Silverman 1991 - Writing Grant Proposals for Anthropological Research

8/10/2019 Silverman 1991 - Writing Grant Proposals for Anthropological Research

1/6

Writing Grant Proposals for Anthropological Research

Author(s): Sydel SilvermanSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1991), pp. 485-489Published by: The University of Chicago Presson behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743827.

Accessed: 11/01/2015 11:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressand Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Researchare collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2743827?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2743827?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/6

Volume

32,

Number

4,

August-October I991I

1485

Writing

Grant

Proposals

for

Anthropological

esearch'

SYDEL SILVERMAN

Wenner-GrenoundationforAnthropological

Research,

nc., 220

Fifth

Ave.,

New

York,

N.Y.

10001-7708,

U.S.A.

i9

II

9I

Anthropologists

eeking

funding or

research an

do

much

o mproveheir

hances f

uccess f

hey

nder-

standthe

grant-making

rocess

nd

the

skills

needed

to

negotiate

t.

Funding gencies hat

llocate

esearch

support n thebasis

of

peer eview nd

professional

ri-

teria re to

some

extent n

artifact

f

North

American

academic

ulture,

ut

their

cope s

increasingly

nter-

national,

s are

the

norms

hey

pply.The

purpose f

thesecomments

s to

encourage

his

nternationaliza-

tion ndto assist ll potentialpplicantsymaking he

norms

xplicit.

Grants re not

awarded

imply

ecause n

applicant

needs

unds,

as a

worthwhile

urpose,nd/ors

recom-

mended

by

an

advocate.

There s a

process

hrough

which

he

goals

of

researcherndthe

goals f

funder

whosemission t is

to

support esearch

re

broughto-

gether.

he

key

lement n

this

process

s

the

grant

ro-

posal,

which s

a

particular ind f

document

ifferent

from

research

eport

r other

professional

riting.

There rethus

articularkills

nvolvedn

constructing

fundable

roposals

hat,

ike

other

ultural

ractices,

can be

learned.

For he nthropologistnsearch fresearchunds,he

first

tep

s to

ocate

funders

ppropriate

o

the

need. t

is

unfortunately

ot

thecase

that

here re

funds

vail-

able for

ny

need f

one

knows

where o

find

hem,

nd

every

underets

imits n

the

eligibility

f

pplicants

and

projects.

evertheless,

t s

worth

aking

he

rouble

to

investigate

ll

possibilities.

ecause

the

circum-

stances fdifferent

ountries,

esearch

ields,

nd fund-

ing

needs are

so

variable,

he

process

of

identifying

potential

unders

annot e

generalized. hatever

nfor-

mation ources

re

available

professors

nd

colleagues,

professionalssociations nd

newsletters,

nstitutional

grants

ffices,

tc.)

hould

e used

nitially.

nce a

pos-

siblefunders identified,tshould econtactedirectly

for nformationn

its current

rograms

nd

policies.

Despite

he

diversity

f

unders,

ertain ommon

rin-

ciples

nderlie

rant

roposals

f ll

kinds.

he

observa-

tions

ollowing

re

ntended o

apply,

n a

general

ense,

to

proposals

written

or unders

f

anthropological

e-

search.With

modification,hey

an be

extendedo

pro-

posals

for

funderswith

other

mandates-including

those

upporting

esearch

ot

pecifically

efined

s an-

thropology

r

activities ther

han

research.

owever,

theseremarks

houldbe taken

only

s

general

uides

that

need

to be

adapted o

the pecific

equirementsf

particular

unders

nd

programs.

HOW

THE

FUNDING

PROCESS

WORKS

Every underperateswithin set ofgoals, uidelines,

and

procedures

stablished

y ts

governingody.

ach

one can

offer

ts grants

nly to

applicants

whose re-

quests all

within ts

scope

of ctivities

ndonly

n the

basis of

the

material

ubmittedn

support f

those e-

quests.

Systematic

eview

procedures

re

followed n

making

hoices

mong

ompeting

equests.

Every

under

as a

mission,

n

overall

purpose

or

which ts funds

re

ntended. ince

the

mission s usu-

ally

tated

n

general

erms,

he

funder

ay

t

any

given

timehave more

pecific

irections r

priorities

ithin

its

scope.

Programs

re

the

mechanisms or

chieving

thefunder'surrent

bjectives;

hese efine he

pecific

purposesorwhich undswillbeawarded, ho s eligi-

ble to

apply,

nd what

proceduresre to be

followed.

Missions,

urrent

irections,

nd

program

uidelines

re

spelled

ut

in

the

funder's

nformational

aterial. e-

cause

programs,

riorities,

nd

even

missions

hange,

the nformationonsulted hould

be

the most

recent

available.

The funder'smission nd

mode of

operation

epend

ultimately

pon

ts

sourceof

funding

nd

its

policy-

making

tructure.

here re

basic

differences

etween

public

nd

private unders.

gencies

stablished

ygov-

ernmentalodies

re ntended

o meet

national

rother

public

needs,

whether

hese re

defineds

the

olution

ofspecificocietalproblemsr as moregeneral oals

such as the

building

f

national

esearch

apabilities.

Such

public

gencies

ften

ave

citizenship

riteria or

eligibility

nd

other

equirements

mposed

y

he

politi-

cal

bodies that

finance hem.

Private

funders

ary

widely

n

(among

other

things)

he

sourcesof

their

funds,

he onditions

stablished

y

donors,

nd

thena-

ture

f their

overnance.

hose that

depend

pon

con-

tinual und

aisingmay

work nder

ifferent

onstraints

than hose

upported

y

an

endowment

a

reserve hat

generates

unds

through

nvestment).

While

private

funders

ay

function ore

ndependently

fthe

politi-

cal arena

han

ublic

gencies,

hey

re

usually

overned

notonlybytheir wnbylaws ut lsoby he awscov-

ering

onprofit

rganizations

n

the

countriesn

which

they

re

based.

For xample,

rivate

oundationsn

the

United tatesmust

onformo

spending

nd

account-

ability

egulations

f

heU.S. nternal evenue

ervice.)

The mission f

funder

may mphasize

asic or

ap-

plied

research.

The distinction s not

absolute,

s

research-orientedissions

may

nclude

n

interestn

the

potential

pplication

f the

results,

while

funders

with

problem-orientedissionswill

use

many

f

the

same criteria or

valuating ood

researchs

the basic-

research unders.

owever,

he

fundamental

oal

in

making

wards n

thefirst

nstance s

the

contribution

theproject illmake obuildingnowledgenthedisci-

pline

or area of

the

research,

hile n

the

second t is

i.

?

I99I

byThe Wenner-Grenoundation orAnthropological

Research.

All

rights eserved

oiI

-3204/91/3204-0003$1 .00.

This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:51:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

486

1

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

theproject's ontributiono solving heproblemsden-

tified ythemission.

There lso aredistinctionsmong hekinds

f unding

provided,uch s grants, ellowships,nd contracts. l-

though

hese terms

re not

always

used consistently,

grants regenerally

wards o

support research

roject

or to furtherpecific esearchoals.Thequalifications

of the researcher

ill

obviously e relevant, ut the

main

criterion

n

evaluations themerit fthe

project.

Fellowships

re

investmentsn

individuals, roviding

for raining,rofessionalevelopment,

nd/orime. he

application sually equires project

tatement,

ut his

servesmainly

o demonstratehemerit fthe ndivid-

ual,

which

s

the

primary

riterion.oth

rants

nd

fel-

lowships re awarded

n the basis of

proposalswhose

objectives

re

defined

y

the

applicant.

ontracts re

awards

or

rojects

hat

mplementpecific urposes

et

out by

hefunder

often

olicited

hrough request

or

proposals ).

Generally, rants, ellowships,nd contracts over

only

he

expenses

f the

particularroject

nd/or

ndi-

viduals nvolved. lthough

his

might

nclude dminis-

trative

ees

overhead )

r other

ompensation

o the

institution

here

he

research

s

done,

uch

wards re

not

usually esigned

o meet

nstitutionaleeds. nsti-

tutional

wards,

made o aid the

development

r

upport

theprograms

f

nstitutions,

re

generallyseparate

at-

egory

f

upport.

Theremay

well be a number f

fundersndprograms

underwhose

rubrics

givenprojectmight

itor

that

might

e

appropriate

or ifferent

spects

f

theproject

or

different

unding

eeds.The researcher

ight

here-

fore ubmitmultiple pplicationso differentunders,

beginning

ith a master

proposal

hat

ays

out the

whole project

nd

adapting

t to the

requirements

f

each

pplication.

f

multiple pplications

re ubmitted,

it s

important

hat ach

one be

nternally

oherentnd

self-containednd that t follow he

guidelines

f the

particular rogram

nd be

phrased

o

as to

respond

i-

rectly

o

thefunder's ission.

How can

applicants et

relevant nformation

bout

the

specific

unders

heyplan

to

approach?

he

best

source

s the funder's

wn

publishedmaterial, hich

will be

provided ponrequest. sually

he application

form r

accompanying

nstructionsill

give

lear

ndi-

cations fwhat s expectednan applicationnd clues

to how

t will

be evaluated.

Whetherr

notthe

pecific

criteria

sed n evaluation re tated

xplicitly,hey

an

to a

large

xtent e

gleaned

rom hekinds

f nforma-

tion

requested.

While

pplicants

end

o

focus

pon

heir wn

needs,

it s vital

n

preparing

n

application

o bear n mind

he

purposes

f

thefunder. or

request

o

be successful,

t

is not

enough

hat t fall

technically

ithin

he imits

ofthefunder's

ission,

nd

t is

irrelevanthat he

p-

plicantmay

hink

he

mission

ught

o be redefinedr

stretched

o as to include

his/her

eeds.

The

applica-

tions

hat eemmost

ikely

o

furtherhefunder's

oals

will be theonesfunded.

Of

basic

importance

oo is

understanding

ho

will

be evaluating he

proposal.

lthoughpecialists

n

the

particularopic

of the

project

re

likely

o be

among

the reviewers,t is almost ertain hat

ome of

those

involved n the evaluationwill not be

specialists

and

some

may

not be

anthropologists).

he

proposal

must

therefore ake case that s

persuasive

o

those

eaders:

the languagemust be understandable,he rationale

clear,

nd the

significance

f the

research

pelled

ut.

The applicationhouldneither talkdown

o thenon-

specialist

nor

compromise

he intentions

f

the

re-

search,

ut an efforthouldbe

made to

anticipate

he

questions

nd

concerns

hat

uchreaders

might

eason-

ably

have.

GENERAL

POINTS

A number f

principles

hould e

kept

n

mind n

con-

structingproposal:

I.

The

proposal

s

the

only hing

hat

tands etween

the pplicant you ) ndthedecisionmakers they ).

It

must

therefore ake clear

everything

hey

need

to

know

to

make

the

decision

you

want

and

everything

you

would ikethem o

take

nto

ccount. he

proposal

consists

ot

only

of the

explicit

nformation

ncluded;

it also

represents

he

way

the

applicant

works nd

the

quality

f research

hat

can

be

expected

f

a

grant

s

made.

A

proposal

hat s

careless

n

presentation,

hat

does

not conformo

guidelines,

r that s

overly

asual

tells hereader hat his s

howtheworkwillbe

carried

out.

Similarly,

stingy esponse

o the

application's

questions

one

that

grudginglyrovides

he

minimum

information

equired)

s a missed

pportunity

o make

themostpersuasiveasepossible. heway omake he

case is not

by

exceeding

he

ength imits,

urnishing

extraneous

material,

r

offeringersonal

estimonials

but

by

taking

he

trouble

o

prepare

high-quality

oc-

ument.

2.

The

proposal

will be read

by

nformed

eviewers,

who

will

evaluate

t

on thebasisof ts

ownmerits.

he

applicant

oes notneed

to be

known

o

the

reader,

nd

the tatus

r

personal

onnections f

the

applicant

re

usually

rrelevant

o

theoutcome.

In

fact, ersonal

ec-

ommendations

ull

f

praise

may

be

counterproductive

if

belied

by

theevidence fthe

proposal

tself.)

3. The

proposalwill always be

evaluated

ompeti-

tivelywithothers. o be adequateoreven good s

insufficient;

or

n application

o be

successfult

must

be better

hanothers

with

which t will be

compared.

The applicantwho

asks,

Whywas I turned

own? ,

misses

the

point.

There

may

be

nothing

pecifically

wrong, ut he

proposal as

notpersuaded

he eaders

that his

project

hould

be

funded

ather

han thers.

4.

The

proposalwill be

evaluated

ccording o the

samebasic

criteria,egardlessf he

funder:

s the

proj-

ectwithin he

cope

of he

funder's

ission?

s it poten-

tially

f value n

that t

will

accomplish

omething

f

interest o

others? s

there

realistic

rospect hat t

will be carried

ut

successfully?

oes the

applicant

showhimself/herselfo bequalified-knowledgeablen

the opic f heproject, amiliar

ith herelevant

ork



4/6

Volume

32,

Number4,

August-October I991I

1487

done by others,

nd

capable

of

seeing

the

project

through?

n

general,

oesthe

proposal

uild rom

good

idea,does

t

have plan

for

mplementing

he

dea, nd

does t communicate oth dea

and

plan effectively

o

thereader?

PREPARING THE PROPOSAL

Three questions are basic to most research

proposals:

What s

it

you

want o do? How are

yougoing

o do it?

and

Why

s it worth

oing?

ou need to have

the an-

swers o these uestions

lear n

your

mind

before

ou

can articulate

hem n a

grant roposal.ndeed,

f

you

are

not surewhat

you

wantto do or

whyyou

think t

important,ou

shouldnot be

looking or unds t all;

and

f

you

do not have a

clear dea

of

how to

go

about

doing t,nothing

hat

you

write

n

an

application

bout

methods

will make

ense.

A

fundable rant

roposal,

n

other

words,

s

based

ona well-conceivedesearchlan.As noted bove, t s

helpful o

have

a master

roposal

or

your

wn

use be-

fore

tarting

o

write

proposal

or

ny pecific

under.

This document houldmake

explicit our

nswers

o

thethree asic

questions,

s well as an ideal

timetable

and thefinancial

equirements

minimum

nd

deal)

of

eachphase.

The

master

roposal

ill

guideyou

n den-

tifyingotential

underss

theymay

relate o different

phases

r

financial eedsofthe

project

nd

helpyou

to

prepare pecific roposals

or

pecific

unders.ts main

purpose, owever,

s to

clarify

n

your

wn

mind

what

you

want odo. s the

ffort

orth

our

ime nd

nergy?

Why

do

you

think t is worth

oing,

nd

whymight

others indtso? s itrealisticallyossible o doeven f

yougetfunding

or

t?

Being

lear n these asic ssues

is thenecessary

tartingoint

or

writing proposal

hat

will

persuade

thers.

As

you

movefrom hemaster

roposal

o

specific p-

plications,

he

first

hing

o

do is to

read

carefully

ll

the

materials

rovided

y

hefunder.

eview hewhole

application

nd

plan

how

you

can

make

your

ase most

effectively

ithin ts

particular uidelines

nd format.

Assume

unless

you

know

otherwise)

hatwhat s

pub-

lished n thesematerialss what s

meant-that here

is no secret

genda.

ollow he nstructionss

precisely

as

possible.

f

you

have

specialquestions

r

problems,

contact hefundernwritingoral ommunicationsisk

misunderstanding

n

both

ides).

However,

f

you

find

that

our roject

s not

ligible

or

he

program,pplying

is

a wasteof

time.

It is essential o allow sufficient

ime o

prepareny

proposal.

lan to write everal

rafts;

llow time o re-

think, evise,

nd edit.

Remember

hat

he mechanics

of

he

final

ersion

ill be

time

onsuming. asty rep-

aration

enerally

eveals tself.

The

body

f he

proposalmay

ake he orm

f narra-

tiveor of answers o

specific uestions.

n either

ase,

the

pplication

nstructions

nd

format

hould

uide

he

organization

f material.

Writingechnique

s

an indi-

vidualmatter,ut thefollowingpproachmaybe sug-

gested:

Taking

nto ccount he

pecific

ormatf he

pplica-

tion, egin y utlining

he

nformationo be presented.

Outline

hewhole

proposal,

hen eview o see that v-

erythingequired

s

there,

hat here s minimal

edun-

dancy,

ndthat he

organization

s as effectives

possi-

ble. Next,

write

he

full irst raft.

he anguage hould

beclear nddirect,voiding nnecessaryargonrmeta-

phor.

he overall

tyle

hould ommunicate

onfidence

and enthusiasm

bout the

project

ut

not overblown

claims

for t.

After

riting

he

draft,

heck t

gainst

he

ength

im-

its nd,

f

necessary,

ut

udiciously.pace imits hould

always

be

observed,

ut

the allotted

pace

should

be

used constructively.inally,

dit

for larity, recision,

and

grammar.

Applicants

riting

n a

language hat

they

o not

fully

ontrol hould

eek

help

when

diting

if

possible.)

When the first raft s

completed, et it

aside,

eturn o t with fresh

ye, nd revise or sec-

onddraft. ontinue

ntil

you

re atisfied ith he

doc-

ument.Ifyou're ot urewhetherou re atisfied,ry

reading

t

as

if

you

were

skeptical

eviewer

onsidering

someone

lse's

request

or

unding.

ould

you give

t

high riority

n a

competition

or

carce

unds?)

Once thedocument

s

complete,ype

r

mechanically

print t,

if

possible, sing

darkribbon. f

you

must

write t out byhand, rint egibly. opies hould e as

legible as

the

original;

watch for

faint,messy,or

smudged rint.

ollow nstructionsbout

materials o

be included

nd

excluded, ollation,

nd other

etails.

Finally, roofreadverythinghoroughly;othing e-

flects

more

directly

n the

applicant's

tandards nd

habits fwork han spate f ditorial r typographical

errors.

ADDRESSING THE

MAIN

QUESTIONS

What

you

wantto

do.

A

goodproposal

as

as

its

objec-

tive

omething

hat s worth

oing: omething

hat d-

dresses

n

importantuestion

r ssueand thathas

not

already

eendone

by

omeone lse.

f t

has been

done

but

not

quite

n

this

way

or in

this

place,

then t

is

necessary

o show

whydoing

t in

this

way

or n this

place

will add

significantly

o what

we

already

now.

The

importantuestion

s crucial.The fact hat

somethingasnot beendonebefores insufficientea-

son for

oing t; why

hould t be done? he fact hat t

fills

gap

in the literature

s not

persuasive;why

should

he

gap

be

filled,

nd

why

ill his

particularap

rather

han thers?

nce

t s clear hat he

question

s

indeed

mportant,ou

need o show hatwhat

you

want

to do is themost

trategic

ext

tep

o take n address-

ing

t.

If the

project

s

descriptive

ather

han

problem-

oriented,

t

stillneeds o be made learhow he

descrip-

tion

will

bear, mmediately

r

ultimately,pon

some

question

r

ssue.

The collection f

descriptive

ata

may

be valuable

n its own

right,

ut

a

case mustbe made

for he election fthisparticulareople, lace, ite, r

species.



5/6

488

1

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

A particular

rojects likely

o

be only small

ontri-

bution

o some

arge

esearch

oal,

but t should

make

clear

what hat oal

s andhow the

project

ill contrib-

ute o

t.At the ame

ime,

heproject's wngoal hould

be achievable.

hus, t should

e

framed

n

terms

f ne

or more

esearch

uestions,

hat

s, specific uestions

thatcan be answered y the research roposed. re-

search uestion

mustbe

possible

o

answer, ut he n-

swer

hould

not be

obvious;

f

t

is, whybother o do

thework?

Whatyouwant o do needs

o be related o whathas

already

een done:

the status f the

question

r ssue,

other

ffortso address

t,

and what

s inadequate r

incomplete

bout

prior

work hat

will

be remedied r

advanced y yourproject.

Whether r not this hould

entail

review f the relevant

cholarly

iterature ill

depend pon

the

particular

ormat f the

application,

but t shouldbe evident

hat he proposal uildsupon

prior

work.

In sum,this partofthe proposal houldproviden

explicit

tatement

fwhat

you

aim to

accomplish

nd

your eneral

lan

for

oing

o.

t

should lso make lear

whyyouwant

o do

t

andwhatwe willknow s

a result

that

we don'tknownow.

How you

will

go

about doing

t.

For most funders

of

anthropology,

methodology

oes not

necessarily

mean

tight

esearch

esign

with

ormal

ypotheses

o

be tested

nd

quantitative

easures.

owever,

t

does

mean

statement

f he

tepsyou

will

take

n

trying

o

achieve

he

aims of

the

project.

t

must ell

whatwill

be

done

to answer he research

uestions osed:

what

kinds

of informationre needed o answer

hem

nd

how that nformationill be obtained. he discussion

ofmethod

houldmake

lear

your

ationale or

hoosing

these

articular

ays

f

going

bout hework. t should

show

that

you

selected

hem

possibly

ver

ltemative

strategies)

ecause

they

re bothfeasible nd

ikely

o

yield

he

nformationeeded

o answer

he

question(s)

posed.

nclude

s muchdetail n the

pecifics

site,

op-

ulation, ample

r

portion

f he

population

o be exam-

ined,

nstruments

r

data-collectingechniques,

ime-

table, tc.)

as the

application

ormat

nvites

nd

space

allows.

The

object

s

to

showthat he

plan

for

arrying

out

theresearch

as a

good

hance f

realizing

he ims

of

the

project.

Why

t

is important.he statementf aimswill al-

ready

have

suggested

he

potential ignificance

f the

project.

n some

pplication

ormatshat

tatement ay

be

expected

o nclude

literature

eview,

hile n oth-

ers

this

may

be covered

n a

separate

tem.

However,

t

is essential

hat he

proposal

how

how

the

project

e-

lates

to workdone

by

others nd

why

t

would be of

interest

o

others-including

utnot

nly

he

pecialists

concerned

ith he

particular

ime, lace,

nd

topic

f

the

project.

Who he others re

will

vary ccording

o

the

mission

fthe

particular

under,

nd the tatement

of

ignificance

hould

ary ccordingly.

he

point

s to

indicate

owthe

research,

f

arried

ut,

will contribute

to some arger nterprise-whetherhat esolving so-

cietal

problem,

aining nowledge

bout world

rea,

or

addressing

ssues

of

ignificanceo a

scholarly isci-

pline.

In relatinghe

project o other

work, t s notenough

to

say

that t

bears

upon

or

contributeso

certain

interests,odiesof

iterature,r

current evelopments

in

a

discipline.

ow

does

t

bear

upon nd n

whatway

will it advance hese nterests? hy s thisparticular

study,

ather han

ome

other, he best

next tep to-

wardsmaking

uch advance? he

object s to eave the

reader

ith

sense hat he

project

s

notonly nterest-

ingbut f

ompelling

alue

nd husmerits igh

riority

for unding.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

Abstract.Most

applications

ill

require

n abstract

f

specifiedength.

t should

be written

fter he

body

f

the

proposal,

s it should

ogentlyummarize he

pro-

posal's

mainpoints

nd

cover,

n

brief,

he hree

ssen-

tialquestions. repare our bstract ithgreat are. t

may

be the

only

part

fthe

proposal

ead or

ome

pur-

poses

n the

process f

valuation,

nd t will

be used

by

most eaders

o

remind

hem

f

thecontents.

Title. ike n

abstract,

title

erves o

prepareeaders

for he

ontents

f he

proposal,

o

remind

hem ater f

whatwas

n

t,

nd

o nform

hosewhowill

not ead he

proposaltself. hoose

descriptive

nd

traightforward

title hat

ccurately

ums

up

what

he

project

s

about.

Grandiose

laims,

metaphor,

nd

clever

phrasings

re

usually

nappropriate

nd

may

mislead.

Budget.

n

preparing

he

budget ortion

f

the

pro-

posal,

t is essential o review

nd follow

arefully

he

budgetguidelines nd instructions.hese will state

what

budget

tems re allowed

nd withinwhat

imits.

Each

budget ategory

ncluded hould e

clearly

elated

to theresearch

lan

as stated n

the

application;

f

the

relation

s not

obvious,

t

should e

spelled

ut. temize

the

budget

n as much

detail s

is

realisticallyossible

(and

s

spacepermits)

nd show

how the

budget igures

were rrived

t f

his

s

not

elf-evident.heck ll

arith-

metic

arefully;

areless

rrors

may uggest loppy

e-

search

o

follow.

Although strong roposal

will

not be turned

own

because

f

problems

n the

budget,

he

budget eflectsn

your reparation

or

ndertaking

he

project.

he

tems

requestedhouldbe thosenecessaryndadequate o

achieving

he aims of the

project,

nd

the estimate

f

costs

houldbe

realistic

ut

economical.Mostfunders

will have

budget

imits

hat

may

n

effect

equire und-

ing

from

ther

ources.

f

the funds

equested

n the

application

re ntendedo

supplement

unds rom

ther

sources,

ou

shouldmakethis

lear.

t

is

also useful o

explain

ow

you

would

proceed

f

full

unding

ere

not

obtained.

Bibliography.

enerally,

ome

kind of

bibliography

will be

needed,

ither or itation f

iteratureeferred

to n thenarrativer as a

broader

isting

fworks

ele-

vant to the

project.

Needless to

say,

a

bibliography

shouldbe accurate n all details, s itwill beconspicu-

ous evidence fyour

cholarly abits.



6/6

Documents

Silverman 1991 - Writing Grant Proposals for Anthropological Research