|
Working Paper 2
Improving the Quality of Research Proposals
Author: Andrew Macoun, World Bank
Contents:
Background
Probably the best way to improve the quality of applied research carried out by developing country institutions is to encourage them to carry out more research, provided that it is relevant and useful. Expertise is developed in large measure as a result of experience and that comes mainly through 'doing' research. However, simply increasing the budgets available for research (even if it were always feasible) is not the complete solution. One of the chief architects of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (DWSSD) was often heard to remark: "If you have a good idea and present it well, you will find the money to do it." There is very often money available for research, particularly in industrialised countries, but it will be allocated first and foremost to the best presented proposals. This is where researchers in developing countries often lose out. There is a general perception that proposals from these institutions are often of poor quality or, in the case of universities, are primarily intended to earn an academic qualification. They don't receive funding because of the expectation that if the proposal is poor, the research will also lack quality. The basic need is for more good proposals.
The objective of this chapter then, is to present some information and guidelines on the preparation of better quality research proposals. The expectation is that better proposals are more likely to be successful in obtaining funding, will provide more useful results, and be more relevant to the real needs of the sector.
The definition of applied research may vary but we are concerned with research specifically designed to be problem solving and to have an outcome which is expected to be of immediate relevance. It follows that applied research may be conducted not only by professional researchers but also by implementers and used as a management tool. There is no clear dividing line between applied research conducted in this way and that conducted by a university researcher. All research, whether fundamental or applied, follows the same rules and guidelines for the preparation of the research proposal. The advice given below on the preparation of research proposals can be applied by the implementer, the manager or the researcher to improve the quality of the research proposal and hence the likelihood of the success of the research.
Contents
Preparation and format of proposals
Research proposals are developed for several reasons, each of which may be very important to the success of the research to be carried out:
|
~..
|
to develop a consensus on what is to be done and who is to be involved - this is especially important when the research involves several agencies or people and they are expected to commit time and/or resources;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
as an aid to implementation - the research implementation should be guided by the proposal. It follows that a poorly developed proposal will be difficult to implement as no-one really knows what is expected to be done;
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
to solicit funds - this is commonly misunderstood as the only reason; and
|
|
.
|
|
~..
|
to get approval - not only from immediate superiors but also at the national level if external funds are being solicited.
|
2.1. Proposal Writing
Every proposal begins, or at least should begin, with an idea. However an idea is not a project. Turning an idea into a well thought out research project proposal requires a number of tasks and usually calls for many and diverse professional skills. Thus, even though a proposal may actually be written by only one person, it generally requires the consultation, inputs and review of many. For example, the team preparing a research proposal should be aware of gender issues, and where these exist ensure that specialised knowledge is available to the team, preferably by including women researchers.
The project team in many cases will also serve as the proposal preparation team. Their tasks are many but one of the first is to gather the information that will be needed for the different sections of the proposal and determine what additional materials are needed. They should then establish a detailed timetable with delegated responsibilities for preparation, completion and timely delivery of the proposal.
2.2. Format
These guidelines and suggestions are not intended to be prescriptive. Many funding agencies have individual requirements for the presentation and submission of research proposals1 . The Collaborative Council is not a funding agency and it would be inappropriate for it to suggest a 'standardised' proposal format. Hence the first real piece of advice:
|
~..
|
identify potential funding sources and ensure the proposal meets the requirements of the funding agencies to which it is submitted.
|
Who are the agencies most likely to fund the proposed research? Do they have a required format for the proposal? Get it and use it. In this day and age of personal computers, proposals can be easily modified to suit the individual donors to whom it is being submitted, as well as enabling a professional-looking presentation. What are the areas of interest of potential donors? Does this research fit those interests and is the topic relevant? Link it to other research funded by that agency. Co-financing can bring other advantages to a research project than only the sharing of costs. It should be encouraged. Are partial matching funds from another source required? It would facilitate the process if research funding agencies made information readily available about their protocols for research proposals, designated contact persons, and defined their main areas of interest. Such information as ownership of results can be extremely important to researchers and should be known in advance, not at the point of signing a contract.
Above all, the writer of the research proposal should have available a set of guidelines. This chapter provides such guidelines but they have also been published in the literature and are available from some funding agencies. If possible, get a copy of a good example of a successfully funded proposal.
2.3. Level of Detail
Half a million dollars are unlikely to be secured by a proposal of 2 pages, whereas no donor wants to read a proposal the size of a doctoral thesis for research costing a few thousand dollars:
|
~..
|
match the detail of the proposal to its budget and purpose but be as brief as possible.
|
2.4. Pre-proposals
A pre-proposal or proposal summary has many advantages - especially for large research projects. They can be used as an expression of interest of the research agency in the proposed line of investigation to "sound out" potential funding agencies -promising to prepare a detailed proposal if an interest is shown in the topic proposed. This can be a useful 'foot in the door' and can enable funding agencies to anticipate the proposal in their budget plans, thus avoiding the response 'we are very interested in your proposal but unfortunately do not have funds available at this time.'
This two-step process has many other advantages: it encourages the proposal to be well thought through before too much drafting takes place; it can be used to solicit co-financing (sometimes by different departments of the same agency) or even collaboration with other researchers; it helps establish personal contact with the right person in the funding agencies to whom it is submitted; since it is brief (1 or 2 pages), it is much more likely to be read and considered; and it can even enable funding to be obtained for preparing the full proposal -especially if a mission is needed. Pre-proposals should include at least: a clear objective, the general approach, expected outputs, an estimate of the costs, the time requirements, and the players involved.
2.5. Timing
As mentioned above, funding agencies have programme cycles, budgets for each financial year, and other requirements or limitations for approving research proposals. It is important to know what these requirements or limitations are so that proposals are received at an appropriate time, or that their submission is anticipated by a preliminary enquiry or submission:
|
~..
|
match the timing of the research proposal submission to the requirements of the funding agency.
|
Contents
Content and structure of proposals
3.1. Topic
The topic must be relevant and the objective feasible. The title is quite important:
|
~..
|
select a title carefully. It should be simple, concise and self-explanatory.
|
Although duplication of work is a waste of resources, it is not necessarily undesirable that other researchers are working on the same general line of investigation. A degree of competition is very healthy.
One of the often heard complaints about poor research proposals is: "It was not even clear what exactly they were proposing to do". It is important that the proposal both be well presented and be complete in content:
|
~..
|
state clearly what you plan to do and why, how you are going to do it, what it will cost, and how long it will take.
|
An abstract or summary of the proposal is a good idea, especially for lengthy proposals, and is required by many donor agencies. It should generally be no more than 1 page in length and include the research objectives, the approach, expected outputs, budget requested, and the name of the submitting organisation.
3.2. Structure
The following is intended to provide a checklist of items which might be included in the proposal, rather than a suggested format:
|
background:..
|
what is the context of the proposed research? Why is it important? What has already been done and what is the present state of knowledge (a literature review is generally an essential step in the study). What is the problem to be addressed? How was the topic identified (e.g.. a workshop recommendation, follow-on from previous research)? A topic which is widely perceived to be worthy of research will clearly be more 'fundable' than one with a very narrow area of interest. Does the research have direct relevance to any on-going programmes? Remember that applied research aims at finding answers to specific questions on problems at an operational level. Proposals must show that link;
|
|
.
|
|
objectives/outputs:..
|
what is the research trying to prove? What is the question it will answer? Who are the beneficiaries? Every proposal should have a clear general objective and, where appropriate, a hypothesis that matches the objective.After a general objective the proposal should be summarised in one or more specific objectives, depending on the complexity of the proposed research, that present what you hope to accomplish, in clearly defined parts or phases. These specific objectives should be smart, measurable, action oriented, realistic and time related (SMART). Apply these guidelines to your objectives. Poorly formulated objectives lead to unnecessary data collection and a project difficult to manage.
Outputs should be itemised and linked to the objectives. Many agencies these days have adopted logical framework analysis which is an excellent tool for structuring a project by logically linking the problem(s) to be addressed with objectives, outputs and activities;
|
|
.
|
|
impact:..
|
what is the potential impact of the research on the sector? How will it improve investments or the efficiency of operation and maintenance? Many agencies have a sector 'policy'. What are the 'policy' issues addressed and the expected policy conclusions? What are the intended applications? Who will the research mostly affect? What will they do differently when they know the answer to the question? How will the results be disseminated (e.g.. workshops, seminars, journal articles)?:
|
|
.
|
|
organisation..
and..
methodology:..
|
how and where will the research be carried out? Methodologically flawed research can negate otherwise meaningful results. Many epidemiological studies for example are confounded by uncontrolled variables. Describe the nature of the data needed and how it will be collected and analysed. The methodology must be linked to the objective. A planning matrix can be presented linking the objectives, key activities, workplan and outputs. It must be evident how necessary information will be collected to answer each of the specific objectives but no more than that. This is a good way of reviewing the methodology and at the same time ensuring that resources will not be wasted by collecting unnecessary information. The character of the research should be described. For example, does it involve a single discipline or a number of disciplines? Is it gender neutral (see gender specification below)? Does it require a participatory approach involving members of the community studied or is it non-participatory in nature?;
|
|
.
|
|
linkages:..
|
is the proposal for an independent piece of research, or does it relate to an on-going programme of investigation? Does it relate to any other sector (e.g. health or agriculture)? Is it likely to lead to a follow-up proposal? Is further work essential to apply the results of the research? If the research institution is weak, try to link up with a stronger institution. In particular, how does the research link with operations?
Gender Specifications. In a number of research topics, special attention will have to be paid to gender, to make sure that the differences that exist between men and women in work, practices, views, authority, benefits, etc. are recognised and accounted for in the research design and findings. Usually this implies that the research topic and questions are defined in gender-specific terms, that the personnel includes women when gender issues are significant, that data are collected and analysed in a gender sensitive manner and that in the reporting of results and impacts, a distinction is made between men and women.;
|
|
.
|
|
personnel:..
|
who will carry out the research? What are their respective roles? What are their experience and qualifications? How much time will each commit? Collaboration between research institutions acts as a filter and provides a measure of quality control. It is also an excellent means of transferring skills and knowledge between research agencies. List any proposed collaborating agencies and state whether their collaboration is secured (attach a letter);
|
|
.
|
|
statement of..
qualifications:..
|
an important piece of information that should be included is a statement of the researchers' credentials. List any achievements or awards received and provide a brief summary of other research work carried out - highlighting directly relevant research - so that the funding agency can obtain a true perspective of the principal investigator's capabilities and 'track record';
|
|
.
|
|
risks:..
|
if significant risks exist that may delay or jeopardise successful completion of the research project it is advisable to identify them and if possible quantify their implications in terms of time and funding. The methodology may also need to be adaptive so that it can be revised in the light of findings as the work proceeds;
|
|
.
|
|
schedule:..
|
when is it proposed to start and how long will the research take? Is it dependent on external factors (see also Risks above)? Milestones should be established so that progress can be monitored and reported;
|
|
.
|
|
reporting:..
|
reports are a major and often the only products of the research. They are extremely important. List the type, scope and schedule of reports that are planned to be produced. They should meet the funding agency's requirements and not be left to the last to prepare but well thought through in advance;
|
|
.
|
|
monitoring:..
|
in addition to progress against the milestones in the original schedule, monitoring should include expenditure and any likely savings or potential cost over-run. Then there is the question of who will review the research to ensure its quality. If the principal researcher is young and lacks a track record, try to involve an experienced person as adviser. External review and/or evaluation by a panel of 'outside reviewers' might be appropriate in many circumstances;
|
|
.
|
|
budget:..
|
often overlooked in proposals is a breakdown of estimated costs to be incurred in carrying out the research. Provide estimates in the currency (-ies) in which costs will be incurred and the equivalent of the total in the currency of the funding agency or other stipulated currency. Consider the effect of exchange rate fluctuation and how it will be handled. Be careful to identify the source of funding proposed, e.g. from the funding agency, from any other donor, from the research agency's own resources, and from in-kind contributions. Indicate how funds are applied, i.e. linking funds to activities. This is particularly important if funding is to be shared by different agencies and can encourage joint-financing. For projects over a long time period, show budgets by year so that annual funding requirements are clear. Check that the figures add up! Arithmetic errors do not instil confidence on the part of the funding agency. Ensure the budget includes provision for essential equipment, supplies, communications cost, training, computers and necessary travel as these are often under-budgeted. In particular, consider the cost of disseminating the results of the research;
|
|
.
|
|
budget justification:..
|
budgets must be realistic and only include those resources necessary for the successful completion of the research. It is usually necessary to include a budget justification for most items in the budget that explains how the figure was derived and why the item should be included. A detailed budget assists in project management and helps to ensure that the project is not under-funded; and
|
|
.
|
|
supporting..
information:..
|
attach any relevant information. For example, an endorsement from another agency (such as a government department) adds weight to the potential of the research and substantiates the link to the application of the results. Remember, we are considering applied research so the application of the results is very important and a weakness in many proposals. Government approval may be required or clearance from a national research council. If the research involves communities, an ethics statement may be in order, or an agreement by the participants.
|
Contents
Summary
The above guidelines are intended to provide useful advice to researchers to improve the quality of their research proposals. They are not exhaustive and do not attempt to address many other factors which also have a bearing on the quality of proposals. The 'quality' of the researchers themselves is a critical factor and one of the real dilemmas, as a track record is usually necessary to successfully secure funding but funding is needed for the research which will develop a track record. Some of these factors are addressed elsewhere in other working papers.
Four key recommendations can summarise most of the foregoing. Firstly, guidelines should always be used as a guide when preparing research proposals. They are in the literature, funding agencies will often have their own requirements, and as an additional aid use this report.
Secondly, a two-stage process is recommended in most cases. Prepare a short pre-proposal at first to seek funding or collaborators and then prepare a full proposal after all details have been determined. But make sure to identify the pre-proposal as such.
Thirdly, ensure proposals meet the requirements of each potential funding agency and, whenever possible, submit them directly to the person responsible for their review.
Fourthly, funding agencies should facilitate the proposal process by providing protocols for research proposals, identifying contact persons, and defining their main areas of interest. This would ensure that proposals are prepared to meet their needs, go to the right person, and are targeted at agencies that are interested in the topic proposed.
Contents
Maintained by f.o.odhiambo@lboro.ac.uk and j.fisher1@lboro.ac.uk
|