Writing a research proposal Mamoun Ahram Office of Research Jordan University Hospital Faculty of Medicine The University of Jordan

Sell your science Present yourself well. Be knowledgeable about the subject. Be convinced yourself to be convincing.

Prior steps Read, read, read, and then…read some more!! Discuss your ideas Find a mentor AND listen to him/her Develop research questions Read a successful proposal Follow guidelines Find a funding program

The Basic Elements Competence in everything A GOOD idea addressing a significant problem with continuity of ideas Logical flow of ideas & actions Everything fits together Nothing is superfluous or omitted, or unrealistic A good fit with funding agency’s priorities

Funded! Conceptualize Declined Try again What next? Write & Revise The Proposal Cycle

Get Used to Rejection

Developing Research Questions Are the research objectives feasible? (Time? Sample size? Technical expertise?) Are the questions novel? Interesting? Useful? (Will the answers open up new areas of research?) Is the scope of the study well focused? (Collecting too much data wastes time and money) Is it ethical to ask these research questions? (Unacceptable physical risks or invasion of privacy?)

The reviewers Imagination The ugly truth

The role of proposal reviewer

Tips about reviewers Reviewers are not experts in your field of research. NEVER assume reviewers “know what you mean.” Never create additional work for the reviewer: Use short, concise sentences Make points clearly Use simple diagrams and tables to illustrate models and summarize data

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

Blowing your own trumpet Most researchers are far too modest. Use the first person: “I did this”, “We did that”. “We were the first to …” “Our paper has proved very influential…” “We are recognised as world leaders in...” “It has been shown that …[4]”, when [4] is you own work!

Improving Your Odds Identify yourself as a new investigator because: New investigators are NOT penalized More emphasis on research potential than on track record More emphasis on research plan than on preliminary results

Components of a Proposal Cover page Summary / Abstract Introduction / Statement of the Problem Review of the Literature Aims Methodology Data Analysis Expected outcome (Risk/Benefit Analysis) Future direction Bibliography Timeline Budget/Cost Effectiveness Appendices

Cover/Title Page Use sponsor agency form if applicable Use required guidelines Project title Organization name Sponsor agency name (if applicable) Submission date

Cover/Title Page Good Concise and clear title Bad Wrong information Short or long title

Project Summary / Abstract It states the problem, proposes a solution(s), and states objectives and significance. In other words: It tells the reviewer everything they need to know about this research proposal and demonstrate why this project is significant and what impact it will have in a clear statement.

Summary / Abstract Good It gains the reviewers’ interest and excitement about this proposal. Bad Goal/objective is lost Too technical Too short Too long Too boring

Rationale and Hypothesis Good Clearly state the hypothesis or number of hypotheses that will be addressed in the proposal Give a rationale why this hypothesis is important to investigate Bad Too long of a hypothesis makes it hard to understand the aim of the research

Literature review What ? Why ? Who? How ? When? 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) Don’t assume your reader knows your field Descriptive and critical

Good Last chance to impress the reviewer on the importance of what you are proposing Introduce current state of and future directions for the research field Impact on the field and/or on the disease being studied should be stated Why is this proposal innovative? Connect preliminary data to background Bad Do not expand background to unnecessary information that does not support the hypothesis Superficial such as this will cure cancer

Specific Aims Bullet list research questions or objectives Should be action-oriented Relate objectives to sponsor agency’s goals and priorities Address innovation wherever possible

Specific Aims Good Make aim 1 less risky compared to other aims Limit specific aims to 2-3 Justify the approach Always give alternative approaches since pitfalls happen Address feasibility if you have not demonstrated that you can do the experiments proposed. Confirm results with multiple approaches Bad Too ambitious (too many specific aims) Avoid too many specifics on experiments Structure aims so that aim 2 is not dependent on aim 1 Do not avoid issues within the field of research

Methods This section has multiple parts Design Sample/Sample size Setting Protocol Data analysis Detailed enough for the reader to conduct what’s proposed Validity / Reliability /Rigor / Bias / Sampling ETHICS Confidentiality / Anonymity / Fairness / Honesty Storage of data

Setting Describe the labs, units, or clinics where you plan to conduct the study Do you have support to conduct the study? Letters of support from site or unit

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? Why? How will participants be recruited? How many participants are needed?

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

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

Budget and Cost-Effectiveness Be realistic Inflating budget may hurt your chances of being funded Budgeting too low may make the project impossible to do with funds provided Estimate costs as accurately as possible Demonstrate that project is cost-effective: it will have a significant impact for a reasonable cost

Budget: Good Give a detailed account of where you will be spending the money Bad Unnecessary spending Do not justify spending all the budget on personnel

Personnel Pages Summarize education, training, & professional career highlights List publications & presentations List recent research support Present qualifications & appropriateness researchers

Applicant’s CV details Good List all awards especially awards directly related to your research. List all publications in the last five years. Bad No evidence of research activity or track record. All middle authors for publications.

When you make you CV, remember…

Funding agencies The University Not very detailed Abdel-Hameed Shoman Research Fund King Abdallah Design and Development Bureau Ministry of Higher Education and Research Fund European agencies

Thank you