Navigating 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:

1. An introduction to your proposed research

2. The state of the art related to your proposed research

3. Your research aims and objectives

4. The methods you will employ

5. The impact and dissemination of your research

6. The work plan for your future research

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.

Part A: Technical information about your career and academic background (e.g. Where did you study? Where will the research take place? Who will supervise your research?). This section is usually completed by filling in online forms.

Part B: Your research proposal, structured according to the template provided by the funding institution (typically available for download from their website). This section is a formal text that requires careful writing, editing, and balancing.

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

three basic criteria

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

Excellence: You must demonstrate that the research you propose is of the highest scientific calibre.

Impact: You must show that your research will have a wide-ranging, profound, and lasting effect on your field and, more broadly, on society.

Implementation: You must demonstrate that you know how to carry out the proposed research (including its outputs) and that you will receive appropriate training.

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

Excellence: Introduction; state of the art; advancing beyond the state of the art; methodology; alignment of proponent and supervisor.

Impact: Expected impact of the research on the proponent’s profile, the field of study, and broader contexts; discussion of outputs and outreach.

Implementation: Description of project implementation, milestones, Gantt chart, and contingency plans.

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: (1.) Stick closely to the proposal template by carefully reading the guidelines to ensure you provide the evaluators with exactly what they expect in each section. (2.) Consider how your research connects to other fields and broader research frameworks to persuade the evaluators of its wide-reaching potential impact. (3.) Use storytelling and rhetorical nuance to make your proposal stand out, without overstatement.

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:

1. Officers/Administrative Staff: These individuals will manage your proposal, matching it with potential evaluators (mainly using your keywords and abstract, but also the bibliography).

2. External evaluators: Experts in your field who will assess your proposal by writing a report (similar to how articles are reviewed).

3. Rapporteurs: Typically a scholar who will write the “consensus report” for the commission, summarising the evaluators’ reports.

4. Evaluating Commissions/Panels: Selected scholars who decide which proposals will be funded, primarily based on the consensus reports (and also your abstract).

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:

1. Officers/Administrative Staff: Likely laypeople, they will focus mainly on your abstract, keywords, and bibliography.

2. External evaluators: Experts in your field, they will review the entire proposal.

3. Rapporteurs: Experts in your field, they will read, summarise, and provide a general assessment of the evaluators’ reports.

4. Evaluating Commission: Experts from other fields, they will focus mainly on your abstract and, sometimes, the introduction, but may extend their reading to the entire project if necessary.

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:

Readership Group 1: Laypeople and indirect experts (abstract, keywords, introduction, bibliography).

Readership Group 2: Experts in your field (the remaining sections).

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

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. Keep in mind that different sections of the proposal carry different weights in the overall evaluation. Only proposals scoring above a set threshold (for instance, 70%) will proceed to the second stage of evaluation, which often includes an interview.

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: (1.) well-grounded, meaning scientifically sound; (2.) ambitious, meaning groundbreaking and novel; (3.) persuasive, meaning clear, elegant, and precise; (4.) impactful, meaning open to cross-disciplinary connections and broader applications; (5.) realistic, meaning not overpromising or attempting more than you can achieve.