how to write a scientific research grant proposal

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 20 December 2019

Secrets to writing a winning grant

• Emily Sohn 0

Emily Sohn is a freelance journalist in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

When Kylie Ball begins a grant-writing workshop, she often alludes to the funding successes and failures that she has experienced in her career. “I say, ‘I’ve attracted more than $25 million in grant funding and have had more than 60 competitive grants funded. But I’ve also had probably twice as many rejected.’ A lot of early-career researchers often find those rejections really tough to take. But I actually think you learn so much from the rejected grants.”

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 577 , 133-135 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03914-5

Related Articles

• Communication

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

Career News 18 APR 24

Deadly diseases and inflatable suits: how I found my niche in virology research

Spotlight 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Canadian science gets biggest boost to PhD and postdoc pay in 20 years

News 17 APR 24

How India can become a science powerhouse

Editorial 16 APR 24

NASA admits plan to bring Mars rocks to Earth won’t work — and seeks fresh ideas

News 15 APR 24

‘Shrugging off failure is hard’: the $400-million grant setback that shaped the Smithsonian lead scientist’s career

Career Column 15 APR 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Tweeting your research paper boosts engagement but not citations

News 27 MAR 24

Research Associate - Brain Cancer

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Senior Manager, Animal Care

Research associate - genomics, postdoctoral associate- artificial intelligence, postdoctoral research fellow.

Looking for postdoctoral fellowship candidates to advance genomic research in the study of lung diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital and HMS.

Boston, Massachusetts

Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!)

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write and revise grant proposals for research funding in all academic disciplines (sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the arts). It’s targeted primarily to graduate students and faculty, although it will also be helpful to undergraduate students who are seeking funding for research (e.g. for a senior thesis).

The grant writing process

A grant proposal or application is a document or set of documents that is submitted to an organization with the explicit intent of securing funding for a research project. Grant writing varies widely across the disciplines, and research intended for epistemological purposes (philosophy or the arts) rests on very different assumptions than research intended for practical applications (medicine or social policy research). Nonetheless, this handout attempts to provide a general introduction to grant writing across the disciplines.

Before you begin writing your proposal, you need to know what kind of research you will be doing and why. You may have a topic or experiment in mind, but taking the time to define what your ultimate purpose is can be essential to convincing others to fund that project. Although some scholars in the humanities and arts may not have thought about their projects in terms of research design, hypotheses, research questions, or results, reviewers and funding agencies expect you to frame your project in these terms. You may also find that thinking about your project in these terms reveals new aspects of it to you.

Writing successful grant applications is a long process that begins with an idea. Although many people think of grant writing as a linear process (from idea to proposal to award), it is a circular process. Many people start by defining their research question or questions. What knowledge or information will be gained as a direct result of your project? Why is undertaking your research important in a broader sense? You will need to explicitly communicate this purpose to the committee reviewing your application. This is easier when you know what you plan to achieve before you begin the writing process.

Diagram 1 below provides an overview of the grant writing process and may help you plan your proposal development.

Applicants must write grant proposals, submit them, receive notice of acceptance or rejection, and then revise their proposals. Unsuccessful grant applicants must revise and resubmit their proposals during the next funding cycle. Successful grant applications and the resulting research lead to ideas for further research and new grant proposals.

Cultivating an ongoing, positive relationship with funding agencies may lead to additional grants down the road. Thus, make sure you file progress reports and final reports in a timely and professional manner. Although some successful grant applicants may fear that funding agencies will reject future proposals because they’ve already received “enough” funding, the truth is that money follows money. Individuals or projects awarded grants in the past are more competitive and thus more likely to receive funding in the future.

Some general tips

• Begin early.
• Apply early and often.
• Don’t forget to include a cover letter with your application.
• Answer all questions. (Pre-empt all unstated questions.)
• If rejected, revise your proposal and apply again.
• Give them what they want. Follow the application guidelines exactly.
• Be explicit and specific.
• Be realistic in designing the project.
• Make explicit the connections between your research questions and objectives, your objectives and methods, your methods and results, and your results and dissemination plan.
• Follow the application guidelines exactly. (We have repeated this tip because it is very, very important.)

Before you start writing

Identify your needs and focus.

First, identify your needs. Answering the following questions may help you:

• Are you undertaking preliminary or pilot research in order to develop a full-blown research agenda?
• Are you seeking funding for dissertation research? Pre-dissertation research? Postdoctoral research? Archival research? Experimental research? Fieldwork?
• Are you seeking a stipend so that you can write a dissertation or book? Polish a manuscript?
• Do you want a fellowship in residence at an institution that will offer some programmatic support or other resources to enhance your project?
• Do you want funding for a large research project that will last for several years and involve multiple staff members?

Next, think about the focus of your research/project. Answering the following questions may help you narrow it down:

• What is the topic? Why is this topic important?
• What are the research questions that you’re trying to answer? What relevance do your research questions have?
• What are your hypotheses?
• What are your research methods?
• Why is your research/project important? What is its significance?
• Do you plan on using quantitative methods? Qualitative methods? Both?
• Will you be undertaking experimental research? Clinical research?

Once you have identified your needs and focus, you can begin looking for prospective grants and funding agencies.

Finding prospective grants and funding agencies

Whether your proposal receives funding will rely in large part on whether your purpose and goals closely match the priorities of granting agencies. Locating possible grantors is a time consuming task, but in the long run it will yield the greatest benefits. Even if you have the most appealing research proposal in the world, if you don’t send it to the right institutions, then you’re unlikely to receive funding.

There are many sources of information about granting agencies and grant programs. Most universities and many schools within universities have Offices of Research, whose primary purpose is to support faculty and students in grant-seeking endeavors. These offices usually have libraries or resource centers to help people find prospective grants.

At UNC, the Research at Carolina office coordinates research support.

The Funding Information Portal offers a collection of databases and proposal development guidance.

The UNC School of Medicine and School of Public Health each have their own Office of Research.

Writing your proposal

The majority of grant programs recruit academic reviewers with knowledge of the disciplines and/or program areas of the grant. Thus, when writing your grant proposals, assume that you are addressing a colleague who is knowledgeable in the general area, but who does not necessarily know the details about your research questions.

Remember that most readers are lazy and will not respond well to a poorly organized, poorly written, or confusing proposal. Be sure to give readers what they want. Follow all the guidelines for the particular grant you are applying for. This may require you to reframe your project in a different light or language. Reframing your project to fit a specific grant’s requirements is a legitimate and necessary part of the process unless it will fundamentally change your project’s goals or outcomes.

Final decisions about which proposals are funded often come down to whether the proposal convinces the reviewer that the research project is well planned and feasible and whether the investigators are well qualified to execute it. Throughout the proposal, be as explicit as possible. Predict the questions that the reviewer may have and answer them. Przeworski and Salomon (1995) note that reviewers read with three questions in mind:

• What are we going to learn as a result of the proposed project that we do not know now? (goals, aims, and outcomes)
• Why is it worth knowing? (significance)
• How will we know that the conclusions are valid? (criteria for success) (2)

Be sure to answer these questions in your proposal. Keep in mind that reviewers may not read every word of your proposal. Your reviewer may only read the abstract, the sections on research design and methodology, the vitae, and the budget. Make these sections as clear and straightforward as possible.

The way you write your grant will tell the reviewers a lot about you (Reif-Lehrer 82). From reading your proposal, the reviewers will form an idea of who you are as a scholar, a researcher, and a person. They will decide whether you are creative, logical, analytical, up-to-date in the relevant literature of the field, and, most importantly, capable of executing the proposed project. Allow your discipline and its conventions to determine the general style of your writing, but allow your own voice and personality to come through. Be sure to clarify your project’s theoretical orientation.

Develop a general proposal and budget

Because most proposal writers seek funding from several different agencies or granting programs, it is a good idea to begin by developing a general grant proposal and budget. This general proposal is sometimes called a “white paper.” Your general proposal should explain your project to a general academic audience. Before you submit proposals to different grant programs, you will tailor a specific proposal to their guidelines and priorities.

Organizing your proposal

Although each funding agency will have its own (usually very specific) requirements, there are several elements of a proposal that are fairly standard, and they often come in the following order:

• Introduction (statement of the problem, purpose of research or goals, and significance of research)

Literature review

• Project narrative (methods, procedures, objectives, outcomes or deliverables, evaluation, and dissemination)
• Budget and budget justification

Format the proposal so that it is easy to read. Use headings to break the proposal up into sections. If it is long, include a table of contents with page numbers.

The title page usually includes a brief yet explicit title for the research project, the names of the principal investigator(s), the institutional affiliation of the applicants (the department and university), name and address of the granting agency, project dates, amount of funding requested, and signatures of university personnel authorizing the proposal (when necessary). Most funding agencies have specific requirements for the title page; make sure to follow them.

The abstract provides readers with their first impression of your project. To remind themselves of your proposal, readers may glance at your abstract when making their final recommendations, so it may also serve as their last impression of your project. The abstract should explain the key elements of your research project in the future tense. Most abstracts state: (1) the general purpose, (2) specific goals, (3) research design, (4) methods, and (5) significance (contribution and rationale). Be as explicit as possible in your abstract. Use statements such as, “The objective of this study is to …”

Introduction

The introduction should cover the key elements of your proposal, including a statement of the problem, the purpose of research, research goals or objectives, and significance of the research. The statement of problem should provide a background and rationale for the project and establish the need and relevance of the research. How is your project different from previous research on the same topic? Will you be using new methodologies or covering new theoretical territory? The research goals or objectives should identify the anticipated outcomes of the research and should match up to the needs identified in the statement of problem. List only the principle goal(s) or objective(s) of your research and save sub-objectives for the project narrative.

Many proposals require a literature review. Reviewers want to know whether you’ve done the necessary preliminary research to undertake your project. Literature reviews should be selective and critical, not exhaustive. Reviewers want to see your evaluation of pertinent works. For more information, see our handout on literature reviews .

Project narrative

The project narrative provides the meat of your proposal and may require several subsections. The project narrative should supply all the details of the project, including a detailed statement of problem, research objectives or goals, hypotheses, methods, procedures, outcomes or deliverables, and evaluation and dissemination of the research.

For the project narrative, pre-empt and/or answer all of the reviewers’ questions. Don’t leave them wondering about anything. For example, if you propose to conduct unstructured interviews with open-ended questions, be sure you’ve explained why this methodology is best suited to the specific research questions in your proposal. Or, if you’re using item response theory rather than classical test theory to verify the validity of your survey instrument, explain the advantages of this innovative methodology. Or, if you need to travel to Valdez, Alaska to access historical archives at the Valdez Museum, make it clear what documents you hope to find and why they are relevant to your historical novel on the ’98ers in the Alaskan Gold Rush.

Clearly and explicitly state the connections between your research objectives, research questions, hypotheses, methodologies, and outcomes. As the requirements for a strong project narrative vary widely by discipline, consult a discipline-specific guide to grant writing for some additional advice.

Explain staffing requirements in detail and make sure that staffing makes sense. Be very explicit about the skill sets of the personnel already in place (you will probably include their Curriculum Vitae as part of the proposal). Explain the necessary skill sets and functions of personnel you will recruit. To minimize expenses, phase out personnel who are not relevant to later phases of a project.

The budget spells out project costs and usually consists of a spreadsheet or table with the budget detailed as line items and a budget narrative (also known as a budget justification) that explains the various expenses. Even when proposal guidelines do not specifically mention a narrative, be sure to include a one or two page explanation of the budget. To see a sample budget, turn to Example #1 at the end of this handout.

Consider including an exhaustive budget for your project, even if it exceeds the normal grant size of a particular funding organization. Simply make it clear that you are seeking additional funding from other sources. This technique will make it easier for you to combine awards down the road should you have the good fortune of receiving multiple grants.

Make sure that all budget items meet the funding agency’s requirements. For example, all U.S. government agencies have strict requirements for airline travel. Be sure the cost of the airline travel in your budget meets their requirements. If a line item falls outside an agency’s requirements (e.g. some organizations will not cover equipment purchases or other capital expenses), explain in the budget justification that other grant sources will pay for the item.

Many universities require that indirect costs (overhead) be added to grants that they administer. Check with the appropriate offices to find out what the standard (or required) rates are for overhead. Pass a draft budget by the university officer in charge of grant administration for assistance with indirect costs and costs not directly associated with research (e.g. facilities use charges).

Furthermore, make sure you factor in the estimated taxes applicable for your case. Depending on the categories of expenses and your particular circumstances (whether you are a foreign national, for example), estimated tax rates may differ. You can consult respective departmental staff or university services, as well as professional tax assistants. For information on taxes on scholarships and fellowships, see https://cashier.unc.edu/student-tax-information/scholarships-fellowships/ .

Explain the timeframe for the research project in some detail. When will you begin and complete each step? It may be helpful to reviewers if you present a visual version of your timeline. For less complicated research, a table summarizing the timeline for the project will help reviewers understand and evaluate the planning and feasibility. See Example #2 at the end of this handout.

For multi-year research proposals with numerous procedures and a large staff, a time line diagram can help clarify the feasibility and planning of the study. See Example #3 at the end of this handout.

Revising your proposal

Strong grant proposals take a long time to develop. Start the process early and leave time to get feedback from several readers on different drafts. Seek out a variety of readers, both specialists in your research area and non-specialist colleagues. You may also want to request assistance from knowledgeable readers on specific areas of your proposal. For example, you may want to schedule a meeting with a statistician to help revise your methodology section. Don’t hesitate to seek out specialized assistance from the relevant research offices on your campus. At UNC, the Odum Institute provides a variety of services to graduate students and faculty in the social sciences.

In your revision and editing, ask your readers to give careful consideration to whether you’ve made explicit the connections between your research objectives and methodology. Here are some example questions:

• Have you presented a compelling case?
• Have you made your hypotheses explicit?
• Does your project seem feasible? Is it overly ambitious? Does it have other weaknesses?
• Have you stated the means that grantors can use to evaluate the success of your project after you’ve executed it?

If a granting agency lists particular criteria used for rating and evaluating proposals, be sure to share these with your own reviewers.

Example #1. Sample Budget

Jet travel $6,100 This estimate is based on the commercial high season rate for jet economy travel on Sabena Belgian Airlines. No U.S. carriers fly to Kigali, Rwanda. Sabena has student fare tickets available which will be significantly less expensive (approximately $2,000).

Maintenance allowance $22,788 Based on the Fulbright-Hays Maintenance Allowances published in the grant application guide.

Research assistant/translator $4,800 The research assistant/translator will be a native (and primary) speaker of Kinya-rwanda with at least a four-year university degree. They will accompany the primary investigator during life history interviews to provide assistance in comprehension. In addition, they will provide commentary, explanations, and observations to facilitate the primary investigator’s participant observation. During the first phase of the project in Kigali, the research assistant will work forty hours a week and occasional overtime as needed. During phases two and three in rural Rwanda, the assistant will stay with the investigator overnight in the field when necessary. The salary of $400 per month is based on the average pay rate for individuals with similar qualifications working for international NGO’s in Rwanda.

Transportation within country, phase one $1,200 The primary investigator and research assistant will need regular transportation within Kigali by bus and taxi. The average taxi fare in Kigali is $6-8 and bus fare is $.15. This figure is based on an average of $10 per day in transportation costs during the first project phase.

Transportation within country, phases two and three $12,000 Project personnel will also require regular transportation between rural field sites. If it is not possible to remain overnight, daily trips will be necessary. The average rental rate for a 4×4 vehicle in Rwanda is $130 per day. This estimate is based on an average of $50 per day in transportation costs for the second and third project phases. These costs could be reduced if an arrangement could be made with either a government ministry or international aid agency for transportation assistance.

Email $720 The rate for email service from RwandaTel (the only service provider in Rwanda) is $60 per month. Email access is vital for receiving news reports on Rwanda and the region as well as for staying in contact with dissertation committee members and advisors in the United States.

Audiocassette tapes $400 Audiocassette tapes will be necessary for recording life history interviews, musical performances, community events, story telling, and other pertinent data.

Photographic & slide film $100 Photographic and slide film will be necessary to document visual data such as landscape, environment, marriages, funerals, community events, etc.

Laptop computer $2,895 A laptop computer will be necessary for recording observations, thoughts, and analysis during research project. Price listed is a special offer to UNC students through the Carolina Computing Initiative.

NUD*IST 4.0 software $373.00 NUD*IST, “Nonnumerical, Unstructured Data, Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing,” is necessary for cataloging, indexing, and managing field notes both during and following the field research phase. The program will assist in cataloging themes that emerge during the life history interviews.

Administrative fee $100 Fee set by Fulbright-Hays for the sponsoring institution.

Example #2: Project Timeline in Table Format

Example #3: project timeline in chart format.

Some closing advice

Some of us may feel ashamed or embarrassed about asking for money or promoting ourselves. Often, these feelings have more to do with our own insecurities than with problems in the tone or style of our writing. If you’re having trouble because of these types of hang-ups, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it never hurts to ask. If you never ask for the money, they’ll never give you the money. Besides, the worst thing they can do is say no.

UNC resources for proposal writing

Research at Carolina http://research.unc.edu

The Odum Institute for Research in the Social Sciences https://odum.unc.edu/

UNC Medical School Office of Research https://www.med.unc.edu/oor

UNC School of Public Health Office of Research http://www.sph.unc.edu/research/

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Holloway, Brian R. 2003. Proposal Writing Across the Disciplines. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Levine, S. Joseph. “Guide for Writing a Funding Proposal.” http://www.learnerassociates.net/proposal/ .

Locke, Lawrence F., Waneen Wyrick Spirduso, and Stephen J. Silverman. 2014. Proposals That Work . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Przeworski, Adam, and Frank Salomon. 2012. “Some Candid Suggestions on the Art of Writing Proposals.” Social Science Research Council. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn2/art-of-writing-proposals-dsd-e-56b50ef814f12.pdf .

Reif-Lehrer, Liane. 1989. Writing a Successful Grant Application . Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Wiggins, Beverly. 2002. “Funding and Proposal Writing for Social Science Faculty and Graduate Student Research.” Chapel Hill: Howard W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science. 2 Feb. 2004. http://www2.irss.unc.edu/irss/shortcourses/wigginshandouts/granthandout.pdf.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Research Process

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 98.2K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

Language Editing Services

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

• Manuscript Review

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Basics of scientific and technical writing: Grant proposals

• Career Central
• Published: 23 April 2021
• Volume 46 , pages 455–457, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Morteza Monavarian 1  

5055 Accesses

148 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Grant proposals

A grant proposal is a formal document you submit to a funding agency or an investing organization to persuade them to provide the requested support by showing that (1) you have a plan to advance a certain valuable cause and (2) that the team is fully capable of reaching the proposed goals. The document may contain a description of the ideas and preliminary results relative to the state of the art, goals, as well as research and budget plans. This article provides an overview of some steps toward preparation of grant proposal applications, with a particular focus on proposals for research activities in academia, industry, and research institutes.

Different types of proposals

There are different types of grant proposals depending on the objectives, activity period, and funding organization source: (1) research proposals, (2) equipment proposals, and (3) industry-related proposals. Research proposals are those that seek funding to support research activities for a certain period of time, while equipment proposals aim for a certain equipment to be purchased. For equipment proposals to be granted, you need to carefully explain how its purchase could help advance research activities in different directions. Unlike research proposals, which are focused on a specific direction within a certain field of research, equipment proposals can have different directions within different areas of research, as long as the proposed equipment can be used in those areas.

There are also industry-related funding opportunities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has programs within its Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships, in which small businesses and industries can involve research funding opportunities. Examples of such programs include Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. These opportunities are separate from any opportunities directly involving the companies funding your research, where the companies are the source of the funding.

Steps to submit a proposal

Figure  1 shows an overview of a standard process flow for a grant proposal application, from identifying the needs and focus to acceptance and starting the project. As shown, the process of writing grants is not linear, but rather a loop, indicating the need for consistent modifications and development of your ideas, depending on the input you receive from the funding agencies or the results you obtained from previously funded projects.

Diagram of grant proposal preparation.

Before starting, you need to define the ultimate purpose of the research you want to pursue and to convince others that the work is indeed worth pursuing. Think about your proposed research in the context of problems to solve, potential hypotheses, and research design. To start shaping the idea you are pursuing, ask yourself: (1) What knowledge do I gain from finishing this project? (2) What is the significance of the end goal of the project? (3) How would the completion of this project be useful in a broader sense? Having convincing answers to these questions would be extremely helpful in developing a good grant proposal.

After identifying the needs and focus and initially developing the ideas and plans, the next step is to secure a funding agency to which you would like to submit the grant proposal. It is a good practice to keep track of programs and corresponding funding opportunity announcements for different funding agencies relevant to your field of research. Once you secure a funding agency and find the deadline for submission, review the submission guidelines for the program carefully. The grant proposal document should be perfectly aligned with the structure and content proposed in the guidelines provided by the agency program to avoid any premature rejection of your application. Some programs only require a few documents, while others many more. Some agencies may require a concept paper: a short version of the proposal submitted before you are eligible for a full proposal submission.

After securing the agency/program and reviewing the guidelines, the next step is to write the full proposal document, according to the guidelines proposed by the funding agency. Before submission, review your documents multiple times to ensure the sections are well written and are consistent with one another and that they perfectly convey your messages. Some institutes have experts in reviewing proposal documents for potential linguistic and/or technical edits. Submit at least a day before the deadline to ensure that all documents safely go through. Some agencies have strict deadlines, which you do not want to miss, or you may have to wait upwards of a year to submit again. The agency then usually sends your documents to a few expert reviewers for their comments. The review may be graded or have written comments that require attention and response. A response letter has to be prepared and submitted (according to the agency guidelines) by a new deadline imposed by the agency for consideration by the program manager.

After reviewing the full response and revised documents, the agency will contact you with notification of their decision. If your proposal is accepted, the agency will provide details regarding funding and a start date. During the term of the project, agencies normally require a periodic (quarterly or annually) report in either a written or oral form. Different agencies may have rules for any publications or patents that could potentially result during the project term, when the work is complete or the idea is developed as a result of the awarded grant. As shown in the figure, even if the proposal is rejected, upon careful review, revision, and further development or adjustment of the proposal, you may try for another funding opportunity. After finishing a recently funded project, you can further develop an idea and submit another proposal for funding.

Structure of proposals (NSF example)

The structure of proposals differs with funding agencies. Included is an overview of an NSF proposal as a guide.

In addition to the technical volume (narrative) document, containing all the major descriptions of the project, other necessary documents include bio sketches, budget, justifications, management plan, and project summary. Bio sketches contain resumes of all the principal investigators (PIs), including any prior experience, relevant publications, and outreach activities. Budget and justifications are two separate documents relevant to a breakdown of the required budgets for the project, including salaries for the PIs and the team, travel, publication costs, equipment costs, materials and supplies, and any other relevant expenses. The budget document could be an Excel spreadsheet, indicating the exact dollar amounts, while the justification indicates the rationale for each charge. Depending on the agency and program, some expenses are allowed to be included in the budget list (carefully read related guidelines). Other potential requirements for submission may include a description of the project summary, management plans, and the facilities in which the work will be performed.

The technical volume is likely the one you will spend the most time preparing. It consists of several sections. Included is an example of a structure (read the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide on the NSF website for details). The total technical volume should not exceed 15 pages, excluding the reference section, which will be submitted as a separate document. While there are different review criteria for an NSF proposal, the main two are intellectual merit (encompasses the potential to advance knowledge) and broader impacts (potential to benefit society). Your proposal should reflect that the work will be rich in these two criteria. NSF reviewers typically provide qualitative grades (ranging from poor to excellent) to the proposal and feedback in their review.

Introduction and overview

The first section of the technical volume may start with an introduction/motivation and overview of the proposed work. This section should be no longer than a page, but should give an overview of the background and state of the art in the research area, motivations, objectives of the proposed work (maybe in the context of intellectual merit and broader impacts), and a brief description of the work breakdown (tasks). The last couple of paragraphs of the introduction could summarize the education and outreach plans, as well as the PIs’ experience and expertise. Feel free to highlight any major statements in this section to serve as main takeaways for the reviewers. Also, making an overview figure for this section may help summarize the information.

Background and relationship to the state of the art

The second section gives more details of background and relationship to the state of the art. This section may be a few pages long and contain figures and relevant citations.

Technical methods and preliminary results

This section should describe the technical methods and preliminary results relevant to the proposed research from your prior work. It should contain illustrative figures and plots to back up the proposed work.

Research plan

After discussing the prior art and the technical methods and preliminary results (in previous sections), you should discuss the proposed research and plan. A good standard is to divide your work into two to three thrusts, with each thrust containing two to three tasks. You can also prepare a timetable (also called a Gantt chart) to indicate when the tasks will be completed with respect to the project term, which is usually between three to five years.

Integration of education and research

The last section should describe any plans for integration of education and research, including any K-12 programs or planned outreach activities.

Results from prior supports

Finally, describe results from all of your prior NSF supports. For each project, provide a paragraph describing the goal of the project, the outcomes, and any related publications. You can also write this section in the context of intellectual merit and broader impacts.

Things to remember when preparing grant proposals

Find the proper timing for any idea to explore. Sometimes the idea you think is worth pursuing is either too early or too late to explore, depending on the existing body of literature.

Begin early to avoid missing any deadlines. Give the process some time, as it could take a while.

Try to have sufficient preliminary results as seeds for the proposal.

Have a decent balance between the amount of ideas and preliminary results you put in the grant proposal. Too many ideas but too few results may make your proposal sound too ambitious, while too few ideas and too many results may make your proposed work seem complete, therefore no need for funding.

Try to attend funding agency panels. It will help you understand the review process, grading criteria, and mindsets of program managers. Learn about proposals that are funded.

Locate any related funding agency announcements to know the deadlines in advance.

Be mindful of deadlines. Last day submissions may jeopardize your funding opportunities.

Learn what is customary. One figure per page is ideal for the proposed technical volume. A wordy proposal with not enough figures will be boring and more difficult for the reviewers to follow.

Do not give up! You may need to submit several proposals (to different programs/agencies) to get one awarded.

Be cautious about self-plagiarism! Do not copy and paste texts/figures from your previously supported proposal or papers in your new submissions.

Be ambitious but practical when developing ideas.

Develop a solid research program. It is not all about hunting grants; it is also how to execute your funded projects. You may have periods (waves) of grant hunting followed by periods of delivering on the funded projects. Any successful prior research can help you gain more funding in the next wave.

Enjoy your research!

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Materials Department and Solid State Lighting & Energy Electronics Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

Morteza Monavarian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is the third in a three-part series in MRS Bulletin that will focus on writing papers, patents, and proposals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Monavarian, M. Basics of scientific and technical writing: Grant proposals. MRS Bulletin 46 , 455–457 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1557/s43577-021-00105-4

Download citation

Published : 23 April 2021

Issue Date : May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1557/s43577-021-00105-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

DAI is proud to announce a new partnership with Beckman Coulter. If you are looking for a centrifuge, check out what we have. View Centrifuges

• Support & Sales: 800-816-8388
• Find Your Rep

Your Guide to Writing Research Funding Applications

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Grant funding is critical for all types of research. Without it, many projects wouldn’t even get off the ground, so what’s the key to securing the right funding? The not-so-simple answer: a stellar grant application.

If you’ve ever wondered how to write a successful proposal — or if you’re looking for some new resources and a few refresher tips — we have the right resource for you. In this comprehensive guide, we explore all types of grant funding opportunities, provide a step-by-step proposal breakdown and offer insider tips for ultimate grant application success.

The information in this guide was provided by Mike Hendrickson, Project Manager at BrainXell, Inc; Dr. Shannon M. Lauberth, Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics at Northwestern University; Dr. Darshan Sapkota, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas; and Dr. Ward Tucker, Director of Research and Development at BioSentinel, Inc.

Find a Grant: What Opportunities Are Available?

This isn’t a comprehensive list, but these are the most popular types of grant funding opportunities.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The National Institutes of Health provides more than $32 billion each year for biomedical research funding. The NIH grants and funding opportunities page publishes opportunities daily and issues a table of contents weekly. You can also subscribe to a weekly email for updates.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation funds approximately 25% of all federally supported research in higher education. The NSF is divided into a number of specific research areas , including:

• Biological Sciences
• Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• Education and Human Resources
• Engineering
• Environmental Research and Education
• Geosciences
• Integrative Activities
• International Science and Engineering
• Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

You can search for NSF funding opportunities here .

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

SBIR and STTR grants are geared toward small U.S. businesses that are looking for funding opportunities in research or research and development “with the potential for commercialization.” Eligible businesses must be for-profit, located in the United States, and more than 50% owned and controlled by one or more U.S. citizens. The company must also have fewer than 500 employees.

Non-Federal Agencies & Foundations

Many grant opportunities are available through non-federal avenues. This is just a sample of some of the agencies and foundations that provide these types of funding opportunities.

• Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy
• Alzheimer’s Association
• American Federation for Aging Research
• American Heart Association
• American Cancer Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Diabetes Association
• Foundation for Women’s Wellness
• March of Dimes

Early Stage Investigator Awards

An early stage investigato r is “a new investigator who has completed his or her terminal research degree or medical residency — whichever date is later — within the past 10 years and has not yet competed successfully for a substantial, competing NIH research grant.”

• American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grants
• Pew Scholar Program
• Sidney Kimmel Foundation
• NIH New & Early Stage Investigator Program

Step-By-Step Grant Proposal & Application Breakdown

Once you’ve found your grant opportunity, it’s time to take action. Here’s what you need to know:

1. Build a timeline.

There are a lot of moving parts in the application process, so the first step is to create a timeline. You want to allow yourself enough time to gather information and write the proposal without feeling rushed. Plus, you need to factor in time for editing and internal reviews. Write down the due date of the application and work backwards. Remember, it’s always best to err on the side of having too much time rather than not enough.

2. Create a robust outline.

This is the most important part of the application process, and the more detail, the better. Be specific in your questions, hypothesis, aims and goals. Detail your experiments and expected outcomes.

3. Gather your appropriate tools and resources.

Before you begin writing, make sure you gather everything in one place. If you need to request certain documents, do so now. Create a folder on your computer that houses everything related to your grant application — and make sure to back up your files if you aren’t using Google or another cloud-based provider. It sounds like a simple reminder, but the last thing you want is to lose all your hard work.

4. Read through the application instructions carefully and don’t be afraid to ask questions. Familiarize yourself with the request, rules and requirements.

Read through everything , noting any documents you need to include. Every document that is requested must be included in the application. And if you have any questions about the process or you’re looking for clarification on a particular item, reach out to the program officer. It’s also better to ask questions as early as possible in the process.

5. Include strong preliminary data.

Even if grant requests say it is not necessary to include any data, you are unlikely to be funded if you don’t include any preliminary data. It is a major piece of any application. The stronger the data, the better shot you have of receiving funding.

6. Write, write, write!

Now it’s time to put pen to paper, so to speak. Here are some important tips to keep in mind during this important process:

• Be realistic: If you’re applying for a Phase 1 grant, it’s important to remember that Phase 1 is supposed to be “proof of concept” — in other words, not product development. Some people try to squeeze five years worth of work into one year, but you need to be realistic. Think carefully, and be modest about your objectives. If you end up applying for a Phase 2 grant, the reviewers will look at your goals and objectives for Phase 1. If you didn’t deliver then, there’s a good chance your Phase 2 proposal will be rejected.
• Tell a story. With any type of good writing, you want to build a case — in other words, tell a story. Start with an introduction that hooks the audience. Talk about the wider problem you’re hoping to explore and why you are the right person for the job. Explain your hypothesis and how you plan to tackle it.
• Include two or three specific aims. This is the heart of the grant. Again, be reasonable. Don’t bite off more than you can chew in order to seem overly ambitious. Include two or three challenging yet exciting aims (or goals) that you believe are doable in the set amount of time. Include clear objectives and clear milestones of success.
• Be mindful of your language. Be specific, informative and engaging but also concise. Use active voice and strong verbs like “determine and distinguish.” Quantify information or data.
• Don’t get too technical or use too much jargon. Remember, you know your field inside and out, but your reviewers in some cases may not. Make your application clear and readable. Write for an educated but diverse audience.
• Include preliminary data. It’s important, so it bears repeating!
• Add pictures, illustrations or graphics. No one wants to read a 15-page proposal of extremely dense text. Break up your application with a few visuals.

7. Make sure the budget matches what is allocated.

It sounds obvious, but don’t ask for more than the set budget amount. If you work at a higher education institution, you will likely work with a research office on the budget.

8. Have multiple people review your application.

Once you’ve written your grant proposal (congratulations!), you want to seek out multiple reviewers before you click submit. These reviewers should be inside your company, organization or institution, or experts in your field; you may also benefit from review by non-experts. It’s important to give your reviewers plenty of time, too. Here are some good questions to ask:

• Is the proposal clear and concise?
• Do I need more data?
• Are any parts confusing or in need of additional explanation?
• Am I telling an interesting story?
• Could I add any other visuals?

9. Give yourself enough time to familiarize yourself with the application portal — and then submit!

If you work with a research office, they will upload the application on your behalf. If you don’t, you want to make sure you familiarize yourself with the application portal before your deadline.

Insider Tips for Grant Writing Experience & Creating a Standout Application

We spoke to the experts, and here’s what they had to say:

• Talk to the program officers early and often. There are people who don’t put the time and energy into reviewing the instructions, rules and requirements of a grant application. Make sure you understand everything, and if you don’t, talk to the program officers. Remember — you don’t have to figure out everything by yourself!
• Don’t break the rules. If the application requires certain documents, make sure to include them.
• Don’t be “non-responsive.” This is grant proposal-speak for not answering a question that is asked of you. Reviewers will take note.
• Put yourself in the shoes of a reviewer. What questions will the reviewers have, and how can you answer them ahead of time? Ideally you want to address these questions with preliminary data. If you don’t have the data, it’s important to at least address those questions in your proposal — and how you plan to tackle them.
• Don’t save everything until the last minute. There’s a very good chance you heard this mantra in high school and college — and it still rings true.
• Consider hiring someone who can handle the grant application process. If you have the budget, it may be valuable to hire a person who can handle the administrative and logistical aspects of the application process. Some companies and organizations also hire part-time or full-time grant writers to handle the actual proposal writing.
• Explore all types of funding opportunities. In addition to traditional federal agencies like NIH and NSF that routinely offer grants, you should explore any internal funding opportunities for faculty and researchers. Sign up for as many email lists, newsletters and daily grant alert notifications from federal and non-federal agencies as possible. If you work in an academic setting, ask your department chair about these opportunities.
• Simultaneous submissions are allowed. It’s just illegal to accept funding from two different institutions for the same work.

Ask to help out on a grant application. Grant writing is a skill that is honed with time and experience, and the best way to get better is to practice. Review applications that your colleagues have been working on or ask them if you can help out in any way. Practice makes perfect.

• The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook: It’s one of the best tools and a resource you’ll return to again and again.
• Ask to participate in a review committee. This will give you the opportunity to see grant applications from a different perspective, which will be beneficial in your own funding quests.
• Attend grant writing workshops. This is another important way to gain insight and experience.
• Remember the big picture. As Shannon Lauberth, associate professor at Northwestern University, explains: “Remember that the exercise of writing a grant helps you to carve out clear directions for your lab.”

Grant Application Resources

This is not an exhaustive list, but here are some helpful tools and resources you may want to explore or bookmark:

• Fundamentals of the NIH Grant Process & Need to Know Resources [VIDEO]
• The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook
• NIH Grants Process Overview 
• NSF Funding Search
• NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
• SMARTS — Email alert system about funding opportunities

Specific Questions About Lab Equipment?

D.A.I. Scientific works closely with a variety of federally funded organizations, private businesses and higher education institutions to provide products and services to analytical laboratories in the pharmaceutical, educational, biotechnology and clinical industries. If you’re writing a grant application and need a budgetary quote for equipment, contact us today. Our knowledgeable experts would be happy to help.

Jamie is the regional sales manager of DAI Scientific and leads a team of 13 equipment sales consultants. His background includes 20 years of experience working with customers in academic, clinical, industrial and bio/pharma laboratories.

Jamie works with architects, engineers and lab planners to identify the correct equipment for each user’s specific needs. He also leverages his previous role as a DAI sales representative to help his sales consultants work with customers to ensure informed decisions and customer satisfaction. He stays involved in recent research by continuously attending seminars and educating himself on the products and industries he serves.

Jamie holds a bachelor’s degree in communications from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.

Related Posts

North Hennepin Community College

Loyola university’s new center for translational research and education, d.a.i. launches new website.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Table of Contents

Grant Proposal

Grant Proposal is a written document that outlines a request for funding from a grant-making organization, such as a government agency, foundation, or private donor. The purpose of a grant proposal is to present a compelling case for why an individual, organization, or project deserves financial support.

Grant Proposal Outline

While the structure and specific sections of a grant proposal can vary depending on the funder’s requirements, here is a common outline that you can use as a starting point for developing your grant proposal:

• Brief overview of the project and its significance.
• Summary of the funding request and project goals.
• Key highlights and anticipated outcomes.
• Background information on the issue or problem being addressed.
• Explanation of the project’s relevance and importance.
• Clear statement of the project’s objectives.
• Detailed description of the problem or need to be addressed.
• Supporting evidence and data to demonstrate the extent and impact of the problem.
• Identification of the target population or beneficiaries.
• Broad goals that describe the desired outcomes of the project.
• Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives that contribute to the goals.
• Description of the strategies, activities, and interventions to achieve the objectives.
• Explanation of the project’s implementation plan, timeline, and key milestones.
• Roles and responsibilities of project staff and partners.
• Plan for assessing the project’s effectiveness and measuring its impact.
• Description of the data collection methods, tools, and indicators used for evaluation.
• Explanation of how the results will be used to improve the project.
• Comprehensive breakdown of project expenses, including personnel, supplies, equipment, and other costs.
• Clear justification for each budget item.
• Information about any matching funds or in-kind contributions, if applicable.
• Explanation of how the project will be sustained beyond the grant period.
• Discussion of long-term funding strategies, partnerships, and community involvement.
• Description of how the project will continue to address the identified problem in the future.
• Overview of the organization’s mission, history , and track record.
• Description of the organization’s experience and qualifications related to the proposed project.
• Summary of key staff and their roles.
• Recap of the project’s goals, objectives, and anticipated outcomes.
• Appreciation for the funder’s consideration.
• Contact information for further inquiries.

Grant Proposal Template

Here is a template for a grant proposal that you can use as a starting point. Remember to customize and adapt it based on the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the funding organization.

Dear [Grant-making Organization Name],

Executive Summary:

I. Introduction:

II. Needs Assessment:

III. Goals and Objectives:

IV. Project Methods and Approach:

V. Evaluation and Monitoring:

VI. Budget:

VII. Sustainability:

VIII. Organizational Capacity and Expertise:

IX. Conclusion:

Thank you for considering our grant proposal. We believe that this project will make a significant impact and address an important need in our community. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal further.

Grant Proposal Example

Here is an example of a grant proposal to provide you with a better understanding of how it could be structured and written:

Executive Summary: We are pleased to submit this grant proposal on behalf of [Your Organization’s Name]. Our proposal seeks funding in the amount of [Requested Amount] to support our project titled [Project Title]. This project aims to address [Describe the problem or need being addressed] in [Target Location]. By implementing a comprehensive approach, we aim to achieve [State the project’s goals and anticipated outcomes].

I. Introduction: We express our gratitude for the opportunity to present this proposal to your esteemed organization. At [Your Organization’s Name], our mission is to [Describe your organization’s mission]. Through this project, we aim to make a significant impact on [Describe the issue or problem being addressed] by [Explain the significance and relevance of the project].

II. Needs Assessment: After conducting thorough research and needs assessments in [Target Location], we have identified a pressing need for [Describe the problem or need]. The lack of [Identify key issues or challenges] has resulted in [Explain the consequences and impact of the problem]. The [Describe the target population or beneficiaries] are particularly affected, and our project aims to address their specific needs.

III. Goals and Objectives: The primary goal of our project is to [State the broad goal]. To achieve this, we have outlined the following objectives:

• [Objective 1]
• [Objective 2]
• [Objective 3] [Include additional objectives as necessary]

IV. Project Methods and Approach: To address the identified needs and accomplish our objectives, we propose the following methods and approach:

• [Describe the activities and strategies to be implemented]
• [Explain the timeline and key milestones]
• [Outline the roles and responsibilities of project staff and partners]

V. Evaluation and Monitoring: We recognize the importance of assessing the effectiveness and impact of our project. Therefore, we have developed a comprehensive evaluation plan, which includes the following:

• [Describe the data collection methods and tools]
• [Identify the indicators and metrics to measure progress]
• [Explain how the results will be analyzed and utilized]

VI. Budget: We have prepared a detailed budget for the project, totaling [Total Project Budget]. The budget includes the following key components:

• Personnel: [Salary and benefits for project staff]
• Supplies and Materials: [List necessary supplies and materials]
• Equipment: [Include any required equipment]
• Training and Capacity Building: [Specify any training or workshops]
• Other Expenses: [Additional costs, such as travel, marketing, etc.]

VII. Sustainability: Ensuring the sustainability of our project beyond the grant period is of utmost importance to us. We have devised the following strategies to ensure its long-term impact:

• [Describe plans for securing future funding]
• [Explain partnerships and collaborations with other organizations]
• [Outline community engagement and support]

VIII. Organizational Capacity and Expertise: [Your Organization’s Name] has a proven track record in successfully implementing projects of a similar nature. Our experienced team possesses the necessary skills and expertise to carry out this project effectively. Key personnel involved in the project include [List key staff and their qualifications].

IX. Conclusion: Thank you for considering our grant proposal. We firmly believe that [Project Title] will address a critical need in [Target Location] and contribute to the well-being of the [Target Population]. We are available to provide any additional information or clarification as required. We look forward to the

opportunity to discuss our proposal further and demonstrate the potential impact of this project.

Please find attached the required supporting documents, including our detailed budget, organizational information, and any additional materials that may be helpful in evaluating our proposal.

Thank you once again for considering our grant proposal. We appreciate your dedication to supporting projects that create positive change in our community. We eagerly await your response and the possibility of partnering with your esteemed organization to make a meaningful difference.

• Detailed Budget
• Organizational Information
• Additional Supporting Documents]

Grant Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a grant proposal can be a complex process, but with careful planning and attention to detail, you can create a compelling proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the grant proposal writing process:

• Carefully review the grant guidelines and requirements provided by the funding organization.
• Take note of the eligibility criteria, funding priorities, submission deadlines, and any specific instructions for the proposal.
• Familiarize yourself with the funding organization’s mission, goals, and previous projects they have supported.
• Gather relevant data, statistics, and evidence to support the need for your proposed project.
• Clearly define the problem or need your project aims to address.
• Identify the specific goals and objectives of your project.
• Consider how your project aligns with the mission and priorities of the funding organization.
• Organize your proposal by creating an outline that includes all the required sections.
• Arrange the sections logically and ensure a clear flow of ideas.
• Start with a concise and engaging executive summary to capture the reader’s attention.
• Provide a brief overview of your organization and the project.
• Present a clear and compelling case for the problem or need your project addresses.
• Use relevant data, research findings, and real-life examples to demonstrate the significance of the issue.
• Clearly articulate the overarching goals of your project.
• Define specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives that align with the goals.
• Explain the strategies and activities you will implement to achieve the project objectives.
• Describe the timeline, milestones, and resources required for each activity.
• Highlight the uniqueness and innovation of your approach, if applicable.
• Outline your plan for evaluating the project’s effectiveness and measuring its impact.
• Discuss how you will collect and analyze data to assess the outcomes.
• Explain how the project will be sustained beyond the grant period, including future funding strategies and partnerships.
• Prepare a comprehensive budget that includes all the anticipated expenses and revenue sources.
• Clearly justify each budget item and ensure it aligns with the project activities and goals.
• Include a budget narrative that explains any cost assumptions or calculations.
• Review your proposal multiple times for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
• Ensure that the proposal follows the formatting and length requirements specified by the funder.
• Consider seeking feedback from colleagues or experts in the field to improve your proposal.
• Gather all the necessary supporting documents, such as your organization’s background information, financial statements, resumes of key staff, and letters of support or partnership.
• Follow the submission instructions provided by the funding organization.
• Submit the proposal before the specified deadline, keeping in mind any additional submission requirements, such as online forms or hard copies.
• If possible, send a thank-you note or email to the funding organization for considering your proposal.
• Keep track of the notification date for the funding decision.
• In case of rejection, politely ask for feedback to improve future proposals.

Importance of Grant Proposal

Grant proposals play a crucial role in securing funding for organizations and projects. Here are some key reasons why grant proposals are important:

• Access to Funding: Grant proposals provide organizations with an opportunity to access financial resources that can support the implementation of projects and initiatives. Grants can provide the necessary funds for research, program development, capacity building, infrastructure improvement, and more.
• Project Development: Writing a grant proposal requires organizations to carefully plan and develop their projects. This process involves setting clear goals and objectives, identifying target populations, designing activities and strategies, and establishing timelines and budgets. Through this comprehensive planning process, organizations can enhance the effectiveness and impact of their projects.
• Validation and Credibility: Successfully securing a grant can enhance an organization’s credibility and reputation. It demonstrates to funders, partners, and stakeholders that the organization has a well-thought-out plan, sound management practices, and the capacity to execute projects effectively. Grant funding can provide validation for an organization’s work and attract further support.
• Increased Impact and Sustainability: Grant funding enables organizations to expand their reach and increase their impact. With financial resources, organizations can implement projects on a larger scale, reach more beneficiaries, and make a more significant difference in their communities. Additionally, grants often require organizations to consider long-term sustainability, encouraging them to develop strategies for continued project success beyond the grant period.
• Collaboration and Partnerships: Grant proposals often require organizations to form partnerships and collaborations with other entities, such as government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or community groups. These collaborations can lead to shared resources, expertise, and knowledge, fostering synergy and innovation in project implementation.
• Learning and Growth: The grant proposal writing process can be a valuable learning experience for organizations. It encourages them to conduct research, analyze data, and critically evaluate their programs and initiatives. Through this process, organizations can identify areas for improvement, refine their strategies, and strengthen their overall operations.
• Networking Opportunities: While preparing and submitting grant proposals, organizations have the opportunity to connect with funders, program officers, and other stakeholders. These connections can provide valuable networking opportunities, leading to future funding prospects, partnerships, and collaborations.

Purpose of Grant Proposal

The purpose of a grant proposal is to seek financial support from grant-making organizations or foundations for a specific project or initiative. Grant proposals serve several key purposes:

• Funding Acquisition: The primary purpose of a grant proposal is to secure funding for a project or program. Organizations rely on grants to obtain the financial resources necessary to implement and sustain their activities. Grant proposals outline the project’s goals, objectives, activities, and budget, making a compelling case for why the funding organization should invest in the proposed initiative.
• Project Planning and Development: Grant proposals require organizations to thoroughly plan and develop their projects before seeking funding. This includes clearly defining the problem or need the project aims to address, establishing measurable goals and objectives, and outlining the strategies and activities that will be implemented. Writing a grant proposal forces organizations to think critically about the project’s feasibility, anticipated outcomes, and impact.
• Communication and Persuasion: Grant proposals are persuasive documents designed to convince funding organizations that the proposed project is worthy of their investment. They must effectively communicate the organization’s mission, vision, and track record, as well as the specific problem being addressed and the potential benefits and impact of the project. Grant proposals use evidence, data, and compelling narratives to make a strong case for funding support.
• Relationship Building: Grant proposals serve as a platform for organizations to establish and strengthen relationships with funding organizations. Through the proposal, organizations introduce themselves, highlight their expertise, and demonstrate their alignment with the funding organization’s mission and priorities. A well-written grant proposal can lay the foundation for future collaborations and partnerships.
• Accountability and Evaluation: Grant proposals outline the expected outcomes, objectives, and evaluation methods for the proposed project. They establish a framework for accountability, as organizations are expected to report on their progress and outcomes if awarded the grant. Grant proposals often include plans for project evaluation and monitoring to assess the project’s effectiveness and ensure that the funding is being used appropriately.
• Sustainability and Long-Term Planning : Grant proposals often require organizations to consider the long-term sustainability of their projects beyond the grant period. This includes identifying strategies for continued funding, partnerships, and community involvement. By addressing sustainability in the proposal, organizations demonstrate their commitment to long-term impact and the responsible use of grant funds.

When to Write a Grant Proposal

Knowing when to write a grant proposal is crucial for maximizing your chances of success. Here are a few situations when it is appropriate to write a grant proposal:

• When There is a Funding Opportunity: Grants become available through various sources, including government agencies, foundations, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Keep an eye out for grant announcements, requests for proposals (RFPs), or funding cycles that align with your organization’s mission and project goals. Once you identify a relevant funding opportunity, you can begin writing the grant proposal.
• When You Have a Well-Defined Project or Program: Before writing a grant proposal, it’s important to have a clearly defined project or program in mind. You should be able to articulate the problem or need you are addressing, the goals and objectives of your project, and the strategies and activities you plan to implement. Having a solid project plan in place will help you write a more compelling grant proposal.
• When You Have Conducted Research and Gathered Data: Grant proposals often require evidence and data to support the need for the project. Before writing the proposal, conduct thorough research to gather relevant statistics, studies, or community assessments that demonstrate the significance and urgency of the problem you aim to address. This data will strengthen your proposal and make it more persuasive.
• When You Have a Strong Organizational Profile: Funding organizations often consider the credibility and capacity of the applying organization. Before writing a grant proposal, ensure that your organization has a strong profile, including a clear mission statement, track record of accomplishments, capable staff or volunteers, and financial stability. These factors contribute to the overall credibility of your proposal.
• When You Have the Time and Resources to Dedicate to Proposal Writing: Writing a grant proposal requires time, effort, and resources. It involves conducting research, developing project plans, creating budgets, and crafting compelling narratives. Assess your organization’s capacity to commit to the grant proposal writing process. Consider the timeline, deadline, and any additional requirements specified by the funding organization before deciding to proceed.
• When You Have Identified Potential Partnerships or Collaborators: Some grant proposals may require or benefit from partnerships or collaborations with other organizations or stakeholders. If your project can be enhanced by partnering with other entities, it’s important to identify and secure these partnerships before writing the grant proposal. This demonstrates a collaborative approach and can strengthen your proposal.
• When You Are Committed to Project Evaluation and Accountability: Grant proposals often include requirements for project evaluation and reporting. If you are willing and able to commit to evaluating the project’s outcomes, tracking progress, and reporting on the use of funds, it is an appropriate time to write a grant proposal. This shows your dedication to transparency, accountability, and responsible use of grant funds.

Also see Proposal

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal

Introduction

What is a research project grant, why should you seek grant funding, how do i get a research grant, how to write a grant proposal, navigating the peer review process, ethical considerations and compliance in grant writing.

Grant writing can be a formidable aspect of the research process, particularly for new scholars and professionals. A grant not only secures the necessary financial support but also opens doors to career opportunities and other collaborations. This article will look at the process of writing effective grant proposals, providing you with the essential tools and insights needed to transform your innovative ideas into funded projects. We will explore each step of the process in detail from identifying the right funding agency for your research to creating a solid grant proposal.

A research project grant is a financial award provided by a funding organization like a governmental organization, private foundation, or corporation to support scientific, academic, or professional research. These grants are pivotal in advancing knowledge across various disciplines and are often essential for researchers to pursue innovative projects, conduct experiments, or explore new theories.

Unlike loans, research project grants are typically non-repayable funds. They are awarded based on the merit of the proposed project and its alignment with the funding body's objectives. The granting agency assesses this merit through a competitive process, where proposals are reviewed and selected based on criteria such as relevance, potential impact, feasibility, and the researcher's expertise.

Grants can vary significantly in size and scope. Some are small, designed to support preliminary data collection or pilot studies , while others are substantial, funding entire research projects over several years. The nature of the grant often dictates the level of detail required in the proposal, the expected outcomes, and the reporting requirements.

To be successful, a grant proposal must clearly articulate the research question or problem , the methodology to be employed, the expected outcomes, and how these outcomes will contribute to the field. It should also include a detailed budget, outlining how the grant funds will be utilized. This budget must be both realistic and justifiable, as it plays a crucial role in the funding decision.

Research project grants are not just about financial support; they also offer validation and recognition of the researcher's work. Securing a grant is often seen as a mark of prestige and can significantly impact a researcher's career, facilitating further opportunities for research and collaboration.

The process of obtaining a research grant is highly competitive. Researchers seeking funding must not only demonstrate the scientific merit and innovation of their proposal but also align their project with the priorities and objectives of the funding body. Understanding these elements is key to developing a successful grant application.

In summary, research project grants are essential instruments in the advancement of knowledge and innovation. They provide the necessary resources for researchers to explore uncharted territories in their respective fields, contributing significantly to the development of new theories, technologies, and solutions for global challenges.

Grant funding is an integral part of the research landscape, offering a range of benefits that extend beyond mere financial assistance. This section explores the key reasons for pursuing grant funding, highlighting its diverse impacts.

Financial support for research

The primary reason to seek grant funding is to obtain financial support for research. Research endeavors, particularly in areas like science and technology, often incur significant expenses for equipment, materials, and personnel. Grant funding relieves these financial burdens, allowing researchers to concentrate on their work without the stress of limited budgets. It ensures the availability of necessary resources, including sophisticated lab equipment and software , and provides for the payment of research assistants and collaborators. Moreover, consistent grant funding can sustain long-term research projects, ensuring they continue uninterrupted.

Advancing career opportunities

Beyond financial aid, grants are crucial for advancing a researcher's career. They bring recognition and credibility within the academic and professional realms, which is vital for career development. Receiving a grant is a mark of prestige, indicating that peers in the field have reviewed and endorsed the value of the research. Furthermore, grant projects often foster collaborations with other researchers, institutions, or industries, broadening one's professional network and opening doors to new opportunities.

Contribution to societal progress

Grants are instrumental in driving societal progress and innovation. They enable research that tackles complex issues and pushes the boundaries of knowledge, having far-reaching implications. Many grants focus on research aimed at solving global challenges like environmental issues and health crises. Additionally, they support the development of new discoveries, technologies, and methodologies, playing a critical role in the advancement of various fields and industries.

Educational impact

The impact of grant funding extends into the educational sphere as well. It offers avenues for training and skill development, benefiting not just principal researchers but also students and upcoming scholars. Research projects provide practical experience, essential for nurturing the next generation of researchers. They also contribute to the dissemination of knowledge, with many grants requiring the publication and sharing of findings, thereby enriching the wider educational landscape.

Organize and analyze your research with ATLAS.ti

An intuitive interface helps you make sense of your qualitative research. Start with a free trial today.

Securing a research grant involves a series of intricate steps, each pivotal to the success of the application. This section outlines the major tasks involved in obtaining a research grant.

Understanding grant requirements and guidelines

The first and foremost step before a researcher can write grant proposals is gaining a deep understanding of the grant's requirements and guidelines. This stage is foundational to crafting a successful application. It involves extensive research into the granting body's mission and goals, ensuring your project aligns with their objectives. This research includes studying the agency's focus, examining previously funded projects, and understanding their strategic interests. Tailoring your proposal to meet these interests is crucial.

The guidelines provided by the funding agency are a treasure trove of information, detailing everything from submission deadlines and funding limits to eligibility criteria and required documentation. A thorough review of these guidelines is critical to ensure compliance and completeness. Each guideline, whether it pertains to the format of the application, the scope of the research, or the nature of the required documentation, is a vital piece in the puzzle of grant application.

Engagement with the granting agency for clarification is a proactive step that should not be overlooked. Misinterpretation of guidelines can lead to errors that might jeopardize the chances of your application being successful. Many agencies are open to answering queries and clarifying doubts, making it a wise decision to reach out to them if any aspect of the guideline seems ambiguous or unclear.

Finding prospective grants and funding agencies

The next pivotal task in the grant application process is identifying the right grants and funding agencies that align with the proposed research. This step is as much about research as it is about strategy. Utilizing online databases and resources is a practical approach to begin this search. These platforms list available grants, offering filters by field, grant size, eligibility, and other criteria, enabling you to pinpoint opportunities that align best with your research goals.

However, online resources are just one part of the equation. Networking within your field plays a significant role in uncovering suitable grants. Engaging with peers, attending conferences, seminars, and workshops opens up avenues for learning about upcoming or lesser-known funding opportunities. These interactions often provide insider knowledge on what funding bodies are looking for in research proposals and can offer guidance on how to approach your application.

Consultation with institutional support staff, such as grant officers or research administrators, adds another layer of insight into the process. These professionals have experience and expertise in grant writing and can assist in identifying grants that match your research objectives. They can also provide invaluable guidance on the intricacies of the application process.

Preparing a compelling grant proposal

Crafting a compelling grant proposal is the cornerstone of your application. This document is your opportunity to showcase the significance and feasibility of your research project. It should be clear, concise, and persuasive, articulating your research objectives, methodology, expected outcomes, and the project's alignment with the funding organization's goals.

Developing a clear and comprehensive research plan is the heart of your proposal. It should detail the objectives of your research, the methods you will use, the expected outcomes, and how these outcomes contribute to the field. Clarity and specificity in this section are paramount to convey the potential impact and feasibility of your research.

A well-thought-out and realistic budget is a crucial component of the proposal. It should justify the funding request, covering all necessary expenses such as personnel costs, equipment, travel, and operational costs. This budget must be both defensible and aligned with the scope of the project, demonstrating efficient and effective use of funds.

Highlighting your qualifications and experience positions you as a capable and suitable candidate to conduct the research. This includes detailing relevant experience, past successes in similar projects, and any unique skills or resources you bring to the table. It's also important to illustrate how your background and expertise align with the objectives of the grant.

Before final submission, seeking feedback from mentors, colleagues, or professionals in the field is a wise step. Constructive feedback can significantly refine your proposal, addressing potential weaknesses and strengthening your arguments. This peer review process can provide a fresh perspective and enhance the overall quality of your application, increasing its chances of success.

Writing a grant proposal is a critical skill for researchers and academics. It involves presenting your research idea in a compelling and organized manner to convince funding agencies of its value and feasibility. This part of the guide will provide insights into the structure and content of a successful grant proposal, discussing its format, ideal length, and the significance of planning in the proposal writing process.

What is the format of a grant proposal?

The format of a grant proposal can vary depending on the funding agency’s guidelines, but there is a generally accepted structure that most proposals follow. This structure typically includes several key components: an abstract or executive summary, introduction, literature review, research design and methods, budget, and conclusion.

The abstract or executive summary is a concise overview of the proposal, summarizing the research question , methodology , and anticipated outcomes. It's crucial as it's often the first (and sometimes the only) part read by reviewers.

The introduction sets the stage for your proposal, providing background information on the research problem and its significance. It should capture the reader's interest and establish the context of your study.

Following the introduction, a literature review is presented, demonstrating your understanding of the existing research and how your project will contribute to or differ from this body of work.

The research design and methods section is where you detail your research plan. This includes the methodology, data collection and analysis plans, and any other pertinent information about how you will conduct your research.

The budget section outlines the financial requirements for your project. It should be detailed and justify each expense, ensuring that the costs align with the project's scope and objectives.

The conclusion summarizes the proposal, reiterating the significance and expected impact of your research. It's an opportunity to reinforce the importance of your project and leave a lasting impression on the reviewer.

How many pages should a grant proposal be?

The length of a research proposal varies depending on the funding agency’s requirements. Typically, proposals range from 5 to 20 pages. It's essential to adhere strictly to the page limit set by the funding body. A concise, well-structured proposal demonstrates your ability to communicate complex ideas effectively and efficiently. Every section of the proposal should be succinct yet comprehensive, providing all necessary information without superfluous details.

The importance of planning in research grant proposal writing

Effective planning is crucial in putting together a full grant proposal. It involves understanding the scope of your research, the requirements of the funding body, and the timeline for the proposal submission.

Start by mapping out each section of the proposal, ensuring you understand what is required in each part. This planning stage should involve extensive research, thoughtful consideration of your methodology, and a detailed budget plan.

Good planning also involves time management. Allocate sufficient time for each section, including time for revisions and feedback from colleagues or mentors. A rushed proposal is often evident to reviewers and can undermine the quality of your application.

Additionally, planning should extend to understanding the review process. Knowing who your audience is and what they are looking for in a proposal can help tailor your content to meet their expectations. This involves researching the funding agency's priorities and ensuring your proposal aligns with their objectives.

Navigating the peer review process is a critical aspect of submitting a grant proposal. This process, often shrouded in mystery for first-time applicants, plays a pivotal role in determining whether a proposal is funded. Understanding what happens during peer review and how to effectively respond to it can significantly increase the chances of success.

When a grant proposal is submitted, it typically undergoes a peer review process, where it is scrutinized by experts in the field. These reviewers, often experienced researchers or academics, assess the proposal based on various criteria such as the significance and originality of the research question , the feasibility and appropriateness of the methodology , the potential impact of the research, and the qualifications of the applicant. Understanding these criteria is crucial as it guides applicants on what aspects to emphasize in their proposals.

The peer review process usually starts with an initial screening to check if the proposal meets the basic submission criteria set by the funding body. Proposals that pass this screening are then evaluated more thoroughly. Reviewers often provide scores or ratings based on the evaluation criteria, and these scores significantly influence the funding decision. It's important to note that the review process can be highly competitive, with only a small percentage of proposals receiving funding.

One common reason for the rejection of grant proposals is a lack of clarity or detail in the research plan. Reviewers need to be convinced of the feasibility and significance of the research. Proposals that are vague, overly ambitious without sufficient justification, or lacking in methodological rigor are less likely to be successful. Therefore, it is essential for applicants to be clear, concise, and thorough in their proposals, ensuring that every aspect of their research plan is well-articulated and justified.

Receiving feedback or comments from reviewers is a crucial part of the peer review process. This feedback, whether leading to funding or not, is invaluable. It provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal from the perspective of experts in the field. Successful applicants often use this feedback to refine and improve their proposals for future submissions. It is important to approach this feedback constructively, using it as a learning opportunity to enhance the quality of your research proposal.

For proposals that are not funded, it is common to revise and resubmit them during subsequent funding cycles. In such cases, addressing the reviewers' comments and concerns in the revised proposal is crucial. This shows that the applicant has taken the feedback seriously and has made efforts to enhance their research plan accordingly. It is also advisable to include a cover letter with the resubmitted proposal, outlining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

In some cases, applicants may disagree with the feedback or find certain comments unclear. In such situations, it is appropriate to seek clarification from the funding agency or, if allowed, provide a polite and concise rebuttal in the resubmission. However, this should be done carefully and respectfully, ensuring that the response is constructive and focused on clarifying misunderstandings or providing additional information.

Ethical considerations and compliance play a crucial role in grant writing and are integral to the integrity and success of any research project. This section explores the ethical landscape of grant writing, highlighting the importance of honesty, transparency, and adherence to regulations throughout the process.

At the heart of ethical grant writing is the commitment to honesty and integrity. This encompasses accurately representing one's qualifications, the potential impact of the research, and the need for funding. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in any part of the grant proposal is not only unethical but can also lead to severe professional consequences. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that all information and data provided in the proposal are accurate and verifiable.

Transparency in the budgeting process is another critical ethical consideration. It involves providing a clear and detailed account of how the funds will be used. Overestimating costs or including unjustifiable expenses in the budget can undermine the credibility of the proposal. Funders expect a realistic and well-justified budget that aligns with the scope and needs of the research project.

Another key aspect of ethical grant writing is respecting confidentiality and privacy . This is particularly pertinent in research involving human subjects, sensitive data, or proprietary information. Researchers must ensure that their proposals comply with ethical standards and regulatory requirements regarding data protection and confidentiality. This includes obtaining necessary permissions and approvals, such as Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for research involving human subjects.

Conflicts of interest must also be addressed transparently in grant writing. Researchers are required to disclose any potential conflicts that might impact their research. This includes financial interests, personal relationships, or professional affiliations that could be perceived as influencing the research outcomes. Proper management of these conflicts is essential to maintain the integrity of the research process.

Turn to ATLAS.ti for conducting quality research

Powerful data analysis tools are at your fingertips, starting with a free trial.

• Open access
• Published: 12 October 2012

Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients

• Enola K Proctor 1 ,
• Byron J Powell 1 ,
• Ana A Baumann 1 ,
• Ashley M Hamilton 1 &
• Ryan L Santens 1  

Implementation Science volume  7 , Article number:  96 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

97k Accesses

86 Citations

76 Altmetric

Metrics details

All investigators seeking funding to conduct implementation research face the challenges of preparing a high-quality proposal and demonstrating their capacity to conduct the proposed study. Applicants need to demonstrate the progressive nature of their research agenda and their ability to build cumulatively upon the literature and their own preliminary studies. Because implementation science is an emerging field involving complex and multilevel processes, many investigators may not feel equipped to write competitive proposals, and this concern is pronounced among early stage implementation researchers.

This article addresses the challenges of preparing grant applications that succeed in the emerging field of dissemination and implementation. We summarize ten ingredients that are important in implementation research grants. For each, we provide examples of how preliminary data, background literature, and narrative detail in the application can strengthen the application.

Every investigator struggles with the challenge of fitting into a page-limited application the research background, methodological detail, and information that can convey the project’s feasibility and likelihood of success. While no application can include a high level of detail about every ingredient, addressing the ten ingredients summarized in this article can help assure reviewers of the significance, feasibility, and impact of the proposed research.

Peer Review reports

Investigators seeking funding to conduct implementation research face the challenges of preparing a high-quality proposal and demonstrating their capacity to conduct the proposed study. Researchers need to demonstrate the progressive nature of their research agenda and their ability to build cumulatively upon the literature and their own preliminary studies. Because implementation science is an emerging field involving complex and multilevel processes, most investigators may feel ‘new to the field.’ Furthermore, young investigators may have less preliminary data, and the path to successful proposal writing may seem less clear.

This article identifies ten of the important ingredients in well-crafted implementation proposals; in particular, it addresses how investigators can set the stage for proposed work through pilot data and a well-crafted and rationalized proposed study approach. It addresses questions such as: What preliminary work is important in the grant applications, and how can implementation researchers meet this challenge? How can investigators balance scientific impact with feasibility? Where in an implementation research proposal can investigators demonstrate their capacity to conduct a study as proposed?

The importance of the question

A significant and innovative research question is the first and primary ingredient in a successful proposal. A competitive implementation research application needs to pursue scientific questions that remain unanswered, questions whose answers advance knowledge of implementation with generalizability beyond a given setting. By definition, implementation research in health focuses on a health condition or disease, healthcare settings, and particular evidence-based interventions and programs with promise of reducing a gap in quality of care. It is conducted in usual care settings with practical quality gaps that stakeholders want to reduce. However, to make a compelling argument for scientific innovation and public health significance, a research grant application must have potential beyond reducing a quality gap and implementing a particular evidence-based healthcare practice. The application must have potential to advance the science of implementation by yielding generalizable knowledge. With only one journal devoted solely to implementation science [ 1 ], researchers must be aware of implementation literature that is scattered across a host of discipline-specific journals. Implementation researchers—akin to students with multiple majors—must demonstrate their grounding in implementation science, health diseases, disorders and their treatments, and real-world healthcare delivery.

Although implementation science is often characterized as an emerging field, its bar for scientifically important questions is rising rapidly. Descriptive studies of barriers have dominated implementation science for too long, and the field is urged to ‘move on’ to questions of how and why implementation processes are effective. Accordingly, the Institute of Medicine [ 2 ] has identified studies comparing the effectiveness of alternative dissemination and implementation strategies as a top-quartile priority for comparative effectiveness research. But experimental studies testing implementation strategies need to be informed by systematic background research on the contexts and processes of implementation. While investigators must demonstrate their understanding of these complexities, their grant proposals must balance feasibility with scientific impact. This paper addresses the challenges of preparing grant applications that succeed on these fronts. Though this article focuses on U.S. funding sources and grant mechanisms, the principles that are discussed should be relevant to implementation researchers internationally.

Guidance from grant program announcements

Grant review focuses on the significance of proposed aims, impact and innovation, investigator capacity to conduct the study as proposed, and support for the study hypotheses and research design. The entire application should address these issues. Investigators early in their research careers or new to implementation science often struggle to demonstrate their capacity to conduct the proposed study and the feasibility of the proposed methods. Not all National Institutes of Health (NIH) program announcements require preliminary data. However, those that do are clear that applications must convey investigator training and experience, capacity to conduct the study as proposed, and support for the study hypotheses and research design [ 3 ]. The more complex the project, the more important it is to provide evidence of capacity and feasibility [ 4 ].

The R01grant mechanism is typically large in scope compared to the R03, R21 and R34 a . Program announcements for grant mechanisms that are preliminary to R01 studies give important clues as to how to set the stage for an R01 and demonstrate feasibility. Investigator capacity can be demonstrated by describing prior work, experience, and training relevant to the application’s setting, substantive issues, and methodology—drawing on prior employment and research experience. For example, the NIH R03 small grant mechanism is often used to establish the feasibility of procedures, pilot test instruments, and refine data management procedures to be employed in a subsequent R01. The NIH R21 and the R34 mechanisms support the development of new tools or technologies; proof of concept studies; early phases of research that evaluate the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability and safety of novel treatments; demonstrate the feasibility of recruitment protocols; and support the development of assessment protocols and manuals for programs and treatments to be tested in subsequent R01 studies. These exploratory grants do not require extensive background material or preliminary information, but rather serve as sources for gathering data for subsequent R01 studies. These grant program announcements provide a long list of how pre-R01 mechanisms can be used, and no single application can or should provide all the stage-setting work exemplified in these descriptions.

Review criteria, typically available on funding agency web sites or within program announcements, may vary slightly by funding mechanism. However grants are typically reviewed and scored according to such criteria as: significance, approach (feasibility, appropriateness, robustness), impact, innovation, investigator team, and research environment. Table 1 summarizes the ten ingredients, provides a checklist for reviewing applications prior to submission, and ties each ingredient to one or more of the typical grant review criteria.

The literature does not provide a ‘. . . a comprehensive, prescriptive, and robust-yet practical-model to help…researchers understand (the) factors need to be considered and addressed’ in an R01 study [ 5 ]. Therefore we examined a variety of sources to identify recommendations and examples of background work that can strengthen implementation research proposals. This paper reflects our team’s experience with early career implementation researchers, specifically through training programs in implementation science and our work to provide technical assistance in implementation research through our university’s Clinical and Translational Science Award CTSA program. We also studied grant program announcements, notably the R03, R21, R18, and R01 program announcements in implementation science [ 6 – 9 ]. We studied how successful implementation research R01 grant applications ‘set the stage’ for the proposed study in various sections of the proposal. We conducted a literature search using combinations of the following key words: ‘implementation research,’ ‘implementation studies,’ ‘preliminary studies,’ ‘preliminary data,’ ‘pilot studies,’ ‘pilot data,’ ‘pilot,’ ‘implementation stages,’ ‘implementation phases,’ and ‘feasibility.’ We also drew on published studies describing the introduction and testing of implementation strategies and those that characterize key elements and phases of implementation research [ 10 , 11 ].

From these reviews, we identified ten ingredients that are important in all implementation research grants: the gap between usual care and evidence-based care; the background of the evidence-based treatment to be implemented, its empirical base, and requisites; the theoretical framework for implementation and explicit theoretical justification for the choice of implementation strategies; information about stakeholders’ (providers, consumers, policymakers) treatment priorities; the setting’s (and providers’) readiness to adopt new treatments; the implementation strategies planned or considered in order to implement evidence-based care; the study team’s experience with the setting, treatment, or implementation process and the research environment; the feasibility and requisites of the proposed methods; the measurement and analysis of study variables; and the health delivery setting’s policy/funding environment, leverage or support for sustaining change.

Given the sparse literature on the importance of preliminary studies for implementation science grant applications, we ‘vetted’ our list of grant application components with a convenience sample of experts. Ultimately, nine experts responded to our request, including six members of the Implementation Science editorial board. We asked the experts to rate the importance of each of the ten elements, rating them as ‘1: Very important to address this is the application,’ ‘2: Helpful but not necessary to the application,’ or ‘3: Not very important to address’ within the context of demonstrating investigator capacity and study feasibility. Respondents were also asked whether there are any additional factors that were not listed.

While all the ten ingredients below were considered important for a successful application, several experts noted that their importance varies according to the aims of the application. For example, one expert affirmed the importance of the settings’ readiness to change, but noted that it may not be crucial to address in a given proposal: ‘the setting’s readiness may be unimportant to establish or report prior to the study, because the study purpose may be to establish an answer to this question.’ However, another maintained, ‘in a good grant application, you have to dot all the ‘I’s’ and cross all the ‘T’s.’ I consider all these important.’ One expert noted that applications might need to argue the importance of implementation research itself, including the importance of closing or reducing gaps in the quality of care. This was viewed as particularly important when the study section to review the grant may not understand or appreciate implementation research. In these cases, it may be important to define and differentiate implementation research from other types of clinical and health services research. For example, it may be useful to situate one’s proposal within the Institute of Medicine’s ‘prevention research cycle,’ which demonstrates the progression from pre-intervention, efficacy, and effectiveness research to dissemination and implementation studies that focus on the adoption, sustainability, and scale-up of interventions [ 12 ]. It may also be important to convey that implementation research is very complex, necessitating the use of multiple methods, a high degree of stakeholder involvement, and a fair amount of flexibility in order to ensure that implementers will be able to respond appropriately to unforeseen barriers.

Ten key ingredients of a competitive implementation research grant application

As emphasized at the beginning of this article, the essential ingredient in a successful implementation science proposal is a research question that is innovative and, when answered, can advance the field of implementation science. Assuming that an important question has been established to potential reviewers, we propose that the following ten ingredients can help investigators demonstrate their capacity to conduct the study and to demonstrate the feasibility of completing the study as proposed. For each ingredient, we provide examples of how preliminary data, background literature, and narrative detail in the application can strengthen the application.

The care gap, or quality gap, addressed in the application

The primary rationale for all implementation efforts, and thus a key driver in implementation science, is discovering how to reduce gaps in healthcare access, quality, or, from a public health perspective, reducing the gap between Healthy People 2020 [ 13 ] goals and current health status. Accordingly, implementation research proposals should provide clear evidence that gaps exists and that there is room for improvement and impact through the proposed implementation effort. This is a primary way of demonstrating the public health significance of the proposed work.

Gaps in the quality of programs, services, and healthcare can be measured and documented at the population-, organization-, and provider-levels [ 14 ]. Several kinds of preliminary data can demonstrate the quality gap to be reduced through the proposed implementation effort. For example, investigators can emphasize the burden of disease through data that reflect its morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost [ 14 ]. An implementation research grant should cite service system research that demonstrates unmet need [ 15 ], the wide variation in the use of evidence-based treatments in usual care [ 16 – 19 ], or the association between the burden of disease and variations in the use of guidelines [ 20 ]. Investigators can also document that few providers adopt evidence-based treatments [ 21 , 22 ], that evidence-based treatments or programs have limited reach [ 23 ], or that penetration [ 24 ] into a system of care can be addressed by the implementation study. Regardless of the specific approach to documenting a quality gap, investigators should use rigorous methods and involve all relevant stakeholders [ 14 ]. In fact, stakeholders can demonstrate their involvement and endorse quality gaps through letters of support attesting to the lack of evidence-based services in usual care.

The evidence-based treatment to be implemented

A second key ingredient in implementation research proposals is the evidence-based program, treatment, policies, or set of services whose implementation will be studied in the proposed research [ 25 – 27 ]. The research ‘pipeline’ [ 28 – 30 ] contains many effective programs and treatments in a backlog, waiting to be implemented. Moreover, many health settings experience a huge demand for better care. An appropriate evidence-based treatment contributes to the project’s public health significance and practical impact, presuming of course that it will be studied in a way that contributes to implementation science.

Implementation research proposals must demonstrate that the evidence-based service is ready for implementation. The strength of the empirical evidence for a given guideline or treatment [ 31 , 32 ], a key part of ‘readiness,’ can be demonstrated in a variety of ways; in some fields, specific thresholds must be met before an intervention is deemed ‘evidence-based’ or ‘empirically-supported’ [ 33 – 35 ]. For example, Chambless et al. [ 35 ] suggest that interventions should demonstrate efficacy by being shown to be superior to placebos or to another treatment in at least two between group design experiments; or by showing efficacy in a large series of single case design experiments. Further, Chambless et al. [ 35 ] note that the experiments must have been conducted with treatment manuals, the characteristics of the samples must have been clearly specified, and the effects must have been demonstrated by at least two different investigators or investigative teams.

The strength of evidence for a given treatment can also be classified using the Cochrane EPOC’s criteria for levels of evidence, which considers randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, time series designs, and controlled before-and-after studies as appropriate [ 36 ]. Researchers who come to implementation research as effectiveness researchers or as program or treatment developers are well positioned, because they can point to their prior research as part of their own background work. Other researchers can establish readiness for implementation by reviewing evidence for the treatment or program as part of the background literature review, preferably relying on well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials (if available). At a minimum, ‘evaluability assessment’ [ 37 ] can help reflect what changes or improvements are needed to optimize effectiveness given the context of the implementation effort.

Conceptual model and theoretical justification

Any research striving for generalizable knowledge should be guided by and propose to test conceptual frameworks, models, and theories [ 38 ]. Yet, theory has been drastically underutilized and underspecified in implementation research [ 38 – 40 ]. For example, in a review of 235 implementation studies, less than 25% of the studies employed theory in any way, and only 6% were explicitly theory-based [ 39 ]. While translating theory into research design is not an easy task [ 36 ], the absence of theory in implementation research has limited our ability to specify key contextual variables and to identify the precise mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.

McDonald et al. [ 41 ] present a useful hierarchy of theories and models, which serves to organize the different levels of theory and specify the ways in which they can be useful in implementation research. They differentiate between conceptual models, frameworks, and systems, which are used to represent global ideas about a phenomenon and theory, which is an ‘organized, heuristic, coherent, and systematic set of statements related to significant questions that are communicated in a meaningful whole’ [ 41 ]. Within the realm of theory, they differentiate between grand or macro theories ( e.g. , Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 26 ]), mid-range theories ( e.g. , transtheoretical model of change [ 42 ]), and micro-theories ( e.g. , feedback intervention theory [ 43 ]). Though models, frameworks, and systems are generally at a higher level of abstraction than theories, it is important to note that the level of abstraction varies both between and within the categories of the hierarchy. The thoughtful integration of both conceptual models and theories can substantially strengthen an application.

Conceptual models, frameworks, and systems can play a critical role in anchoring a research study theoretically by portraying the key variables and relationships to be tested. Even studies that address only a subset of variables within a conceptual model need to be framed conceptually, so that reviewers perceive the larger context (and body of literature) that a particular study proposes to inform. Given the confusion surrounding definitions and terminology within the still-evolving field of dissemination and implementation [ 44 , 45 ], grant proposals need to employ consistent language, clear definitions for constructs, and the most valid and reliable measures for the constructs that correspond to the guiding conceptual framework or theoretical model. Proposal writers should be cautioned that the theory or conceptual model used to frame the study must be used within the application. A mere mention will not suffice. A conceptual model can help frame study questions and hypotheses, anchor the background literature, clarify the constructs to be measured, and illustrate the relationships to be evaluated or tested. The application must also spell out how potential findings will inform the theory or model.

Numerous models and frameworks can inform implementation research. For example, Glasgow et al. [ 23 ] RE-AIM framework can inform evaluation efforts in the area of implementation science. Similarly, Proctor et al. [ 46 ] have proposed a model that informs evaluation by differentiating implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, and identifying a range of implementation outcomes that can be assessed [ 24 ]. Damschroder et al. ’s [ 10 ] Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research identifies five domains that are critical to successful implementation: intervention characteristics (evidentiary support, relative advantage, adaptability, trialability, and complexity); the outer setting (patient needs and resources, organizational connectedness, peer pressure, external policy and incentives); the inner setting (structural characteristics, networks and communications, culture, climate, readiness for implementation); the characteristics of the individuals involved (knowledge, self-efficacy, stage of change, identification with organization, etc.); and the process of implementation (planning, engaging, executing, reflecting, evaluating). Others have published stage or phase models of implementation. For example, the Department of Veteran Affairs’ QUERI initiative [ 47 ] specifies a four-phase model spanning pilot projects, small clinical trials, regional implementation, and implementation on the national scale; and Aarons, Hurlburt and Horwitz [ 48 ] developed a four phase model of exploration, adoption/preparation, active implementation, and sustainment. Magnabosco [ 49 ] delineates between pre-implementation, initial implementation, and sustainability planning phases.

McDonald et al. [ 41 ] note that grand theories are similar to conceptual models, and that they generally represent theories of change. They differentiate between classical models of change that emphasize natural or passive change processes, such as Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory [ 26 ], and planned models of change that specify central elements of active implementation efforts. Investigators may find it more helpful to draw from mid-range theories because they discuss the mechanisms of change at various levels of the implementation context [ 26 ]. For example, social psychological theories, organizational theories, cognitive psychology theories, educational theories, and a host of others may be relevant to the proposed project. While conceptual models are useful in framing a study theoretically and providing a ‘big picture’ of the hypothesized relationships between variables, mid-range theories can be more helpful in justifying the selection of specific implementation strategies specifying the mechanisms by which they may exert their effects. Given the different roles that theory can play in implementation research, investigators would be wise to consider relevant theories at multiple levels of the theoretical hierarchy when preparing their proposals. It is far beyond the scope of this article to review conceptual models and theories in detail; however, several authors have produced invaluable syntheses of conceptual models and theories that investigators may find useful [ 10 , 41 , 50 – 56 ].

Stakeholder priorities and engagement in change

Successful implementation of evidence-based interventions largely depends on their fit with the preferences and priorities of those who shape, deliver, and participate in healthcare. Stakeholders in implementation, and thus in implementation research, include treatment or guideline developers, researchers, administrators, providers, funders, community-based organizations, consumers, families, and perhaps legislators who shape reimbursement policies (see Mendel et al. ’ article [ 57 ] for a framework that outlines different levels of stakeholders). These stakeholders are likely to vary in their knowledge, perceptions, and preferences for healthcare. Their perspectives contribute substantially to the context of implementation and must be understood and addressed if the implementation effort is to succeed. A National Institute of Mental Health Council workgroup report [ 58 ] calls for the engagement of multiple stakeholder perspectives, from concept development to implementation, in order to improve the sustainability of evidence-based services in real-world practice. The engagement of key stakeholders in implementation research affects both the impact of proposed implementation efforts, the sustainability of the proposed change, and the feasibility and ultimate success of the proposed research project. Thus, implementation research grant proposals should convey the extent and manner in which key stakeholders are engaged in the project.

Stakeholders and researchers can forge different types of collaborative relationships. Lindamer et al. [ 59 ] describe three different approaches researchers and stakeholders can take that vary with respect to the level of participation of the stakeholders and community in decisions about the research. In the ‘community-targeted’ approach, stakeholders are involved in recruitment and in the dissemination of the results. In the ‘community-based’ approach, stakeholders participate in the selection of research topics, but the researcher makes the final decision on the study design, methodology, and analysis of data. Finally, the ‘community-driven’ approach or community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach entails participation of the stakeholders in all aspects of the research. Some authors advocate for the CBPR model as a strategy to decrease the gap between research and practice because it addresses some of the barriers to implementation and dissemination [ 60 – 62 ] by enhancing the external validity of the research and promoting the sustainability of the intervention. Kerner et al. [ 62 ] note:

‘When community-based organizations are involved as full partners in study design, implementation, and evaluation of study findings, these organizations may be more amenable to adopting the approaches identified as being effective, as their tacit knowledge about ‘what works’ would have been evaluated explicitly through research.’

Stakeholder analysis can be carried out to evaluate and understand stakeholders’ interests, interrelations, influences, preferences, and priorities. The information gathered from stakeholder analysis can then be used to develop strategies for collaborating with stakeholders, to facilitate the implementation of decisions or organizational objectives, or to understand the future of policy directions [ 63 , 64 ].

Implementation research grant applications are stronger when preliminary data, qualitative or quantitative, reflect stakeholder preferences around the proposed change. Engagement is also reflected in publications that the principal investigator (PI) and key stakeholders have shared in authorship, or methodological details that reflect stakeholder priorities. Letters of support are a minimal reflection of stakeholder investment in the proposed implementation project.

Context: Setting’s readiness to adopt new services/ treatments/ programs

Implementation research proposals are strengthened by information that reflects the setting’s readiness, capacity, or appetite for change, specifically around adoption of the proposed evidence-based treatment. This is not to say that all implementation research should be conducted in settings with high appetite for change. Implementation research is often criticized for disproportionate focus on settings that are eager and ready for change. ‘Cherry picking’ sites, where change is virtually guaranteed, or studying implementation only with eager and early adopters, does not produce knowledge that can generalize to usual care, where change is often challenging. The field of implementation science needs information about the process of change where readiness varies, including settings where change is resisted.

Preliminary data on the organizational and policy context and its readiness for change can strengthen an application. Typically viewed as ‘nuisance’ variance to be controlled in efficacy and effectiveness research, contextual factors are key in implementation research [ 65 – 67 ]. The primacy of context is reflected in the choice of ‘it’s all about context’ as a theme at the 2011 NIH Training Institute in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health [ 68 ]. Because organization, policy, and funding context may be among the strongest influences on implementation outcomes, context needs to be examined front and center in implementation research [ 69 ]. A number of scales are available to capture one key aspect of context, the setting’s readiness or capacity for change. Weiner et al. [ 70 ] extensive review focusing on the conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change identified 43 different instruments; though, they acknowledged substantial problems with the reliability and validity of many of the measures. Due in part to issues with reliability and validity of the measures used in the field, work in this area is ongoing [ 71 , 72 ].

Other approaches to assessing readiness have focused on organizational culture, climate, and work attitudes [ 73 ], and on providers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practices [ 21 , 22 , 74 ]. Furthermore, a prospective identification of implementation barriers and facilitators can be helpful in demonstrating readiness to change, increasing reviewers’ confidence that the PI has thoroughly assessed the implementation context, and informing the selection of implementation strategies (discussed in the following section) [ 75 – 77 ]. An evaluation of barriers and facilitators can be conducted through qualitative [ 78 – 80 ] or survey [ 81 , 82 ] methodology. In fact, a number of scales for measuring implementation barriers have been developed [ 74 , 83 , 84 ]. Letters from agency partners or policy makers, while weaker than data, can also be used to convey the setting’s readiness and capacity for change. Letters are stronger when they address the alignment of the implementation effort to setting or organizational priorities or to current or emergent policies.

Implementation strategy/process

Though the assessment of implementation barriers can play an important role in implementation research, the ‘rising bar’ in the field demands that investigators move beyond the study of barriers to research that generates knowledge about the implementation processes and strategies that can overcome them. Accordingly, the NIH has prioritized efforts to ‘identify, develop, and refine effective and efficient methods, structures, and strategies to disseminate and implement’ innovations in healthcare [ 7 ].

A number of implementation strategies have been identified and discussed in the literature [ 36 , 85 – 87 ]. However, as the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group notes [ 38 ], the most consistent finding from systematic reviews of implementation strategies is that most are effective some, but not all of the time, and produce effect sizes ranging from no effect to a large effect. Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom these strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies [ 40 ], the use of inconsistent language [ 44 ], and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies [ 39 ]. Thus, investigators should take great care in providing detailed descriptions of implementation strategies to be observed or empirically tested. Implementation Science has endorsed [ 40 ] the use of the WIDER Recommendations to Improve Reporting of the Content of Behaviour Change Interventions [ 88 ] as a means of improving the conduct and reporting of implementation research, and these recommendations will undoubtedly be useful to investigators whose proposals employ implementation strategies. Investigators may also find the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) helpful [ 89 ]. Additional design specific reporting guidelines can be found on the Equator Network website [ 90 ]. The selection of strategies must be justified conceptually by drawing upon models and frameworks that outline critical implementation elements [ 10 ]. Theory should be used to explain the mechanisms through which implementation strategies are proposed to exert their effects [ 39 ], and it may be helpful to clarify the proposed mechanisms of change through the development of a logic model and illustrate the model through a figure [ 91 ].

According to Brian Mittman, in addition to being theory-based, implementation strategies should be: multifaceted or multilevel (if appropriate); robust or readily adaptable; feasible and acceptable to stakeholders; compelling, saleable, trialable, and observable; sustainable; and scalable [ 92 , 93 ]. We therefore emphasize taking stock of the budget impact of implementation strategies [ 94 ] as well as any cost and cost-effectiveness data related to the implementation strategies [ 95 ]. Although budget impact is a key concern to administrators and some funding agencies require budget impact analysis, implementation science to date suffers a dearth of economic evaluations from which to draw [ 96 , 97 ].

The empirical evidence for the effectiveness of multifaceted strategies has been mixed, because early research touted the benefits of multifaceted strategies [ 98 , 99 ], while a systematic review of 235 implementation trials by Grimshaw et al. found no relationship between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions [ 100 ]. However, Wensing et al. [ 101 ] note that while multifaceted interventions were assumed to address multiple barriers to change, many focus on only one barrier. For example, providing training and consultation is a multifaceted implementation strategy; however, it primarily serves to increase provider knowledge, and does not address other implementation barriers. Thus, Wensing et al. [ 101 ] argue that multifaceted interventions could be more effective if they address different types of implementation barriers ( e.g. , provider knowledge and the organizational context). While the methods for tailoring clinical interventions and implementation strategies to local contexts need to be improved [ 102 ], intervention mapping [ 103 ] and a recently developed ‘behaviour change wheel’ [ 104 ] are two promising approaches.

Proposals that employ multifaceted and multilevel strategies that address prospectively identified implementation barriers [ 102 ] may be more compelling to review committees, but mounting complex experiments may be beyond the reach of many early-stage investigators and many grant mechanisms. However, it is within the scope of R03, R21, and R34 supported research to develop implementation strategies and to conduct pilot tests of their feasibility and acceptability—work that can strengthen the case for sustainability and scalability. Proposal writers should provide preliminary work for implementation strategies in much the same way that intervention developers do, such as by providing manuals or protocols to guide their use, and methods to gauge their fidelity. Such work is illustrated in the pilot study conducted by Kauth et al. [ 105 ], which demonstrated that an external facilitation strategy intended to increase the use of cognitive behavioral therapy within Veteran Affairs clinics was a promising and low-cost strategy; such pilot data would likely bolster reviewers’ confidence that the strategy is feasible, scalable, and ultimately, sustainable. Investigators should also make plans to document any modifications to the intervention and, if possible, incorporate adaptation models to the implementation process, because interventions are rarely implemented without being modified [ 67 , 106 ].

While providing detailed specification of theory-based implementation strategies is critical, it is also imperative that investigators acknowledge the complexity of implementation processes. Aarons and Palinkas [ 107 ] comment:

‘It is unrealistic to assume that implementation is a simple process, that one can identify all of the salient concerns, be completely prepared, and then implement effectively without adjustments. It is becoming increasingly clear that being prepared to implement EBP means being prepared to evaluate, adjust, and adapt in a continuing process that includes give and take between intervention developers, service system researchers, organizations, providers, and consumers.’

Ultimately, proposals that reflect the PI’s understanding of the complexity of the process of implementing evidence-based practices and that provide supporting detail about strategies and processes will be perceived as more feasible to complete through the proposed methods.

Team experience with the setting, treatment, implementation process, and research environment

Grant reviewers are asked to specifically assess a PI’s capacity to successfully complete a proposed study. Grant applications that convey the team’s experience with the study setting, the treatment whose implementation is being studied, and implementation processes help convey capacity and feasibility to complete an implementation research project [ 108 ].

The reader should observe that NIH gives different scores for the team experience with the setting and for the research environment ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm ) but the purpose of both sections is demonstrating capacity to successfully carry out the study as proposed. Investigators can convey capacity through a variety of ways. Chief among them is building a strong research team, whose members bring depth and experience in areas the PI does not yet have. Implementation research exemplifies multidisciplinary team science, informed by a diverse range of substantive and methodological fields [ 96 , 109 ]. A team that brings the needed disciplines and skill sets directly to the project enhances the project’s likelihood of success. Early-stage implementation researchers who collaborate or partner with senior investigators reassure reviewers that the proposed work will benefit from the senior team member’s experience and expertise. Similarly, collaborators play important roles in complementing, or rounding out, the PI’s disciplinary perspective and methodological skill set. Early career investigators, therefore, should surround themselves with more established colleagues who bring knowledge and experience in areas key to the study aims and methods. The narrative should cite team members’ relevant work, and their prior work can be addressed in a discussion of preliminary studies. Additionally, the new formats for NIH biosketches and budget justifications enable a clear portrayal of what each team member brings to the proposed study.

For the NIH applications, the research environment is detailed in the resources and environment section of a grant application. Here, an investigator can describe the setting’s track record in implementation research; research centers, labs, and offices that the PI can draw on; and structural and historic ties to healthcare settings. For example, a PI can describe how their project will draw upon the University’s CTSA program [ 110 ], statistics or design labs, established pools of research staff, and health services research centers. Preliminary studies and biosketches provide additional ways to convey the strengths of the environment and context within which an investigator will launch a proposed study.

In summary, researchers need to detail the strengths of the research environment, emphasizing in particular the resources, senior investigators, and research infrastructure that can contribute to the success of the proposed study. A strong research environment is especially important for implementation research, which is typically team-based, requires expertise of multiple disciplines, and requires strong relationships between researchers and community based health settings. Investigators who are surrounded by experienced implementation researchers, working in a setting with strong community ties, and drawing on experienced research staff can inspire greater confidence in the proposed study’s likelihood of success.

Feasibility of proposed research design and methods

One of the most important functions of preliminary work is to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed research design and methods. Landsverk [ 108 ] urges PIs to consider every possible question reviewers might raise, and to explicitly address those issues in the application. Data from small feasibility studies or pilot work around referral flow; participant entry into the study; participant retention; and the extent to which key measures are understood by participants, acceptable for use, and capture variability can demonstrate that the proposed methods are likely to work. The methods section should contain as much detail as possible, as well as lay out possible choice junctures and contingencies, should methods not work as planned. It is not only important to justify methodological choices, but also to discuss why potential alternatives were not selected. For example, if randomization is not feasible or acceptable to stakeholders, investigators should make that clear. Letters from study site collaborators can support, but should not replace, the narrative’s detail on study methods. For example, letters attesting the willingness of study sites to be randomized or to support recruitment for the proposed timeframe can help offset reviewer concerns about some of the real-world challenges of launching implementation studies.

Measurement and analysis

A grant application must specify a measurement plan for each construct in the study’s overarching conceptual model or guiding theory, whether those constructs pertain to implementation strategies, the context of implementation, stakeholder preferences and priorities, and implementation outcomes [ 111 ]. Yet, crafting the study approach section is complicated by the current lack of consensus on methodological approaches to the study of implementation processes, measuring implementation context and outcomes, and testing implementation strategies [ 112 , 113 ]. Measurement is a particularly important aspect of study methods, because it determines the quality of data. Unlike efficacy and effectiveness studies, implementation research often involves some customization of an intervention to fit local context; accordingly, measurement plans need to address the intervention’s degree of customization versus fidelity [ 97 ]. Moreover, implementation science encompasses a broad range of constructs, from a variety of disciplines, with little standardization of measures or agreement on definitions of constructs across different studies, fields, authors, or research groups, further compounding the burden to present a clear and robust measurement plan along with its rationale. Two current initiatives seek to advance the harmonization, standardization, and rigor of measurement in implementation science, the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) portal [ 114 ] and the Comprehensive Review of Dissemination and Implementation Science Instruments efforts supported by the Seattle Implementation Research Conference (SIRC) at the University of Washington [ 115 ]. Both initiatives engage the implementation science research community to enhance the quality and harmonization of measures. Their respective web sites are being populated with measures and ratings, affording grant writers an invaluable resource in addressing a key methodological challenge.

Key challenges in crafting the analysis plan for implementation studies include: determining the unit of analysis, given the ‘action’ at individual, team, organizational, and policy environments; shaping meditational analyses given the role of contextual variables; and developing and using appropriate methods for characterizing the speed, quality, and degree of implementation. The proposed study’s design, assessment tools, analytic strategies, and analytic tools must address these challenges in some manner [ 113 ]. Grant applications that propose the testing of implementation strategies or processes often provide preliminary data from small-scale pilot studies to examine feasibility and assess sources of variation. However, the magnitude of effects in small pilots should be determined by clinical relevance [ 113 ], given the uncertainty of power calculations from small scale studies [ 116 ].

Policy/funding environment; leverage or support for sustaining change

PIs should ensure that grant applications reflect their understanding of the policy and funding context of the implementation effort. Health policies differ in many ways that impact quality [ 117 ], and legal, reimbursement, and regulatory factors affect the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based treatments [ 118 ]. Raghavan et al. [ 119 ] discuss the policy ecology of implementation, and emphasize that greater attention should be paid to marginal costs associated with implementing evidence-based treatments, including expenses for provider training, supervision, and consultation. Glasgow et al. [ 120 ] recently extended their heretofore behaviorally focused RE-AIM framework for public health interventions to health policies, revealing the challenges associated with policy as a practice-change lever.

PIs can address the policy context of the implementation initiative through the narrative, background literature, letters of support, and the resource and environment section. Proposals that address how the implementation initiative aligns with policy trends enhance their likelihood of being viewed as having high public health significance, as well as greater practical impact, feasibility, and sustainability. It is important to note that it may behoove investigators to address the policy context within a proposal even if it is not likely to be facilitative of implementation, because it demonstrates to reviewers that the investigator is not naïve to the challenges and barriers that exist at this level.

We identify and discuss ten key ingredients in implementation research grant proposals. The paper reflects the team’s experience and expertise: writing for federal funding agencies in the United States. We acknowledge that this will be a strength for some readers and a limitation for international readers, whom we encourage to contribute additional perspectives. Setting the stage with careful background detail and preliminary data may be more important for implementation research, which poses a unique set of challenges that investigators should anticipate and demonstrate their capacity to manage. Data to set the stage for implementation research may be collected by the study team through preliminary, feasibility, or pilot studies, or the team may draw on others’ work, citing background literature to establish readiness for the proposed research.

Every PI struggles with the challenge of fitting into a page-limited application the research background, methodological detail, and information that can convey the project’s feasibility and likelihood of success. The relative emphasis on, and thus length of text addressing, the various sections of a grant proposal varies with the program mechanism, application ‘call,’ and funding source. For NIH applications, most attention and detail should be allocated to the study method because the ‘approach’ section is typically weighted most heavily in scoring. Moreover, the under-specification or lack of detail in study methodology usually receives the bulk of reviewer criticism. Well-constructed, parsimonious tables, logic models, and figures reflecting key concepts and the analytic plan for testing their relationships all help add clarity, focus reviewers, and prevent misperceptions. All implementation research grants need to propose aims, study questions, or hypotheses whose answers will advance implementation science. Beyond this fundamental grounding, proposed implementation studies should address most, if not all, of the ingredients identified here. While no application can include a high level of detail about every ingredient, addressing these components can help assure reviewers of the significance, feasibility, and impact of the proposed research.

a For more information regarding different grant mechanisms, please see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm .

Authors’ information

EKP directs the Center for Mental Health Services Research at Washington University in St. Louis (NIMH P30 MH085979), the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) of the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (NCRR UL1RR024992), and the Implementation Research Institute (NIMH R25 MH080916).

Implementation Science. http://www.implementationscience.com ,

Institute of Medicine: Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. 2009, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Google Scholar  

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's Essentials of the Research Plan. http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/esstplan.htm#Preliminary ,

National Institutes of Health Grant Cycle. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/Pages/part05.aspx ,

Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2008, 34: 228-243.

Researching Implementation and Change while Improving Quality (R18). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-136.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R01). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-038.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R03). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-039.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R21). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-040.html ,

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (50): 1-15.

Stetler CB, Mittman BS, Francis J: Overview of the VA quality enhancement research inititative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-9. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Institute of Medicine: Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. 2009, Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Healthy People. 2020, http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx ,

Kitson A, Straus SE: Identifying the knowledge-to-action gaps. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 60-72.

Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner HR, Barth RP, Kolko DJ, Campbell Y, Landsverk J: Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: a national survey. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004, 43: 960-970. 10.1097/01.chi.0000127590.95585.65.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003, 348: 2635-2645. 10.1056/NEJMsa022615.

Raghavan R, Inoue M, Ettner SL, Hamilton BH: A preliminary analysis of the receipt of mental health services consistent with national standards among children in the child welfare system. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100: 742-749. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.151472.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wang PS, Berglund P, Kessler RC: Recent care of common mental disorders in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2000, 15: 284-292. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.9908044.x.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zima BT, Hurlburt MS, Knapp P, Ladd H, Tang L, Duan N, Wallace P, Rosenblatt A, Landsverk J, Wells KB: Quality of publicly-funded outpatient specialty mental health care for common childhood psychiatric disorders in California. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005, 44: 130-144. 10.1097/00004583-200502000-00005.

Brook BS, Dominici F, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA, Schneider E, Pawlik TM: Variations in surgical outcomes associated with hospital compliance with safety. Surgery. 2012, 151: 651-659. 10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.001.

Aarons GA: Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004, 6: 61-74.

Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L, Sawitzky A: Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: The Evidence Based Attitudes Scale-50. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2012, 5: 331-340.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999, 89: 1322-1327. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M: Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2010, 38: 65-76.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bond GR, Drake R, Becker D: Beyond evidence-based practice: Nine ideal features of a mental health intervention. Research on Social Work Practice. 2010, 20: 493-501. 10.1177/1049731509358085.

Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 2003, New York: Free Press, 5

Grol R, Wensing M: Characteristics of successful innovations. Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 60-70.

Diner BM, Carpenter CR, O'Connell T, Pang P, Brown MD, Seupaul RA, Celentano JJ, Mayer D: Graduate medical education and knowledge translation: Role models, information pipelines, and practice change thresholds. Acad Emerg Med. 2007, 14: 1008-1014.

Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research: ‘Blue Highways’ on the NIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007, 297: 403-406. 10.1001/jama.297.4.403.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kleinman MS, Mold JW: Defining the components of the research pipeline. Clin Transl Sci. 2009, 2: 312-314. 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2009.00119.x.

Oxman AD: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1490-1494.

Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M: Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004, 17: 59-67. 10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59.

Roth A, Fonagy P: What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. 2005, New York: Guilford

Weissman MM, Verdeli H, Gameroff MJ, Bledsoe SE, Betts K, Mufson L, Fitterling H, Wickramaratne P: National survey of psychotherapy training in psychiatry, psychology, and social work. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 63: 925-934. 10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.925.

Chambless DL, Baker MJ, Baucom DH, Beutler LE, Calhoun KS, Crits-Christoph P, Daiuto A, DeRubeis R, Detweiler J, Haaga DAF: Update on empirically validated therapies, II. The Clinical Psychologist. 1998, 51: 3-16.

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group: Data collection checklist. 2002, EPOC measures for review authors

Leviton LC, Khan LK, Rog D, Dawkins N, Cotton D: Evaluability assessment to improve public health policies, programs, and practices. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010, 31: 213-233. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103625.

The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1 (4): 1-8.

Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM: A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Science. 2010, 5: 1-6. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1.

Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP: Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (Article: 40): 1-6.

McDonald KM, Graham ID, Grimshaw J: Toward a theoretical basis for quality improvement interventions. Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Edited by: Shojania KG, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Owens DK. 2004, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 27-40.

Prochaska JO, Velicer WF: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997, 12: 38-48. 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.

Kluger AN, DeNisi A: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996, 119: 254-284.

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Straus SE: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: A Tower of Babel?. Implementation Science. 2010, 5: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1.

Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Joshu-Haire D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL: A glossary of dissemination and implementation research in health. Journal of Public Health Management. 2008, 14: 117-123.

Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B: Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2009, 36: 24-34. 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4.

Stetler CB, McQueen L, Demakis J, Mittman BS: An organizational framework and strategic implementation for systems-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI series. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM: Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011, 38: 4-23. 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7.

Magnabosco JL: Innovations in mental health services implementation: A report on state-level data from the U.S. evidence-based practices project. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005, 14: 26-33. 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.

Grol R, Wensing M, Hulscher M, Eccles M: Theories on implementation of change in healthcare. Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 15-40.

Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007, 85: 93-138. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x.

Denis J-L, Lehoux P: Organizational theory. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 215-225.

Graham ID, Tetroe J, KT Theories Group: Planned action theories. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 185-195.

Hutchinson A, Estabrooks CA: Cognitive psychology theories of change. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 196-205.

Hutchinson A, Estabrooks CA: Educational theories. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 206-214.

Mendel P, Meredith LS, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: Interventions in organizational and community context: A framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008, 35: 21-37. 10.1007/s10488-007-0144-9.

National Advisory Mental Health Council's Services Research and Clinical Epidemiology Workgroup: The road ahead: Research partnerships to transform services. 2006, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health

Lindamer LA, Lebowitz B, Hough RL, Garcia P, Aguirre A, Halpain MC: Establishing an implementation network: Lessons learned from community-based participatory research. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (17): 1-7.

Chen PG, Diaz N, Lucas G, Rosenthal MS: Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. Am J Prev Med. 2010, 39: 372-378. 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021.

Wallenstein N, Duran B: Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100: S40-S46. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036.

Kerner J, Rimer B, Emmons K: Dissemination research and research dissemination: How can we close the gap?. Health Psychol. 2005, 24: 443-446.

Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z: Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15: 239-246. 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239.

Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R: How to do (or not to do) a stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15: 338-345. 10.1093/heapol/15.3.338.

Chambers DA: Advancing the science of implementation: A workshop summary. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2008, 35: 3-10. 10.1007/s10488-007-0146-7.

Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P: The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice. Ann Behav Med. 2004, 27: 3-12. 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_2.

Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K: Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when?. Psychiatr Serv. 2001, 52: 1190-1197. 10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190.

Training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health. http://conferences.thehillgroup.com/OBSSRinstitutes/TIDIRH2011/index.html ,

Dearing J: Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008, 14: 99-108.

Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee S-YD: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review. 2008, 65: 379-436. 10.1177/1077558708317802.

Stamatakis K: Measurement properties of a novel survey to assess stages of organizational readiness for evidence-based practice in community prevention programs. 4th Annual National Institutes of Health Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. 2011, Maryland: Bethesda

Gagnon M-P, Labarthe J, Legare F, Ouimet M, Estabrooks CA, Roch G, Ghandour EK, Grimshaw J: Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care. Implementation Science. 2011, 6 (72): 1-10.

Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, Kelleher K, Hoagwood KE, Mayberg S, Green P: Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008, 35: 98-113. 10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5.

Larson E: A tool to assess barriers to adherence to hand hygiene guideline. Am J Infect Control. 2004, 32: 48-51. 10.1016/j.ajic.2003.05.005.

Grol R, Wensing M: What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Medical Journal of Australia. 2004, 180: S57-S60.

Légaré F: Assessing barriers and facilitators to knowledge use. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 83-93.

Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-AC, Rubin HR: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-1465. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.

Forsner T, Hansson J, Brommels M, Wistedt AA, Forsell Y: Implementing clinical guidelines in psychiatry: A qualitative study of perceived facilitators and barriers. BMC Psychiatry. 2010, 10: 1-10. 10.1186/1471-244X-10-1.

Rapp CA, Etzel-Wise D, Marty D, Coffman M, Carlson L, Asher D, Callaghan J, Holter M: Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation: Results of a qualitative study. Community Ment Health J. 2010, 46: 112-118. 10.1007/s10597-009-9238-z.

Manuel JI, Mullen EJ, Fang L, Bellamy JL, Bledsoe SE: Preparing social work practitioners to use evidence-based practice: A comparison of experiences from an implementation project. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009, 19: 613-627. 10.1177/1049731509335547.

Chenot J-F, Scherer M, Becker A, Donner-Banzhoff N, Baum E, Leonhardt C, Kellar S, Pfingsten M, Hildebrandt J, Basler H-D, Kochen MM: Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-6. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Jacobs JA, Dodson EA, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, Brownson RC: Barriers to evidence-based decision making in public health: A national survey of chronic disease practitioners. Public Health Rep. 2010, 125: 736-742.

Wensing M, Grol R: Methods to identify implementation problems. Improving Patient Care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 109-120.

Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM: BARRIERS: The barriers to research utilization scale. Clinical Methods. 1991, 4: 39-45.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, Glass JE, York JL: A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012, 69: 123-157. 10.1177/1077558711430690.

Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID: Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell

Recommendations to improve reporting of the content of behaviour change interventions. http://interventiondesign.co.uk/ ,

Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S: Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008, 17: i3-i9. 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066.

Equator Network. http://www.equator-network.org/ ,

Goeschel CA, Weiss WM, Pronovost PJ: Using a logic model to design and evaluate quality and patient safety improvement programs. 2012, 24: 330-337.

Implementation Research Institute. http://cmhsr.wustl.edu/Training/IRI/Pages/ImplementationResearchTraining.aspx ,

Criteria for peer review of D/I funding applications. Implementation Research Institute. Edited by: Mittman BS. 2010, St. Louis, Missouri

Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, Orlewska E, Watkins J, Trueman P: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: Report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices: Budget impact analysis. Values in Health. 2007, 10: 336-347. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.

Raghavan R: The role of economic evaluation in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 94-113.

Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, Gasziou P, Ilott I, Kinmonth A-L, Leng G: An implementation research agenda. Implementation Science. 2009, 4: 1-7. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-1.

Glasgow RE: Critical measurement issues in translational research. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009, 19: 560-568. 10.1177/1049731509335497.

Wensing M, Weijden TVD, Grol R: Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: Which interventions are effective?. Br J Gen Pract. 1998, 48: 991-997.

Solberg LI, Brekke ML, Fazio CJ, Fowles J, Jacobsen DN, Kottke TE, Mosser G, O'Connor PJ, Ohnsorg KA, Rolnick SJ: Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: Attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. Journal on Quality Improvement. 2000, 26: 171-188.

Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72.

Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R: Selecting, tailoring, and implementing knowledge translation interventions. Knowledge Translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 94-113.

Baker R, Camosso-Stefanovic J, Gilliss CL, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, CD005470-

Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH: Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach. 2011, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science. 2011, 6 (42): 1-11.

Kauth MR, Sullivan G, Blevins D, Cully JA, Landes RD, Said Q, Teasdale TA: Employing external facilitation to implement cognitive behavioral therapy in VA clinics: A pilot study. Implementation Science. 2010, 5 (75): 1-11.

Aarons GA, Green AE, Palinkas LA, Self-Brown S, Whitaker DJ, Lutzker JR, Silovsky JF, Hecht DB, Chaffin MJ: Dynamic adaptation process to implement an evidence-based child maltreatment intervention. Implementation Science. 2012, 7 (32): 1-9.

Aarons GA, Palinkas LA: Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administrative Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2007, 34: 411-419. 10.1007/s10488-007-0121-3.

Landsverk J: Creating interdisciplinary research teams and using consultants. The field research survivors guide. Edited by: Stiffman AR. 2009, New York: Oxford University Press, 127-145.

Institute of Medicine: The state of quality improvement and implementation research: Workshop summary. 2007, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Zerhouni EA, Alving B: Clinical and Translational Science Awards: A framework for a national research agenda. Transl Res. 2006, 148: 4-5. 10.1016/j.lab.2006.05.001.

Proctor EK, Brownson RC: Measurement issues in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating research to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 261-280.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M: Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011, 38: 65-76. 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

Landsverk J, Brown CH, Chamberlain P, Palinkas LA, Ogihara M, Czaja S, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Rolls-Reutz JA, Horwitz SM: Design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating research to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 225-260.

Grid-enabled measures database. https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/Home.aspx ,

Instrument review project: A comprehensive review of dissemination and implementation science instruments. http://www.seattleimplementation.org/sirc-projects/sirc-instrument-project/ ,

Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA: Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 63: 484-489. 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484.

Institute of Medicine: Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions. 2006, Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Proctor EK, Knudsen KJ, Fedoravicius N, Hovmand P, Rosen A, Perron B: Implementation of evidence-based practice in behavioral health: Agency director perspectives. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007, 34: 479-488. 10.1007/s10488-007-0129-8.

Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL: Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-9. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow RE: Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007, 34: 105-114. 10.1007/BF02872666.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by National Center for Research Resources through the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core of Washington University in St. Louis’ Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (NCRR UL1 RR024992) and the National Institute of Mental Health through the Center for Mental Health Services Research (NIMH P30 MH068579), the Implementation Research Institute (NIMH R25 MH080916), and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NIMH T32 RR024992). An earlier version of this paper was an invited presentation at an early investigator workshop, held at the 4 th Annual National Institutes of Health Conference on Advancing the Science of Dissemination and Implementation on March 22, 2011 in Bethesda, Maryland.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Mental Health Services Research, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1196, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Enola K Proctor, Byron J Powell, Ana A Baumann, Ashley M Hamilton & Ryan L Santens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enola K Proctor .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

EKP conceived the idea for this paper and led the writing. BJP, AAB, AMH, and RLS contributed to the conceptualization, literature review, and the writing of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Proctor, E.K., Powell, B.J., Baumann, A.A. et al. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implementation Sci 7 , 96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2012

Accepted : 04 October 2012

Published : 12 October 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation research
• Grant writing
• Preliminary studies

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10250258

How to write a successful grant application: guidance provided by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy

Anita e. weidmann.

1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria

Cathal A. Cadogan

2 School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Daniela Fialová

3 Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

4 Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Ankie Hazen

5 Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Martin Henman

6 Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Monika Lutters

7 Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland

Betul Okuyan

8 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

Vibhu Paudyal

9 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Francesca Wirth

10 Department of Pharmacy, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Considering a rejection rate of 80–90%, the preparation of a research grant is often considered a daunting task since it is resource intensive and there is no guarantee of success, even for seasoned researchers. This commentary provides a summary of the key points a researcher needs to consider when writing a research grant proposal, outlining: (1) how to conceptualise the research idea; (2) how to find the right funding call; (3) the importance of planning; (4) how to write; (5) what to write, and (6) key questions for reflection during preparation. It attempts to explain the difficulties associated with finding calls in clinical pharmacy and advanced pharmacy practice, and how to overcome them. The commentary aims to assist all pharmacy practice and health services research colleagues new to the grant application process, as well as experienced researchers striving to improve their grant review scores. The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP’s commitment to stimulate “ innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy ”.

Writing research grants is a central part of any good quality research. Once a detailed research proposal has been submitted, it is subjected to an expert peer review process. Such reviews are designed to reach a funding decision, with feedback provided to improve the study for this and any future submissions. Depending on the length of the proposal, complexity of the research and experience of the research team, a proposal can take between six to twelve months to write [ 1 ]. Ample time must be given to the writing of hypothesis/research aim, budgeting, discussion with colleagues and several rounds of feedback [ 2 ]. The draft research proposal should always be completed well before the deadline to allow for last minute delays. An application which is not fully developed should not be submitted since it will most likely be rejected [ 3 ].

Despite the large effort that goes into each grant application, success rates are low. Application success rates for Horizon 2020 were < 15% [ 4 ] and < 20% for the National Institute of Health (NIH) [ 5 – 8 ]. With these statistics in mind, it is evident that often repeated submissions are required before securing funding. Due to a paucity of specific clinical pharmacy grant awarding bodies, writing a grant application for a clinical pharmacy or pharmacy practice research project often involves multidisciplinary collaborations with other healthcare professions and focus on a specific patient population or condition. There is no guarantee of success when trying to secure funding for research. Even the most seasoned researchers will have applications rejected. The key is to never give up. This commentary provides useful pointers for the planning and execution of grant writing.

Conceptualising your research idea

Before writing a research grant proposal/application, consider what the research should achieve in the short, medium, and long term, and how the research goals will serve patients, science and society [ 9 , 10 ]. Practical implications of research, policy impact or positive impact on society and active patient/public involvement are highly valued by many research agencies as research should not be conducted “only for research”, serving the researchers’ interests. EU health policy and action strategies (CORDIS database) and other national strategies, such as national mental health strategy for grants within mental disorders, should be considered, as well as dissemination strategies, project deliverables, outcomes and lay public invitations to participate. The Science Community COMPASS has developed a useful “Message Box Tool” that can help in the identification of benefits and solutions, as well as the all-important “So What?” of the research [ 11 ]. Clearly determine what the lead researcher’s personal and professional strengths, expertise and past experiences are, and carefully select the research team to close these gaps [ 12 – 14 ].

How to find the right funding call

When trying to identify the right type of grant according to the research ambitions, one should be mindful that several types of grants exist, including small project grants (for equipment, imaging costs), personal fellowships (for salary costs, sometimes including project costs), project grants (for a combination of salary and project costs), programme grants (for comprehensive project costs and salary for several staff members), start-up grants and travel grants [ 15 ]. Types of grants include EU grants (e.g. Horizon, Norway Grant), commercial grants (e.g. healthcare agencies and insurance companies), New Health Program grants ideal for new, reimbursed clinical pharmacy service projects and national grants (e.g. FWF (Austria), ARRS (Slovenia), NKFIH (Hungary), NCN (Poland), FWO (Belgium), HRZZ (Croatia), GAČR (Czech Republic), SNSF (Switzerland), SSF (Sweden). It is worth remembering that early career researchers, normally within ten years of finishing a PhD, have a particular sub-category within most grants.

Many national agencies only have one “Pharmacy” category. This results in clinical pharmacy and advanced clinical pharmacy practice projects competing with pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutical biology and pharmacy technology submissions, thereby reducing the success rate as these research areas can often be very advanced in most EU countries compared to clinical and advanced pharmacy practice. A second possible submission category is “Public Health”. Several essential factors can impact the grant selection, such as research field, budget capacity, leading researcher’s experience and bilateral grants. Examples of successful clinical pharmacy funded research studies can be found in the published literature [ 16 – 20 ].

Plan, plan, plan

One key element of successful grant writing is the ability to plan and organise time. In order to develop a realistic work plan and achieve milestones, it is imperative to note deadlines and to be well-informed about the details of what is required. The development of a table or Gantt Chart that notes milestones, outcomes and deliverables is useful [ 21 ].

All funders are quite specific about what they will and will not fund. Research your potential funders well in advance. It is vital to pay attention to the aims, ambitions and guidelines of the grant awarding bodies and focus your proposal accordingly. Submitting an application which does not adhere to the guidelines may lead to very early rejection. It is helpful to prepare the grant application in such a way that the reviewers can easily find the information they are looking for [ 15 , 22 ]. This includes checking the reviewers’ reports and adding “bolded” sentences into the application to allow immediate emphasis. Reviewers’ reports are often available on the agencies’ websites. It is extremely useful to read previously submitted and funded or rejected proposals to further help in the identification of what is required in each application. Most funding agencies publish a funded project list, and the ‘Centre for Open Science (COS) Database of Funded Research’ enables tracking of funding histories from leading agencies around the world [ 23 ]. Another useful recommendation is to talk to colleagues who have been successful when applying to that particular funder. Funding agency grant officers can provide advice on the suitability of the proposal and the application process.

It is important to pay particular attention to deadlines for the grant proposal and ensure that sufficient time is allocated for completion of all parts of the application, particularly those that are not fully within one’s own control, for example, gathering any required signatures/approvals. Funders will generally not review an application submitted beyond the deadline.

Lastly, it is important to obtain insight into the decision process of grants. Research applications are sent to several reviewers, who are either volunteers or receive a small compensation to judge the application on previously determined criteria. While the judging criteria may vary from funder to funder, the key considerations are:

• Is there a clear statement of the research aim(s)/research question(s)/research objective(s)?
• Is the proposed research “state-of-the-art” in its field and has all relevant literature been reviewed?
• Is the method likely to yield valid, reliable, trustworthy data to answer question 1.?
• If the answer to the second question is ’yes’, then what is the impact of financing this study on patient care, professional practice, society etc.?
• Is there sufficient confidence that the research team will deliver this study on time with expected quality outputs and on budget?
• Does the study provide value for money?

How to write

The key to good grant proposal writing is to be concise yet engaging. The use of colour and modern web-based tools such as #hashtags, webpage links, and links to YouTube presentations are becoming increasingly popular to improve the interest of a submission and facilitate a swift decision-making process. Ensure use of the exact section headings provided in the guidance, and use the keywords provided in the funding call documentation to reflect alignment with the funding bodies’ key interests. Attention to detail cannot be overstated; the quality and accuracy of the research proposal reflect the quality and accuracy of the research [ 24 ]. Try to adopt a clear, succinct, and simple writing style, making the grant easy to read. Having a clear focus can help to boost a grant to the top of a reviewer’s pile [ 25 , 26 ]. A clearly stated scientific question, hypothesis, and rationale are imperative. The reviewer should not have to work to understand the project [ 27 ]. Allow for plenty of time to incorporate feedback from trusted individuals with the appropriate expertise and consider having reviews for readability by non-experts.

What to write

Abstract, lay summary and background/rationale.

Take sufficient time to draft the scientific abstract and summary for the lay public. These should clearly state the long-term goal of the research, the aim and specific testable objectives, as well as the potential impact of the work. The research aim is a broad statement of research intent that sets out what the project hopes to achieve at the end. Research objectives are specific statements that define measurable outcomes of the project [ 28 , 29 ].

The lay summary is important for non-subject experts to quickly grasp the purpose and aims of the research. This is important in light of the increased emphasis on patient and public involvement in the design of the research. The abstract is often given little attention by the applicants, yet is essential. If reviewers have many applications to read, they may form a quick judgement when reading the abstract. The background should develop the argument for the study. It should flow and highlight the relevant literature and policy or society needs statements which support the argument, but at the same time must be balanced. It should focus on the need for the study at the local, national and international level, highlighting the knowledge gap the study addresses and what the proposed research adds. Ensure this section is well-referenced. The innovation section addresses the ‘‘So what?’’ question and should clearly explain how this research is important to develop an understanding in this field of practice and its potential impact. Will it change practice, or will it change the understanding of the disease process or its treatment? Will it generate new avenues for future scientific study? [ 30 ].

Hypothesis/aims and objectives

For the hypothesis, state the core idea of the grant in one or two sentences. It should be concise, and lead to testable specific aims. This section is fundamental; if it is unclear or poorly written, the reviewers may stop reading and reject the application. Do not attempt to make the aims overly complex. Well-written aims should be simply stated. Criteria such as PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) [ 31 ], and FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant) [ 32 ], provide useful frameworks to help in writing aim(s), research question(s), objective(s) and hypotheses. Pay attention to the distinction between aim(s), research question(s), objective(s) and hypotheses. While it is tempting to want to claim that enormously complex problems can be solved in a single project, do not overreach. It is important to be realistic [ 25 ].

Experimental design, methods and expertise

The methodology is one of the most important parts of getting a grant proposal accepted. The reviewing board should be convinced that the relevant methodology is well within the research teams’ expertise. Any evidence of potential success, such as preliminary results or pilot studies strengthen the application significantly [ 33 ]. The methodology must relate directly to the aim. Structuring this section into specific activities/ set of activities that address each research question or objective should be considered. This clarifies how each question/ objective will be addressed. Each work-package should clearly define the title of the research question/objective to be addressed, the activities to be carried out including milestones and deliverables, and the overall duration of the proposed work-package. Deliverables should be presented in table format for ease of review. Each subsequent work-package should start once the previous one has been completed to provide a clear picture of timelines, milestones and deliverables which reflect stakeholder involvement and overall organisation of the proposed project. Using relevant EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines enhances the quality of detail included in the design [ 34 ]. Key elements of this methodology are detailed in Table  1 .

Summary of the key elements of the experimental design, methods and expertise

Proposed budget

The budget should be designed based on the needs of the project and the funding agency’s policies and instructions. Each aspect of the budget must be sufficiently justified to ensure accountability to the grant awarding body [ 35 ]. Costing and justification of the time of those involved, any equipment, consumables, travel, payment for participants, dissemination costs and other relevant costs are required. The funders will be looking for value for money and not necessarily a low-cost study. Ensure that the total budget is within the allocated funding frame.

Provide a breakdown of the key work packages and tasks to be completed, as well as an indication of the anticipated duration. Include a Gantt chart (A table detailing the most general project content milestones and activities) to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposal have been well thought through [ 21 ].

Critical appraisal, limitations, and impact of the proposed research

It is important to detail any strengths and limitations of the proposed project. Omitting these will present the reviewing board with sufficient grounds to reject the proposal [ 36 ]. Provide a clear statement about the short and long-term impact of the research [ 37 , 38 ]. The reviewers will pay particular attention to the differences the study can make and how potential impact aligns with the funding bodies goals as well as national policies. This statement is essential to make an informed decision whether or not to support the application. Useful diagrams summarise the different levels of impact [ 39 ].

Table  2 provides a summary of the key elements of project grants and key questions to ask oneself.

Summary of the key elements of project grants and key questions to ask oneself.

(Adapted from [ 5 ]: Koppelmann GH, Holloway JW. Successful grant writing. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2012; 13:63–66.)

Although the grant writing process is time-consuming and complex, support is widely available at each stage. It is important to involve colleagues and collaborators to improve the proposal as much as possible and invest time in the detailed planning and execution. Even if the grant is not awarded, do not be disheartened. Use the feedback for improvement and exercise resilience and persistence in pursuing your research ambition.

The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP’s commitment to stimulate “innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy”. In a previous ESCP survey, it was found that few opportunities for collaboration (especially for grant applications) was one of the key barriers for members towards conducting research [ 40 ]. ESCP promotes networking, which is essential for multi-centre grant applications, both among ESCP members and with other organisations as it recognises the need for “multi-centre research in all areas of clinical pharmacy both within countries and between countries or differing healthcare delivery systems”. ESCP is planning to relaunch its own research grant which was paused during the pandemic, and it is also planning to provide ESCP members with information about the research grants offered by other organizations. ESCP is exploring partnering with other organisations to develop research proposals in areas of common interest and, in the near future, it will ask its members about their research priorities. Taken together, these initiatives will inform ESCP’s research strategy and help it to formulate policies to address the challenges its members face.

Acknowledgements

Research works of Assoc. Prof. Fialová were also supported by the institutional program Cooperation of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University.

Open access funding provided by University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck. This work was conducted without external funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Jump to navigation

Search form

Tips for Developing a Training Grant Proposal

Training grants tips.jpg.

Research Development Services (RDS)

—TUCSON, AZ—

Follow these steps, and you'll be well on your way to developing a successful training grant proposal!

• Utilize the RDS Training Grants Resources website  
• Heed the following advice from current training grant principal investigators:  

"Go for training grants in areas you're passionate about. Writing these things is truly a labor of love. Make sure it's a need you feel comfortable filling whether or not you're an expert in that area."  — Michael Johnson , Associate Professor of Immunobiology and and PI for NSF-funded National Summer Undergraduate Research Project (NSURP) "Be sure to put together a community of people as excited as you are about the project, and don't just focus on the science but also think about people who will reinforce connections and keep things running in the day-in, day-out tasks."  — Heather Ingram , Program Manager for NSF-funded  Building Resources for Interdisciplinary Training in Genomic and Ecosystem Sciences (BRIDGES) "I'd recommend finding a co-PI. My co-PI and I are very different people, but we work well together. It's amazing how, when one of us has a hyper-crazy schedule, the other can fill in."  — Scott Saleska , Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and PI for NSF-funded  Building Resources for Interdisciplinary Training in Genomic and Ecosystem Sciences (BRIDGES) "Talk to the agency about the grants you're interested in. NIH is surprisingly approachable, and talking with them goes a long way to hone your ideas into something they'll actually fund."  — Felicia Goodrum , Professor of Immunobiology and PI of Infection and Inflammation as Drivers of Aging (IIDA) , funded by NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) "Talk to at least three people on campus who have training grants; they're all listed on the new website. Then, come talk to us at the Office of Diversity and Inclusion in the graduate college. One of our university's strengths that interests funding agencies is its support of diverse students. We're still a work in progress, but we do much better than most of the top 30 public schools. We can give you information to emphasize that in your proposal."— Frans Tax , Molecular and Cellular Biology Professor and PI for NIH-funded Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD) "Make sure real-life, hands-on work is an essential part of the training." — Kevin Fitzsimmons , Researcher and Professor of Environmental Science and PI for USDA-funded Preparing Hispanic and other Underrepresented Students in Fisheries and Aquaculture Read " Principal investigators share the unique significance and challenges of training grants " for more from UArizona training grant PIs. 

Subscribe to the UArizona Impact in Action newsletter to receive featured stories and event info to connect you with UArizona's research, innovation, entrepreneurial ventures, and societal impacts.

Subscribe now

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Joint National Science Foundation and United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Funding Opportunity: Supporting Foundational Research in Robotics (FRR)

Dear Colleague:

Recognizing the importance of use-inspired collaborations in promoting scientific discoveries, the National Science Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA/NIFA), seeks proposals to advance foundational research in agricultural robotics. These proposals should be of mutual interest to the NSF Foundational Research in Robotics (FRR) program and to USDA/NIFA .

NSF's FRR program, jointly led by the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) and the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), supports research to create innovative robots with unprecedented new functionality. USDA/NIFA has the mission to provide leadership and funding for programs that advance agriculture-related sciences. Proposals submitted under this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) should present a compelling vision for pioneering robots with transformative potential in agricultural contexts. It is highly suggested that potential proposers contact the USDA/NIFA program director first (listed below) with a short narrative to determine project applicability for this program. If appropriate, an NSF program director will be further consulted.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

NSF is the lead agency for this collaboration. Proposals to be considered under this Dear Colleague Letter should have a title prefixed by "NIFA:" and should be submitted to the FRR program. Submissions will be evaluated in FRR review panels, following the requirements of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) ( https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg ), and the FRR Program Description ( https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/foundational-research-robotics-frr ). Proposals submitted under this Dear Colleague Letter must be clearly justified by important needs in agriculture and the agricultural sciences.

NSF will manage and conduct the review process of proposals submitted in accordance with NSF standards and procedures, as described in the PAPPG. USDA staff will participate in panels as observers during the discussion of USDA-focused proposals. Information about proposals and unattributed reviews of proposals will be shared with USDA staff. NSF and NIFA will meet as soon as possible after the proposals have been reviewed to formulate a set of funding recommendations consistent with the goals of this DCL. Note that if a proposal is selected for an award to be funded by NIFA, NSF will request the submitting institution withdraw their NSF proposal and submit to NIFA.

Recipients funded by NIFA will be encouraged to participate in annual FRR grantee meetings, along with recipients funded by NSF.

Interested parties are encouraged to contact the listed program directors at NSF and USDA/NIFA prior to submission.

TECHNICAL POINTS OF CONTACT

FRR Program Officers:

USDA/NIFA Program Officers:

Margaret Martonosi  Assistant Director Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering

Susan Margulies  Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering

Organization(s)

• Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (ENG/CMMI)
• Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ENG/ECCS)
• Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
• Division of Computer and Network Systems (CISE/CNS)
• Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (CISE/IIS)
• Division of Computing and Communication Foundations (CISE/CCF)
• Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)

Research Funding Weeks 2024 May 21 - 31

Research funding weeks.

Join us for the Research Funding Weeks, from May 21 to May 31. Especially tailored for the UT community, this event offers researchers the opportunity to connect with support services and explore funding prospects for their research ideas. Special attention will be given to tangible how-to's and tools as first steppingstones for exploring funding further.

Dates : May 21 - May 31

Objective : Provide insights into Dutch and European funding landscapes, and practical tips and tricks on how to develop your funding efforts.

Save the dates for engaging webinar sessions, networking, and the chance to connect with experts. Look out for the official program announcement with details on speakers, panel discussions, and workshops tailored to meet the needs of our research community.

Curious about what sessions will cover? Here's a sneak peek into a few key topics:

WHERE TO LOOK, WHEN LOOKING FOR FUNDING

Wanting to write a proposal starts with knowing what to look for and where to find it. Whether it be European or Dutch research funding, you must orient yourself well first. Join several webinars for insights into the research funding landscape and discover how to find the right funding instrument(s) for you.

LEARN FROM OTHER'S MISTAKES, BEFORE MAKING THEM YOURSELF...

Whether an application is granted or not is ultimately in the hands of a small group of people: the assessment committee members! Both in Dutch and European funding instrument they hold the power for the final assessment and score your proposal. Join a webinar on insider’s view on assessment procedures and learn how to optimize your winning chances.  

WRITE BETTER AND QUICKER PROPOSALS WITH AI?

Uncover the transformative capabilities of Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and MidJourney in shaping research proposals. How can they help you with innovative ideation, content creation, optimization strategies and even revolutionize your proposal writing methods? Join a webinar for an insightful exploration of Generative AI's potential for your proposal development. 

More recent news

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Joint National Science Foundation and United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Funding Opportunity: Supporting Foundational Research in Robotics (FRR)

April 18, 2024

Dear Colleague:

Recognizing the importance of use-inspired collaborations in promoting scientific discoveries, the National Science Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA/NIFA), seeks proposals to advance foundational research in agricultural robotics. These proposals should be of mutual interest to the NSF Foundational Research in Robotics (FRR) program and to USDA/NIFA .

NSF's FRR program, jointly led by the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) and the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), supports research to create innovative robots with unprecedented new functionality. USDA/NIFA has the mission to provide leadership and funding for programs that advance agriculture-related sciences. Proposals submitted under this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) should present a compelling vision for pioneering robots with transformative potential in agricultural contexts. It is highly suggested that potential proposers contact the USDA/NIFA program director first (listed below) with a short narrative to determine project applicability for this program. If appropriate, an NSF program director will be further consulted.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

NSF is the lead agency for this collaboration. Proposals to be considered under this Dear Colleague Letter should have a title prefixed by "NIFA:" and should be submitted to the FRR program. Submissions will be evaluated in FRR review panels, following the requirements of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) ( https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg ), and the FRR Program Description ( https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/foundational-research-robotics-frr ). Proposals submitted under this Dear Colleague Letter must be clearly justified by important needs in agriculture and the agricultural sciences.

NSF will manage and conduct the review process of proposals submitted in accordance with NSF standards and procedures, as described in the PAPPG. USDA staff will participate in panels as observers during the discussion of USDA-focused proposals. Information about proposals and unattributed reviews of proposals will be shared with USDA staff. NSF and NIFA will meet as soon as possible after the proposals have been reviewed to formulate a set of funding recommendations consistent with the goals of this DCL. Note that if a proposal is selected for an award to be funded by NIFA, NSF will request the submitting institution withdraw their NSF proposal and submit to NIFA.

Recipients funded by NIFA will be encouraged to participate in annual FRR grantee meetings, along with recipients funded by NSF.

Interested parties are encouraged to contact the listed program directors at NSF and USDA/NIFA prior to submission.

TECHNICAL POINTS OF CONTACT

FRR Program Officers:

USDA/NIFA Program Officers:

Margaret Martonosi Assistant Director Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering<

Susan Margulies Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering