Types of Research Proposals

In all sectors (academe, government, and the private sector), research scientists typically seek
and obtain competitive funding for their research projects by writing and submitting research
proposals for consideration by the funding source. There are two kinds of research proposals:

Solicited

Solicited proposals are those that are written and submitted in response to the issuance of a
“Request for Proposals” (RFP), a document that identifies a specific research problem of interest
to the funding agency for which they are specifically seeking a solution. The interested
investigator then submits a “concept” or “white paper” briefly outlining their proposed solution
to the problem. If the funding agency or company is interested, they may then request that the
investigator submit a full proposal for consideration of funding.

Unsolicited

Unsolicited proposals are those proposals that are submitted by an investigator in response to a
“general call” for proposals that is issued by a funding agency or company in a field or area of
study.

The majority of funding agencies issue calls for proposals which have firmly established
deadlines and for which the format of the proposals is fairly well defined. Thus, it is vitally
important at the outset after you have identified a funding source that you obtain all of the
relevant information on the specific grant program and its requirements. Today most funding
agencies have searchable websites where they post detailed information concerning their grant
programs

Purpose of a Research Proposal

The purpose of a proposal is to sell your idea to the funding agency. This means that the
investigator must convince the funding agency that:

 The problem is significant and worthy of study

 The technical approach is novel and likely to yield results
 The investigator and his/her research team is/are the right group of individuals to carry out and
accomplish the work described in the research proposal

The title of your proposal should be short, accurate, and clear. A single sentence containing ten or fewer
words is best. Don’t use acronyms and technical jargon as your reviewers may not come from your
technical specialty. For example, “Web-GURU: Web-based Guide to Research for Undergraduates.”
Abstract

As in a technical paper, the proposal abstract should “abstract” the project for the reader. It should be a
brief (100 – 200 words), tightly worded summary of the project, its objectives, the problem’s
significance, the project’s scope, the methods that will be employed, the identity and relevant technical
expertise of the research team, and the results that are expected to result. Be sure to write this section
last so that its content indeed abstracts your proposal

The introduction section should introduce the research problem, its significance, and the technical
approach your work will take to investigate/solve the problem. It should introduce the research team
that will carry out the work

This section should present a concise review of the primary literature relevant to your proposed
research efforts. As such it should:

 Cite the key literature sources

 Be up to date
 Critically appraise the literature
 The background section should be constructed to inform the reader concerning where
your study fits in. It should clearly state why your project should be done. Does your
work:
 Take science in a bold new direction?
 Build on the prior work of others (whose?) in the field
 Address flaws in previous work (again, whose?)
 Develop infrastructure (instrumentation, methodology, collaborations) that will take
science in exciting new directions

Preliminary Studies

If the project builds on past studies from your laboratory, then you should include a brief section
outlining what you have already accomplished and explain how these results relate to the work outlined
in the present proposal. If the ideas you are proposing are novel, then it is especially important to
include this section and to present evidence supporting the probable success of your project
Research Methodology

This section should outline your plan of attack. Specific information that should be contained in this
section includes information on the research team and its technical expertise as it relates to the project,
a realistic timeline, description of the specific experiments that will be accomplished together with
alternate plans in case of potential difficulties/challenges. If more than one person will do the work
described in the proposal then a division of labor should be provided together with an explanation of
why each person is best qualified to do the work described. The timeline should define the length of the
project and provide a schedule of who will do what specific tasks approximately when during the project
period. Problems always arise in research. Things never go as anticipated. So, it is important to provide
the reviewer with enough information to give them confidence that when problems arise, as they
inevitably will, that you will be able to handle them in such a way that meaningful science results.

The budget should identify the anticipated cost for everything (salaries, materials,
instrumentation, travel costs, etc.) that will be required in order to accomplish the research
project. Usually budgets are prepared and submitted as tables with prescribed format. A budget
justification typically accompanies the budget request. The budget justification is simply an
explanation, item-by-item, stating why you must spend the money requested in order to carry out
the experiments planned.

The most important point in preparing a budget is to make sure that you ask for what you really
need. Some people underestimate the importance of working through a budget in advance of
writing the actual grant proposal. This is really important because most grant programs provide
grants with a certain set monetary value. It is critical to ask for the amount you really need
because if you don’t ask for what you need you simply won’t be able to do the work and if you
can’t carry out your project, it is highly unlikely that you will ever be able to obtain funding from
that funding agency again in the near future. At the same time, it is important not to go overboard
in padding your budgetary request. A thoughtful budget demonstrates that your project is well
conceived and likely to yield quality results. If the reviewers feel that your budget is naïve or
over-inflated, that can work against you – your project could be funded at a lower rate or certain
items requested might simply be eliminated from the budget by the funding agency – so be sure
to think through your budget requests carefully and make sure that all requests are thoughtfully
justified.

There are two major components in a budget:

Direct costs are the costs that you incur that are directly attributable to the project. Examples of
direct costs include personnel salary, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, major
instrumentation, and travel costs. We will briefly examine each of these
Responding to reviewers' comments

Before proposals are considered at review panels, applicants are invited to respond to the
reviewers' comments. This gives applicants the chance to address any factual inaccuracies and
questions raised. Any response is submitted in confidence to the panel.

Role in peer review process

Responding to the reviewers' comments is an important part of the peer review process as panel
members are not allowed to re-review proposals. Panel members consider the response carefully
when discussing the issues raised by the reviewers, to see how applicants resolve them. A good
response can make a competitive difference at the panel meeting.

An applicant can choose not to respond to the reviewer comments although this may leave the
panel with unresolved questions.

How to respond

Your response should be in A4 format with a maximum length of 2 pages, written in a minimum
of 11pt font (Arial or equivalent) and with a minimum of 2cm margins.

In writing a response, it is best to tackle the issues raised by the reviewers concisely and with a
calm, measured tone. An aggressive response is likely to appear arrogant and less considered.

In particular, dismissing a reviewer's criticism as "obviously" wrong may make panels feel that
the issues of concern have not been properly addressed. In some cases, reviewers may suggest
ways in which the project could be improved that you may want to respond to.

In the response, reviewers comments related to all criteria may be addressed, for example, if a
reviewer has questioned the research area(s) the proposal addresses this can be discussed in the
response.

Some tips on drafting your response:

 Use clear headings (for example, to group common issues rather than organising your response
by reviewer).
 Refer to parts of your proposal that you feel already address the reviewers' concerns.
 Use references to publications to add weight to your argument.
 Only include figures if they are genuinely helpful.
 Keep to the issues and avoid wasting space thanking reviewers or copying at length what they
have already said