1. HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPASAL HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH PROPASAL Prof. S.O. Mcligeyo Prof. S.O. Mcligeyo Deputy Director, BPS Prof. P.M. Kimani CAVS Representative, BPS University of Nairobi ISO 9001:2008 1 Certified http://www.uonbi.ac.ke

2. The general standard of research proposals is low So it is not hard to shine Although, sadly, that still does not guarantee a grant. Good luck! http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/Proposal.html Good news

3. Your application is here.

4. 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

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

6. Budget Your Time 80% planning the project 20% writing the proposal Solid partnerships Innovative project Communicate Define your budget

7. Avoid Plagiarism Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s ideas or words as though they were your own. DANGEROUS!!!!

8. Research Proposal Elements  Background/ significance  Research Question/Aim/Purpose  Methods Design Sample/Sample Size Setting Protocol Analysis plan  Timeline

9. Background/ Significance  Why is your study important?  Describe the significance of the research question or problem  Answer the “so what?” question

10. Literature review  What is the state of the science/art on this problem? Are there gaps in the literature? How will your study fill those gaps? Synthesize recent literature (within the past 5 years)

11. Purpose  Identify simply what you plan to do in your study  The purpose can be framed as a research question or an aim  Examples: What is the impact of meditative music on agitation in hospitalized elders? The purpose of this study is to show the impact of meditative music on agitated elders.

12. Methods  This section of your proposal has multiple parts Design Sample/Sample size Setting Protocol Analysis Plan  Detailed enough so that the reviewers could conduct the study

13. Methods - Design  Describe your study design  Design examples Prospective vs. Retrospective Descriptive Observation Intervention clinical trial Surveys, interviews, questionnaires Focus groups, field studies Others  Example We plan a prospective randomized controlled trial of meditative music vs. no music

14. Methods – Sample/Sample Size  Who are the study participants? Describe inclusion criteria Example: Adult men and women inpatients with stage IV heart disease Who is excluded? Example: Patients who do not speak English

15. Methods – Sample cont’d  How will participants be recruited? Convenience sample Flyers in research offices Advertisements Electronic Records search  How many participants are needed? How will you justify the sample size? Has there been a power analysis? Do you have a comparison or control group?

16. Setting  Describe the sites where you plan to conduct the study  Do you have support from the administration of the site to conduct the study? Letters of support from site

17. Protocol  What are you going to do to study participants? Detailed, step by step explanation Include how you will identify participants, obtain consent, and collect data If there is an intervention, describe it in detail Will you use measurement tools? Describe the tools, including reliability and validity and include a copy of the tools with your proposal Include the time frame for implementing the study

18. Data Analysis  Describe your analysis plan What statistical tests will you use? Be sure your statistics are appropriate for your study design

19. Timeline  Describe how long it will take to do your study  Provide timeline benchmarks  Example: Months 1 – 3 Prepare study tools Months 4-10Collect data Months 11-12Analyze data

20. Common pitfalls to avoid  Missing aims or purpose  Not enough detail about protocol Write your proposal so anyone reading it can understand your plan  Is your study significant? Does it answer the larger “So what” question? Why should researchers care about this work?  Underpowered sample size Describe why you are using the sample size and justify it  Invalid or unreliable instrumentation Has your instrument been tested with the population you are studying? If not, will you test it within your study?  Improper statistics Are you using the appropriate statistical analysis?

21. Evaluation of proposals Proposals reviewed based on specific criteria defined by the IRB The research design must be sound enough to yield the expected knowledge The aims/objectives are likely to be achievable in the given time period The rationale for the proposed number of participants is reasonable The scientific design is described and adequately justified

22. Factors to Consider 1 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 HUMAN CONSIDERATIONS 3 COMPREHENSION 4 QUALITY 5 COMPETITIVE EDGE

23. Grants are important Research grants are the dominant way for academic researchers to get resources to focus on research INVARIANT : there is never enough money

24. The state of play Even a strong proposal is in a lottery, but a weak one is certainly dead Many research proposals are weak Most weak proposals could be improved quite easily

25. The vague proposal 1.I want to work on better type systems for functional programming languages 2.Give me the money You absolutely must identify the problem you are going to tackle

26. 2. Blowing your own trumpet Grants fund people Most researchers are far too modest. “It has been shown that …[4]”, when [4] is you own work! Use the first person: “I did this”, “We did that”. Do not rely only on the boring “track record” section

27. 2. Blowing your own trumpet Express value judgements using strong, but defensible, statements: pretend that you are a well-informed but unbiased expert “We were the first to …” “Out 1998 POPL paper has proved very influential…” “We are recognised as world leaders in functional programming”

28. 2. Blowing your own trumpet Choose your area... “We are recognised as world leaders in –functional programming –Haskell –Haskell’s type system –functional dependencies in Haskell’s type system –sub-variant X of variant Y of functional dependencies in Haskell’s type system”

29. Improving Your Odds Read guidelines for grants if available Monitor institutions research priorities Contact grant officers in target institution(s) Discuss your ideas vs. their needs

30. Improving Your Odds ALWAYS submit cover letter (paper & electronic) Suggest specific study group for review Suggest one or more target institutions Refer to grant officer with whom you have been working Identify yourself as a new investigator, if so.

31. Improving Your Odds New investigators are NOT penalized New investigators allowed higher payline priority score More emphasis on research potential than on track record More emphasis on research plan than on preliminary results

32. The arrogant proposal 1.I am an Important and Famous Researcher. I have lots of PhD students. I have lots of papers. 2.Give me the money Proposals like this do sometimes get funded. But they shouldn’t. Your proposal should, all by itself, justify your grant

33. Improving Your Odds Seek “feed forward” before writing Identify 2-4 specific aims Discuss hypothesis & approach with grant-funded colleagues & biostatistician Contact fiscal/grants administrator

34. Improving Your Odds Use short, concise sentences Make points clearly Use diagrams to illustrate models Use tables to summarize data NEVER assume reviewers “know what you mean” Never create additional work for the reviewer

35. Improving Your Odds Organize application for logical flow of ideas & actions Everything fits together Nothing is superfluous Nothing is omitted Time table is detailed & realistic

36. Improving Your Odds Why you would not want funding: Must think of innovative ideas Must do the work Must publish papers Must submit grant progress reports Must write yet more grants for continued funding

37. Improving Your Odds How to Avoid Funding Recycle old ideas Skip literature review Avoid all contact with grant providers Do not let anyone else read grant Wait until due date to contact research administration Save time – don’t read instructions Include jargon & sweeping generalities

38. Key Personnel Page Key personnel are paid to participate in the grant-funded work Other significant contributors include unpaid consultants & mentors with no committed percent effort (include biosketch but no other support)

39. Personnel Pages Summarizes education, training, & professional career highlights Lists publications (except those in prep or submitted) & presentations Lists recent research support Establishes qualifications to do proposed work & appropriateness for role on proposed study Only 2 pages for career info & publications – this restriction goes away with electronic submission

40. Resources Page Summary of physical space, equipment, personnel, & other resources essential to study completion Letters of support required for shared resources critical to proposed work Justify reliance on external resources

41. Budget Pages Department fiscal/grant administrator can help with estimating costs & calculating salaries

42. THE FUTURE (is now) Office of Research (sponsored programs) must submit applications – NOT PI Authorized institutional official AND PI must verify applications accepted Do NOT verify garbled images – if looks garbled when you view it, will look garbled to reviewer

43. Your application is here.

44. The general standard of research proposals is low So it is not hard to shine Although, sadly, that still does not guarantee a grant. Good luck! http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/Proposal.html Good news