Writing a Winning Research Proposal – Ray Boxman

writing winning research proposals and the first question is what is the research proposal what's a subjective and the objective is to convince and I double underline and put this involved to convince someone to allocate you resources to pursue a proposed research project and the stress the emphasis here is on convinced when someone has to reach into their pocket and pull out their wallet where's my wallet pull out their wallet and actually take money out of the wallet lots of money research isn't cheap okay and put it on the table they need to be convinced it's not enough to write a good proposal it has to be a great proposal now for faculty members where we're usually talking about our grants that from a public agency there's someone that's going to actually give you money and you use the money to buy other resources that you need equipment student time computer time materials whatever for the students all of you who are doctoral students have to submit at some point a research proposal may be called a thesis proposal but it's the same idea and you're also trying to convince someone to expend resources the resources are your advisors time quite expensive believe me your time particularly if the institution is paying you one way or another through a mill gah or whatever and the use of the facilities of the university laboratory who operatory space is very dear just ask me and use of other facilities so it's a serious business and we have to approach it very seriously it's not just a piece of paper that we have to get through in order do they get to the next stage if that's the attitude it probably won't work so the question is what does the grantor want to know in order to make this decision to coffer the money or other resources the first question is whether the subject is worthy of study and this will be according to criteria which vary according to the grantor the criteria may be scientific advancement most funds like by National Science Foundation Israel Science Foundation National Science Foundation that's pretty much the criteria other funds which are more applications oriented for example funding from the so called Ministry of Science which does not fund any science but rather technology the emphasis is on applications they want to see that somehow other technologies advanced and usually the bottom line for national agencies that are granting money for technological research is that ultimately it will create jobs in the jurisdiction of the granting agency and some agencies demand that the proposal be in some narrow field of study that they are interested in either globally for example Israel Cancer Foundation they're only interested in funding research on cancer or other agencies will have a call for proposals was a very specific field of reference for example of the framework programs of the European community they may have a hundred different calls for proposal but if you answer a particular call you have to make sure that the topic is what they are looking for they want to know what is the probability of success are they throwing money down the tube or are they going to get something back from it and the way are the proposal proposes familiar with the subject all proposals have basically in it a literature review in the literature review you demonstrate that you are familiar with the subject and aside from the resources which you are requesting as part of the grant do you have adequate resources to do the research it doesn't necessarily mean resources that you have in your own laboratory but it could also include resources that you have access to the grantor also wants to know what's required of him how much money or other resources to C F to expend and the grantor will be usually judging among various proposals and he basically wants to maximize the bang for the buck what is he getting compared to the money that he's investing if two proposals are apt to prove the same scientific impact but one costs $250,000 and the other $750,000 yes which one he would prefer to fund also time how long will it take is he going to get immediate gratification or is it going to take a long time and different agencies have different would say time frames that they're willing to deal with now the key thing is that particularly for public funding sources is f BS F and the like there is often intense competition between proposals for available resources most proposals are good proposals they will only fund the best proposals so our objective in writing a proposal has to be not merely to write a good proposal but to write the best proposal amongst those that will be submitted okay well that sort of the motivation definitely have to do how do we go about doing it in other words how do we write this document that's called a research proposal how is it structured it's usually dictated by the granting agency they will have standard forms and they will give guidelines what I will present is what is typical most of them demand pretty much the same thing minor variations here and there this is what I will present if it differs from what they are asking if what they're asking is reasonable you better do what they say and structure it in the way the day requests sometimes there are only very vague guidelines about how to structure the proposal it's more freeform in which case you can use what I'm presenting that's pretty much a roadmap on how to structure a proposal typically the proposal will have the following sections an abstract something which I call subject area the scientific or technological background which is basically another word for a literature survey objectives expected results and significance methodology work plan resources references budget and CVS of key personnel in the case where there are where the proposal is from a group of several institutions then typically some kind a letter of cooperation from each partner is required so that the grantor knows that ok the proposal is coming from Tel Aviv University but Hebrew University and the environmental laboratory at the Department of Health have agreed that they're going to do the part that's assigned to them in the proposal now those of you who perhaps heard my lecture on how to write a journal paper will recognize too many of these sections or either identical and named or sound very similar to parts of a journal paper and that's true they are the big difference is this thing called expected results we don't have any results usually we're proposing what we're going to do now what we've done so this is a bit different and when we talk about methodology and work plan in the past when we write a journal paper we're talking about things we already did and we used to past tense but when we're writing a proposal we're talking about what we will do and we use the future tense those are the big differences yeah I'll talk about that I'll give you a quick answer right here in the technological background at the end that's where I suggest putting history they often have a different place and I'll tell you what I do about it what I personally have done about it when you get to it okay abstract this is typically a half to one page depending upon the granting agency they usually dictate the size and it should summarize the subject area in other words what the hell you're talking about the objectives the methodology the expected results and their significance and the resources required this should be written in the third person and most sentences should be passive and it's a good idea to either write us at the end or at least reevaluate it after you write the entire proposal sometimes we don't know what we're doing until we write it down the exercise of writing a document is often a major part of formulating our ideas until they appear black on white our ideas tend sometimes to build but vague and scattered so this summary should be checked after we've gone through the exercise of putting words on paper and readjust it according to what we actually wrote down subject area this section is actually written not for two people who are really going to be doing the evaluation but for the administrators who come first in other words you submit your proposal to a granting agency and they will eventually send it out to professional referees people who are supposedly in your area but how does it get to them in other words how does the administrator of the fun decide first of all to which committee or officer to assign this particular proposal and then further that officer or that committee what specific reviewers ought to look at it and pretty much that will do it by looking at this part of the proposal subject area and accordingly it should be general enough that a non specialist can understand it you have to be sure to define things if you go along if you need to be using any kind of technical words now this is very similar to stage one of the research report introduction those of you who are at that lecture same basic idea for that you're writing it for a very general audience anyone who had happened to read that journal here it has to be even more general you're writing it for an administrator who might not even be a scientist I'll just read a few sentences of an example here this is an example from a proposal on cyclotron resonance masers now these are you know very technical words I don't know how many people how many people in this room know what a cyclotron resonance maser is one anymore - okay that means that about 32 of you don't know okay but let's look at this the first couple of sentences of this proposal and see that even you can understand what's written cyclotron resonance mazes are devices for generating microwave radiation okay so far we've used words that everyone can understand based on the interaction of an electron beam with static magnetic field and a resonant cavity now it's getting a bit more detailed but it's using words which somewhat could be understood and if they don't understand it they at least understand that this is something that makes microwave microwave sources are used for household microwave ovens radar systems and backbone communication links we're using almost common words here okay everyone knows what a microwave oven is for example everyone knows what a radar is in the cyclotron maser energy is transferred from the kinetic energy of the electron beam to an electromagnetic wave when the resonator cavity is tuned to the electron cyclotron resonance frequency that is the frequency in which the electrons rotate around magnetic field lines well I don't expect a clerk in the office to understand that but by this time she probably would have transferred this document to a committee that deals with microwave radiation radio or something like that and then I think even someone who is not an expert on microwave generation we kind of get a general idea what kind of people could deal with this document then as it goes on it can become more detailed the key thing is don't lose the reader right at the very beginning at the very very beginning make it general enough so that the clerk opening the mail can understand the sentence talking about applications is one of the ways of doing it using very very general terms is another any questions about this now this is short a quarter to a half page yeah here whatever have references or could not it's not critical when you get further into more detailed information in the literature review of course there has to be references here it's kind of optional we're not expecting either the clerk or the case officer or the committee to go and check references he just needs information what the hell is being talked about here what field is it which reviewer should I send it to the reviewers will be interested in the references so here it's not you can but it's not absolutely critical okay the scientific or technological background depending upon what kind of grant you are applying for and who the agency is now this is similar again to the introduction or parts of the introduction in a in a research report and basically have the same rules about grammar same kind of typical sentences the typical length is maybe two to three pages we're talking about research proposals which are typically limited and less there's usually a rigid length of typically ten pages some agencies may be fifteen pages some of maybe ten pages but you can have a few more pages of illustrations but that's sort of the scale what you don't want to do is write a proposal which is 70% literature survey okay all that proves is that you can read what they want to know is what are you proposing to do and how are you going to accomplish it so you have to kind of rein yourself in from writing an overly long literature survey so that you have enough room or remaining to write a really good methodology and work plan section okay basically what you're doing here is showing two things first of all that you know the subject you have read the important literature you have read the most relevant literature and in particular you have read the reports that were written by the reviewers of course you don't know who the reviewers are but sometimes you can guess and second that what you're doing will be advancing the science further this is what everyone did up to now they got to here we're pointing to go here that will come out later but you have to make the basis of what was done clear so that your contribution will be understood in context it's okay to go back in history you can mention Newton if you want to but the emphasis and bulk should be on the work which is most similar to what you're doing now my opinion to answer your question this should end with your unpublished results your published results you treated like any other published results there in the literature survey anything that's unpublished should come at the end here now you've got to be quite circumspect in how you handle fighting your own work of course you have to cite it it's probably the closest work to what you're proposing to do but it has to be in proportion anybody who submits a paper or a proposal that 70% of references are to their own work will not have a lot of credibility everyone will be suspecting that maybe they just don't know the literature these are that order egoless and screw them why give them well I get someone like that any money if you can't acknowledge the work that everyone else has done screw them now some agencies suggests having a separate preliminary results section after the methodology and work plan I routinely ignore that or known quite ignore it I'll put it here and at the right place say police see paragraph 2.8 pre in in in the introduction or in the background section and the reason is that we'd like to have I think a clear line between past and present okay we start and building our case here in this background section and that's all in the past including what we've already done and then we state someplace here right now what the objectives are the objectives are actually if you will sitting right here on the right now line and moving a little bit into the future we're writing the objectives now these are objectives right at this time but it's projecting what we intend to do in the future and then the ball code of the proposal is here in the future how are we going to accomplish these objectives this is basically the methodology and work plan sections so this includes in my opinion preliminary results generally research grants or for what you're going to do in the future they don't pay you for what you've done up to now what you've done up to now is just the background - perhaps convince whoever is going to give the money that you're gonna actually get to the finish line okay you've made a good start and going there but they don't pay you for that they're paying you for what you're going to do in the future yeah that's right no and but what you're but what you're going to be doing is not redoing this you're going to be doing new things well you should state right here that these are preliminary results and they're not published okay this should have a subsection title called preliminary results okay but it's all following from what other people have done in the literature and a is done this beings done this and we have already done this we haven't published it yet but here it is what you state your objections excuse me your objectives on the background of what has been done by others and what you've already done your objective should not include what you've already done okay no one is paying you for what you've already done they're paying you for what you're going to do so that's the reason I suggest having it right here part of the background before you state your objectives and your objectives should be tied to what you are going to do in the future not what you've already accomplished see we could always make a strawman right we could say okay my objectives are to do a B and C and then you show well look I've already done any I've already done beaver already on C I don't think that's convincing the guys with the money this is this is a work in progress are you imminent you tell him that in any event okay this section will be labeled two point eight preliminary results okay anyone who is evaluating a research proposal understands yeah okay they've already done this that they've done this and it's sort of furthering their idea but they're asking for money to go forward okay I think that's understood and here it puts things in my opinion in the right order now again I'm giving you an opinion people will do things in different ways and if I'm evaluating a proposal I'm not going to take off points because they put the preliminary results into my opinion the wrong place but it makes it harder for me to understand where are they going I have to think about it more now after you've given the background and your preliminary results the final paragraph of this background section should be a summary which is basically a GAAP statement a GAAP statement indicates what was not done including what I haven't done yet okay and it might start with a one or two sentence summary about what has been done crms have been produced that generate ten megawatt pulses at 15 gigahertz but so far no one has built that need to operate in the turret Hertz region okay the first sentence was sort of a summary of where we got into now but what's important is to state what hasn't been done okay that's the gap sentence same ideas in the research report but here it's even more important it should summarize what was not done or done incorrectly or open questions and the gap sentence must always be negative in form it must have a word like not nobody never etc if there's not a negative word in it it's not a gap don't have an inferred gap so far people have made 15 megawatt to 15 gigahertz masers okay that's nice but it gives no information other than that it doesn't indicate that two Hertz ones have not been made state explicitly what was not done yet now has to be definitive not wishy-washy never write to the best of our knowledge okay it's your job to have that knowledge if you don't have that knowledge no one is going to give you two cents to go forward you're expected to have that knowledge before you stick your hand out nor should to be something like most of the previous research most of the previous research indicates that some little part of the research has done exactly what I'm planning to do so why should I give you money someone has already done it or only a few of the previous researchers or researches same thing those few are the work that is closest to what you plan to do and you should write your gap sentence in relationship to exactly those few okay that's if you will the real point of the gap sentence is to identify where people have gotten to and where they haven't you do not want to have your evaluators asking these kind of questions like what did the few do or why doesn't he know is filled so for this reason you have to write a very precise pinpoint gap sentence that exactly defines what was not done and basically sets the stage for you saying your objectives which is what you plan to do okay and that brings us to the objectives this corresponds to Stage four of the research report introduction but here it's more detailed it should be probably a short paragraph two to four sentences the first sentence should state and overall objective and then the following sentences can indicate more intermediate or specific aspects of the objectives and here even more critically than in the research report the objective must not ever be to study or to investigate or in other words to do research no one is going to give you money when you say that the objective of my research is to do research okay it is not to investigate it is not the study if they get someplace is to know the answer it's to build the apparatus it's whatever I don't know you have to determine what it is but it should be a very deterministic objective to determine to develop to solve even to understand ok understand it's fine investigate is not either as part of the same section or as a separate section depending upon the granting agency the something called expected results and significance this corresponds literally to the value statements in stage 5 of the research report but there was optional here it is essential and very important this section should answer the question ok if you succeed in reaching your objective so what so what why is it important who cares what will you be able to do or what would a world be able to do now that you have the answer to this to your research question now that you've achieved your objective there might be it'll allow you to address additional scientific questions or it might be that some practical use will come out of this and I hope that's the case at least in part of the work that we do in the Faculty of engineering some new medical technological or industrial product or process there should be some real reason for doing the research it can't be some general like this is a very important question in elementary particle physics everybody's question is very important that a person maybe he was trying to answer it but why is it important to the person who's going to give the money so you have to be specific no general statements like this will advanced computer engineering be very very specific now if you can't define the expected significance two things I think are true one you probably won't be granted to grant and second you should be asking yourself why how are you doing this research ok if you can't state why it's important why are you doing it there's lots of questions to answer in this world why that particular question now this can be difficult for students you were probably handed the problem to you by your advisor but ultimately you are responsible for your research that's you that's gonna have to stand up in front of a committee and defend your proposal and it's you that's gonna have to defend your thesis and it's you we're going to have to invest maybe four years of your life in doing this this work so I say to you if you can't answer this question for yourself by the time you are writing your proposal is this really what you want to be doing either understand it better so that you understand its significance than you can explain it or choose another topic choose another advisor get out of this one before it's too late okay now we get to the real heart of the proposal what are we really proposing to do well we've kind of defined where we want to get to was the objectives the next point is how do we get there and there are two sections that answer that question and this is really the heart of the proposal and really should be the bulk of the volume of the proposal as well methodology and work plan often in the outline given to you by the various agencies these appear as a single section but there are two different things and I want you to understand the difference methodology means what are the various methods that I will use okay they may be experimental methods they may be theoretical methods they may be simulation efforts I don't know whatever is appropriate here you explain the methods now you have a methodology section in a research report as well so you know about methodology sections but there's a big difference here and there in a research report you had to give enough detail to allow duplicates actly of the results elsewhere that's not a requirement here here the requirement is to convince the examiner the evaluator that you know what you're doing and you have a pretty good chance of success you don't have to go down to the level of nuts and bolts and screws and exactly which voltage you've applied or what was the pressure or what was the phase of the moon when you made the measurements that kind of detail is not required the idea is to show that you have a clear plan on how you are going to achieve your objective and that your plan is reasonable it's in fact the in your proposal the method methods that you propose should be the best benefits available to you now four methods which are well known this description can be very very brief it's enough to mention the method and to give a reference on the other hand if you're using some kind of new or innovative technique then you have to describe it in much more detail again how much detail enough detail to convince the evaluator that you know what you're doing and that the probability that it will work is high now you may have had a bunch of different methods for example if you're doing work in materials research you'll have methods for fabricating your samples maybe you think centering maybe using vacuum arc deposition and maybe I don't know what else maybe you're casting okay so you have all those methods you have methods for evaluating the results you may be using x-ray diffraction you may be using microscopy of one kind or another you may be using calorimetry you may be doing mechanical testing who knows okay you may have ten different methods that you're using the work plan basically describes in words and with some time some kind of chart or diagram the sequence in which you use these various methods and relationship between them like I'm going to use method a to make my sample and then first I'm going to evaluate it with method B depending on the results then I will use a use method C or D okay it has that kind of verbal description so that's sort of the difference the work plan should include either a timetable in other words you break the work into different phases or tasks and you state one each one will begin and when each one will end or what's called a Gantt chart does anyone know what againt chart is does anyone not know okay a Gantt chart is basically a timeline will put task 1 task two and here we'll have a line with some unit of time like months or quarters for years let's say month and we'll just how it's just a bar chart this begins here and ends here this begins here and ends here etc okay that's called a Gantt chart so the I'd say this is preferred because you kind of get a mental picture of the flow of work all in kind of one glance so if they don't tell you otherwise I would use this rather than a timetable but it's not critical so this is not the work plan this kind of summarizes the work plan the work plan is a verbal description of what we have in each task okay in this task and it refers to the methods I'm going to be using the method I just described over here and then the method I used over here used over here etc now this is really too hard in the proposal some people have a lot of trouble with this they will say things like well I don't know what I'm gonna do two years from now depends on the results I get believe me everyone reading a research proposal has been in this situation himself they know all the excuses you should have a clear idea of what you think is going to happen and let that be sort of the center line of your work plan you can put into your work plan contingencies if this is what I get I'm gonna give up the work and go home okay if this is what I get then I'm gonna use this method and if this what I get I can use that method share your thoughts with the evaluator show them that you'll afford it through from the beginning to the end now we write our proposal in bits and bytes in a computer memory we don't chisel it with a chisel and a hammer in stone every evaluator has been there and knows that you have to go with the flow a little bit you may plan to do something and it doesn't work and you have to come up with another idea everyone knows this you can't use that as an excuse not to make a work plan you have to think things through and make a work plan and but no one really expects that you will necessarily carry it out exactly the way you proposed different agencies have different attitudes about it most purely scientific once accepted straight out and just want to be informed that you've made a [Music] with say a course correction when you submit the an annual report more technological ones are a bit more rigid and expect you to request permission when you make a deviation from the work plan but no one is anticipating that what you propose is going to be followed through exactly from the beginning to the end everyone knows that there may be changes it does not excuse you from writing a work plan it's got to be there and it should be the bulk now the people who have a lot of trouble ARF irritations I've seen proposals that are absolutely awful where fear additions in this methodology start deriving equations they give five pages of derived equations that think that that's the methodology gentlemen and ladies that's not methodology that's preliminary results what I'm interested in knowing as an evaluator is what are you going to do tomorrow okay I don't need this derivation of equations it doesn't help me at all in terms of what are you going to be doing for the next three years what I need to know is how are you going to follow these equations maybe okay what are you going to do once you solve them things like that what equations are you are you going to derive in the future okay so in my opinion this should be the real book maybe half more than half of the proposal methodology and work plan this demonstrates what you are proposing without a clear methodology and work plan the proposal probably will be rejected now in terms of grammar what you have to describe is what you plan to do not what you've already done and not what you might possibly do for example there should not be a statement like the electron density can be measured by laser interferometry okay that's nice it can be measured are you planning on using laser interferometry are you just giving this to us for general information if you're just giving it for general information fine but then there should be another sentence however we're not going to use it because it's no damn good okay or whatever you may have a sentence like that but someplace you have to say what I am going to use the electron density will be measured by laser interferometry that's okay the will be is needed in methodology and work plan sections note the use of future tense and passive voice here are some examples the microwave power output will be measured with a calibrated diode detector this could be part of a methodology section or work plan the first task of the proposed program will be to formulate model equations for peristaltic transport of the embryo and human uterus okay up to here resources here you should describe very briefly the proposing organization and this depends on to whom you are sending the proposal you're sending it to Israel Science Foundation you do not have to describe Tel Aviv University but if you're sending it to some international agency there should be one or two sentences about Tel Aviv University it should definitely describe your group your lab the people who are really doing the work it should detail the facilities available for the proposed research note for the proposed research you do not have to give a catalogue of all the equipment in your lab that's not of interest just what you plan to use and it should have a brief description of the key personnel noting that was probably more detailed information later and see it in the form of CDs something between one two three sentences for the principal investigators and maybe one or two sentences for students technicians etc now up to here this is typically the the bulk of the body of the proposal and it's typically rigorously limited to ten pages and that does not mean ten pages with font 7.5 points okay they usually dictate what font and what spacing you can't cheat on it they usually don't limit you to references so you can have 10 pages of references if you want just take it into account that if you have a hundred references that probably proves you can read and if you have 200 it probably proves that you can count but you can you can be brought here to least indicate that you know that the literature exists it's nothing cost you anything just don't go completely wild on it they may or may not dictate a style but you should at least make sure that your style is internally consistent why most proposals are good proposals ok it gets to the point where evaluators are looking for picking you things to pick wholesome in order to reject proposals so that only the limited number ones where does actually enough money will get get to funding so they're looking for looking for issues if someone uses one style for one reference and then another reference of the same type is in a different style they look at it and say what this guy doesn't know how to edit his own work he can't proofread can't be consistent maybe when he takes his measurements one day he'll use one voltmeter another day a different voltmeter and he doesn't do the calibration so you don't want to give them reason to think that maybe you're a sloppy researcher budget you have to follow the guidelines of the granting agency don't request what they won't provide you have to use the forms that they provide but I very strongly recommend that you develop your budget using a spreadsheet if a budget form has not provided then you should organize it in court into these categories salary and benefits and that also includes by the way support for students in the form of fellowships or scholarships equipment supplies services travel other and overhead you want separate lines for each item within with each category and separate columns for each year and then after you give your budget you should justify to budget a few paragraphs where you explain the big-ticket items and any items which are unusual you explain why they are needed to reach the objectives in your research the Seavey's of the typically the principal investigators are usually required in one form or another and you have to follow to form that the granting agency demands some just watch a CV others realized that the CV of a a veteran researcher might be 40 pages and who to hell one followed up paperwork so they give some kind of outline and say fill in the outline and don't give me anything more they have to do what they say and for multi institutional projects there's usually a requirement for some kind of letter of cooperation from each of the institutional partners now what happens when you submit your proposal it depends what kind of proposal it is the best possible deal is what I call an invited proposal someone from typically government or typically military or industry comes to you and says we got a problem solve it for us write me a proposal that's fantastic usually then the person who came to you will be your champion and all he needs is ammunition and he will push it through all the bureaucratic channels to get you the money that's not the usual case usually we're responding to public calls for proposals and they're very very competitive the proposal has to be not merely good but in the top X percent in order to get funding because most proposals are good many referees are looking for weak points as an excuse for rejection what do they look for consistency you set out a bunch of objectives okay first of all to check the gap sentence were these objectives in fact already accomplished or not they look at the expected results and significance if he accomplishes these objectives why is this a good idea and they look at the methodology work plan and budget to see that each of the objectives is answered by some method and has its place some place in the work plan that all of the resources that are requested in the budget are in fact needed to accomplish the objective that all the people need it to accomplish the objective are in fact in the team then it all ties together okay consistency and having a package that hangs together is probably the key thing here and is certainly something that every evaluator will be looking for mister some dribble and Method in the methodology and work plan that that's something that's not connected to an objective he's wondering is this guy able to think clearly or not maybe he's gonna wander off and do research on the taste of chocolate when he was supposed to be investigating free electron lasers PhD candidates the committee wants to know whether the subject is worthy of a PhD degree is this scope appropriate they want to know if the methodology work plan and timetable are realistic and the resource is adequate so you can finish the job in the time allotted namely four years okay I'll give you a fifth year okay but if you give them a ten-year plan for a PhD it will be rejected don't want something that's realistic and of course they want to know whether you are whether you're qualified to do to work that's the reason there's an exam that's oral to ask you questions they want to see whether you're really up to doing the work that you're proposing okay what are the most common problems statements in the wrong section in the background you give the background you don't talk about what you're going to do okay when you get to the methodology section you don't suddenly remember that somebody did some piece of work and stick it in there make an outline and stick to the outline if you have to change the outline change the outline but every statement should be in the right place lack of a definitive GAAP paragraph the person who is giving the money wants to know that you are going to produce a significant new result tell them the dis result has not been produced before be clear and explicit not wishy-washy not having a clearly defined objective typically things like we're going to investigate XY and Z okay the guy is asking for money feeling go play in the lab is that where I want to put my money no I want someone who can think the whole thing through from the beginning to end he knows where he's going he knows why he wants to get there and he has the methods to get there significance of the work not emphasized we talked about that before as an evaluator or I want to know why this work is important why should i fund this research instead of that research an inadequate work program this I think is probably the most common I don't know how many research proposals I've seen where it's six or seven pages of background and about one and a half pages of methodology and and work plan my feeling about someone like that is I know he knows how to read I'm not in the least bit certain that he knows how to plan his research do I want to put my money with him so let me summarize the proposal must convince you want to summarize the key points in the abstract the literature review should be focused on the work which is closest to the proposed work there should be a definitive GAAP statement that clearly states that what you are planning to do has not been done this should be clear objectives no wishy-washy things like I'm going to investigate study or do research have fun in the laboratory but a clear objective that's deterministic the objective is to understand it's to build it's to develop whatever the significance should be emphasized and explained why achieving this objective is important there should be a detailed work program and the methodology and work program should be about half of the proposed less so thank you for your attention and if you'd like something more detailed read my book I'll send through Penina a discount code if anyone wants to buy the damn book so you can get you know 25% off whatever if you bought water directly from the publisher any questions yes sir thank you I think reviewers are a problem and despite everything that I said when you submit a proposal you're basically throwing dice on the table it's a crapshoot to get a proposal funded from a major agency basically all of the evaluators have to raise their hand and say this is an excellent proposal before say it's excellent and one says it's good probably not going to get funded and you never can tell who that mix of three four or five evaluators is going to be just don't know I remember one year I submitted two proposals one I flood was a really good proposal and the other is yeah guess which one got funded okay you got it it was the air one apparently that proposal got sensitive rights if you will reviewers and they all raised their hand you never can tell most proposals are not funded RSF depends on the field but maybe two-thirds three-quarters are rejected only about 25% or 30% are funded this means that if you are a researcher who's dependent on money you're going to be spending a lot of time writing proposals for everyone that's gets funded you probably had to submit three of them if you're lucky okay sorry that's the name of the game if you will we waste a lot of our time writing proposals what about first of all first of all I think that the fear of being copied is exaggerated in terms of the actual threat let's start with that copying other people's ideas does not happen very often it really doesn't because most of us to be honest who are into research are very egotistical we think our ideas are the best and we're in it because we want to develop our ideas we're not looking to steal other people's ideas I won't say that it doesn't happen but it it's not very common secondly where is this guy going to go to get the money maybe but you know pretty much in the research community we have a pretty good idea of what everyone else is doing you know in our particular our particular little niche if somebody comes up with something that's way out of left field compared to what he's doing and guess what it's just like what you're doing yeah it's probably going to be suspicious I won't say it doesn't happen but it's not all that common I think you have to be straightforward no it goes without saying that it's completely unethical right anytime that you get something to review it's on the understanding that you are reading it only for the purposes of submitting a review and that you can't make any personal use of that information until it's actually published this is understood by all involved does it mean that doesn't happen doesn't mean that when any time you read something it should be stimulating your thinking of course but that's not the same as you know how now copy I won't say it doesn't happen I've been plagiarized okay all of a sudden I get a letter from some Chinese researcher that says hey I read this paper published in such-and-such and gee isn't it the same talk that you gave in Singapore all right go and I look him to find out that indeed it was I didn't publish it was a review paper and I didn't figure there was anything there worthy of publishing so I just posted it on my website and someone copied it from my website and published it as a paper of his okay it happens but it's very rare of course he can he basically committed academic suicide in doing this I mean does someone really expect to do something like this and not get caught so yeah it happens it's rare I wouldn't let that be what dictates you you got a make your case on the assumption that the system works right or take the money out of your own pocket and fund your research other questions yeah proposals for different funding agencies because you don't have like three different ideas yeah it depends it depends generally speaking yes but not in Israel and Israel the various agencies are coordinated and demand because they get so many proposals that you'd not submit the same proposal to let's say GSF DSF or ISF I think the three of them have kind of an agreement no duplication so there no now on the other hand if you get a grant you're often obliged to let how can I put it if you have more than one grant to do the same work you have to let everyone know and they may cut back the funding or whatever you do have that obligation unless they tell you otherwise though you can send the same proposal to three different agencies the exception is Israel other questions okay thank you for your attention let's go to lunch [Applause]

Channel: TAUVOD

Views: 31,336

Rating: 4.9543972 out of 5

Keywords: אוניברסיטת תל אביב, Ray Boxman, Research Proposal

Id: TJCfiKMFQh4

Length: 73min 13sec (4393 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 24 2017