At the end of a year and the beginning of a new one, we present this month’s article that may help attorneys, professors, as well as grad and undergrad students who seek financial support for their writing and publication.
Seeing the picture in a whole with relation to a larger field requires abstraction at the conceptual level of what we do, how we do it, and why it has significance. Like all writing, grant writing requires a set of conventions that vary by discipline and depth of knowledge. Therefore, we need to stand back or above the project at hand to abstract and distill the larger methods and themes, while avoiding immersion into details.
Meanwhile, we must bear in mind that proposals must demonstrate the fullness and richness of a proposed project while reflecting knowledge of the relevant fields of thought as it conceptually demonstrates the necessary and evidential precision. Generally, proposal writing does not require literature reviews as would an academic paper. In fact, they often appear counterproductive to the purpose of grant proposals. Instead, our objective requires the maintenance of a strong focus with very little adornment.
Instead, granting agencies concentrate on which documents they must focus and wish to find evidence of well-established projects of which the applicants understand the larger picture upon which applied work contributes to the common good before, during, and after the proposed grant period. Funders understand that some relevant form of public benefit and knowledge result from the grant.
Therefore, any grant proposal needs to clearly explain precisely what the applicant individual or group intends to accomplish, while explaining how it will be done with significance. In respect to these points, agencies have come to expect a vivid opening paragraph that summarizes answers to these issues directly. Projects proposals containing such a presentation of essential information tend to organize the paragraph around a clear, overarching question or statement. We need to remember that a typical project proposal usually does not reflect any specific topic or thesis. Therefore as applicants, we focus our presentation around the major issue at hand, how we plan to address it, and what significant contribution the expected outcome will make to relevant fields of knowledge and human society.
Statements concerning the significance of a project carry great importance. Therefore, we may explain what interventions a proposed project makes to ongoing debates within the immediate field of concern as well as larger contributions it may make to humanistic and, perhaps, scholarly knowledge. At this point we allow ourselves to “think big” as we communicate in a buoyant matter as to what we have stake in the larger scope of life. If we cannot do this, why should expect anyone else to care about our project? We should not assume any self-evident importance in ideas and plans. Therefore, we need to explain why and wherefore for which our project deserves the available funding.
We need to consider all of the stakeholders, from the funders to those being served directly by the project when developing a project that may lead to a grant proposal. However, we need to write the proposal itself for the readers at the granting agency. Therefore, we need to ask if the road to approval constitutes a multi-tiered process that may involve a multidisciplinary panel of outside experts along with agency program officers. Therefore, we need to learn more about the readership before drafting the proposal. Depending on the size of the grant, agency program officers often bring on outside experts on to their panel. As a result, we need to write understandable proposals that persuade a range of evaluators.
Overall, avoid professional-field jargon and acronyms when writing to readers outside of your field. A phrase or word considered ordinary or expected in discourse within our immediate fields probably will not communicate accurately or intelligibly for many readers at a grant agency. What may sound normal and natural to only a few may lead toward the probability of receiving funds to plummet. In other words, avoid the obscure in favor of clear and simple writing. However, this poses a major challenge to many proposals that require clarity and simplicity to effectively communicate the conceptual framework and content with precision, specificity, and particularity of data, concepts, and other information needed to accomplish the project work. It will not help you make your case if panel members need to search for a coherent vision within a pile of impenetrable discourse. Furthermore, we all have our personal views on many subjects. Therefore, avoid the quagmires of debate and political contention. Though remaining true to ourselves and our own beliefs, we need to assess such issues as they affect many parties involved with and served by funded projects that we may promote. Therefore, we need to get to know and understand the driving forces of these many parties. Most cordially, we need to direct this attention toward decision makers that provide the flow of funds.
A bit of research may produce profiles of possible panel constituents. Depending on professional background, some may move around the field of granting agencies. However, the in-house program officers tend to remain stationary for longer periods of time as these officers aided by their staff members make the final funding decisions. We suggest that one research the Web site of an agency for information before writing a proposal and proceed from there. One will find that smaller agencies focus on narrow fields of need while larger ones serve a variety of programs and projects. Often, small and large ones overlap (as in a Venn diagram) while specializing on one or a few elements of complex project proposals. You certainly maximize your chances of getting funded by finding out whatever you can about the interests, needs, and processes of the agencies to which you apply.
Even if we cannot find much information about our proposal reviewers, clear direct communication will help make our point. We need to remember that the agency readers typically evaluate a large number of proposals. Helping panelists to read and clearly understand submissions makes life easier for them as well as for us. We need to help them assess the larger social and political issues that relate to our projects. As colorful as it can be, inflammatory rhetoric does not serve anyone’s purposes and goals. In contrast, a milksop approach generally makes paper readers suspicious of covering up critical issues. Therefore, communicating our strong beliefs in our projects, translates the significant importance that we attach to our goals. I recall that more than one historical figure has suggested that lukewarm substances should be spit out of one’s mouth.
Some granting agencies explicitly state the structure for proposals received along with delineating elements of projects that they want addressed in our proposals along with the topics, themes, and values that they wish to see addressed. Therefore, we need to read, understand, and follow directions carefully as requested. A careful reading of their desires helps proposal writers avoid the sand trap of one size fits all when considering submission to multiple agencies. However, preparing submissions to multiple agencies for separate funding of separately focused elements of a project, it does make sense and economizes on the investment of time to develop a basic, general proposal for our project and then adjust the work carefully to match up with the differentiated focus of multiple potential funders for carefully delineated parts of a larger project. On this point, we may address the specifics of different elements of a combined set of proposals grant especially in our introduction and conclusion of each.
Overall, no one standard grant application exists as of yet. If an agency posts a common Grant Application Form in a PDF format, this serves as a good place to begin. Essentially, common grant applications form instructs applicants how to format a standard grant application that benefits grant seekers, review organizations and decision makers who review the proposals. We should write a meaningful cover letter first. Second, we develop a brief but thorough Executive Summary. Third, we want a Need Statement as the meat of the grant application that describes organizational needs thoroughly and clearly. Fourth, we want summarize the reasons for submitting the grant application, making our Goals and Objectives clear. For a small-dollar and simple grants, agencies often provide “standard” forms (for examples, Google “standard format for grant applications”).
No standard format or organization exists for larger proposals as ways of presenting our projects. Several approaches appear equally effective. Overall, these may include: 1. Sub-headings overall description, rationale or significance of the project, methodologies used, outlines of project parts and time schedules for completion) tend to facilitate reader comprehension; 2. Topic sentences written clearly, strongly, and in a direct voice work effectively for each paragraph; and 3. Project Summaries that introduce the entire project can work effectively (Note: “quick and to the point” generally serves better than elaborately long introductions in most proposals).
Following the Introduction, the order of sections may vary. However, proposals generally tend to include project description, a statement of necessity or contribution, a section outline, and a time schedule for completion of work proposed in respect to funding. We need to make these sections as specific as possible.
Also, if the proposed project has developed out of earlier work or serves as a stepping stone in a multi-stage program, we want to outline such connections briefly.
Our proposal needs to inform agency panelists why the members of the project work-group have the qualifications to complete the project, successfully. Therefore, this section often serves as the conclusion of our proposals, as our “track record” similar projects offers good evidence that we will complete the final work promised in a timely fashion. Therefore, this section should succinctly state project status, planned use of funding during the grant period, and estimated completion date for the specific project. Also, divide the grant period into stages and include detailed plans for completion of each stage in a final and decisive manner. We note that funding proposals that seek to “cover the waterfront” by addressing a multiplicity of topics with any lack of certainty tend to have a very low probability of receiving funding. Though many projects evolve over time of execution, our proposals have a greater probability for success when written in the declarative mode “I will ...,” rather than” “Perhaps, I will.” Terms such as “Perhaps” and “maybe” belong on a “fishing” expedition, not community endeavors searching for funding support.
Third party support stands a major factor for putting together successful applications. Grant committees tend to find most letters of support tend to suffer from inflation. Therefore, grant committees often view them with a grain of salt, becoming adept at reading between the lines and assessing the weight to be given to praise.
In selecting a group of people to write letters, think in terms of the whole package. Not every letter has to accomplish the same thing; different letters make distinct contributions to your case. Thus, you might pick one person who is not so well known who will write a highly detailed letter based on thorough knowledge of your project and another person with national visibility who does not know your work as well or who tends to write very short letters. Of course, one letter might attest to your knowledge of a particular field necessary for your project, while another letter might discuss in detail the significance of your prior research.
Particularly in the United States, lukewarm letters often hurt a proposal; a negative sentence or two in a letter often kills a proposal on the spot. Thus, it really pays to be as certain as you can be that your recommenders will be enthusiastic. Be aware that the conventions of letter writing (and letter reading) can vary significantly from country to country. Yes, a pattern exists. In Great Britain, these letters tend to understate praise and to include some criticism or qualification, as a way of building credibility. In contrast, letters containing qualifications tend to signal significant concerns in the United States. Therefore, we should do what one can reasonably do to acquaint our letter writers with the prevailing conventions in the country of the grant awarded. For U.S. agencies, ask your referees to write their letters in English or arrange for translations.
To develop a list of possible letter writers, think about who knows your past work and have indicated in some fashion admiration for it. Such people might include journal editors or referees of your work, editors of collections, convenors of conference panels, and so forth. Use your full professional network. You should ask people if they would be willing to write a supportive letter well in advance of the deadline. Provide them with an up-to-date vita and the proposal (a draft version if necessary). Many granting agencies ask letter writers to comment specifically on the cogency of the proposal itself and the feasibility of your schedule. Consequently, send your referees your most recent information and plans. Letters that are out of sync with the proposal and vita seen by the committee often lose influence.
————————
Dr. John F. Sase teaches Economics at Wayne State University and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics for twenty years. He earned a combined M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit, followed by a Ph.D. in Economics from Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School (www.saseassociates.com).
Gerard J. Senick is a freelance writer, editor, and musician. He earned his degree in English at the University of Detroit and was a supervisory editor at Gale Research Company (now Cengage) for over twenty years. Currently, he edits books for publication (www.senick-editing.com).
Julie G. Sase is a copyeditor, parent coach, and empath. She earned her degree in English at Marygrove College and her graduate certificate in Parent Coaching from Seattle Pacific University. Ms. Sase coaches clients, writes articles, and edits copy (royaloakparentcoaching.com).
