|
A Well-Written Abstract Helps Put
A Good Face on Grant Applications
Sell Reviewers on the Worth of a Project from the Start
Most people would never dream of
going to an important business meeting with their faces smudged with grease,
but many researchers make a comparable faux pas when they send out grant
proposals with a poorly written abstract.
A good idea and a solid plan for conducting a project
are the most important aspects of a winning proposal, but a clearly written
abstract really can make a grant proposal stand out from the pack, said Brenda
Robertson, director of the University Writing Center.
“The abstract is the first impression,” she said.
“Often, we think of it as something you just whip up after you finish the
rest of the proposal, but it really is the face on your application that
greets the reader. You want to make sure it gives them a good first impression
of your project.”
Abstracts generally are written last so they can
reflect all aspects of a proposal, but researchers should guard against
treating them as an afterthought, said Dr. John O’Haver, and assistant
professor of chemical engineering who has served as a reviewer for the
National Science Foundation.
“If you can’t sell them on the importance of what
you’re doing – and the soundness of what you’re doing – it’s going
to be hard to get anywhere with a proposal,” O’Haver said. “It’s going
to determine the filter through which they read the rest of your proposal.”
The first step in writing an effective abstract is to
consider the audience, Robertson said. Researchers never know exactly who will
be reviewing their proposals, but the abstracts should be tailored to the
particular agency to which it will be submitted.
Make sure to present your ideas and procedures
clearly and concisely. Break down technical descriptions so that readers with
only a general knowledge of the field can understand them.
“The people who are going to read these abstracts
are not laymen, but they are going to want to see the applications of the
project presented clearly and logically,” Robertson said. “You don’t
want to insult your audience by being too basic with your explanations. You
want to have some sophistication in the language, but you don’t want to go
too far. If you have a lot of acronyms in there, for example, be sure to
clearly state what they mean.”
One trick to identifying weak areas in an abstract is
to present it verbally to a colleague, she suggested.
“Sometimes, it helps to sit down and explain your
project to someone who is unfamiliar with your work and see what kinds of
questions they have. That gives you a good idea of what needs to be covered
and what you may be missing.”
Studies indicate that a leading reason for proposals
being rejected is that the project description leaves the goals and
significance unclear. Reviewers must be able to get a clear understanding of a
project’s impact, O’Haver said.
“You should craft the abstract to reflect the
importance of the project,” he said. “For very fundamental research, that
may be harder to explain, but it’s important to let the reviewer know why
this project is significant.”
Before submitting a proposal, have colleagues review the
application and pay particular attention to the abstract, Robertson said.
Advice and comments from colleagues can strengthen a proposal and eliminate
problems before it goes to a funding organization.
And for faculty members interested in improving their
writing skills, the University Writing Center offers regular graduate support
workshops that cover effective abstract construction. Junior faculty are
invited to participate in the workshops.
The next graduate support workshop will be scheduled
for the spring, and the date will be announced in an upcoming issue of
Research Highlights.
Mitchell Diggs |
Inside:
Word
from the Sponsors
Office
of Research Activities
Deadlines
Recent Awards |
| External
Grants and Contracts/Awards 2000-2001 |
| September Awards |
$
10,683,778.00 |
18 Awards for
September |
| October Awards |
$
11,968,797.50 |
13
Awards for August |
| YTD Awards |
$25,694,151.50 |
80 Awards for year-to-date |
|
83.7%
increase in $$ compared to last year-to-date totals and
215.2%
increase in $$ compared to 1998-99 totals |
| Proposals
Submitted |
| September 2000 |
$
7,054,843.20 |
22 Proposals Submitted |
| October 2000 |
$16,943,886.26 |
18 Proposals Submitted |
| YTD Proposals |
$36,372,262.46 |
79 Proposals year-to-date |
|
13.7% increase in $$
requested compared to last year-to-date totals |
|