The document provides guidance on writing an effective research proposal. It discusses key factors to consider such as having a significant research problem or idea, clearly describing the problem or idea, and aligning with funding priorities. It outlines important sections to include such as objectives, methodology, timeline, budget, and qualifications. Factors that proposals cannot control like agency politics and competition are noted. The document emphasizes that proposals should be carefully researched, planned, and executed to maximize quality and chance of funding.

1. HOW TO WRITE A
RESEARCH PROPOSAL

2. What Makes a Good Proposal?
A good idea or a significant problem, a clear
description on the idea or problem, then
finally a funding agency’s priorities.

3. Factors We Can’t Control
 Internal politics within the funding agency
 Stiff competition from other applicants
 Limited availability of funds for certain
program areas within funding agency

4. Factors We Can Control
 Quality of our own proposal
 Requires careful research and planning
 Requires meticulous execution

5. 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

6. Any research /study should have a
proper proposal in written form before
it is actually carried out
It is like a blue print of a building plan
before the construction starts
Writing a research proposal is both
science and art
A good research proposal is based on
scientific facts and on the art of clear
communication

7.  Writing a formal research proposal should be started by
the time one has decided on the topic for the study
 Objective
 Justification
 Introduction
 Background /Review of literature
 Methodology
 Time frame and work schedule/Gantt chart
 Personnel needed / available
 Facilities needed / available
 Budget

8. Objectives
• This is a very important and pivotal section
and everything else in the study is centered
around it
• The objective of the proposed study should
be stated very clearly
• The objective stated should be specific,
achievable and measurable
• Too many objectives to be avoided
• Even just one clearly stated relevant objective for a
study would be good enough
• If there is more than one objective the objectives
can be presented in the appropriate order of
importance

9. Sections of the Proposal
Summary
Need
Budget
Plan
Evaluate
Method

10. Budget Your Time
80% planning the project 20% writing the proposal
Solid partnershipsSolid partnerships
InnovativeInnovative
projectproject
CommunicateCommunicate
Define yourDefine your
budgetbudget

11. Cover/Title Page
 Use sponsor agency form if applicable
 Use required guidelines (MLA, APA, EEE,
for title page
 Project title
 Organization name
 Sponsor agency name (if applicable)
 Submission date

12. Project Summary / Abstract
 One page
 State problem
 Propose solution
 State project objectives and significance
 NSF requires statement of intellectual merit and
broader impacts

13. Introduction
 The problem proposed to be studied is introduced in
this section
 It should help the reader to acquaint with the topic
 Introduction should be short about one or two pages
 The problem should be stated in such a way that it’s
importance and relevance is realized by any one who
reads it
 The research should be clear, concise &
understandable

14. Introduction
 What specific need or problem does
your research address?
 How was the need identified and its
significance?
 Who will benefit from the proposed
research project?
 What are the research questions and/or
objectives of the proposal

15. Review of the Literature
 Literature review should relate to:
 The topic
 Methodology
 Know the facts & issues
 Interest on the topic
 Identify the gaps
 Justify your study

16. Background
(Review of Literature)
 This section reflects extensive review of literature done by the
investigator
 In this section what is already known about the topic is written
including the lacunae
 Just quoting the literature verbatim will not serve the purpose
 It is important to make it coherent, relevant and easily readable
knowledge
 It helps the investigator to gain good knowledge in that field of
inquiry
 It also helps the investigator to have insight on different
methodologies that could be applied

17. Research methodology
 Research methodology is a way to systematically
solve the research problem. It may be understood as
a science of studying how research is done
scientifically
 It is necessary for the researcher to know not only
the research methods/techniques but also the
methodology.
 Researchers not only need to know how to develop
certain indices or tests and how to calculate the
mean, the mode, the median or the standard
deviation or chi-square etc.,

18. It is essential to discuss procedures clearly
and completely with considerable amount
of details
Study design
Study population / Sampling specifications
Sample size needed
Instrumentation
Specific procedures

19. Study design
Definition: A study design is a specific
plan or protocol for conducting the study,
which allows the investigator to translate
the conceptual hypothesis into an
operational one.
The study design should be clearly stated
The study design to be used should be
appropriate for achieving the objective of
the study

20. Study population / Sample specifications
It is important to describe which would be
the study population
How study subjects would be selected,
randomization process and other details
should be given

21. Sample size
 It is important to mention in the protocol what
would be the minimum sample required and how it is
arrived
 Determination of sample size is a bargain between
precision and the price (Resources & expenses
involved)

22. Description of process
 Proposal should include the details of all process
to be adopted in the study
 How exposures, outcome variables and other
variables are going to be measured should be described in
detail
 A brief description of how the data will be processed
and use of statistical package if any should be given
 What statistical tests of significance would be used?

23. Time Frame & Work Schedule
 The proposal should include the sequence of tasks to
be performed, the anticipated length of time required
for its completion and the personnel required
 It can be presented in tabular or graphic form (Gantt
chart)
 Flow charts and other diagrams are often useful for
highlighting the sequencing and interrelationship of
different activities in the study
 Illustrate each phase of implementation
 Show when results will be achieved

24. Facilities
The proposal should also include the
important facilities required / available
for the study namely computers, laboratories,
special equipment etc

25. Personnel
Proposal should include who are the
primary investigators and co- investigators,
their qualifications, research experience etc
The proposal may also include the Major
roles to be taken up by different investigators

26. Bibliography
 Should include full reference
documentation for all books and articles
 Use style format commonly adopted by
specific field

27. Project Description and Plan of
Operation
 Describe activities to be undertaken
 Identify person responsible for each
 Describe oversight and management
of project
 Describe qualifications of key
personnel

28. Organizational Capability
 Describe your organization, its history,
and its mission
 Describe organization’s strengths in terms
of staff, facilities, resources
 Describe prior experience relevant to the
proposed project

29. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
 Make sure budget coincides with narrative
 Make sure sponsor will support budget
categories you propose
 Some sponsors may disallow equipment,
overhead or other costs

30. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
 The budget translates project activities into monetary
terms
 It is a statement of how much money will be required
to accomplish the various tasks
Major items
 Salary for staff
 Travel
 Purchase of equipment
 Printing / Xeroxing
 Consultancy charges
 Institutional overheads

31. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
 Be realistic about your budget
 Inflating budget may hurt your chances of
being funded
 Budgeting too low may make the project
impossible to do with funds provided
 Estimate costs as accurately as possible

32. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
 Cost-sharing
 Sometimes required by sponsor
 Can be cash or in-kind
 Be careful: don’t cost-share items you can’t
document
 Check both sponsor’s and your own
organization’s guidelines regarding cost-sharing
 Overhead/Indirect costs
 Usually a percentage of total budget (45%)
 Check sponsor’s allowed overhead rate, if any

33. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness
 Demonstrate that project is cost-effective: it will have a
significant impact for a reasonable cost
 Describe organizational resources (staff support,
facilities, equipment) not funded by the sponsor
 Provide a budget narrative
 Explain how you arrived at figures in each category
 How fringe benefits are calculated
 How you calculated travel costs
 How you estimated equipment costs

34. Advice on approach
 Research the funder and the review process
 Always write for reviewer
 Communicate well w/ support (committee
who will write letters, unit that will submit
grant proposals, agency officials)
 Read directions and follow them obsessively
 Understand that a proposal is an instrument
of persuasion

35. Common, easy-to-avoid mistakes
 Don’t follow directions (font, margins, pages,
appended material, etc.)
 Format
 Not allowing enough time
 Careless criticism of other scholars in field
 Don’t include all who, what, where, when,
why, and how info., up front

36. Other common problems w/ predoc
proposals (more difficult to remedy):
 Research problem itself
 Scholarly background to the problem—uneven
or inadequate or erroneous
 Writing unclear—too much jargon, not
accessible, or not well organized
 Methods and work plan unclear or undefended
 Lack of specificity

37. Funded!
Conceptualize
Declined
Try again
Whatnext?
Write
The Proposal Cycle
&Revise

38. PI/
Institution
Central
Processing
Program
Manager
Division
Director
Ad Hoc Mail
Reviewers
Panel
Award
Decline
Withdraw
NSF Proposal Review
and Decision Process
Target: 6 mos.
Division of
Grants &
Contracts
Site Review?