Writing Research Proposals in the Natural and Biomedical Sciences November 13, 2007 Libby O’Hare eohare@ucla.edu Ph.D. Candidate, Neuroscience UCLA GWC Writing Consultant ABSTRACT: This workshop will discuss the basics of writing dissertations in the sciences. Topics to be covered include identifying the type of dissertation you want to write, conducting a literature review, organizational and motivational strategies, and more. There will be ample time for questions.

PART 2 Outline 1.) Part 1 Review: -NRSA format -Literature reviews 2.) Writing the Experimental Design & Methods Section: -tips and strategies for the methods section 3.) Bringing it all together -four sections that will set your proposal apart 4.) Common Reviewer Complaints -things to keep in mind

Part 1 Review NRSA components The Background & Significance Section (Literature Reviews)

NRSA Grant Proposals Have specific and standard format: Specific Aims and Hypotheses Background and Significance Methods and Experimental Design Conclusions and Interpretations We will add components to this format slightly to make your proposal even more compelling and hopefully more successful 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(1) Broad Summary Statement of Project 1-2 paragraphs Place the overall research question in perspective Attention grabbing Use lay language and avoid references when possible 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(2) Specific Aims and Hypotheses Usually 2-5 specific aims are listed Identify the project goals and main hypotheses to be tested Should list aims using numbers and simple, specific sentences Helpful to use different formatting tools (boldface, italics) to identify specific aims and hypotheses Specific Aims Checklist: Do the aims address interesting and specific issues? Are the aims hypothesis-based? Are the aims and hypotheses clearly described? Any use of different font styles? Anything missing?

(3) Background and Significance Review of the current literature relevant to the proposed project Putting the research question into perspective Explicit explanation of the potential scientific impact of the project How does your research question address a hole in the literature (how is your question novel)? What progression of experiments that led to your project? Clear and well organized--use subheadings where possible 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(4) Preliminary Data If applicable and available If included, should be brief Use images, graphs, tables Main goal is to demonstrate that you can perform the technique/analysis/procedure you are proposing Secondary goal is to indicate that your initial data is coming out as expected 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(5) Methods and Experimental Design Description of research design Include information on: -Materials -Subjects -Instruments -data collection procedures -data analysis methods How will you address possible experimental confounds in your design? Look at previous grant proposals from your lab to get a sense of the scope and details needed 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(6) Expected Results and Possible Caveats What are your expected results? Given these results, what is your interpretation? How does this interpretation fit with the concepts you have developed in the background and significance section? What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental design? Discuss alternative approaches that may be used to address this confounds and caveats 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(7) Broad Conclusions and Implications 1-2 paragraphs Place the overall research question in perspective Spell out exactly how the proposed research will advance the field Use lay language and avoid references when possible 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(8) Timeline or Work Plan Chart format is helpful Include information on the duration of experiments, activities that will be conducted Optional for NRSA grants, but extremely helpful to have for yourself 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

Functions of Literature Reviews Placing the current study within the wider disciplinary conversation Illustrates the novelty and importance of the project Explains how your research questions and/or research approach is different from those previously published Justifies your methodology Demonstrates your familiarity with the topic and your ability to study it successfully

Tips and Strategies Categorize your sources into topic clusters Look for trends and themes and synthesize related information: Develop the positions that are relevant for your project Build on conclusions that have led to your project Identify holes due to flawed assumptions or improper methods Include a certain amount of simple reporting of previous results, but remember You are writing discursive prose Your primary goal is to critique

Tips and Strategies (Cont.) You can’t include every single study that has ever been published on your topic! Avoid polemics, praise, and blame Focus on justifying your research questions and methodology

Exercise: Literature Review Checklist (getting ready to write)

Writing the Background & Significance Section Critical Questions 1.) why does the proposed research need to be conducted? 2.) how is it different from other studies? 3.) where does the proposed research fit within the current knowledge? 4.) what will the proposed research contribute to the field? 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

Part 2 The Methods & Experimental Design Section

Writing the Methods and Experimental Design Section Definitions Functions Types/Styles Tips and Strategies

(5) Methods and Experimental Design Description of research design Include information on: Materials Subjects Instruments data collection procedures data analysis methods How will you address possible experimental confounds in your design? Look at previous grant proposals from your lab to get a sense of the scope and details needed

Methods and Experimental Design What is experimental design/methodology? description of the specific procedures you will use to address your specific aims Organization and clarity are fundamental!

Functions of Methods Sections Describe the overall methodological approach Illustration of how methods will answer your research questions Development of rationale or scientific strategy Description of specific methods of data collection Explanation of data analysis methods/strategies Address potential limitations and interpretations

Suggested Format Specific Aim #1 Rationale: how does this design relate to your overall hypothesis? Methods: data collection, data quality control, data management, statistical analysis Expected Results: How will you interpret the expected outcome? What are some different possible outcomes? How will these be different outcomes be interpreted and addressed? (repeat for each specific aim)

Methods and Experimental Design Checklist Exercise 1 (10-15 minutes) Methods and Experimental Design Checklist Are the methods I chose feasible and within my competence? Have I made sure my experiment can yield statistically significant results? Did I address difficulties I may encounter with the proposed approaches, show I can handle them, and propose solutions and alternatives? Did I consider how the limitations of the approaches may affect my results and data? Did I discuss methods for gathering and interpreting data? Did I describe the kinds of results I expect and how they support continuing my project? Did I show I am aware of the limits to and value of the kinds of results I expect? Have I convinced will be able to interpret my results? Did I define the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of each experiment? Did I state the conditions under which my experimental data would support or contradict my hypothesis?

Part 3 Setting Your Proposal Apart

4 Sections to Set Your Proposal Apart (A) Opening statement (B) Summary and integration of background literature and preliminary data (if applicable) (C) Possible caveats and confounds (D) Final take-home message

(A) Broad Summary Statement of Project 1-2 paragraphs Place the overall research question in perspective Attention grabbing This section sets up the reader for why your project is unique and deserves funding 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(B) Expected Results and Possible Caveats What are your expected results? Given these results, what is your interpretation? How does this interpretation fit with the concepts you have developed in the background and significance section? What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental design? Discuss alternative approaches that may be used to address this confounds and caveats 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(C) Summary and Integration of Background Literature and Preliminary Studies 1-2 paragraphs Place the overall research question in perspective Spell out exactly how the proposed research will advance the field You have illustrated how previous research remains insufficient, AND how your preliminary data has positioned you to make the advance that your field needs 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

(D) Broad Conclusions and Implications 1-2 paragraphs Place the overall research question in perspective Spell out exactly how the proposed research will advance the field Final message to leave reviewer with should be positive and should reinforce why the project is unique and deserves funding 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Materials and Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion Conclusions

Part 4 Common Reviewer Complaints

Common Reviewer Complaints Lack of original or novel ideas Scientific rationale not valid Project lacks focus, studies are not logically related, experiments do not follow from one another Proposed studies based on shaky hypotheses Alternative hypotheses are not considered Proposed experiments are descriptive and do not test specific hypotheses

Common Reviewer Complaints (cont.) Lack of alternative methodological approaches in case the primary approach does not work out Insufficient methodological detail to suggesting applicant doesn’t know what she/he are doing No recognition of potential problems and pitfalls Proposal lacks critical literature references, reviewers think that applicant does not know the literature

Session 2 Summary 1.) Reviewed and discussed experimental methods and design section 2.) Discussed 4 sections that will set your proposal apart 3.) Reviewed common reviewer complaints and how to avoid them 4.) Reviewed the background and significance section (from Part 1)

UCLA Grant Writing Resources Graduate Writing Center (GWC) Individual Writing Consultation Appointments http://gsa.asucla.ucla.edu/gsrc/gwc/index.htm Grad Division’s Extramural Fellowship Proposal Consultants Dr. Chuck Olmstead (physical and life sciences) 310-835-5094 brainone@ucla.edu

Acknowledgements UCLA Graduate Writing Center Marilyn Gray Christine Wilson UCLA Academic Technology Services Christine Wells