Dr Luke Strongman / Aaron Jarden | 2009

Guide to making research grant applications

How grants fit in the research program for the researcher

• Grant applications form one part of a planned research program

• They may compliment existing research projects as a separate and distinct effort

• Each application and project may be a stepping stone to the next

• Having decided to make a grant application, they require a systematic approach

• They can be seen as an integral part of a researcher’s professional responsibilities

• They are part of the researcher’s professional growth strategy to:

• 1.) Build credentials

• 2.) Establish a track-record of funding

• 3.) Work on teams with more experienced researchers

• 4.) Are a part of long-range personal development

Background: Approaching grant applications

• Each grant agency sets its own priorities for research and educational programs.

• Many have specific areas to award funding applications to. The researcher has his or her own interests. Often it’s a matter of finding where they intersect.

• Often you have to modify your research proposal area to match the interests of the grant agency.

• Research Interest + Grant Agency + Proposal = Application

Approaching funding agencies:

• Grant agencies vary in the information they require

• Basic information such as names, addresses, contact details, present occupation, present employer/CV/ information about educational background is often needed

• A statement of purpose or objectives for study and a rationale is often required

• Background context

• Related research/Literature review

• Description of how study is carried out

• Significance of study

• Resources needed

• Benefits of study – don’t exaggerate

Background questions to approach grant applications with:

• Is there an underlying legislative purpose for the grant organisation?

• Is there a background statement from the grant organisation of national need?

• Is the background statement and rationale of the grant organisation appropriately researched and referenced?

• Is your research project appropriate, innovative and effective?

• What are the objectives of your project?

• Are the project objectives concisely stated?

• Is the research measurable? Are the project goals and terms of reference clearly achievable?

• Is the methodology integrated and compatible with the objectives?

• What is the budget justification?

• Have you drawn-up a project management plan?

Selecting a funding agency

• There are different kinds: Government targeted/ bequests/ community trusts/prizes/awards/scholarships/private contracts

• Develop knowledge of funding sources

• Find the information you need to know from funding agency:

• Purpose for funding

• Closing date for receiving applications

• Length of consideration process

• The form and duration the grants take: seeding grants, project grants, targeted grants, consultancies, scholarships

• Application procedures (conditions under which grants are made)

• Accountability for money / reports on progress / termination conditions / Acknowledgment of funding agency in publications /

• Clarify ownership of data/results

The grant/topic match

• Identify your topic area

• Develop a list of potential funding agencies

• Evaluate resources

• Narrow your area of interest

• Write abstract or contract paper

• What organisational support is there? Internal: RF, CAD, DEAN. External: Peer review, referees

• Be prepared to reshape ideas based on conversations and literature reviews.

• Be prepared to write several drafts

• Work collaboratively where possible

Constructing an application framework:

• Each body has its own criteria

• Ask what will your research add to overall body of knowledge?

• What are the research questions to be addressed, or problems explored, in the course of research?

• What are the objectives in terms of answering the hypothesis questions?

• What is the research context – why is it important for these questions to be answered?

• Will the research confirm what we know already, will it deepen our understanding?

• Will it invalidate existing evidence or interpretations or substitute a new paradigm?

• Will it provide practical application of the knowledge?

• What other research has been done in the area?

Project concept checklist: Overview

• What is your project about?

• Why is it important?

• What will you do? What are the objectives?

• How will you do it?

• What will it cost?

• Why will it cost what it does?

• Why are you the best person/team to do it?

Key considerations:

• Aside from the basic idea, methodology and dissemination strategies are the most important aspects of your grant application.

• Follow research funders’ guideline for applications – if it says ‘set out your research methodology in detail’ do not write in brief

• Is the methodology feasible? Are the timescale and budget realistic? Be realistic in your assessment of the grant proposal aims and specifications

• Have a strategy for handling problems and set backs

• Pay attention to the aims of the research funder – grant bodies want different things, look for clues as to their requirements, be literal in your response to them

• Increasingly you need to justify the findings to all audiences, focus on main themes, make research accessible and useful, applied and practical

• Include imaginative ways of disseminating research. These days research is not just for other academics, make the research available to other user groups

• Generally those just out of PhD will be more suited for small grants. Don’t apply unless you have a clear idea in your head

• Grant applications take a long time to finish. Prepare to have your application bounced – only about 5% are ever successful

Project concept checklist:Detail

• Are the goals/objectives/aims clearly defined?

• Do the objectives taken together, define the goals of study?

• Are the aims written as concise, testable statements?

• Are the key concepts defined?

• Does the hypothesis when tested, address the aims of the study?

• Are the dependent/independent objectives operationally defined?

• Is the terminology used for definitions clear and unambiguous?

• Are the hypotheses/objectives stated in reasonable terms?

• Are the hypotheses/objectives based on sound theory?

• Are the hypotheses/objectives stated as measurable ideas?

• Do the hypotheses clearly predict a relationship between variables?

Necessary Conceptual Elements

• An innovative idea or approach

• A significant question

• Familiarity with other work in the field

• A clear statement of the research question

• A theoretical framework

• A methodology which matches the question

• A clear understanding of methods

• A vision for use or for benefits of research

• Does the project: - Add significantly to present knowledge? Does it:

- Improve ways of doing things?

- Provide ways to use fewer resources without loss of efficiency or efficacy?

Grant application contents checklist:

• Title

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Goals/Objectives/Specific Aims

• Background/Significance/Importance

• Literature review/Theory

• Methodology/research plan

• Grant management plan

• Dissemination plan

• Investigate team credentials/qualifications/research history

• Budget/budget justification

• References

• Appendices materials

Guidelines for statement of project methods:

• Are the methods/activities clearly related to the objectives of the project?

• Are the methods/activities to accomplish the objectives clearly stated? Do you have letters of support?

• Are there commitments for co-operating institutions with letters of support?

• Are the methods/activities outlined in the proposal effective to accomplish the objectives?

• Have the methods/activities been assigned to responsible staff?

• What is the timetable for research?

10 Top Tips

• Read the application form and take it seriously

• Pay attention to the granting objectives and criteria

• Write clearly

• Be succinct

• Avoid ambiguities

• Package the application material well

• Be honest

• Have your application critically reviewed by colleagues

• Spend time of the application

Literature review and study questions

• Does the literature review present important background information about the proposal?

• Does the literature review critically evaluate and synthesize existing knowledge?

• Are study gaps in knowledge addressed by the study program?

• Does the literature review provide the basis of support for the hypothesis or research question?

• Has the need for the proposal been documented?

• Does the literature review appear complete and up-to-date?

• Is the literature review logically and systematically developed and presented?

Research methodology: Design

• Overview of research design –scientific relationships between variables, to test hypotheses and observations/ internal consistency between method, phenomena, research question.

• Sample description and selection:

• a.) inclusive and exclusive criteria

b.) recruitment plan

• Materials, procedures, data collection

• Human subjects – Ethical approval?

• Study validity and reliability

• Assumptions and study limitations

• Time table of key research activity

• A statistical analysis for each study aim?

Research methodology contd:

• What methods are to be used in the research?

• Why have they been chosen?

• How will you set about answering the questions?

• Are the research aims clear, can they be realised?

• Management:

• Does the research team have the requisite knowledge and experience?

• Are the necessary facilities available?

• Have the ethical and confidentiality issues been addressed?

• Is the budget realistic?

• Are the reporting arrangement satisfactory?

Research methodology contd:

• Value for money:

• Will the knowledge gained justify the money spent?

• Will the hypothesis be sufficient for a rigorous research design?

• Background research:

• Do your objectives tie-in with those of the funder?

• The actual idea is the key to the proposal’s success?

• Is it innovative, imaginative, does it make a real contribution to knowledge.

• Talk to people

• Have your own peer review process

Research methodology: Data collection instruments

• What is the data set’s published reliability?

• What is the data set’s published validity?

• Are they extensively used in research?

• Why did you chose them?

• Data collection strategies

• How will you collect them?

• If you are conducting interviews, what procedures would you use?

• Have your proposal read by colleagues in your department and colleagues in your research office.

Preparing budgets:

• Equipment – purchase or hire, fees, costs

• Computing – charges for access time, purchase of PC/software

• Communication – telephone/fax

• Salaries and wages: Researcher/ research assistant/secretarial services/consultants/data entry & analysis

• Stationary – paper or consumable products/printing and photocopying cots/postage

• Travel – Fuel

• Overheads – 10-20% is usually charged by recipient institution for accommodating the grant

• Audit fee – may be required if institution requires accounts to be audited

Preparing budgets continued:

• Keep salary costs limited to appropriate award for type of skills sought

• On-costs are included in calculations: Payroll tax, superannuation, leave loading and workers compensation insurance

• Contract arrangements for short-term employment flexible

• Current rates quoted for all consultant or professional service fees

• Equipment costs should be based on actual quotations at current prices

Preparing applications:

• Applications always take longer than you think – seek help from colleagues; read successful applications; check criteria/guidance carefully

• Consult sources of external funds; discuss project, funding source, timing with the Research Facilitators; Centre manager’s; Dean; Chair of Research Committee

• Make sure you have identified the right grant for the project

• Read guidelines/notes for applicants

• Obtain at least one copy of a successful application to your chosen scheme

• Identify any additional documentation required: Case for support, list of publications, CV – begin preparing

• Will you need referees/ nominated assessors? Identify an appropriate person – it is not a good idea to use referees only from your own organisation

Preparing applications continued:

• Build-up application in a series of word files and load onto form

• Obtain advice on your draft, send to RF, CM, Chair of the Research Committee for review

• Redraft in the light of criticisms received – view criticisms positively

• Submitting the application:

• Make sure you make at least two copies of the printed form

• A successful outcome: Money used for replacement teaching is usually managed by the centre, other monies through the research committee

• An unsuccessful outcome, resubmit: Don’t be disheartened, you may be funded next round

• Not successful: Consult colleagues, obtain advice, send proposal to a different funder, reconceptualize project, bring in co-investigator

Preparing applications/ Managing the grant

• Develop a grants calendar

• Build a track record

• Pre-develop your proposals

• Make multiple applications if necessary

• Follow-up on success – review why you think the grant was successful

• Follow up on rejection – ask the agency for feedback on application

• Managing the grant

• If successful, it is a matter for the funding agency to decide how the money is to be paid

• Accountability of researcher: Keep a record of what is expected (contract)/Make copyright arrangements/keep financial statements

Common failings

• Applicants do not have a profile for the work

• Applicants are from a state/city/institution that has already had a lot of contracts and the national body needs to award to a different source.

• Applicants fail to demonstrate knowledge of a specific context (for example current policy, or institutional hierarchies)

• Regardless of what is in application, the known profile of the researcher or research institution is politically less attractive than from another source

• Application does not address all elements of the project brief

• The design of the approach does not appear convincing in its ability to address objectives or appear to general reader as reliable

• Application itself is academic rather than ‘real world’

• Application is not well presented or appears ‘sloppy’

References:

• Yates, L. (2004). What does Good Education Research look like?

New York: Open University Press.

• Gitlin, L., & Lyons, K. (2004). Successful Grant Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

• Hamilton, H. (1996). A guide to successful grant applications. Deakin: Royal College of Nursing, Australia.