Dr. Michael Samers Department of Geography University of Kentucky [email protected] Presentation to the Graduate School/College of A&S, ‘Writing successful.

Dr. Michael SamersDepartment of Geography

University of [email protected]

Presentation to the Graduate School/College of A&S, ‘Writing successful (NSF) proposals’

October 28 2011

Outline of the presentationWriting a successful (NSF) grant proposal:

Part I: Starting out

1) Conceptualizing your research: foundations2) Conceptualizing your research: the beginnings of an idea3) What you must do to write a successful grant: the basics

Part II: The proposal itself

4) The structure of the proposal5) Project description 6) Literature review7) Methodology8) Ethics

Part III: GEO 743 (Research proposal and grant writing)

Conceptualizing your research: foundations

• Exploration (to investigate phenomena which are not understood very well; to identify or discover important variables or determinants, and to generate questions for further research)

• Explanation (to determine which factors, forces or processes determined the phenomenon in question, and to show how phenomena are continually shaped by such factors, forces or processes)

• Description (to document or characterize the phenomena being researched)

Conceptualizing your research: foundations

• Understanding (to comprehend and understand processes, interaction, people, phenomena).

• Prediction (to predict future outcomes of some processes, set of forces, behaviors, or phenomena)

Conceptualizing your research: the beginnings of an idea

• There’s no research on ‘x’ – why don’t I try and ask a good question about it

• Samers (2000) looked at this topic, and he raised the question concerning the role of ‘x’. I’ll look at the role of ‘x’ too.

• Samers (2001) looked at this topic, but he ignored the role of ‘y’. I’m going to look at the role of ‘y’.

• Samers (2002) looked at this problem for location ‘z’, I’m going to see if this is the case for location ‘a’.

Conceptualizing your research: the beginnings of an idea

• Samers (2003) looked at this issue in 1999, I’ll see if this is still true, and/or to what extent things have changed, by repeating his study for the present

• Samers (2004) used method ‘b’ to investigate the issue, I’ll try method ‘c’ and see if I get different results from using method ‘b’.

• Samers (2005) did his study a while ago, but some new data or data set has become available. I wonder if the new data would support Samers’ original conclusions

What you must do to write a successful grant: the basics

• You need to convince the funding agency that your project is worthwhile

• You need to convince them that it is unique

• You need to convince them that you are the person to carry it out

• You need to convince them that your research requires money to carry it out

What you must do to write a successful grant: the basics

• Focus!!! Choose a problem that can be realistically answered with the funds you are requesting. Do not try to do the ‘impossible’. Do not be over-ambitious.

• You must write a proposal that is conceptually innovative, methodologically rigorous, and with rich, substantive content (Przeworski and Salomon, n.d.)

• The one that receives money is likely the one that most forcefully and clearly meets the criteria above

What you must do to write a successful grant: the basics

• But you must also make a compromise. You have to know who your audience is, and tailor it to them (to some degree anyway). Avoid unnecessary ‘jargon’, and make it as accessible as possible

Project description: a basic outline

1) Introduction2) Project description and research questions and objectives 3) Literature review4) Research design/methods5) Research contributions6) Return to significance (intellectual/scientific merits and

broader impacts)7) Bibliography

Project DescriptionThe introduction

• What is either the societal context or problem that motivates your research and/or the theoretical/scientific (or other context) that motivates it?

• Do you have a strong hypothesis/hypotheses that you wish to state, which may draw the reader in, e.g.:

“The French revolution emerged not from the seething inequality that pervaded the Ancien République, but the lack of good, buttery croissants for the masses”

Project DescriptionThe introduction

• You might also try asking an important theoretical or empirical question, e.g.

1) “Can democracy take root in the Middle East”?2) “Why is it that while silk is considered a luxury good and is

able to command high market prices, producers and manufacturers of silk in Thailand are often resigned to poverty”

• Tell the reader what you’re doing that nobody else has done. What is it that the reader is going to learn from such a project? And why is that important?

Project Description

Research questions and objectives:

• State your research questions clearly and number them: (e.g. 1,2,3; I, II, III, or similar)

• State your research objectives clearly – what is your research designed to accomplish? What theoretical/conceptual/scientific problems/questions will it answer?

Project Description

Literature review

• Identify the major strands of literature that surround, inform, and motivate your research

• There must be a logic to your literature review: e.g. chronological, issue-based, thematic, etc.?

Project Description

Literature Review

• Is there a ‘gap’ or ‘hole’ in the literature to which you can contribute?

• Are the literatures poorly synthesized?• Is the existing literature inadequate to the task of analyzing a

particular phenomenon, event, etc?; • Are the previous methods deployed, problematic, etc.?

Project Description

Literature Review

• It can help to bring in non-Anglophone literature to show added theoretical/intellectual insight. This may impress those unfamiliar with these literatures

Methodology: foundations

• The methodology (‘the study of method’) is a series of steps designed to answer your research question(s)

Normally, this involves:

1) Justification: a justification of your methods

2) Description: A detailed step-by step description of each methodological stage, step, etc., including data sources, nature of data, techniques, and how you will analyze and evaluate the ‘data’

Developing an appropriate methodology: basic questions to ask yourself

• What are the various methodologies employed in the past that answered my research questions and/or objectives, or a similar set of research questions and objectives? And what results did they yield?

• Which methods are appropriate then for my chosen research questions and objectives? And why? (Note that your research questions and objectives have to be measurable in a believable way)

• What are my methodological capacities and/or strengths?

• What methods should I select then?

Developing an appropriate methodology: basic questions to ask yourself

• Should I use a single stage or multi-stage research design?

Is it feasible?

1) What am I doing, where do I need to go, and what resources are necessary (and why) to undertake this methodology (contacts, visits, access to data, archives, institutions; access to inaccessible countries, places, regions and peoples)?

Developing an appropriate methodology: basic questions to ask yourself

Is it feasible (cont.)?

2) How much do I know about the resources I’ll need? Know and convey as much as you can. Will I need permission to access those resources (e.g. e-mails or letters of permission)?

3) How long will it take to do the methodology/to carry out the methods? Is that feasible? This links to the timetable

4) Can I complete the methodology with the money that I am asking for? This links with the budget

Writing your methodology

• Clarity always! (Give it to a specialist and a non-specialist to read)

• Impeccable organization always! Tie each methodological step to a research question or objective. Use a numbering system

• Make sure your methods are sound. More rather than less detail is better.

Writing your methodology

• Reiterate who or what you are researching?

• Reiterate where you are going to do that? (data sources and data gathering; e.g. the site, archives, etc.)

• How you are going to do that? (what kind of data-gathering – e.g. how many interviews, etc.; methods/techniques, tools, software; what kinds of analysis; test stages and control groups). How are you going to move from results to answers?

• And when you are going to do that? (how long on which method/techiques; how long for the stage?)

Writing your methodology

• Make sure that the connections between steps are clear

• Be confident, not tentative. Write in the definitive (e.g. I am fluent in Serbo-Croat. I will climb to the summit of Mount Everest and take wind speed measurements)

Ethics

• Have I thought about the ethical impacts of my research for the IRB, including the ‘ethics’ of my methods?

• Are there particular professional guidelines or rules that coincide with the type of work I plan to do?

• Can I be exempt from a long-form IRB?

Final thoughts

• If they can’t tell whether it’s going to be a really good project, and what its impacts will be, the methodology is often the key element in the panel’s negative or positive decision. Do not make it look as if your methodology is actually an itinerary for a vacation

Good luck!

Questions?