Writing Proposals - Chapter 4

I appreciated that this chapter included a special case of research grants and literature review which applies to those of us working on thesis or project proposals. Moreover, I think we can gain insight from other sections of the chapter, and I want to speculate on some concerns for academic and professional proposal writers.

First, how does Guideline 3: Blame Change, Not People translate to research proposals? With this special case of literature review and research gaps, how do we balance a critique of prior research without stating that it is no longer valid? In other words, I think there is a precarious, perhaps even stylistic balance, between reviewing current literature, building upon it, refuting it, and finding your own space to insert a new idea or voice. While Johnson-Sheehan’s advice still applies, in that we certainly don’t want to attack fellow scholars, I think more should be said about developing a research gap by focusing on change rather than people. Such a discussion would easily tie into the sections on structuring the proposal according to different trends in the field or in its evolution over time.

Second, I cannot stress enough the importance of triangulation in academic research. As a student of research methods I learned about triangulation of data, methods, and theories, and I think any of these strategies would be useful to provide a more complete, albeit still subjective, perspective on a subject. In addition, I stress triangulation to my students in English 103, though I’ve not referred to it in such technical terms. For their first research project, I require them to use at least three different types of sources: a book, a periodical, and a website, so they not only explore the reliability and relevance of these different sources of information, but they also learn different citation details. I’m particularly interested in the book’s list because I would have never chosen electronic sources, print sources, and empirical sources as parallel items in a list. Instead, I tend to think of sources as books, periodicals, electronic sources, and miscellaneous, which in past works cited has included films, advertisements, interviews, and presentations.

I guess the terminology would depend on the subject. Likewise, I also want to discuss headings in proposals and in the MAPC thesis as well. The examples in the book use descriptive headings for each section, but for the theses I’ve read through the headings seem more utilitarian or conventional such as introduction, methods, results, analysis, discussion, and I wonder to what extent we need to stick to these conventions or if more descriptive headings might be a better approach in certain situations. For instance, I’m reminded of Flower, Hayes, and Swarts’ scenario principle and their suggestion to use readers’ questions as headings. Should we think about our readers as we create our headings, and if so how do we structure the document into sections and label them to meet readers’ expectations, ease the document’s usability, and attract their attention?