Jacob Fies
Preliminary Analysis:
How Rhetorical Techniques are used in Successful Grant Proposals
Introduction:
Grant proposals are something that all researchers will have to write at some point in their career. These proposals are typically on the shorter side and are filled with in depth information on what the researcher plans to do, how they will do it, and what they hope to gain from it. The proposals are then submitted to funding boards with the hope of being supplied the grant they need to complete their research. While thousands of grant proposals are submitted each year, only a fraction of these actually receive the funding they are asking for. So, what differentiates a successful proposal from an unsuccessful one? The intent of this preliminary analysis is to hopefully answer this question and serve as a guide on what rhetorical techniques are most important to include when shooting for a successful proposal.
Methods:
Multiple grant proposals were analyzed to determine what rhetorical techniques help lead to their success. To begin, a set of grant proposals were found through the Associate of Zoos and Aquariums website (https://www.aza.org/cgf-examples-of-successful-proposals). Two grant proposals were chosen from this site. The first was, “Community-based Study of the Conservation and Ecology of the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus) in Southeastern Kenya (Northeastern and Coastal Provinces), 2005,” by Dr. Kim McCreery and Dr. Robert L. Robbins (https://goo.gl/n4LNfE). The second grant proposal chosen was, “Examining the Relationship between Fecal Corticoids as a Measure of Stress and Metabolic Derangement on the Onset of Superfical Necrolytic Dermatitis in Captive Black Rhinos, Diceros bicornis, 2006,” by Candice L. Dorsey and Dr. Janine L. Brown (https://goo.gl/5J7qNt). These two grant proposals were chosen because they were both written for the same grant board, the Conservation Endowment Fund through the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Each was then thoroughly read with various factors in mind such as: ethos, pathos, logos, context, typification, organization, and board appeal. Once read the first time, each was then read pulling out specific sections that represented the stated techniques. The two proposals were then compared to each other with respect to which of the identified rhetorical techniques they used, and how they were used. Finally, an interview (found here) was conducted with Dr. Sean Colin, a professor at Roger Williams University and researcher at Woods Hole, to try and gain some insider insight into the grant writing process.
Analysis:
2005 Conservation Endowment Fund Proposal By Dr. Kim McCreery and Dr. Robert L. Robbins:
Rhetorical Techniques: Ethos: In their abstract McCreery and Robbins set up the credibility of their proposed work by stating how “The IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group and AZA/AWD SSP have given this project high priority” (McCreery and Robbins 2005). As well as attaching a letter by the AZA Wild Dog SSP showing this priority. They also show their own credibility regarding African Wild Dogs, on the cover sheet, by placing their Institutional Address at the African Wild Dog Conservancy in Tucson Arizona. They continue to present their credibility later in the proposal by stating that they both directed a nine-year conservations research study of wild dogs for the Department of National Parks in Zimbabwe. Additional ethos is added by in-depth outlines of each step of their project to show they have clear plans. Pathos: The first question posed by the proposal board was, “Explain the goal and rational behind the proposed project. What will the specific outcomes be?” In their they appeal to both the boards emotions by stating how the wild dog species Lycaon pictus can now only found in 14 African countries, when it was once found in 39, with an estimated population size of only 3,000-5,500. Detailing increased population and habitat loss, of “at least 70%”, helps to show the necessity of their work, and appeals to the emotions of the board (McCreery and Robbins 2005). Context: Context is brought into their proposal when they state, “Due to past civil strife little is known about the many threatened species found in this area” (McCreery and Robbing 2005). Bringing up the civil and political unrest in the area helps to show the necessity of doing this work while they can, adding urgency to their proposal. This was most notably true in 2005 as there was a vote on a Constitutional Referendum coming up on November 21, 2005. With these talks underway there would have been a relatively stable political and civil climate, at least as compared to previous years. The second part of their statement, regarding the abundance of unknown information on the area, also helps to bring into context the amount of knowledge that they could gain through this work. Organization/Typification/Board Appeal: Their proposal is organized in a question answer style. Each section, minus the abstract which is there as a simple overview of their proposal, answers exactly what the related question is asking. They often give a general answer to the given question, and then give more specifics, often in list form. This would often include the procedure, or steps they would take to accomplish a given task. This helps the readability of their proposal, because there is not any unnecessary/extravagant words or phrases used to make their proposal sound better. They have also already gone through the effort of getting permits required for their work, increasing the appeal of their project due to less start up time required. 2006 Conservation Endowment Fund Proposal By Candice L. Dorsey and Dr. Janine L. Brown: Rhetorical Techniques: Ethos: Dorsey and Brown, both from the Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park, present the credibility early on in their proposal. They each have extensive credentials, that they make sure to state for the board, such as Dorsey being a Ph.D. student in the National Zoo/George mason University graduate program, and Brown being a Senior scientist in the Department of Reproductive Sciences at the National Zoological Park. Dorsey and Brown have the added benefit of proposing a project that is already underway and has previously been funded by the Conservation Endowment Fund (CEF) the year before. Beyond this however, they have already reached out to an additional 21 facilities, increasing their total black rhinos for study to 54 from the previous 22. Having these facilities already on board helps to show the strength of their research and the credentials it carries along with it. Logos: They apply logic to their proposal by citing a multitude of previous works done about superficial necrolytic dermatitis (SND) in black rhinos, another thing that the previous proposal could not due. With this amount of research behind them it helps to shows the previous amount of support behind this, and similar projects, making it a logical choice for funding. Dorsey and Brown also use these previous works to show why theirs is important through a step by step outline of older research attempts, leading up to their project, demonstrating it as the logical next step in trying to prevent rhinos from contracting this disease. Context: While not having any civil or political context to add to their proposal, as the previous proposal did, Dorsey and Brown must introduce context in another way. They state that “maintaining a healthy and self-sustaining ex situ population of black rhino is essential to global conservation efforts and AZA’s mission to educate the public about the important of saving species and habitat” (Dorsey and Brown 2006). This correlation between their research and the global effort for environmental conservation allows their project to appear deeper than it is. While they may only be researching the issue of SND in black rhinos, relating it to the context of conservation efforts on a global scale allows for the board to envision an outcome where this project helps to inspire other conservation projects which is in line with the CEF’s outcome goals. Organization/Board Appeal: As previously stated, the team already has an abundance of subjects lined up and the research work is already underway. Having these done shows the board the ability for these two researchers to work effectively and in a timely matter, making them good candidates for the grant. On top of this, they did exactly what McCreery and Robbins did in that their proposal is concise and easy to read, without leaving out any crucial information. This is a difficult way to write and demonstrates the teams knowledge of their subject by being able to write concisely on the subject without need for oversimplification. |
Image 1
Image 3
|
Comparison:
When the two grant proposals are compared to each other, it is clear what rhetorical techniques are most often used, and which are most important. While approached in slightly different ways, each proposal starts by showing the credibility, also referred to as ethos, of both its Primary Investigators and topic. McCreery and Robbins approach the topic of ethos by stating early, and then repeating, the fact that their project topic has been given the rank of high priority by two different organizations that specialize in the same field of expertise. They then introduce their own credibility by stating where they work as well as previously research experience. Ethos is approached in this way due to their project having no previous research to back it up, causing the importance of their personal credentials to elevate. In contrast to this, Dorsey and Brown’s project has ample previous research to support their ideas, including the same project getting funded in years prior. With this amount of background to support their proposal, they choose to focus on the projects credentials over their own. Dorsey and Brown make sure to state early that they have previously been funded, the project is already underway, and that the additional funding is simply being used to increase the span of their research. Even though ethos is being used in different way between the grant proposals, it appearance in both suggests its importance when hoping to get a project funded.
The two proposals begin to differ with the next rhetorical technique that the authors employ. McCreery and Robbins begin to focus on pathos, while Dorsey and Brown focus more on logos. This difference stems mostly from the fact that one project is focusing on an entirely new subject while the other has years of research to back it up. McCreery and Robbins try to appeal to the boards emotions by showing the decrease in the wild dog’s population numbers and habitat area. This technique helps to create sympathy within the board which, McCreery and Robbins hope, could potentially turn to a need to act. Dorsey and Brown on the other hand focus more on logos than pathos in their proposal. They bring in numerous previous research works as examples to show logically how their research is the next step in the progression of research to save the black rhino. While the two proposals differ in this instance with the rhetorical techniques they use, each of these is still a valid approach to showing why the board should fund their individual projects.
Each set of authors also uses context to show the need for their research. McCreery and Robbins use context on multiple levels to show why their work is needed. The first level is to increase the amount of knowledge of the biodiversity in Kenya, which was relatively scarce at the time. The second level of context they bring in is the civil and political context of Kenya at the time, to show why this is the time to do the research. This brings in a sense of urgency for their work because it is unclear when they would be able to do it again if they miss this chance. Since timing is not as much of an issue for Dorsey and Brown, they instead introduce context with relation to how their work could influence global conservation efforts. They argue that if their research goes well, it could potentially influence other people to research endangered species, which was a global hot topic at the time.
Finally, both proposals follow a very similar organizational style/typification. They each follow the simple set up of beginning with a cover sheet, and then following with a set of answers to the specific questions asked by the CEF board. Both use short concise answers to the boards questions without boring them with too much unnecessary detail. Each set of authors also understand the need for preparation of other aspects of the project before applying for the funding. The project becomes more appealing to the board the quicker it can get off the ground post funding. They understand that this set up is the typification of the genre and the most effective organizational strategy when writing grant proposals.
The two proposals begin to differ with the next rhetorical technique that the authors employ. McCreery and Robbins begin to focus on pathos, while Dorsey and Brown focus more on logos. This difference stems mostly from the fact that one project is focusing on an entirely new subject while the other has years of research to back it up. McCreery and Robbins try to appeal to the boards emotions by showing the decrease in the wild dog’s population numbers and habitat area. This technique helps to create sympathy within the board which, McCreery and Robbins hope, could potentially turn to a need to act. Dorsey and Brown on the other hand focus more on logos than pathos in their proposal. They bring in numerous previous research works as examples to show logically how their research is the next step in the progression of research to save the black rhino. While the two proposals differ in this instance with the rhetorical techniques they use, each of these is still a valid approach to showing why the board should fund their individual projects.
Each set of authors also uses context to show the need for their research. McCreery and Robbins use context on multiple levels to show why their work is needed. The first level is to increase the amount of knowledge of the biodiversity in Kenya, which was relatively scarce at the time. The second level of context they bring in is the civil and political context of Kenya at the time, to show why this is the time to do the research. This brings in a sense of urgency for their work because it is unclear when they would be able to do it again if they miss this chance. Since timing is not as much of an issue for Dorsey and Brown, they instead introduce context with relation to how their work could influence global conservation efforts. They argue that if their research goes well, it could potentially influence other people to research endangered species, which was a global hot topic at the time.
Finally, both proposals follow a very similar organizational style/typification. They each follow the simple set up of beginning with a cover sheet, and then following with a set of answers to the specific questions asked by the CEF board. Both use short concise answers to the boards questions without boring them with too much unnecessary detail. Each set of authors also understand the need for preparation of other aspects of the project before applying for the funding. The project becomes more appealing to the board the quicker it can get off the ground post funding. They understand that this set up is the typification of the genre and the most effective organizational strategy when writing grant proposals.
Discussion:
After comparing the two grant proposals to each other, it is very apparent what rhetorical techniques are most impactful to the success of a proposal. The first is ethos. The researchers must convince the funding board that they are the best ones to be conducting their research, and the most efficient and convincing way to do this is by incorporating ethos into their proposals. Much the same as when college professors introduce themselves as such, or as "Doctor", it conveys the idea that they are the correct person to be teaching the given class, and gives them the credibility to do such. Ethos is often accompanied by atleast one of its other Greek companions, logos and pathos. Both are solid options to incorporate into a grant proposal as they do very similar jobs. While logos appeals to the logic of an argument, pathos appeals to the emotional aspect. They each have their own uses, but can be incorporated in an attempts to gain understanding of sympathy regarding a subject. These three rhetorical techniques are the cornerstones of any good proposal and can act in symphony to create a very convincing proposal.
When considering all the findings above, the other most important aspect that needs to be incorporated into a successful proposal is context. It must be shown that the attempted research is not only possible, but relevant to the current global climate. For example, in the current world today research regarding global warming and endangered animals are a hot topic and more thus more likely to be funded, while space exploration for example has been put on the back burner and is substantially losing funding. If enough context is not given to show the relevance of a proposed project, then the board is going to have a hard time envisioning the need for the project, and are more likely to deny it. This is why it is always important to not only focus on a relevant topic, but be able to argue for the context of an irrelevant one if it comes to that.
When considering all the findings above, the other most important aspect that needs to be incorporated into a successful proposal is context. It must be shown that the attempted research is not only possible, but relevant to the current global climate. For example, in the current world today research regarding global warming and endangered animals are a hot topic and more thus more likely to be funded, while space exploration for example has been put on the back burner and is substantially losing funding. If enough context is not given to show the relevance of a proposed project, then the board is going to have a hard time envisioning the need for the project, and are more likely to deny it. This is why it is always important to not only focus on a relevant topic, but be able to argue for the context of an irrelevant one if it comes to that.
Conclusion:
When Dr. Colin was questioned, during his interview (found here), about the difference between writing a proposal for un-researched topics vs. heavily researched topics, he responded that the writing would essentially be the same. He mostly discussed the importance of touching upon topics such as: emphasizing the need for the study, demonstrating that the work is feasible, and that you are the best person to do it. When considering our two analyzed proposals, we see that they have very similar sections to what Dr. Colins suggests. Each set of authors employ context to show that their studies are needed, use organizational strategies that outline their methods ensuring that they are feasible, and include sections proving their ethos to show they are the ones to do the work. While other sections and rhetorical techniques are needed to fully flush out a proposal, these specified sections are distinctly necessary and should be included in all grant proposals.
References:
Dorsey, C. L. & Brown, J. L. 2006 Conservation Endowment Fund Proposal. 2006 Conservation Endowment Fund Proposal 1–18 https://goo.gl/5J7qNt
McCreery, K. & Robbins , R. L. 2005 Conservation Endowment Fund . 2005 Conservation Endowment Fund Prooposal 1–11 https://goo.gl/n4LNfE
McCreery, K. & Robbins , R. L. 2005 Conservation Endowment Fund . 2005 Conservation Endowment Fund Prooposal 1–11 https://goo.gl/n4LNfE