Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

This proposal is an example of a post-structuralist research design that incorporates a mixed methodological approach. Additionally, the proposal is a policy-oriented case study that effectively integrates fieldwork, content analysis, and government documents to explain and compare historical and contemporary policies in Malaysia. In particular, this proposal is effective as it examines the politics of scale and how the spatial practices and policies of stakeholders may alter the spatial dynamics of policy as planned and as implemented.

The following dissertation proposal was presented in the Spring semester of 2004 and has been modified based on the suggestions of the committee. The proposal was presented to a committee comprised of three economic geographers, a climatologist, and an economist. The committee suggested the original proposal be modified from a single case study to a comparative study of two college districts. Additionally, the proposal was subsequently modified—in consultation with the chair—to protect the privacy of participating institutions as pseudonyms are now used.

This proposal is an example of a technique driven proposal. The proposal is a fine example of the use of graphics to simplify complex methods of analysis and the effectiveness of graphics to convey information. Additionally, the literature review clearly defines the contribution of the research and is presented in a straightforward fashion using a table structure.

This proposal has two unique features. First, the literature section distills complex research in geomorphology into easily understood concepts. Further, the author explicitly cites the works from which the hypotheses are derived. Second, the methods section of this proposal provides a solid example how research methodologies are inherently linked to the literature review. Additionally, the proposal’s introduction and explanation of the methods and associated equations is both economical and effective.

This chapter highlights a successful grant proposal submitted in 2002 to the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) located within the Directorate for Biological Sciences of the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award NSF DEB-0217463). This NSF-funded grant proposal is an example of the use of spatial science outside of geography—in this case biology. Collectively, the research described below is known as spatial ecology.

The following proposal was submitted to the National Science Foundation’s Major Research Instrumentation program (NSF#0319145). The proposal was a collaborative initiative that built on the existing strengths of the entire academic unit and explicitly details how an award would complement current departmental infrastructures and expand existing initiatives. The key for instrumentation grants is to avoid writing proposals that appear to be “wish lists” that indicate what researchers “might” do with a new toy. Instead, instrumentation grants must be closely associated with current research, unit infrastructures, and individual (as well as unit) capacities. Beyond the current research agenda, this proposal clearly identifies linkages between research and the undergraduate and graduate curriculum. Additionally, the proposal also outlines an outreach component and provides for public data sharing.

While this proposal was funded, it was funded on the third submission. Ironically, the subsequent submissions were revised only slightly. While some grant writers would have significantly re-tooled their applications in response to reviewer and panel feedback, the structure of NSF programs is such that every competition is a new competition with a restructured panel and often entirely new reviewers. For this reason, the authors believed the original submission was competitive and chose to only slightly revise the later two submissions. The revisions were minor in nature and included only staffing and figure updates. This approach was successful in that each competition is new, NSF programs are fund dependent, and the prevailing principle is “first past the post”. That is to say, NSF does not approach grant competitions as developmental exercises. However, not all grant competitions are the same and grant writers should be attentive to the policies, procedures, and practices of agencies and foundations. cr]

The following proposal was submitted to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) Grant Program (BCS 0000281). DDRI proposals are written in conjunction with your graduate advisor. Because NSF only awards grants to faculty, the advisor is the Principle Investigator (PI) and has responsibility for the grant. The student is the second PI and expected to contribute most of the work and intellectual input to the project. The DDRI can be submitted twice a year and can ask for up to $12,000.

This DDRI proposal was funded on the second submission of the proposal. The first submission was rejected but the reviewers provided much good input for how the project could be improved. With incorporating these comments and having another year to advance the preliminary findings of the work, we were able to submit a stronger grant proposal. NSF often funds grant proposals that can defend the success of the concept in the proposal. Because of this, much of the work towards the project must be completed before a strong proposal can be submitted.

Internal grants are unique and the specific requirements vary from institution to institution. However, the audience for internal grant proposals is often very similar. In most cases, grant proposals are reviewed by colleagues and administrators from various disciplines and these reviewers are seldom “experts” in the field. Insofar as the audience is comprised more or less of generalists, it is essential that grant proposals be prepared with this in mind. The success or failure of this proposal was heavily dependent upon the its ability to convey the unique nature of the spatial approach and how the geographical approach may yield decidedly different results relative to the earlier work of Knack. The following model proposal was submitted to the Indiana State University Research Committee (URC) and the grant was awarded. However, the budget was altered based on the availability of funds and URC’s assessment of current programmatic resources. For this reason, the original budget (not included in this model) was reduced from $1400 to $1150.