Writing A Research Proposal

WRITING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL PREPARATION Reviewers of research proposals, whether they are faculty, funding sponsors, or peer reviewers , want a clear idea of what the researcher plans to do, how and when various task are to be accomplished, and whether the researcher is capable of successfully following the proposed plan of action. Proposals are generally evaluated on a number of criteria, including the importance of the research question, its theoretical relevance, the adequacy of the research methods, the availability of appropriate personnel and facilities, and, if money is being requested, the reasonableness of the budget. General guidelines for preparing research proposals follow:

PROPOSAL CONTENT ABSTRACT Proposals often begin with a brief synopsis of the proposed research. The abstract helps to establish a frame of reference for the reviewers as they begin to read the proposal. The abstract should be brief (usually 200 to 300 words in length) and should concisely state the study objectives and methods to be used.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem that the intended research will address is ordinarily identified early in the proposal. The problem should be stated in such a way that its importance is apparent to the reviewer. On the other hand, the researcher should not promise more than can be produced. A broad and complex problem is unlikely to be solvable or manageable.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM

The proposal needs to describe clearly how the proposed research will make a contribution to knowledge. The proposal should indicate the expected generalizability of the research, its contribution to theory, its potential for improving nursing practice and patient care, and possible applications or consequences of the knowledge to be gained.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM A section of the proposal is often devoted to an exposition of how the intended research builds on what has already been done in an area. The background material should strengthen the author’s arguments concerning the significance of the study, orient the reader to what is already known about the problem, and indicate how the proposed research will augment that knowledge; it should also serve as a demonstration of the researcher’s command of current knowledge in a field.

OBJECTIVES Specific, achievable objectives provide the reader with clear criteria against which the proposed research methods can be assessed. Objectives stated as research hypotheses or specific models to be tested are often preferred. Whenever the theoretical background of the study, existing knowledge, or the researcher’s experience permit an explicit predictions should be included in the proposal. Avoid the use of null hypotheses which create an amateurish impression. In exploratory or descriptive research, the formulation of hypotheses might not be feasible. Objectives, in such cases, may be most conveniently phrased as question.

METHODS The explanation of the research methods should be thorough enough that a reader will have no question about how the research objectives will be addressed. A thorough methods section includes a description of the sampling plan, research design, instrumentation, specific procedures, and analytic strategies, together with a discussion of

the rationale for the methods, potential methodological problems, and intended strategies for handling such problems.

THE WORK PLAN Researchers often describe in the proposal their plan for managing the flow of work on a research project. The researchers indicate in the work plan the sequence of tasks to be performed, the anticipated length of time required for their completion, and the personnel required for their accomplishment. The work plan indicates to the reader how realistic and thorough how realistic and thorough the researcher has been in designing the study.

PERSONNEL In proposals addressed to funding agencies, the qualifications of key project personnel should be described. The research competencies of the project director and other team members are typically given major consideration in evaluating a proposal.

FACILITIES The proposal should document the extent to which special facilities required by the project will be available. Access to physiologic instrumentation, libraries, data processing equipment, computers, special documents or records, and subjects should be describe to reassure sponsors and advisers that the project will be able to proceed as planned. The willingness of the institution with which the researcher is affiliated to allocate space, equipment, services, or data should also be indicated.

BUDGET The budget translates the project activities into monetary terms. It is a statement of how much money will be required to accomplish the various tasks. A well- conceived work plan greatly facilitates the preparation of the budget. If there are no inordinate difficulties in detailing financial needs, there may be reason to suspect that the work plan is insufficiently developed.

IDENTIFING CRITICAL POINTS The key or critical points in a proposal must be clear, even to the hasty reader. Critical points might be highlighted with bold type or underlined. Sometimes headings are created to highlight critical content, or the content is organized into tables or graphs. The research problem, significance of the problem, purpose, framework, research objectives, questions or hypotheses, and methodological procedures are considered critical content in a proposal.

DEVELOPING AN ESTHETICALLY APPEALING COPY An esthetically appealing copy is well typed on quality paper without spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors. Even a proposal with excellent content that is poorly typed or formulated will probably not received the full attention or respect of the reviewer. The format used in typing the proposal should follow the guidelines developed by the reviewer. If no particular format is requested, the APA (1994) format is commonly used. An appealing copy is legible (print is dark enough to be read) and is neatly organized in a folder for easy examination by the reviewer.

CONTENT OF A STUDENT PROPOSAL Student researchers develop proposals to communicate their research projects to the faculty and members of university and agency research review committees. Student proposals are written to satisfy requirements for a degree and are usually developed according to guidelines outlined by faculty. The content of a student proposal usually requires greater detail than the proposal developed for review by agency personnel or funding organizations. The proposal is often the first three or four chapters of the student’s thesis or dissertation, and the proposed study is discussed in the future tense of what will be done in conducting the research. A title page, name of the investigator, and the date the proposal submitted, and a table of contents often precedes the proposal content.

CONTENT OF A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A quantitative research proposal usually includes the following chapters or sections: 1. Introduction 2. Review of relevant literature 3. Framework 4. Methods and Procedures Some graduate schools require an in- depth development of these sections, whereas others require a condensed version of the same content. Another approach is that proposals for theses and dissertations are written in a form that can ultimately be submitted for publication.

CONTENT OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSAL A qualitative research proposal might include some content similar to that of a quantitative proposal, but the guidelines are usually more flexible and abstract to accommodate the emergent design of the study. A qualitative proposal usually includes the following sections or chapters: 1. introduction 2. literature review 3. methods The quality of the proposal is determined based on the potential scientific contribution of the research; conceptual framework guiding the study; research methods; and knowledge, skills, and resources available to the researchers. Guidelines for a qualitative research proposal are outlined in Table 26.2.

GENERAL TIPS ON PROPOSAL PREPARATION 1. Review a Successful Proposal Some of your colleagues or advisors have written a proposal that has been accepted (either by a funding sponsor or by a dissertation committee), and many people are

glad to share their successful efforts with others. Also, proposals funded by the federal government are generally in the public domain. That means that you can ask to see a copy of proposals that have obtained federal funding by writing to the sponsoring agency. 2. Pay Attention To Reviewers Criteria In most instances in which research funding is at stake, the funding agency will provide the researcher with information about the criteria that reviewers use in making funding decisions. In some cases, the criteria will simply consist of a list of questions that the reviewers must address in making a global assessment of the proposals quality. In other cases, however, the agency will be able to specify exactly how many points will be assigned to different aspects of the proposal on the basis of specified criteria. e.g. the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development funded some research projects relating to fertility regulation using the following evaluation criteria: Conceptualization of the Problem -

Ability of the researcher to conceptualize the problem, including the operationalizing and quantifying of measures, and the development of a theoretical or conceptual framework (0 to 30 points).

Project Staff Qualifications and Availability -

adequacy of the relevant training and experience of the proposed staff (0 to 15 points)

-

appropriateness of allocation of personnel and time to accomplish objectives of the project (0 to 10)

Data Sources and Analysis -

demonstration of capability for identifying and obtaining access to pertinent and relevant sources of data and adequacy of plans for data analysis.

Review and Analysis of Literature -

in terms of scope and depth and extent to which research needs are delineated in theoretical, methodological, and analytic areas (0 to 15 points)

Facilities and Equipment -

adequacy of computer facilities and other equipment that would be needed in the performance of the research (0 to 10 points)

Different agencies establish different criteria for different types of research projects. The wise researcher will learn what those criteria are and pay attention to them in the development of the proposal. 3. Be Judicious in Developing a Research Team For projects that are funded, reviewers often give considerable weight to the qualifications of the people who will conduct the research. The person who is in the lead role on the project often referred to as the principal investigator (PI) should carefully scrutinize the qualifications of the research team. It is not enough to have a team of competent people. It is necessary to have the right mix of competence. A project team of three brilliant theorists without statistical skills in a project that proposes sophisticated multivariate techniques may have difficulty convincing reviewers that the project would be successful. Gaps and weaknesses can often be compensated for by the judicious use of consultants. 4. Justify and Document Your Decisions Unsuccessful proposals often fail because they do not provide the reviewer with confidence that adequate thought and consideration have been given to a rationale for decisions. Almost every aspect of the proposal involves a decision the problem selected, the population studied, the size of the sample, the data collection procedures to be used and so on. These decisions should be made carefully, keeping in mind the costs and benefit s of an alternative decisions. When you are satisfied that you have made the right decision, you should be ready to defend your decision by sharing the rationale with the reviewers. In general, insufficient detail is more detrimental to the proposal than an overabundance of detail, although page constraints may make full detail impossible.

5. Arrange for a Critique of the Proposal Before formal submission of a proposal a draft should be reviewed by at least one other person, preferably someone with relevant methodological and substantive strength in the proposed area of research. If a consultant has been proposed because of specialized expertise that you believe will strengthen the study; then it would be advantageous to have that consultant participate in the proposal development by reviewing the draft and making recommendation for its improvement.

Verbal Defense of a Proposal Graduate students conducting theses or dissertations are frequently required to defend their proposal verbally to their university committee members. Some institutions also require the researcher to meet with the research committee or a subcommittee to defend a proposal. In a verbal defense the reviewers can evaluate the researcher as a person, the researcher’s knowledge and understanding of the content of the proposal, and his or her ability to reason and provide logical explanations related to the study. The researcher also has the opportunity to persuade reluctant committee members to approve the study. Appearance is important in a personal presentation, because it can give an impression of competence or incompetence. Since these presentations are business like, with logical and rational interactions, one should dress in a business like manner. Individuals who are casually dressed might be perceived by the committee as not valuing the review process. Nonverbal behavior is important during the meeting as well, so appearing calm, in control, and confident projects a positive image. Planning and rehearsing a presentation can reduce anxiety. Obtaining information on the personalities of committee members, their relationship with each other, vested interests of each member, and their areas of expertise can increase confidence and provide a sense of control. It is important to arrive at the meeting early, assess the environment for the meeting, and carefully select a seat. As the presenter, all members of the committee need to be able to see you.

The verbal defense usually begins with a brief presentation of the study. The presentation needs to be carefully planned, timed and rehearsed. Salient points should be highlighted, which could be accomplished by the use of the audiovisuals. The presentation is followed by questions from the reviewers, and the researcher needs to be prepared to defend or justify the methods and procedures of the study. Sometimes it is helpful to practice responding to questions related to the study with a friend as a means of determining the best ways to defend ideas without appearing defensive. When the meeting has ended, the researcher should thank the members of the committee for their time. If a decision regarding the study has not been made during the meeting, ask when the committee will make a decision.

REVISING A PROPOSAL Reviewers sometimes suggest changes in a proposal; however, some of these changes may be of benefit to the institution but not to the study. In these situation, try to remain receptive to the suggestions, explore with the committee the impact of the changes on the proposed study, and try to resolve the conflict. Many times reviewers make valuable suggestions that might improve the quality of a study or facilitate the data collection process. The proposal is often revised based on these suggestions before the study is implemented. Sometimes a study requires revisions while it is being conducted because of problems with data collection tools or subject’s participation. Before revising a proposal, a researcher needs to address three questions: 1. what needs to be changed? 2. Why is change necessary? 3. How will the change affect the implementation of the study and the study findings? Students need to seek advice from the faculty before revising their studies. Sometimes it is beneficial for seasoned researchers to discuss their proposed study changes with other researchers or agency personnel for suggestions and additional viewpoints. If a revision is necessary, the researcher should revise the proposal and discuss the change with the members of the research committee in the agency where the study is being conducted. If a study is funded, the study changes must be discussed with the representatives of the funding agency. The funding agency has the power to approve

or disapprove the changes. However, realistic changes that are clearly described and backed with a rationale will probably be approved. COMMUNICATION OF FINDING The study finding will be presented to the thesis committee, hospital research committee, ICU nurses and managers, and the manufacturer of the equipment. In addition, an abstract of the study will be submitted for possible presentation of the research at a national critical care meeting. The study will be submitted for publication in a clinical journal such as Heart and Lung or American Journal of Critical Care. A study time table and budget have been developed to direct the project an example are presented in tables 26-3 and 26-4. GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds a considerable number of nursing research studies through the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) and through other institutes and agencies within NIH. Application for grant funding through NIH are made by completing Public Health Service Grant Application Form PHS 398, which is available through the research offices of most universities and hospitals THE REVIEW PROCESS Grant applications submitted to NIH are received by the Divisions of Research Grants (DRG), where they are reviewed for relevance to the overall mission of NIH. NIH uses a dual review system for making decisions about its grant applications. The first level involves a panel of peer reviewers (not employed by NIH), who evaluate the grant application for its scientific merit. This panel (usually referred to as an Initial Review Group or Study Section) consists of about 15 to 20 scientist with backgrounds appropriate to the specific study section for which they have been selected.

The second level of reviews is by a National Advisory Council, which includes both scientific and lay representatives. The National Advisory Council considers not only the scientific merit of an application but also the relevance of the proposed study to the programs and priorities of the Center or Institute to which the application has been submitted as well as budgetary consideration. FUNDING FOR RESEARCH PROPOSALS Funding for research projects is becoming more difficult to obtain. The problem lies not only in research cutbacks and inflation but also in the extremely keen and growing competition among researchers. Successful research proposal writers need to have a good research and proposal- writing skills, and they must also know how and from whom funding is available. FEDERAL FUNDING The federal government is the largest contributor to the support of research activities. The two major types of federal disbursements are grants and contracts. Grants- are awarded for proposals in which the research idea is developed by the investigator. The researcher who identifies an important research problem can seek federal funds through a grant program of one or more agencies of the government. Contracts- an agency that identifies the need for a specific study issues a Request for Proposals (RFP), which details the exact work that the government wants done and the specific problem to be addressed. Contracts are usually awarded to only one of the competitors. The contract method of securing research support severely constraints the kinds of work in which investigators can engage. For this reason, most nurse researchers probably will want to compete for grants rather than contracts. PRIVATE FUNDS Health care research is supported by a number of philanthropic foundations, professional organizations, and corporations. Many investigators prefer private

funding to government support because there is often less red tape. Private organizations typically are less rigid in their proposal regulations, reporting requirements, clearance of instruments, and monitoring a progress.