

unpaid consultants & mentors with no committed percent effort (include biosketch but no other support)

Personnel Pages Summarizes education, training, & professional

career highlights Lists publications (except those in prep or

submitted) & presentations Lists recent research support Establishes qualifications to do proposed work

& appropriateness for role on proposed study Only 2 pages for career info & publications –

this restriction goes away with electronic submission

Resources Page Summary of physical space,

equipment, personnel, & other resources essential to study completion

Letters of support required for shared resources critical to proposed work

Justify reliance on external resources

Budget Pages

Department fiscal/grant administrator can help with estimating costs & calculating salaries

THE FUTURE (is now)Office of Research (sponsored programs) must submit applications – NOT PIAuthorized institutional official AND PI must verify applications accepted Do NOT verify garbled images – if looks garbled when you view it, will look garbled to reviewer

Your application is here.

The general standard ofresearch proposals is lowSo it is not hard to shine

Although, sadly, that still does not guarantee a grant.

Good luck!

http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/Proposal.html

Good news