Please note: The ACEing Academia series was originally published on LinkedIn. Each category is represented by a suite from playing cards to reflect the “ACEing” theme, with each week ending with a brief review
There is no such thing as a perfect proposal. But there are always ways to make it better.
Avoiding common errors in written communication is one of the simplest ways to boost the competitiveness of a grant. This past week I continued to highlight some of the most common mistakes that Dan Allwood and I regularly find when helping academics improve their grants.
To recap this past week:
5. Address the assessment critera. A proposal must clearly demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the criteria. The best way to do this is to make sure you’re aware of the criteria from the start, and to ask colleagues for their feedback. How well do they think what you’ve written is in alignment with what the reviewers are looking for?
6. Avoid unexplained jargon. Every type of profession will develop its own jargon—shorthand to quickly explain things to others who work in the same area. The problem in grant proposals? Your reviewers may be from a different area. Make sure jargon is briefly explained if it must be used … but avoid it if possible.
7. Don’t build a wall of text. Paragraphs that go on and on and on (and on) eventually turn into a wall of text that no one wants to read. Make sure your paragraphs focus on one idea, and use line breaks or indentations to indicate where one paragraph ends and the next begins.
8. Strike the right tone. You’re looking for a happy medium: not too informal that you give the impression you don’t take your research seriously, but not so over-the-top formal that your reader can’t understand your meaning.
See the other posts in the ACEing Academia series: