qualitative research grant proposal

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

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 Writing a proposal

• Published: May 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

When researchers plan to undertake qualitative research with a pilot or full RCT they write a proposal to apply for funding, seek ethical approval, or as part of their PhD studies. These proposals can be published in journals. Guidance for writing a proposal for the qualitative research undertaken with RCTs has been published, and there is existing guidance for writing proposals in related areas such as mixed methods research. In this chapter, existing guidance is introduced and built upon to offer comprehensive and detailed guidance for writing a proposal for the qualitative research undertaken with an RCT. There are challenges to writing these proposals and these are discussed and potential solutions proposed.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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  

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

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research funding.

• Getting Started
• Finding Studies that Use Qualitative Methods
• Finding Existing Qualitative Datasets
• Qualitative Analysis and Interpretation

Proposal Writing

• Qualitative Presentation and Publication
• Qualitative Data Management, Preservation and Sharing
• U-M Resources
• Foundation Directory Online Profiles over 105,000 U.S.-based foundations, describing and analyzing funding emphases, programs, types of support given, geographic emphasis, application process, deadlines, high, low & average grants, and lists of recent grants made, etc. Also provides access to recent tax returns for private foundations as submitted to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (Form 990-PF's). Updated biweekly. May keyword search using term "qualitative" with other terms (use advanced search and click on "other filters").
• Pivot Pivot is a directory of researchers, funding opportunities, and publishing opportunities. It contains half a million funding opportunities from the federal government, foundations, public charities, etc. You can search for funding opportunities using "qualitative" in the basic search field or add it into an advanced search.
• Library Research Guide on Finding Funding The Library Research Guide on Finding Funding provides resources on finding funding and grants, grant writing preparation and training, and research collaboration opportunities with faculty members.
• Carey, M. A., & Swanson, J. (2003). Funding for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 852–856.

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
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Writing Successful Research Grant Proposals

Spencer staff have put together a guide with helpful information on writing a successful field-initiated research grant proposal.

Browse Our Resources and Tools

Writing Proposals That Engage Research With Youth, Families, and CBOs

Proposal Review Process Infographic

Research-Practice Partnerships Writing Guide

Find out more about us.

The Spencer Foundation invests in education research that cultivates learning and transforms lives.

Board of directors.

Work at Spencer

Learn about Opportunities to Join our Staff

We are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Find Out More About Our Legacy

Lyle M. Spencer established the Spencer Foundation in 1962 to investigate ways education, broadly conceived, might be improved.

Lyle M. Spencer

Who was Lyle M. Spencer?

Learn about our founder.

Spencer History

Our Path to the Present

Find out more about funding opportunities, what do we fund.

We support high-quality, innovative research on education, broadly conceived.

Research Grants

Field-Initiated Research Grant Programs

Training grants.

Fellowships for Scholars and Journalists

Read our news.

Recently Awarded Small Grants

Recently awarded large grants, announcement.

Spencer welcomes new Directors

Find out what we're learning, white paper.

Brown at 70: Progress, Pushback, and Policies that Matter

The Complex Braid of Brown: How Conceptualizations and Initiatives Within the African-American Community of Research, Practice and Activism Have Influenced the Advance of Knowledge and Practice in Education

A Timeline of the African-American Struggle for Desegregation and Equity Prior to and Since the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

Resources and tools.

Grant Archive

Explore our Library of Past Awards

For applicants.

Resources and Tools For Applicants

ANNOTATED SAMPLE GRANT PROPOSALS

How to Use Annotated Sample Grants

Are these real grants written by real students.

Yes! While each proposal represents a successfully funded application, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) The proposals below are  final products;  no student started out with a polished proposal. The proposal writing process requires stages of editing while a student formulates their project and works on best representing that project in writing. 2) The samples reflect a wide range of project types, but  they are not exhaustive . URGs can be on any topic in any field, but all must make a successful argument for why their project should be done/can be done by the person proposing to do it.  See our proposal writing guides for more advice. The best way to utilize these proposals is to pay attention to the  proposal strengths  and  areas for improvement  on each cover page to guide your reading.

How do I decide which sample grants to read?

When students first look through the database, they are usually compelled to read an example from their major (Therefore, we often hear complaints that there is not a sample proposal for every major). However, this is not the best approach because there can be many different kinds of methodologies within a single subject area, and similar research methods can be used across fields.

• Read through the Methodology Definitions and Proposal Features  to identify which methodolog(ies) are most similar to your proposed project. 
• Use the Annotated Sample Grant Database ( scroll below the definitions and features) filters or search for this methodology to identify relevant proposals and begin reading!

It does not matter whether the samples you read are summer grants (SURGs) or academic year grants (AYURGs).  The main difference between the two grant types is that academic year proposals (AYURG) require a budget to explain how the $1,000 will be used towards research materials, while summer proposals (SURG) do not require a budget (the money is a living stipend that goes directly to the student awardee) and SURGs have a bigger project scope since they reflect a project that will take 8 weeks of full time research to complete.  The overall format and style is the same across both grant cycles, so they are relevant examples for you to review, regardless of which grant cycle you are planning to apply.  

How do I get my proposal to look like these sample grants?

Do not submit a first draft:  These sample proposals went through multiple rounds of revisions with feedback from both Office of Undergraduate Research advisors and the student’s faculty mentor. First, it helps to learn about grant structure and proposal writing techniques before you get started. Then, when you begin drafting, it’s normal to make lots of changes as the grant evolves. You will learn a lot about your project during the editing and revision process, and you typically end up with a better project by working through several drafts of a proposal.

Work with an advisor:  Students who work with an Office of Undergraduate Research Advisor have higher success rates than students who do not. We encourage students to meet with advisors well in advance of the deadline (and feel free to send us drafts of your proposal prior to our advising appointment, no matter how rough your draft is!), so we can help you polish and refine your proposal.

Review final proposal checklists prior to submission:  the expectation is a two-page, single-spaced research grant proposal (1″ margins, Times New Roman 12 or Arial 11), and proposals that do not meet these formatting expectations will not be considered by the review committee.  Your bibliography does not count towards this page limit.

Academic Year URG Submission Checklist

Summer URG Application Checklist

METHODOLOGY DEFINITIONS & PROPOSAL FEATURES

Research methodologies.

The proposed project involves collecting primary sources held in archives, a Special Collections library, or other repository. Archival sources might include manuscripts, documents, records, objects, sound and audiovisual materials, etc. If a student proposes a trip to collect such sources, the student should address a clear plan of what will be collected from which archives, and should address availability and access (ie these sources are not available online, and the student has permission to access the archive).

Computational/Mathematical Modeling

The proposed project involves developing models to numerically study the behavior of system(s), often through computer simulation. Students should specify what modeling tool they will be using (i.e., an off-the-shelf product, a lab-specific codebase), what experience they have with it, and what resources they have when they get stuck with the tool (especially if the advisor is not a modeler). Models often involve iterations of improvements, so much like a Design/Build project, the proposal should clearly define parameters for a “successful” model with indication of how the student will assess if the model meets these minimum qualifications.

Creative Output

The proposed project has a creative output such playwriting, play production, documentary, music composition, poetry, creative writing, or other art. Just like all other proposals, the project centers on an answerable question, and the student must show the question and method associated with the research and generation of that project. The artist also must justify their work and make an argument for why this art is needed and/or how it will add to important conversations .

Design/Build

The proposed project’s output centers around a final product or tool. The student clearly defines parameters for a “successful” project with indication of how they will assess if the product meets these minimum qualifications.

The project takes place in a lab or research group environment, though the methodology within the lab or research group vary widely by field. The project often fits within the larger goals/or project of the research group, but the proposal still has a clearly identified research question that the student is working independently to answer.

Literary/Composition Analysis

The project studies, evaluates, and interprets literature or composition. The methods are likely influenced by theory within the field of study. In the proposal, the student has clearly defined which pieces will be studied and will justify why these pieces were selected. Context will be given that provides a framework for how the pieces will be analyzed or interpreted.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The project proposes to analyze data from non-numeric information such as interview transcripts, notes, video and audio recordings, images, and text documents. The proposal clearly defines how the student will examine and interpret patterns and themes in the data and how this methodology will help to answer the defined research question.

Quantitative Data Analysis

The project proposes to analyze data from numeric sources. The proposal clearly defines variables to be compared and provides insight as to the kinds of statistical tests that will be used to evaluate the significance of the data.

The proposed project will collect data through survey(s). The proposal should clearly defined who will be asked to complete the survey, how these participants will be recruited, and/or proof of support from contacts. The proposal should include the survey(s) in an appendix. The proposal should articulate how the results from these survey(s) will be analyzed.

The proposed project will use theoretical frameworks within their proposed area of research to explain, predict, and/or challenge and extend existing knowledge. The conceptual framework serves as a lens through which the student will evaluate the research project and research question(s); it will likely contain a set of assumptions and concepts that form the basis of this lens.

Proposal Features

Group project.

A group project is proposed by two or more students; these proposals receive one additional page for each additional student beyond the two page maximum. Group projects must clearly articulate the unique role of each student researcher. While the uploaded grant proposal is the same, each student researcher must submit their own application into the system for the review.

International Travel

Projects may take place internationally. If the proposed country is not the student’s place of permanent residence, the student can additionally apply for funding to cover half the cost of an international plane ticket. Proposals with international travel should likely include travel itineraries and/or proof of support from in-country contacts in the appendix.

Non-English Language Proficiency

Projects may be conducted in a non-English language. If you have proficiency in the proposed language, you should include context (such as bilingual, heritage speaker, or by referencing coursework etc.) If you are not proficient and the project requires language proficiency, you should include a plan for translation or proof of contacts in the country who can support your research in English.

DATABASE OF ANNOTATED SAMPLE GRANTS

Grant writing for qualitative research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Nursing, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90015.
• PMID: 8340125
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1993.tb00772.x

In order to broaden understanding of the quality of qualitative grant proposals, analysis of 19 summary statements from qualitative grant proposals was conducted. This analysis showed that reviewers determined quality of proposals in terms of four themes: scientific contribution of the research; conceptual framework guiding the work; methods; and knowledge, skills, and resources available to the proposal writers. Writers' responses to the evaluations were reflected in the theme: surviving the review. This analysis suggested that reviewers of qualitative proposals recognized salient issues and were able to respond in ways that writers perceived as helpful. Qualitative research proposals that are clearly written, internally consistent, meaningful and have potential impact for the discipline of nursing are well-received.

• Competitive Bidding / standards
• Nursing Research / methods*
• Nursing Research / standards
• Research Support as Topic / methods*
• Research Support as Topic / standards
• Writing* / standards

• 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

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]

Research and Engagement Grants for 2023-2024

2023-2024 IPaT/GVU Research & Engagement Grants

Request for Proposals Application (deadline: Friday, July 14, 5pm) IPaT/GVU, with additional support from GTRI, announce the call for proposals for Research and Engagement Grants for 2023-2024. As in past years, we will support two separate types of grant proposals: Research Grants will provide seed funding for new research collaborations, and Engagement Grants will provide support for new forms of internal and external community engagement and collaboration. RESEARCH GRANTS Research Grants will provide seed funding to conduct interdisciplinary research. The objective of the Research Grant program is to promote research activities involving faculty and students from the many disciplines represented in IPaT/GVU. We seek bold new work that by its preliminary nature would be difficult to fund through ordinary channels. Preference will be given to early-stage research with a high probability of leading to extramural funding, and with a strong interdisciplinary component. All funds must be spent by the end of the spring semester. Research Grant proposals can be either single-semester (fall or spring) or academic year (fall and spring) duration. We expect most research proposals will request funding for a GRA between ⅓ and ½ time for the proposal duration. Proposals can also request research faculty time; in these cases, it is highly encouraged but not required to collaborate with academic faculty as well as GTRI research faculty. Proposals from academic faculty can request other critical resources, such as materials and supplies, but cannot include academic faculty salary support. ENGAGEMENT GRANTS Engagement Grants are designed to foster new sorts of engagements and collaboration, whether internal or external to Georgia Tech. Examples of potential engagement grants could include: • Support for an artist-in-residence (or X-in-residence) program • Support for new sorts of community engagements, such as installation spaces or "pop up" displays of research • Support for new faculty and student workshops, seminars or social events • Support for new undergraduate "hack fests" or laboratories We do not expect most Engagement Grant proposals to include GRA support or other personnel time. In cases where such support is requested, please justify why such support is essential to the activity. Travel, and materials and supplies budgets (as required by the specific plans of the proposal) can be requested, but proposals cannot include academic faculty salary. Budget requests for travel and food should be modest and called out separately.

GRANTEE RESPONSIBILITIES If you receive a Research or Engagement Grant, you must: • Present your planned work at an introductory GVU brown bag panel in the fall, present your final results at a GVU brown bag panel the following spring, present at the fall or spring IPaT Townhall, and produce a brief final report. • Produce an interim and final project video to be used for IPaT/GVU, and GTRI websites. • Acknowledge IPaT/GVU, and potentially GTRI support for the project in any talks, papers, proposals, or other outreach based on the project. • Aim to acquire additional funding for parallel and subsequent research activities and notify us about these efforts. • All funds must be spent by the end of the spring academic semester. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION The proposal should be submitted as a single PDF document no more than three pages in length, and should describe: (1) the problems addressed by the proposed research or engagement, (2) methods or overall approach, (3) benefits anticipated from the research or engagement, (4) a clear description of how the grant will enable subsequent external funding (if appropriate), and (5) an outline of the required budget (please do not include overhead or tuition remission in your budget). Please let us know in your proposal if you require administrative staff time or other resources from IPaT/GVU, or GTRI. If the student who will be involved in the project has already been determined, then the student and his/ her academic unit should be identified in the proposal. Proposals must be submitted to [email protected] by July 14. Awards will be announced in the summer. Late submissions cannot be considered. PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND AWARD Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of merit, originality, plans for furthering the collaboration through external funding, synergy with IPaT/GVU, and GTRI themes and activities, and the degree of interaction between different disciplines and between the faculty members from the different academic units. For both Research and Engagement Grants, preference will be given to proposals that span at least two different academic units (e.g., computer science/psychology, or digital media/music) and/or academic and applied units, and which set the stage for new collaborations in the IPaT/GVU community. If you have questions about process, review criteria, or program goals, please address them to IPaT/GVU Interim Director Leigh McCook ([email protected]).