834 3p

UNIT 3: PROFESSIONAL WRITING

GRANT PROPOSAL

Instructions:

1 – Develop your idea. Now that you’ve completed your literature review, you know what is going on in your field with respect to the topic you’ve chosen. Now it’s time to contribute your own (hypothetical) work – your original research. To do that, you would need to secure funding. The first step in the proposal process is to develop your idea. What sort of project do you want to propose? What study or project could advance the field or meet the needs or gaps you identified in Unit 2?

2 – Choose a grant that funds the sort of project you’re proposing. Sometimes, organizations release a call for particular research, in which case you might tailor a project to the call. Or, you may want to select a more general grant so that you can propose whatever project you like. Grant proposals are fairly standard, but take a look at the parameters of the particular granting organization. You’ll need to read through some examples of grant proposals in your field and/or previous proposals submitted to this organization. Keep in mind that this project may be a scaled-down version of what you see (though some proposals are fairly short).

Note: there are many grants that do not allow undergraduates to apply. For this project, you can imagine that you are further advanced in a career and choose a specific position and employer.

3 – Outline your proposal. Proposals tend to have a very rigid structure, so I suggest beginning with an outline based on the guidelines provided by the granting organization. While they often follow a standard format, there are some variations, so consider the particular sections you’ll need and how to label them. This is where looking at the posted resources and other examples will be helpful. Despite disciplinary and institutional differences, all grant proposals have 4 core elements: Objective, Background, Methods, and Significance . These components may exist under different names, but all four will be present somewhere in the proposal.

4 – Draft your proposal. Develop each of the sections from your outline, using samples and other resources as your guide. You will be using the research you did for Unit 2. As you write, you’ll need to consider your audience and your purpose. Our discussions will center on making thoughtful rhetorical choices to achieve your goal in each section.

Audience:

Proposal reviewers (the particular organization you choose may provide more detail about their review committees)

Purpose:

Having completed the literature review, you now have a thorough understanding of your topic – you know what’s going on in your field and have drawn some conclusions about the problems, questions, or gaps in the knowledge. In this assignment, you have the opportunity to “translate” those ideas to a different audience. This ability to communicate your ideas to a variety of audiences is essential in any field. This project is also an opportunity to think carefully about an audience and a genre that is central to many careers in academia, government, and non-profit organizations.

Evaluation:

Sample Analysis, Plan, and Drafts will be graded on timeliness and completion. Final Draft will be graded according to the rubric below.

Requirements:

1000-1500 Words

Citations – use the style required by the organization (if not specified, use style common to your field)

Resources:

I encourage you to come to my office hours (or make an appointment). You may also visit the Writing Center at any point in the process, and the library can offer additional help with research and citation.

CONTEXT MEMO

The context memo is a brief document that provides contextual information and, perhaps, further explanations of the material in the lit review.

The context memo must include the following:

- The name of the grant for which you’re applying

- A statement of why you’ve chosen that grant

- The citation style required for that grant (name of the style or a link to the style sheet)

- A list and brief explanation of the 3 most important rhetorical strategies you used in your article:

- What is the strategy that you used?

- Why did you choose this strategy?

- What effect does the strategy have on your audience?

- How does that effect contribute to your goal for the article?

It may also include:

- A glossary of key terms

- Explanations of key concepts

- Any other supplementary information

These are things that your audience would know but that you’d like to explain further for me and your classmates.

The Context Memo DOES NOT COUNT toward the word count

ASSIGNMENTS AND DATES

Sample Analysis: 3/26

Find and read 3 grant proposals from your field of study.

1) For each literature review:

- Identify the rhetor, audience, and goals.

- List at least 3 rhetorical strategies you’ve observed

- What is the strategy and how is it used in the grant proposal?

- How do you think this strategy would affect the audience?

- Do you think this strategy effectively works toward the goal? Why/not?

2) Consider all three grant proposals together

- What strategies or features do the grant proposals have in common?

- Why do you think those strategies are common to the genre?

Plan: 3/26

This plan must include:

- A description of the project/study you will propose

- The grant for which you will apply

- An explanation for why you’ve selected that grant

- Questions or concerns about the unit

Draft 1: 3/28

This draft should be at least 500 words. It should include an outline of the entire proposal. Some of the sections may be incomplete. Make sure you include the context memo.

Draft 2: 4/4

This draft should be as complete and finished as possible, including the context memo.

Final Draft: 4/11

Purpose	0-12	13-15	16-17	18-20
	- The purpose is unclear - The proposal does not accomplish the assignment - The purpose is inconsistent - The proposal has no identifiable goal	- The purpose is unclear or does not correspond with the assignment - The purpose is inconsistent or varied - The proposal attempts a particular goal	- The purpose is apparent and corresponds with the assignment - The purpose is mostly consistent throughout - The proposal mostly or nearly accomplishes its goal	- The purpose is readily apparent and corresponds with the assignment - The purpose is consistent throughout - The proposal accomplishes its goal
Proposal Genre	0-19	20-23	24-26	27-30
	- The proposal does not make a contribution or the contribution is not discernible - The genre is difficult to discern or inappropriate for the assignment - The proposal fails to use the structure of a proposal - The proposal fails to construct a professional tone	- The proposal attempts to contribute to the field - The proposal attempts to use the conventions of the genre - The proposal’s structure attempts to or has some features common to the genre - The proposal attempts to create a professional tone, but there are significant divergences	- The proposal makes a clear contribution to the field - The proposal uses the conventions of the genre - The proposal’s structure is typical of a proposal, though there may be some deviations - The proposal creates a professional tone, which may waver at times	- The proposal makes a clear and valuable contribution to the field - The proposal uses the genre conventions to accomplish its purpose - The proposal’s structure is typical of a research proposal - The proposal successfully creates and maintains a professional tone
Organization	0-12	13-15	16-17	18-20
	- The proposal is not logically organized, the structure is not discernible, or is inappropriate for the genre - Transitions are absent or mostly absent between arguments - The proposal is choppy and disconnected	- The structure of the proposal is an acceptable choice, but diverges from the genre - Some of the proposal makes transitions between arguments - Much of the proposal is choppy or disconnected	- The structure of the proposal is an appropriate choice, mostly in accordance with the genre - Most sections and paragraphs have a clear, distinct purpose - Most of the proposal makes transitions between arguments - The arguments may not always fit together logically or smoothly	- The structure of the proposal thoughtfully contributes to its goal - Each section has a clear, distinct purpose consistent with the genre - Transitions make the proposal flow smoothly - The proposal presents a unified argument

Evidence	0-9	10-11	12-13	14-15
	- Evidence is missing, inappropriate, or merely taking up space - Evidence may be entirely lacking in integration, explanation, or analysis - The proposal never provides commentary - Evidence is often misread or misrepresented	- Evidence may be inappropriate, lacking, or appears intended to take up space - Evidence may be poorly integrated, explained, or analyzed - The proposal rarely provides commentary - Some evidence is misread or misrepresented	- Evidence is appropriate, but may not be sufficient - Evidence is not fully integrated, explained, or analyzed (1 of the 3) - The proposal comments on evidence - There may be minor misreadings or oversimplification of evidence	- Evidence is appropriate and sufficient - Evidence is integrated, explained, and analyzed - The proposal engages with evidence in discussion, extension or critique
Grammar/ Style	0-5	6-7	8-9	10
	- The writing has many grammatical problems - The problems disrupt the meaning - Many of the sentences are not clear - Language is very choppy and difficult to read	- The writing has frequent grammatical problems - The problems may disrupt the meaning at times - Most of the sentences are clear - The language may be choppy or difficult to follow at times	- The paper is mostly free from grammatical problems - The problems don’t disrupt the meaning - Sentences are clear - Most of the paper reads smoothly	- The paper is (nearly) free from grammatical problems - Sentences are clear - The paper reads smoothly
Citation	0-1	2	3-4	5
	- In-text citations are incorrect or absent - Works cited list is incorrect or absent	- In-text citations are sometimes incorrect -Works cited list is sometimes incorrect	- In-text citations are mostly correct - Works cited list is mostly correct	- In-text citations are correct - Works cited list is correct, including formatting