Writing Proposals at Utah State University - Christina H. Millard, USU Research Foundation (1998)

Most proposals contain the following elements:

• Cover or title page: This should include the title of the proposed project, name(s) and title(s) of the Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators (if any), proposed project period, dollar amount, sponsor, the date, and any required College or department signatures. As the legal entity submitting the proposal on behalf of the investigator, USU University. The USU Office of Contracts and Grants address should be used for the institutional address.
• Titles should be concise, clear and precise. Excessive length may result in ambiguities should parts be abbreviated during processing at the agency. News releases often rely on the title to reference research, and precision will help to avoid misrepresentation of a study.
• The Abstract: It is advisable to write the abstract at the end, when all other sections of the proposal have been finalized. A good abstract will strike a good balance between simple and technical language, and highlight key concepts for which the reviewers should look in the main body of the proposal.
  
  While specific requirements regarding content and format differ markedly and change frequently among sponsors, the following are general requirements that are not routinely subject to change. The abstract describes the major objectives of the proposed research and the research strategy to meet these objectives. It serves a variety of purposes and should be prepared with great care. Agency staff often use the abstract in assigning the proposal to the appropriate study section for review. Reviewers use the abstract to gain an initial perspective of the key concept of the study and its significance, and again later as a reminder when the proposal comes up for discussion.
  
  If a proposal is not in a reviewer's area of specialization, the abstract may be the only part read to prepare for the panel discussion. After funding is secured, the abstract may be used for entry in national databases and its keywords are picked up for quotation indexes.
• Introduction: A brief description of the proposed project's objectives, any direct or closely related work which may be in progress, and any other pertinent background information as required by the sponsor.
• Table of contents or index with page references.
• Detailed program description, including an explanation of the objectives in clear and concise terms, and a description of the procedures to be followed in carrying out the objectives.
  
  The investigator is expected to present a description of the proposed project and to explain the general goal and its various specific objectives. At the same time, the need for the project must be justified and its significance should emerge clearly and convincingly. The overall goal may be stated in general terms, but specific objectives need to be clearly defined. Investigators often use brief statements in numerical ranking of priority to achieve this end.
• Description of current facilities and equipment, and the percentage of time they will be available for the proposed project.
• Related Studies/Review of the Field: A discussion of previous work in the field demonstrates an investigator's knowledge and provides an evaluation of the ``state of the art'' in his/her specialization. It also shows the extent of preparation for the proposed study, and the novelty and individuality of the approach. For these reasons, this section has to be more than a bibliography. It must demonstrate that the investigator is aware of other work in the discipline. Careful selection of sources must be made and only those significant to the proposed research should be discussed in detail.
  
  With regard to those who are new to research or academia, reviewers acknowledge the fact that few publications are available on which the strength of an investigator can be assessed. Therefore, the analytical richness of a review of the field is used to gauge the new Investigator's sharpness of intellect and potential for success. It should be noted that both NIH and NSF Study Section reviews indicate that data (preliminary results) are essential.
• Methodology and Time Frame: In this section, the investigator will describe the proposed research methodology, organizing the material logically according to progressive steps of inquiry. Investigators must make a careful decision about how much detail will be needed to assure clear understanding by the reviewers without going to excessive lengths. It is equally important to describe how potential problems will be addressed.
  
  The overall length of time required to conduct the research project must be projected with care to allow for data collection, analysis and interpretation. Unrealistic projection or omission of a period of performance may lead to reviewer criticism. Investigators need to allow for a reasonable time frame after the application submission date for processing, review and evaluation of the proposal at the sponsoring agency. Considering this factor may enable the investigator to propose more accurately which phase of ongoing research the funding should support.
  
  At this point, it is important to note that because most proposals limit the number of pages (including the font size), clarity of thought and presentation is essential.
• Evaluation Design and Statistical Analysis: Many projects require an evaluation of results. Evaluation may be planned both at critical points during the project period and/or after its conclusion. It may be designed to be carried out by participant staff or by outside consultants. The description of the evaluation design should be detailed and the applicant should make it clear how it is to be administered and how the resulting data will be analyzed. It is also important to indicate how the evaluation results will be used and/or how they will be disseminated. In biological, behavioral, chemical and physical sciences, research faculty should state their test evaluation and statistical methods.
  
  It is important to note that realistic, measurable outcomes indicate research integrity, a point not lost on the selection committee.
• List of personnel: Include the names and titles of all professional personnel. Since named personnel might be used within key personnel clauses in an agreement, non-professional personnel should be listed by title or function only.
  
  A CV, or curriculum vita (resume) is required for each of the major researchers. However, it is advisable to highlight specific research experience, related publications and other important biographical information with regard to professional personnel. This information should be presented in the text of the proposal or as part of the budget explanation. Reviewers have indicated that it is helpful to have specific research capabilities of the major researchers stated in the text, although these qualifications may also be listed on the CV.
  
  Include only professional and academic essentials and avoid personal background information. If possible, all professional, technical and academic personnel who will participate in the research should be identified by name and title or category of employment. The following categories are most often needed:
  • Project Director and Co-Director(s), Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator(s), Program Director
  • Faculty Associates (generally members of the faculty holding academic rank of Assistant Professor and above)
  • Postdoctoral Associate
  • Research Assistants (i.e., graduate students engaged in research or research training under the proposed grant)
  • Professional Assistants (e.g., computer programmers, design engineers, laboratory assistants, technicians)
  • Other (e.g., secretarial, clerical, shop, undergraduate students)
  • Consultants (generally, these are from outside the University)
• List of Principal Investigator's publications: Include only those that are relevant or significant to the proposed project. The list should not include items such as publications being printed, or invited lectures.
• Budget with justifications and supporting documentation, where appropriate.
  
  Concurrent submission: When the same proposal is being submitted to other sponsors a statement should appear in each proposal indicating that it is a concurrent submission.
• List of key personnel's current or pending support: Indicate
  • The source of support;
  • Project title;
  • Percent effort;
  • Dates of project period;
  • Annual costs; and
  • How this project does not overlap or duplicate projects supported by other funds. The statement "No overlap" is considered insufficient by most sponsors.
• If required, include letters of collaboration, subcontractor proposals, and other supporting documentation.
• Special requests or justifications: These could include: a change of Principal Investigator on renewal or continuation proposals, use of unexpended funds from a prior budget period, or the temporary absence of the Principal Investigator.
• Certifications and representations and other forms that may be required. These should be prepared by the department for signature by the Office of Contracts and Grants.

Hints for Submission

• Submit the proposal to the Office of Contracts and Grants at least three full business days in advance of the sponsor's deadline.
• The mailing address and mailing deadline should be clearly specified.
• Do not staple the original proposal or any copies submitted to the Office of Contracts and Grants.
• NSF and NIH cover pages must have the Principal Investigator's original signature.? NSF and PHS proposals must include a signed Disclosure of Significant Financial Conflict of Interest form. For NSF proposals, the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator must sign the Conflict of Interest form while for PHS proposals, the Principal Investigator and all key personnel must sign.
• Do not include cents on budgets.
• Permanent equipment under federal guidelines is any item exceeding $500 and a two-year useful life. Items of less than $500 should be itemized in the "other" category.
• If responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP), submit a copy of the RFP guidelines with the proposal.
• Itemize all supplies, materials, computer, and publication costs.? Travel must be justified by per diem, number of trips, place, and purpose.
• If a project requires Human Subjects Approval or Animal Approval and the approval has been obtained from the IRB or IACUC, submit a copy of the approval with the proposal.? The title of the proposal must match the title identified on the approval.
• Faculty are urged to submit proposals well in advance of agency deadlines to avoid peak processing times in the Office of Contracts and Grants. This allows the staff to provide a full compliment of services including review, signature, duplication, assembling and mailing.?
• Principal Investigator's should consult their own department and college for internal deadlines. All proposals received within three working days of an agency deadline must be accompanied by the appropriate number of copies required by the agency, plus a copy for the Office of Contracts and Grants.
• All applicants are reminded that the agency deadline must be clearly indicated including the date and type of deadline (postmark or receipt). Again, if there is no definite deadline, please give a target date for receipt by, or mailing to, the agency.
• There are numerous peak agency deadlines throughout the year. Please keep in mind that proposals received in advance of these dates will receive precedence over those received at the last possible minute before a deadline.
• Most Principal Investigators will mail their own proposals to provide themselves assurance that the proposal has been submitted in a timely fashion. With self-submission, the Principal Investigator can be assured that the proposal is received by the agency before the due date.

Facilities and Special Resources

Applicants will need to describe the facilities and resources that will be used in the proposed research. If unique facilities exist with regard to the proposed research it is important to emphasize this in the proposal. The application may require data on the size of the University, a profile of faculty and students, or details on university-wide facilities such as the library, computer centers, or specialized centers.

Dissemination of Information

In order to assure wide impact of funds invested in research, demonstration or development projects, many agencies emphasize the need for well-planned dissemination of results. Most investigators hope to publish research findings in referred journals. If other strategies seem useful they should be listed in the dissemination section of the proposal. Examples of dissemination are conferences, training workshops, special newsletters, manuals, production of audio-visual material or any other means of sharing research data with the scientific and technological community.