A basic introduction to research proposals

In your academic life, you will have to dedicate a huge amount of time proposal writing. There are two main types of research proposals: formative proposals (doctoral and postdoctoral) and grant proposals (see the dedicated page for further information). A crucial distinction exists within formative proposals, as doctoral and postdoctoral proposals differ significantly. Their objectives vary depending on the stage of research they aim to fund. Another important difference concerns the template: each funding institution (e.g. FWO, FNRS, ERC, FCT) has its own specific template for research proposals.

Despite the distinct nature of doctoral and postdoctoral proposals, as well as the specific requirements of each funding institution, there has been a trend over the past decade to standardise templates in line with the European Union’s Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) template, which itself is based on the format of the ERC grant proposals. In this guide, I will outline what I believe to be the basic template on which most, if not all, European formative proposals are modelled.

A research proposal provides a concise, well-founded, and persuasive description of the following six key elements to which a number of further elements is usually added:

These six key elements are the fundamental structure of any research proposal. Other elements are crucial, too – for instance, risk assessment, data management, and so on – yet they are accessory to these main six parts of the proposal. In addition, you should know that most proposal templates are structured into two parts:

In this guide, I will focus solely on the latter: the actual research proposal.

1. The three basic criteria

The MSCA template, and many European templates that followed, are organised around three main criteria, often expressed using different terms:

Each criterion governs distinct sections, which are typically consistent across most proposals:

Although the content you provide may vary slightly between sections, your objective remains the same for all three criteria (Excellence, Impact, and Implementation): to convince the evaluators that your research must be funded. Your argument should be that the proposal must (not should) be supported. When two equally strong proposals are being considered, the evaluating committee will select the one whose urgency and impact are better articulated. Without exaggeration (but avoiding unnecessary modesty), you must emphasise the relevance, broad scope, and scientific urgency of your research.

In line with this overarching aim, you need to think like an evaluator. This means following three main rules:

2. The audience

Research proposals constitute a unique literary genre. On the one hand, they are close to scientific articles inasmuch as the research you present must be solid and credible. On the other, however, the aim of a research proposal is different from that of an article: it needs to persuade its audience to fund your research. This means that its design must include some specific persuasive tools (style, references, and so on) to convince the evaluators that your research must be funded.

This is not an easy task. A first obstacle is directly related to the audience of your proposal. Broadly speaking, your proposal will be handled by four groups of people:

These groups will have varying levels of expertise (experts in your field, experts from other fields, laypeople) and will engage with different parts of your proposal. You need to consider this fundamental aspect when designing your proposal. Indeed:

To successfully navigate the evaluation process, your proposal needs to communicate effectively with all of these groups. This means aligning the tone and structure of each section to the intended audience:

By tailoring your message to suit its audience, you can increase your chances of securing funding.

3. Evaluating proposals

The first thing to remember when you consider how your proposal will be evaluated is that external evaluators are given a template and rubrics to assess it. While these rubrics vary from scheme to scheme, they are generally quite similar. You must align your proposal with these rubrics as closely as possible. Once again, alignment is key to your strategy. Typically, the rubrics are directly tied to the three criteria we discussed earlier, though some schemes may have their own specific rubrics – make sure to identify them before writing your proposal.

The Excellence criterion is usually the most important. It covers the scientific sections of your proposal (although the other sections are equally crucial), namely: the introduction, state of the art, advancing beyond the state of the art, methodology, and the match between the proponent and the supervisor. While the introduction is aimed at a broader audience (including both experts and laypeople), the remaining sections are the core of your research.

The Impact criterion outlines how your research, if funded, will affect your field of study and your career. Here, you need to discuss the expected results in terms of outputs and outreach, and how these will influence various stakeholders. The sections under this criterion highlight the significance of your proposal in terms of pioneering research that has the potential to reshape and redirect scholarly debate. The impact of your research typically addresses three main areas: your career, your outputs, and your outreach.

The Implementation criterion outlines how you plan to execute your research. In this section, you will need to include work packages, milestones, a risk assessment, and a Gantt chart. Additionally, you should address risk management strategies and contingency plans to demonstrate how you will mitigate potential challenges and ensure the project’s success.

Evaluators will write a report and assign a score to your proposal. For the MSCA and many other funding bodies, this score ranges from 1 to 5, though other funding schemes may use different scales. Keep in mind that different sections of the proposal carry different weights in the overall evaluation. Only proposals scoring above a set threshold (for MSCA, this is 70%) will proceed to the second stage of evaluation, which often includes an interview.

4. Final pieces of advice

Most European national funding schemes have aligned themselves with the ERC format for doctoral, postdoctoral, and grant funding programmes. Others are in the process of doing so. While labels and structures may vary slightly, the overall format of EU proposals is largely consistent. This is beneficial because once you learn how to write a strong proposal, you can apply these skills across different funding schemes. (However, mastering this skill requires experience and reflection.)

When you set out to write a research proposal, it’s natural to focus primarily on your research question, often with a high degree of specialisation. Yet, to succeed, you must go beyond this. A good proposal is always:

©️Nicola Polloni
Latest update: October 2024