Writing Research Proposals for Funding

Your Literature Review is Sabotaging Your Success. 80% of doctoral students make this critical mistake—and it's keeping them stuck in endless revision cycles. Most students approach their lit review like this: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Brown (2022) found Z." Then they're confused when their committee says it "lacks synthesis" or "reads like a book report." Here's the problem: You're cataloging individual studies instead of revealing what the field has collectively learned. The Game-Changing Shift: Stop writing WHAT studies found. Start writing what the FIELD knows. Your committee doesn't want a grocery list of findings. They want to see you thinking like a scholar who can identify patterns, gaps, and emerging themes across bodies of research. Compare These Approaches: ❌ The Grocery List (What Most Students Do): "Johnson (2020) studied social media and found negative effects on mental health. Williams (2021) also studied social media and found mixed results. Davis (2022) found positive effects in their sample." ✅ The Synthesis (What Committees Want): "The relationship between social media use and mental health depends on three key factors that emerged across 15 studies: type of use (passive vs. active), duration of use, and individual vulnerability factors (Johnson, 2020; Williams, 2021; Davis, 2022)." See the difference? The second example: -Identifies patterns across studies -Creates new knowledge from existing research -Shows YOU thinking, not just reporting -Demonstrates scholarly maturity How to Make This Shift: Instead of asking: "What did this study find?"  Ask: "What do these studies collectively tell us?" Look for: -Patterns across findings -Contradictions that reveal important variables -Gaps where knowledge is missing -Emerging themes that connect different studies Your lit review should read like a story about what the field has learned, not a bibliography with commentary. The Real Impact: -When you master synthesis, you: -Get faster committee approval -Demonstrate readiness for original research -Show you understand your field deeply -Set up your methodology naturally -Position yourself as a emerging scholar, not just a student Remember: Your committee has read these studies. They don't need you to summarize them. They need you to synthesize them into new understanding. Struggling with your literature review? The difference between reporting and synthesizing is often what separates students who finish from those who don't. What's your biggest challenge with literature reviews? Share in the comments—let's help each other level up. 👇 #PhDLife #DoctoralStudent #LiteratureReview #AcademicWriting #PhD #DissertationHelp #GradSchool #AcademicSuccess #ScholarlyWriting

On ruthlessly slashing content from your paper (or the worst pain is self-inflicted). Too often, in my own work, I find myself wanting to keep the perfect sentence - even though that sentence is no longer central to my paper. Less often, I find that I need to lose a whole section - or at least a review panel tells me that I do. When I receive that request, I use a simple process to decide if the reviewers are right. First, I ask: does this section serve the central argument? If a section doesn’t directly support your research question, hypothesis, or key takeaway, it’s probably a distraction. Just because something is interesting doesn’t mean it’s essential. Tip: Write a one-sentence summary of your paper’s main contribution. Then assess each section or paragraph: does it build toward that contribution? Second, I ask is this a “nice-to-have?” If so, I cut it ruthlessly. Tangents in the literature review, extended background details, or exploratory results may feel valuable but often dilute your argument. Keep your focus tight. Tip: If a section interrupts the flow or distracts from the core story, consider moving it to an appendix or cutting it entirely. Third, I focus on my logic, not just length I don’t remove content just to meet a word count. The goal is clarity, not just brevity. So I focus on making sure the argument still makes sense and flows logically. Tip: Start by trimming redundancy and repetition before cutting depth or nuance. Fourth, I save major cuts in a separate file. Some material might work better in a future paper, talk, or grant proposal. Tip: Use a separate document (e.g., “PaperName_Cuts.docx”) to store anything you remove. Name it topically. That way, you can find it more easily later. Finally, I read the paper like a reviewer, not a writer I know what I'm trying to say—but would a reviewer? Ask colleagues what felt unclear or unnecessary. If they skim a section or get lost, that’s a sign. Tip: If multiple readers question the same part, strongly consider revising or removing it. Final thought: Cutting isn’t about making your paper smaller—it’s about making it stronger, focused, and publishable. And the pain? that's self-inflicted? That is what happens when I don't listen to the reviewers - bc the rejection is swift if I fail to either change the paper or offer an adequate explanation for why I did not change it! Best of luck! #academicwriting

For those seeking NIH grant funding, there are changes to the review process, now called the Simplified Peer Review Framework. The 5 traditional criteria (significance, innovation, approach, investigators, environment) have been collapsed into 3 factors. While it may look the same on the surface, there are changes to the way each factor is defined and weighed. Below I outline the 3 factors and explain how they matter: 1. Importance. This is the single most important score-driving factor. The goal here is to demonstrate why the proposed work is significant. Why is your research important? What specific scientific or clinical gap does your study address? How will your work change clinical practice, scientific paradigms, policies? Innovation is part of demonstrating importance - but significance trumps innovation. The best overall score you can get for a proposal is bound by your importance score. 2. Rigor and reproduceability (R/R). This factor covers your methods. Obviously important to have strong methods but R/R don’t matter much if the proposal isn’t deemed important. A weak score on Factor 2 will bring down your overall score. 3. Expertise and resources. This factor covers the PI, co-investigators, other contributors, and institutions involved. Same as with R/R: it’s important to make sure your team has the necessary expertise, but a strong team can’t make up for an unimportant research question and a weak team will bring down your overall score. These were points covered during reviewer training held by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review - see link below for more info. Later this summer, I’ll have a chance to see the Simplied Framework in action. Would love to hear from those of you who’ve experienced the new review approach. Please comment below! https://lnkd.in/g_CWNMbn

🔹Tips for writing a winning GRANT PROPOSAL 🎯 Grant writing can feel overwhelming, but it is one of the most valuable skills you can develop. Phenny A. Omondi, MSc, and I began writing grant proposals during our undergraduate days at Universidad EARTH. Over the years, we’ve secured funding from organizations like the Mastercard Foundation, Wege Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Changes for Humanity, etc. to support the operations of a community-based organization we founded in Kenya (Kilimo Jijini). When I started graduate school, I further polished my grant writing skills by enrolling in a transformative 3-credit Grant Writing course taught by Dr. Jaret Daniels, and since then together with my advisor, we have submitted small and huge grant proposals worth millions of dollars to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), etc. Here are some key lessons I’ve learned along the way: 1. Start early Give yourself time to brainstorm, draft, and revise. Rushed proposals often lack polish and clarity. 2. Know your audience Research the funding agency’s mission, priorities, and target outcomes. Align your goals with their vision. 3. Focus on impact Clearly state how your research will address a problem and make a meaningful difference. Highlight real-world applications. 4. Tell a compelling story Proposals aren’t just data - they’re narratives. Make your introduction engaging and persuasive. Show passion for your work. 5. Define clear objectives Be specific about what you want to achieve and how you’ll measure success. Funders want results, not vague ideas. 6. Plan a realistic budget Outline costs with transparency and accuracy. Avoid overestimating but don’t undersell what you need to succeed. 7. Highlight your team’s expertise Funders invest in people as much as ideas. Showcase your team’s qualifications and past successes. And how that adds value to your idea. 8. Provide a timeline Break down your project into phases with deadlines. A clear timeline shows you’ve thought through the process 9. Proofread and seek feedback Ask mentors or colleagues to review your draft. They can spot weaknesses and suggest improvements you may have missed. 10. Follow instructions Carefully read and follow the funding agency’s guidelines. Missing a formatting detail or word limit can disqualify your proposal. 👉 What’s your experience with grant writing? Repost ♻️ to help someone else! #GrantWritingTips #ResearchFunding #AcademicSuccess #Mentorship #STEMResearch #WomenInSTEM #ResearchProposals University of Florida

A PhD research proposal is the foundation of your research journey. Use this structured roadmap to craft a successful PhD proposal. Critical Components to Include: ✅ Title & Abstract → Ensure your title is concise and informative, giving a clear glimpse of your research focus. → The abstract should briefly summarize your research aims, approach, and significance. ✅ Introduction → Lay the groundwork by providing the background of your research. →Clearly define the problem statement and outline your research questions or hypotheses. → Establish why your research matters and its relevance. ✅ Literature Review → Dive deep into existing studies to form a theoretical framework. → Highlight key findings, identify research gaps, and justify why your study is needed to fill those gaps. ✅ Research Methodology → Describe your research design, study population, and sampling methods. → Detail your data collection and analysis approach, emphasizing the validity and reliability of your methods. ✅ Expected Results & Conclusion → Articulate your anticipated outcomes and how they contribute to the body of knowledge in your field. → Summarize your research goals and the potential implications of your findings. ✅ Challenges & Limitations → Acknowledge any foreseeable challenges and limitations in your study. → Discuss the strategies you plan to implement to mitigate these challenges effectively. ✅ Ethical Considerations → Ensure confidentiality and maintain anonymity for study participants. →Secure the necessary institutional reviews and outline how you’ll handle sensitive data ethically. ✅ Research Plan & Timeline → Create a detailed timeline that includes all research phases and milestones. →Map out deliverables to track progress effectively and ensure timely completion. ✅ Budget & References → Outline your funding requirements and how they will be allocated. → Provide a comprehensive list of all cited works and include supplementary materials, if necessary. ————————— 😄♻️Repost for Others #academia #phD

*** How to Write a Research Proposal *** ~ Writing a research proposal is crucial in presenting your research idea and getting approval or funding for your project. Here are some key steps and components to consider when crafting a compelling research proposal: 1. Title * Be Clear and Concise: Your title should succinctly convey the main focus of your research. Aim for a balance between being descriptive and engaging. 2. Abstract * Summary: Provide a summary (around 250-300 words) of the key elements of your proposal, including the research question, objectives, methods, and potential implications. 3. Introduction * Background Information: Introduce the topic and provide context. Please explain why the research is essential and what gaps in knowledge it aims to fill. * Research Question: Clearly state the research question or hypothesis you intend to investigate. 4. Literature Review * Existing Research: Summarize relevant research that has been conducted on your topic. Highlight key studies and findings. * Identify Gaps: Point out gaps or limitations in the existing literature that your research aims to address. 5. Objectives * Specific Goals: Outline the particular objectives of your research. These should be clear, concise, and achievable within the scope of your study. 6. Methodology * Research Design: Describe the overall research design (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods). * Data Collection: Explain how you will collect data (e.g., surveys, experiments, interviews). Include details on sampling methods, tools, and techniques. * Data Analysis: Outline how you will analyze the data. Mention any software or statistical methods you will use. 7. Significance and Impact * Contribution to Knowledge: Explain how your research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge. * Practical Implications: Discuss the potential practical applications or implications of your findings. 8. Timeline * Milestones: Provide a timeline of your research project's key milestones and activities. This helps reviewers understand how you plan to manage your time. 9. Budget (if applicable) * Cost Breakdown: Detail the costs associated with your research, including materials, travel, equipment, and personnel. Justify the necessity of each expense. 10. References * Citations: List all the sources you have cited in your proposal. Follow a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). ~ Conclusion This structure will help you create a comprehensive and coherent research proposal communicating your research plan and its significance. By following these steps and ensuring that each section is thorough and well-articulated, you can create a compelling research proposal communicating your research plan and its significance. --- B. Noted

When they said, "Just revise and resubmit (your proposal), you will be fine," I am certain that they didn't mean this ⬇ 🙃 Revising and resubmitting a rejected proposal requires careful planning, consideration, and improvement of various aspects. Here are some tips. 1. Review feedback thoroughly: Start by thoroughly reviewing the feedback provided by the reviewers. Understand their suggestions, as this will be the basis for the revisions. 2. Address reviewer comments: Read each comment and criticism thoroughly from the reviewers (not in the R&R but internally to plan). Think about how you will incorporate their suggestions or why you choose not to if you believe your original approach is sound. 3. Improve clarity and organization: Ensure that the proposal is clear and well-organized. Make your goals, objectives, activities, methods, and significance of the project explicit and easy to understand. Include a TOC and/or LM. 4. (If NSF) Strengthen the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts: Emphasize the IM and BI of your project. Explain how your project advances scientific knowledge and benefits society. 5. Update data: Include new preliminary data or results that strengthen your case. This can demonstrate the progress or the feasibility of your project. 6. Highlight collaborations: If applicable, highlight any new collaborations or partnerships that have developed since your initial submission. 7. Revisit budget and timeline: Review them to ensure they are realistic and well-justified. 8. Seek external input: Consider seeking feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peers who were not involved in the initial submission. Fresh perspectives can be valuable. 9. Follow guidelines: Ensure that you follow all solicitation guidelines and formatting requirements to the letter. This includes adherence to page limits, font sizes, and other formatting rules. 10. Resubmit strategically: Timing is important. Don't rush to resubmit immediately after receiving feedback. Take the time needed to plan and make substantial improvements. 11. Write a stronger project summary: Pay attention to your project summary or abstract. It should provide a clear and compelling overview of your project. 12. Stay positive: Remember that rejection is common in the world of grant funding. Be persistent, maintain a positive attitude, and keep refining your proposal with each resubmission. 13. Maybe consider a different program: If your proposal is repeatedly rejected, it may be worth exploring whether another program might be a better fit. 14. Consult w/Program Officers: Reach out to the POs for guidance. Attend office hours/webinars. 15. Peer review: Consider having your revised proposal reviewed by colleagues/mentors who have experience with similar grants. Yes, the resubmission process can be challenging and time-consuming, but it's also a good opportunity to strengthen the proposal and increase the chances for success. 0 submission = 0 success.

Less Federal Funding = More Competitive Grant Writing = Stronger Justification & Outcomes With federal and state funding becoming increasingly competitive, securing grants isn’t just about identifying a need—it’s about proving impact, justifying every dollar, and demonstrating long-term value. Funders are looking for investments that yield measurable results and financial accountability. To compete, organizations must go beyond writing strong proposals and focus on building data-driven, outcome-oriented programs that stand out in a crowded funding landscape. How to Strengthen Your Grant Strategy in 2025 1️⃣ Set SMART Goals That Prove Impact Funders want to know exactly how their investment will drive change. Set clear, outcome-based goals that align with their priorities. ✅ Specific – Clearly define what you’ll achieve (e.g., “Provide job training to 150 small business owners in 12 months”). 📊 Measurable – Quantify the expected impact (e.g., “Increase employment by 20%” or “Launch 50 new businesses”). 🎯 Achievable – Base targets on past performance and industry benchmarks. 🔗 Relevant – Align goals with funder priorities (e.g., workforce development, environmental resilience). ⏳ Time-Bound – Set a clear implementation and reporting timeline. 2️⃣ Use Data-Driven Storytelling Winning proposals blend compelling narratives with hard data. Funders need both the numbers and the human story to make informed decisions. 📌 Leverage national and local data to quantify the problem. 📌 Showcase past program success to demonstrate credibility and effectiveness. 📌 Incorporate real beneficiary stories to connect funders to the impact on a personal level. 3️⃣ Justify Every Dollar in Your Budget Funders scrutinize budgets for transparency and ROI. Tie every line item directly to measurable outcomes. Example: Instead of requesting a lump sum of “$500K for program expansion,” break it down: 💰 $200K for staff = 300 additional participants served. 💻 $150K for technology = 40% faster service delivery. 📢 $150K for outreach = 25% increase in community engagement. Funders will ask: Why this amount? Why this allocation? What’s the return on investment? 4️⃣ Demonstrate Sustainability & Scalability With fewer dollars available, funders prioritize projects that create long-term impact. Strengthen your case by showing: 🔄 Diverse funding sources (public-private partnerships, earned revenue). 📈 Scalability (how the project can expand or replicate). 💡 Federal and state dollars are shrinking, but outcome-driven, evidence-backed proposals will rise to the top. Winning grants in 2025 requires more than strong writing—it demands a strategic approach. The organizations that secure funding will be those that justify their requests, prove measurable impact, and design programs built for lasting change. #GrantWriting #FundingStrategy #SMARTGoals #Nonprofits #ImpactMeasurement #CompetitiveGrants

As a donor, 90% of the grant proposals I read fail to include strong, measurable goals. If a proposal lacks strong goals, why should a donor approve it? Many organizations focus on their activities such as how many papers they’ll write, how many events they’ll host, or how many social media posts they'll create. But while important, these numbers alone don't create impact. Activities only create impact when they contribute to a clear and measurable goal. Foundations may call them outcomes, deliverables, or something else, but the real question is: Are your goals focused on the impact of your work, and are they both measurable and meaningful to your mission? Your goals should reflect what you hope to accomplish because of your work, not just the work itself, and they may vary depending on what you're trying to accomplish. For example, if your project involves writing research reports, the goal isn’t just to produce a certain number of reports. The real question is what impact will those reports have? Are you hoping to educate the public? Then tracking reads or media mentions might be the right measure. A goal here might be 10 media mentions in the next 6 months. Are you aiming for policy change? Then citations in legislative or academic discussions might be more relevant than raw readership numbers. In this case, a better goal might be 6 citations in the 3 months following the report's release. In your personal life, you might set a goal to go to the gym 3 times a week (an activity), but that doesn't tell you how long to go, what exercises to do, or why 3 times a week is effective. But if your goal is to gain 5 lbs of muscle in 6 months (the impact), you can start answering those questions with clarity. Start with your big-picture goal, then ask yourself: What would need to happen for this to become a reality? 🤔 How can we track progress toward that outcome? 📈 Don’t just set goals to satisfy a donor’s requirements. Make them meaningful to your mission. When your goals align with the change you want to see, measuring progress becomes not just a reporting requirement, but a powerful tool for driving impact.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 | 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 | The title should clearly reflect the main focus or objective of the research, using concise and specific language. It acts as the first point of reference, offering insight into the study’s scope. | 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 | Context: Provide a background overview, highlighting the significance of the topic and relevant global or local challenges related to it. Establish the foundation for why the study is necessary. Research Question: Clearly state the central research question that the proposal will address. It should be specific, focused, and guide the direction of the entire study. Objectives: List the specific goals you intend to achieve with the research. These should align with the research question and offer a measurable outcome. | 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 | Summary of Existing Research: Discuss key studies, theories, and findings relevant to the research question. Highlight how your research fits within the existing body of work. Gaps Identified: Pinpoint where previous research falls short or lacks clarity, providing justification for why your study is necessary. This will help shape the novelty of your research. | 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 | Description of Frameworks: Explain the theoretical models or frameworks that will inform the study. These theories will guide the research design, data collection, and analysis process. Provide context on why these frameworks were chosen, explaining how they will be applied to the research question and objectives. | 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 | Research Design: Describe the approach and overall structure of the research, such as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Detail how this design will answer the research question. Data Collection: Outline the techniques and tools you will use to gather data, specifying sources, participants, and instruments like surveys, interviews, or experiments. Data Analysis: Explain how the collected data will be processed and interpreted. Highlight statistical tools, software, or qualitative analysis techniques you plan to use. | 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 | Contributions to the Field: Discuss how your research will advance knowledge in the specific field, either by filling existing gaps or providing new perspectives. Policy Implications: Highlight the potential impact your findings might have on policy-making, institutional practices, or future research directions in the area of study. | 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 | Summary and Importance: Recap the main points of the proposal, reiterating the importance of the research. Reaffirm how the research objectives will address the gaps and contribute to the field. | 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 | List all the academic sources cited in the proposal in accordance with the required citation style. This should include all literature, theories, and data referenced throughout the document.