Writing Proposals - Chapter 12

We’ve reached the end of the book, and there’s still so much to be done. This last chapter addresses the final touches to the proposal, mainly the front and back matter. We might consider the presentation as part of our main concerns as well, since it supplements the core of the package: the proposal itself.

The front matter can include a letter of transmittal, cover page, executive summary and table of contents, but when considering including these components, I wonder how many times we need to repeat ourselves. If we include an introduction, do we need an executive summary too? Would an abstract be the academic equivalent, or is that something we save for the thesis itself? Do we need a letter of transmittal? If we are sending a digital copy, could we substitute an email of transmittal? I think it might be a nice touch, particularly to include contact information. Also, the book specifies that a table of contents is not necessary for a proposal of less than 10 pages, but it certainly couldn’t hurt to display the structure up front. Again, I have to wonder whether adding a page is justified though.

In addition, the title page, letter of transmittal, and table of contents, as front matter, set the tone for the proposal. We can use the letter to establish a relationship with our readers, and the title page and table of contents can signal our professionalism and attention to detail. However, having written mostly academic essays, I find it difficult to invent a cover design that still fits within my conventional notions of research papers, and has enough differences to make my proposal unique and attractive.

I also want to examine my use of terminology and citations as I consider the inclusion of back matter, though for a 10 page proposal, extensive back matter again seems to add more weight than it is worth. Instead, I will consider the inclusion of definitions as sidebars, thus enhancing the creative design of the proposal. By looking at the proposal as the sum of its parts as we learned in the visual communication chapter, I can consider these final additions within the overall design and purpose of the proposal, and rethink any areas that creep outside my mission or stray too far from the conventions.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 11

I wish I used more graphics in my writing; unfortunately, I usually think of them as an afterthought. It’s very difficult for me to think of graphics as I compose, even when stumbling through a section that could benefit from a visual representation. I tend to think in words, not in pictures. However, this chapter presents a great overview/reminder of the type of graphics we might find useful in our proposals, and some of the suggested types will probably find their way into my thesis rather than my thesis proposal, though I intend to check my sources for any graphics that I might adapt to my methodology section. This section is the densest part of my proposal, and a graphic could do a lot to explain and elaborate on my plan. I will also consider inserting a screenshot of an example profile, though I believe at this stage the graphic would take up more space than it is worth.

I also think it is important to consider the flow of the proposal, since graphics can both enhance and interrupt this flow. For readers who will most likely skim or selectively read the proposal a graphic can display information in a concise space; break up the text; and restate main points, since it never hurts to say things more than once, in different ways of course. Thus, the graphics will need to be integrated into the proposal with the same quality or ethics as the writing style.

Furthermore, we need to make certain to label all areas of graphics in as much detail as the space allows. As the chapter suggests, we should label x- and y-axes and use callouts to specify important features. In a previous course, I learned that labels appear below figures and above tables (tabletop is an easy way to remember this distinction), and in conjunction with the previous chapter, I believe such consistency will support the overall design of our document.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 10

This chapter presents an overview and examples of four design principles: balance, alignment, grouping, and consistency. As someone with little professional design experience, I found these rules to be very helpful as a starting point for thinking about the design of my proposal; however, I had to remind myself to balance these guidelines or handbook approach with an ongoing analysis of the rhetorical situation. In other words, knowing the rules is great, but knowing how to apply them in particular context is what will make one proposal stand out for another. Consequently, I think it would be important to know the conventions for proposals in a discipline. For example, those of us writing MAPC thesis proposals know that we should use 1.5 spacing. This convention differs from standard MLA style, which calls for double spacing, yet it still allows enough space for interlinear comments. If we had used single spacing, we might have ignored one of the primary needs of our primary audience. Thus, I can see how we should think of the design as something that enhances or impinges on readability, particularly if we want readers to be able to choose how they want to read the proposal (183).

Furthermore, in this professional writing context, we should heed the advice for grouping related material together and distinguishing it through alignment and headings. While headings signal new topics, they also reveal the organization of the proposal (190). This organization might be one of the first things a reviewer glances at when deciding the fate of the proposal.

A more subtle area of design is typography, and this chapter highlights traditional typefaces and more progressive or creative typefaces. Again, I think convention will play a part here, particularly because we write most academic research papers in a serif font such as Times New Roman. But, perhaps technology is changing our perception of research. Has anyone else noticed that Word 2007 features Calibri as the default font? I did a little online research and discovered that this font was designed to be more Web friendly. In addition, what do you think about using the templates or styles provided by Word, instead of designing your own combination of typefaces? For proposal writers who wait until the last minute, such conveniences might help them deal with the issue of consistency, since they would only need to click a button to apply styles to each level of heading.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 9

While this chapter points out several important guidelines for improving style in our proposals, I wonder how much of it comes naturally as we write, particularly concerning the distinction between plain and persuasive sentences and tone. If we know when we want to pour on the persuasion, such as the introduction and conclusion, and when we need to stick to a plain style to define and explain our topic such as the current situation section, we might write in these styles from the beginning of the process. Though we can surely revise these sections to improve the tone, I think we might begin with distinct tones as we draft proposals.

However, perhaps some people need some rules or guidelines for writing with style, and some of the rules remind me of a favorite TV show, What Not to Wear. In this reality show, two hosts pick an unsuspecting fashion novice to make-over during a week’s time. They critique and trash the person’s current wardrobe, give them rules for buying new pieces, and send them on a mission in New York City to transform themselves through style. I think it would be hard to admit if you need such a make-over, but at that point, a strong critique and strict rules would be helpful. Therefore, I can see the usefulness of these style guidelines, such as finding your subject and placing it early in the sentence and choosing strong verbs rather than nominalizations. If I come across a confusing sentence in my writing, I will try to evaluate it and revise it using these guidelines.

On the other hand, I want to question a few rules from the chapter, such as the rule of thumb that we should use similes and analogies more often for inexperienced readers. I think similes and analogies can be helpful for any reader, regardless of experience with a subject, since they make our writing more interesting to read. I would also agree and disagree with the book’s advice to use familiar metaphors. Sure, they can be helpful in instantly connecting with readers, and a powerful tool at a subconscious level (a very Burkean idea, I believe), but they can also become cliché, and I wonder if proposal reviewers tire of reading the same metaphors. I might favor the persuasive power of new metaphors since they convey new ideas in a new perspective. However, I don’t think we should consider such strategy as being manipulative, since that implies a negative connotation toward rhetoric. Instead, persuasion is a natural part of the proposal process, and style might be the area where we can pinpoint our attempts at persuasion.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 8

This chapter on budget basics provides a wealth of information about constructing a budget to include in the proposal, though its greatest wisdom is to consult an accountant. With that said, I have several questions for the accountants in our class, as well as anyone else with budgeting experience. I also wish to point out several ways that this chapter applies to my work beyond the classroom walls.

First, when choosing between the budget considerations of fixed and flexible, how do you factor in time and inflation? The book distinguishes between these two categories on the basis of whether the program has a clear conclusion date or if it is ongoing, yet what is the appropriate amount of time that you can forecast figures? For instance, with the price of oil and plane tickets, would a flexible budget be a more appropriate choice? Again, I’m seeing how even this section requires knowledge of the current situation.

In my own situation, I can see how knowing a little about the elements and presentation of budgets can go a long way in my academic and professional pursuits. Not only would an itemized budge be good practice for a graduate student on a limited income, but perhaps the presentation of a budge can help us secure funds for our research and our travel. Specifically, I’m thinking of the travel grants, called student enrichment grants, offered by the graduate student government each semester. If anyone has had any success with this application process, please share some pointers. In that case, the GSG provides a form to fill out and one section asks for detailed expenses. Any advice about how to calculate the costs for attending a conference, and how to present them in a persuasive way?

I’m also going to have some experience on the other side of the proposal process this summer. For my assistantship, I will be able to participate in the bidding process for a publication that needs printing. Thanks to this chapter I will have a more critical eye toward the budgets that we receive, and I might be able to evaluate them in the terms presented in the chapter. Nevertheless, I think the information is helpful to keep in mind for future projects, even if it is not applicable to a thesis proposal.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 7

The introduction may be the first part of a proposal, but we write it at the end of our drafting process. Perhaps we delay writing it because it is the most important part of the proposal, and thus the most difficult, or perhaps we wait to write it because we don’t know what we want to say until we’ve already said it in mindmaps, in outlines, and in rough drafts. We want to make sure the first impression is a good one, short but sweet, and with that sentiment in mind, I want to focus on several good lines from this chapter, if only to remind myself of them as I draft these bookends of the proposal. (It can’t hurt to read it, write it, and talk about it, much like the adage to tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them).

To begin with the subject of the proposal, and as stated in Figure 7.1., what is not the subject of the proposal. Oddly enough, I often find it helpful to narrow down my ideas by describing what they are not. In that way I am able to whittle down my subject to the essentials as I do my best to remember to explicitly state what my subject is. When we only have a page for an introduction, we don’t have time to be subtle.

Similarly, the conclusion is as short with a similar goal to stress the main point, but end on a positive note. Ironically, the conclusion also is a beginning of sorts, since we want to encourage our readers to not only say yes to our plan, but also to take action on our proposal. I think the advice to use active headings and transitional phrases are good points, as is the suggestion to include only the bottom line. Though most of us writing thesis proposals do not have a budget, we can still think in terms of a bottom line. In other words, how will our proposed research advance the discipline or field in which we are working? Even if we don’t speak in monetary terms, we can discuss the contributions. For instance, in the book’s term of hard benefits a report results in understanding and insight.

In conclusion, the conclusion of our proposal is often the beginning of the next step of the writing process, while the introduction of the proposal is often the end of the proposal drafting process. Yet, both sections are essential to the proposal, even if we don’t know what we are going to say until we are in the middle of the proposal itself. Hopefully, as I revise, I learn to make the proposal more cohesive without be repetitive, though I can certainly understand how proposal writing is an art of rhetoric rather than a handbook tradition. As stressed throughout this class, there’s no set template for writing a proposal. We must evaluate each proposal based on the situation, the page requirements, and our audiences expectations.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 6

This chapter reinforces the importance of knowing your audience, but it also describes ways to know yourself in the proposal writing process. When writing the qualification section of a proposal, we should think of our audience to determine whether the section is needed at all. We would want to introduce ourselves to a client unfamiliar with our credentials, as would be the case with a organization to funding source; we might want to tell more about ourselves to a source familiar to us but not to our previous work in a team to management situation; and we might want to write more of a recommendation to include outside agencies. However, in the unique case of the MAPC thesis proposal, where the committee members are probably familiar with us already, we might prefer omitting the qualification section as a separate component of the proposal. For the 10 page limit, a qualification section would only take up space, so I’m curious to learn how I might weave in this information in other parts of my proposal, particularly in response to the project plan’s why question.

This chapter also has several other superfluous suggestions, which may not be necessary in every proposal writing situation. In fact, some of the suggestions stray into the category of want to tell information. For instance, the chapter discusses the dreaded organizational chart, calling it a requisite for the proposal. But if the theme of the chapter is to know your audience and to know yourself, including your strengths and weakness, then the organizational chart could be deceptive, since rarely does the organizational chart depict actual relationships in an organization. It may be the formal map of the organizational hierarchy, but communication does not necessarily follow the chain of command. Displaying such a graphic may provide reassurance for the funding agency, but I doubt it depicts actual relationships. As the book states, the image eventually needs to measure up to reality.

I prefer the suggestion to describe specific people leading or working on the projects, though again for the MAPC proposal, this description may not be necessary. However, the advice to develop a persona using a theme and key words may be adapted to our proposals. Certainly, as we revise we can think how we refer to ourselves in relationship to the research we are proposing. Do we use passive or active voice? Do we take responsibility for our work? Are we engaged in the subject? Later in the revision process, I hope to consider this aspect of my writing in relation to my persona, particularly as I reconsider the details of my audiences.

Writing Proposals - Chatper 5

Again, because I am working on a thesis proposal, I try to apply the suggestions in our book to the special case of research proposals. Reading the material on the project plan or the methodology section reminded me of several important components of the proposal. Perhaps the most important feature is answering the why question, as discussed on page 83. However, in most of my coursework, instructors have referred to this aspect as the “so what” question. By asking “so what” as I write, I’m constantly delving deeper into my topic. It’s also about anticipating and answering your readers’ why questions before they have a chance to ask them, and doing so in a way that doesn’t interrupt the flow of the proposal. If you include the information upfront they have more reason to continue reading. At the same time, I think this issue brings up similar concerns from our previous discussion of the audience, specifically to what level do we write the proposal? If we try to anticipate every question, we may include too much want to tell information.

I think one way to learn more about the ideal amount of information is to study the form of proposals and of theses as well. For instance, for another research project an instructor suggested that I skim journals in my field to discover what methodologies article authors found useful. In doing so, I could quickly review methodology sections to determine how much detail they include and to see if I could replicate the study in my own case. I’m a firm believer that we need to read other work in order to improve our own writing, so this method fit well into my thinking about my own research.

I also found it helpful to review other MAPC thesis as I formulated my ideas. While the library stores mostly print copies, you can find several online, including those from other subjects for the purpose of this class. If you are interested in learning more about the structure of the final thesis, so that you can better map out a project plan or chapter outline, the website is http://etd.lib.clemson.edu/. (Note: the database begins with December 2006 submissions.)

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?

Writing Proposals - Chapter 3

The overarching theme of this chapter centered on identifying readers and understanding what they need to know. Unfortunately, in an actual situation, I think determining readers and their motives and attitudes are much more difficult than these abstract concepts. Specifically, I wonder how we distinguish between what readers need to know and what we want them to know, which is probably the part of the writing process that I have the most trouble with. After brainstorming, researching, and collecting ideas, how do we narrow those ideas down to the essential “need-to-know” information? In other words, how do we let go of those incredible ideas that just don’t fit the proposal? One suggestion, in addition the worksheets in our book, is to have friends, readers, or editors review a draft of the proposal before the submission deadline.

In addition to thinking about the boundaries as discussed above, I also think the one sentence proposal statement is a good idea. As a somewhat unrelated but entertaining link, I remembered this article about six-word memoirs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18768430, and I am curious if six word proposal statements could be as effective, at least help us focus our thoughts.

In addition to figuring out what (and how much) to say, we also must determine how to say it. With this important aspect in mind, I would like to discuss the issue of power when writing proposals, specifically through the idea of authority or credibility. In terms of our thesis proposals, we might want to recall Myers study of biology articles, where researchers new to a field of study had to change their level of knowledge claims and their style of writing in respect to existing knowledge. I think this realization would fit into Johnson-Sheehan’s category of industry/community on page 44.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 2

First I want to compare the distinction between solicited and unsolicited proposals to that of Bitzer’s and Vatz’ notions of the rhetorical situation. In Bitzer’s version the rhetorical situation exists on its own and precedes the corresponding rhetoric, much like the RFP exists before the proposal. On the other hand, Vatz believes that the utterance or rhetoric invites the exigence, similar to the unsolicited proposal creating a need for the proposal itself. I think this is an interesting difference, especially because Vatz gives more responsibility to the rhetor and the choices he/she makes. For proposal writing, we might also want to consider Cosigny’s view of the rhetorical situation, which mediates the control vs. creation dichotomy. In this version, a rhetor cannot create situations arbitrarily; consequently, even unsolicited proposals must arise from some context, such as a meeting or conversation.

For my other two topics, I want to compare proposals to other genres: newspapers and resumes. Our book suggests using the journalist’s method of the five-W and how to determine the statis, and I wonder if we can also learn additional methods from journalists, specifically concerning the style of proposals. As I recall from my undergraduate journalism classes, journalists consider the ABC’s of writing, namely accuracy, brevity, and clarity. To what extent should proposals share these concerns? I think proposals need to be accurate, at least to our best knowledge of the “facts” at the time. They certainly should be clear; otherwise, reviewers will stop reading and approval or funding would be out of the question. Thus, I think brevity is the one aspect with remaining questions. How brief should proposals be considering the page requirements, reader’s selective reading habits, and the amount of detail necessary to convey our ideas?

In addition to being concise in length of the proposal itself, I also have questions about sentence and word length, as well as word choice. Specifically, should proposals avoid jargon and instead use common terms? While this detail certainly depends on the audience, word choice might have additional aspects much like resumes or job applications, where only those documents with key words move to the next stage. If letters of inquiry are similar to application letters in that both need to be tailored to the audience, then we might examine how proposals also need to meet keyword requirements.