It’s a great feeling when you finish the first draft of a grant proposal. You lean back in your chair and regard your work with a certain sense of pride. But, in the back of your mind, you are probably aware that your new creation is about to be torn to shreds.
[Looking to revise a rejected proposal? See this slideshow from the University of Central Oklahoma]
The revising process is critical for a successful proposal, but the task can also be daunting. Where to begin?
[ Just starting the process? Click here for a step-by-step grant writing checklist]
Hopefully, you have a team of partners who will critique your work for you. But there are some critical questions you should ask of each proposal. If each of these is addressed, you will have a far more competitive proposal:
| – Look at the funder’s goal and the goal of your project. Do they really align? If they do, are we using the exact phraseology? |
| – Is this meeting the basic guidelines for font type, margins, page length, etc.? |
| – What do you want the funding to do? Is this clear? It is in the first paragraph? |
| – Is this an innovative project? Does it contribute to historiography, make new things accessible, or promote education on a topic? |
| – Are you using at least one good, meaty example of this project? |
| – Do you clearly state where this project has been? Where is it now? Where it will go with funding? Is this in the first page? |
| – Are you showcasing our expertise? How is our team strong? How is our organization strong? Are we well-qualified and showing it? |
| – Are you denigrating a person or organization? If so, take that out immediately! |
| – Are we as strong as the examples provided? If not, what do they have that we are missing? |
| – Is our work plan realistic? Are we making it clear how we will accomplish our mission? How specifically will we go to the next level? |
| – Does our budget meet the guidelines? Is our math correct? Is the budget realistic? |
| – Are we addressing each of the evaluation criteria? |
| – Is this “wordy” in any areas? Is there too much information in any of these sections? |
| – Do we have an interesting “hook”? Is the reviewer encouraged to continue reading? |
| – Is there a sense of urgency and importance to this proposal? Are we showing that funding can really make a difference? |
| – Is there some sense of research here? Do we know how our work fits with that already being done? How will we use this work, specifically? |
| – Conversely, are we bogged down with literature reviews? Could we trim it and use more space for the narrative? |
| – Are there any instances of passive voice? Are we showing authority and competence in our prose? |
| – Does this proposal follow a logical structure? Do we ever stray from our “thesis statement”? |
| – Have we thoroughly and completely addressed each part of every question being asked? |
| – When applicable, are we adequately showcasing grant and funding support we have already received? |
| – Are any charts, tables, and citations presented according to grant guidelines? |
| – Does this proposal make sense to someone not from our specific field? Are there unexplained terms or jargon? |
| – Are our letter-writers and partners properly addressed and titled in the grant narrative? |
| – Can you clearly say that the “what, where, how, when, and why” of your project is addressed in the narrative? |
| – Is your evaluation plan sound? Are there metrics listed? |
| – Are minority voices incorporated in this plan? Are we a diverse team? Are we partnering with diverse organizations? |
| – Is our emphasis here correct? Are we too broad? Should we be focusing on a smaller part of the project? |
| – Who can I have read this as a third-party who could provide meaningful insight? A different perspective? |
Do you have any suggestions – anything to add to this list? Leave a comment below!
UCF History 