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.