Anda di halaman 1dari 60

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION 24 April 2015 Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain CRIM, UKM
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION & EVALUATION 24 April 2015 Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain CRIM, UKM

24 April 2015

Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain CRIM, UKM

1
1
Introduction
Introduction
FRGS TRGS Fundamental Research Grant Scheme Trans-Disciplinary Research Grant Scheme - Penyelidikan yang menghasilkan
FRGS
TRGS
Fundamental Research Grant Scheme
Trans-Disciplinary Research Grant Scheme
- Penyelidikan yang menghasilkan teori, konsep,
- Hasil penemuan boleh dikembangkan kepada
projek bersifat gunaan
dan idea baru
- Menjawab persoalan “WHAT?” dan “WHERE?”.
- Menjawab persoalan “WHY?” dan “HOW?”.
LRGS
PRGS
Long-term Research Grant Scheme
Prototype Development Research Grant Scheme
- Penyelidikan fundamental yang memerlukan
tempoh pelaksanaan melebihi 3 tahun
- Penghasilan produk penyelidikan, tetapi belum
sampai ke peringkat pengkomersilan

1

Introduction
Introduction
1 Introduction Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) -permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan satu (1) bidang

Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS)

-permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan satu (1) bidang penyelidikan. -siling peruntukan adalah RM250,000.00 sepanjang tempoh penyelidikan.

Program

Penyelidikan

Fundamental

2015

penyelidikan. Program Penyelidikan Fundamental 2015 Trans Disciplinary Research Grant Scheme (TRGS) -

Trans Disciplinary Research Grant Scheme (TRGS)

- permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan sekurang-kurangnya tiga (3) bidang penyelidikan (trans disciplinary) melangkaui jabatan / fakulti dari institusi yang sama. - sasaran hasil penyelidikan yang sama. - siling peruntukan adalah RM1,500,000.00 sepanjang tempoh penyelidikan.

Research Acculturation Grant Scheme (RAGS)

-dana tunas yang bertujuan untuk membudayakan penyelidikan di kalangan penyelidik muda di IPTA bukan RU sebagai persediaan untuk membangunkan prestasi penyelidikan supaya dapat berdaya saing di peringkat kebangsaan dan antarabangsa.

Research Acculturation Collaborative Effort (RACE)*

Membantu Non-RU meningkatkan budaya penyelidikan dan seterusnya dapat meningkatkan output hasil penyelidikan. Usaha ini dapat mempercepatkan Non-RU untuk mencapai tahap setanding dengan RU yang lain.

1
1
Introduction
Introduction
1 Introduction BIL PERKARA FRGS TRGS RAGS LRGS RACE* PRGS 1 Siling RM50,000 – RM3 RM50,000
1 Introduction BIL PERKARA FRGS TRGS RAGS LRGS RACE* PRGS 1 Siling RM50,000 – RM3 RM50,000
1 Introduction BIL PERKARA FRGS TRGS RAGS LRGS RACE* PRGS 1 Siling RM50,000 – RM3 RM50,000
BIL PERKARA FRGS TRGS RAGS LRGS RACE* PRGS 1 Siling RM50,000 – RM3 RM50,000 –
BIL
PERKARA
FRGS
TRGS
RAGS
LRGS
RACE*
PRGS
1 Siling
RM50,000 –
RM3
RM50,000 –
RM250,000
RM1,500,000
RM500,000
Permohonan
RM80,000
juta/tahun
RM80,000
2 Tempoh
Penyelidikan
1 hingga 3
tahun
1 hingga 3
tahun
1 hingga 2
tahun
3 hingga 5
tahun
2 tahun
2 tahun
3 KPI
1 PhD
•4 PhD or 8
• 1 PhD
10 PhD (3
• 1 PhD
•1 IP/project
3 papers in
index link
journal (2
years)
sarjana
• 3 papers in
years)
• 3 papers in
8 jurnal
index journal
terindeks (2
50 papers
(3 years)
Q1)
index link
journal (2
years)
1 IP (filed)
3 IP (per
1 paten
program) -
number of
researchers
with Citation
Index of 100)
CARTA ALIR PROSES KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI
CARTA ALIR PROSES KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI

Pemberitahuan pembukaan geran dan garis panduan kepada penyelidik

RMC terima proposal

Pelantikan Panel Penilai peringkat Universiti mengikut Kluster

Penilaian dilakukan

Ketua Penyelidik membuat pembetulan dan penambahbaikan mengikut saranan Panel Penilai

CARTA ALIR KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI Semakan semula proposal oleh pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan oleh
CARTA ALIR KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI
Semakan semula proposal oleh pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan
oleh IPT
Proposal yang muktamad dan lengkap diperakui oleh RMC
RMC sediakan ‘masterlist’ proposal mengikut kod rujukan KPT
Penilaian dan perakuan oleh Panel KPT
Borang permohonan yang lengkap dihantar ke KPT
Borang permohonan yang lengkap dihantar ke KPT
Senarai Dokumen Yang Perlu Disemak
Senarai Dokumen Yang Perlu Disemak
1. Proposal asal
1. Proposal asal
2. Borang penilaian yang telah dilengkapkan oleh Penilai 3. Ringkasan pembetulan dan penambaikan yang dilakukan
2. Borang penilaian yang telah dilengkapkan oleh Penilai
3. Ringkasan pembetulan dan penambaikan yang dilakukan
(disediakan oleh Ketua Penyelidik)
4. Bukti pengesahan dan perakuan pembetulan
5. Proposal muktamad
5. Proposal muktamad
1 Introduction
1
Introduction

Characteristics of good governance

www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

2

Fundamental Research-FRGS
Fundamental Research-FRGS

Fundamental Research (FRGS)

Basic research Pure research

Fundamental research

generates new knowledge and technologies to deal

with unresolved problems.

research Pure research Fundamental research generates new knowledge and technologies to deal with unresolved problems.

2

Fundamental Research-ERGS
Fundamental Research-ERGS
2 Fundamental Research-ERGS Exploratory Research (ERGS) Relies on secondary research To gather preliminary information

Exploratory Research (ERGS)

Relies on secondary research To gather preliminary information

Research intended only to provide greater familiarity with the phenomena that researcher wants to investigate so that he can formulate more precise research questions and perhaps develop hypotheses. Such studies can be essential when researcher is investigating new phenomena or phenomena that have not been studied before.

2
2
F. Research-Cutting Edge
F. Research-Cutting Edge
2 F. Research-Cutting Edge
2
2
F. Research-High Impact Journal
F. Research-High Impact Journal
2 F. Research-High Impact Journal

2

F. Research-Int. Collaboration
F. Research-Int. Collaboration
2 F. Research-Int. Collaboration

4

Grant Application
Grant Application

Most common reasons for grant writers (GWs) not receiving funds

1. Not new or lack of original ideas

2. Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan

3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work

4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology

5. Uncertainty concerning the future directions

6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach

7. Unacceptable scientific rationale

8. Unrealistically large amount of work

9. Insufficient experimental detail

10. Uncritical approach

rationale 8. Unrealistically large amount of work 9. Insufficient experimental detail 10. Uncritical approach

4

Grant Application
Grant Application

Quality of the Proposal

The measures for a good quality proposal are:

Informative title; Convincing executive summary; Clear problem statement and objective; Scientific background and rationale; Good selection of research methods; Ethical considerations; and Realistic budget and schedule.

and rationale; Good selection of research methods ; Ethical considerations; and Realistic budget and schedule.

4

Grant Application
Grant Application

Characteristics of a good proposal:

A document that is neat, well organized and easy to read; Responsiveness to the program need, with specific references showing how the proposed project will achieve program goals and objectives; Fresh insight into an important problem; Writing that communicates the enthusiasm and commitment of the researcher; Evidence that the PI knows the field; Convincing preliminary data; and A feasible work plan that is supported by an appropriate budget.

5

Evaluation: Evaluator
Evaluation: Evaluator

Internal evaluation

Department/Faculty/Institute level University level

Internal evaluators improve the quality of grant submissions

How to “improve

level University level Internal evaluators improve the quality of grant submissions How to “ improve ”

5

Evaluation: Evaluator
Evaluation: Evaluator

External evaluation

Sponsor level Many constraints

Number of proposals, amount of money available, etc. To find mistakes/weaknesses, etc.

(quality…quality…quality)

To find ways on…

How to “reject

available, etc. To find mistakes/weaknesses, etc. ( quality…quality…quality ) To find ways on… How to “

5

Evaluation: Evaluator
Evaluation: Evaluator

Selecting An Evaluator

The selection of an evaluator for F/TRGS project based on the following criteria:

Credentials/Reputation- The evaluator affiliated with an academic institution which has an experience evaluated research grants, particularly fundamental focused researches. Education- The evaluator have a certificate or doctoral degree related to evaluation program? Experience- The evaluator have formal or informal experience with evaluation in fundamental research grant. Sensitivity- The evaluator have experience working with the target population. Integrity- The evaluator aware of any conflicts of interest during evaluating the project.

5

Evaluation: Evaluator
Evaluation: Evaluator

Selecting An Evaluator The selection of an evaluator for F/TRGS project based on the following criteria:

Communication Skills- The evaluator able to explain technical concepts in understandable language and demonstrate clear verbal and written expression. Availability- The evaluator available to meet with the program timelines and be flexible if timelines need to be modified. Contract/Scope of Service-… KPM??? Cost- ……KPM???

and be flexible if timelines need to be modified. Contract/Scope of Service -… KPM??? Cost -

5

Evaluation: Evaluator
Evaluation: Evaluator

Conflict of Interest

Evaluators are required to declare any personal interests according to the following criteria. Evaluators must disqualify themselves if they can in any way benefit from the approval or rejection of the proposal. They must also disqualify themselves in the following circumstances:

Evaluators have close collaboration with the GW (e.g. have co- authored and published an article with the GW during the past three years, have been involved in the preparation of the application, or are involved in the publication or application of the results)

Evaluators have been a superior, subordinate or instructor of the GW during the past three years

Evaluators are currently applying for the same post as the GW

Evaluators are currently applying for funding from the same funding instrument on the same research area.

The GW is a close person to evaluator.

applying for funding from the same funding instrument on the same research area. The GW is

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Fundamental Criteria of Evaluation

CARE: Are GWs tackling an important problem? If they can make progress on it, will anyone care?

NOW: Why now? If this problem is so important, why has it not been addressed before?

IDEAS: Do GWs have concrete ideas for starting an attack on the problem and a vision for proceeding further? Is initial progress likely and subsequent progress possible?

RESULTS: Do GWs have some preliminary results? Do they demonstrate a good understanding of the problem and the methods needed attack it further?

PLAN: Do GWs have sensible plans and methods (e.g., concrete steps and ways of decoupling risks)?

CAN-DO: Why these GWs? Why are their qualifications and infrastructure appropriate?

LEGAL: Have GWs followed the rules of the solicitation (e.g., compelling broader impacts for FRGS/TRGS)?

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Main Criteria of Evaluation

All proposals must be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below.

Relevance

Degree to which the proposal was related to KPM (F/T/L/PRGS) Degree to which the proposed research results would be relevant to policy-makers Extent and appropriateness of dissemination plans Degree to which the proposed research would facilitate the goals of KPM Degree to which the proposed research represented an innovative approach and develop new knowledge in the field of engineering or other disciplines

Research Team

Quality of the research team and their research The applicant and the research team are among the leading in their field. The publications are at a remarkable international level. The articles are published in the best peer-reviewed journals, or proceedings, which are indexed in the leading databases of the field. The impact of the applicant (number of citation; the scientific level of the journals, where the articles are published) is, in the respective field, at a remarkable international level)

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Main Criteria of Evaluation All proposals must be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below.

Proposal Quality

Degree to which proposal demonstrated general criteria of excellence

Innovation Quality of the research objectives and linkage to literature review Clarity of the research questions Appropriateness of methodology Quality/clarity and detail of proposed research method Potential for peer-review publication, presentation, exhibition Budgetary appropriateness. Potential for disseminating research to broader academic community. Value for professional development of faculty member etc

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Evaluators must ask these questions as they develop the evaluation section of GWs proposal:

What is the evaluation's purpose? How will GWs use the findings? What will GWs know after the evaluation that they didn't know before? What will GWs do as a result of the evaluation that they couldn't do before because they lacked the relevant information?

Evaluating what worked and what didn't will be crucial for grant sponsor and for GWs. What impact do evaluators expect to achieve and how will they evaluate it?

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)

Review questions include, but are not limited to:

Does the proposal communicate the importance of the work? Is the importance of the project within its field made clear? Will successful completion of the project have an impact upon the field? Is the project significant to the development of a program of scholarly activity by the lead GW? Are the objectives clearly defined, and is the basic question to be answered clearly identified? Are all necessary facilities available?

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)

Review questions include, but are not limited to:

Does the lead GW have the necessary background and expertise? Are project activities well planned, and do they realistically fall within an appropriate timetable? Have all items requested been justified? Is the amount requested reasonable and consistent with the total funding available to this grant program? If equipment is requested, has the possibility that it is already available elsewhere on campus been addressed? If support for students is requested, is it clear that their activities are essential to the research program?

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

External evaluation Sponsor level Evaluators focus on the Four Cs

Sponsor level Evaluators focus on the Four C s Clarity . How GWs do cross-reference current

Clarity. How GWs do cross-reference current literature in laying out their premises.

Content. How GWs organize their ideas around aims linked to their hypothesis.

Coherence of concepts. How GWs present coherent set of ideas predicated by previous work.

Cutting edge. Are GWs ready to take legitimate risks.

5

Evaluation: Process
Evaluation: Process

Research Proposal VS Research evaluation

Module of FRGS/TRGS Proposal

Title Details of Researcher Research Information Executive Summary Research Background Problem Statement Hypotheses Literature Review Research Objectives Methodology/Research Design Timeline/Schedule Expected Results Facilities and Special Resources Budget Resume/Brief CV Appendices

What Ext. Evaluators Look For:

Title (1) Details of Researcher Research Information Executive Summary (2) Research Background Problem Statement (3) Hypotheses Literature Review Research Objectives (4) Methodology/Research Design (5) Timeline/Schedule Expected Results (6) Facilities and Special Resources Budget (7) Resume/Brief CV Appendices

5
5
Evaluation: F/TRGS Guideline
Evaluation: F/TRGS Guideline
5 Evaluation: F/TRGS Guideline
5
5
Evaluation: New Approach
Evaluation: New Approach
5 Evaluation: New Approach
5
5
Evaluation: Title
Evaluation: Title
A good title should: Indicate the type of study. Address the main problem. Be concise,
A good title should:
Indicate the type of study.
Address the main problem.
Be concise, short, and descriptive.
Convey to the evaluator the main focus of
the research.
Use the correct terms in the title.
Should be intelligible to non-specialists.
Limit the title to a single sentence.
Relevant in 2 years time?
5
5
Evaluation: Title
Evaluation: Title
Selection of research topic should be based on…
Selection of research topic should be
based on…

Magnitude of the problem and its impact Urgency of the need for a solution. Relevance to the aim of the funding agency. Amenability of the problem to investigation. Feasibility of the approach. The proposed research topic is very timely and relevant both internationally and locally. The prospective results make a substantial contribution to the development of science, technology, and/or society

The prospective results make a substantial contribution to the development of science, technology, and/or society
5
5
Evaluation: Executive Summary
Evaluation: Executive Summary
An informative abstract, giving evaluators the chance to grasp the essentials of the proposal without
An informative abstract, giving evaluators
the chance to grasp the essentials of the
proposal without having to read the details
GWs must present their project
Concisely
State significance Clearly
State Hypotheses, Research Problem,
Solution
Methods and Rationale
Expected output.
5
5
Evaluation: Research Background
Evaluation: Research Background
Research Background (Grants Fail…) Problem: The grant proposal lacks direction and key details GW does
Research Background (Grants Fail…)
Problem: The grant proposal lacks
direction and key details
GW does not organize his/her thoughts in
a clear and consistent manner
GW includes miscellaneous details and
leaves out details on essential grant
components
Solution: GWs must keep their proposal
organized and include the right details
5
5
Evaluation: Research Background
Evaluation: Research Background
Research Background (RB) 1. Title 2. Problem statements 3. Objectives Flows naturally from Title, Problem
Research Background (RB)
1. Title
2. Problem statements
3. Objectives
Flows naturally from Title,
Problem Statement to
Research Objectives
5
5
Evaluation: Research Background
Evaluation: Research Background
The RB serves several important functions: Evaluators must ensure that…
The RB serves several important functions: Evaluators must ensure
that…

GWs are not "reinventing the wheel". GWs demonstrate their knowledge of the research problem. GWs demonstrate their understanding of the theoretical and research issues related to their research question. GWs show their ability to critically evaluate relevant literature information. GWs indicate their ability to integrate and synthesize the existing literature. GWs provide new theoretical insights or develops a new model as the conceptual framework for their research. The proposal will make a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature).

to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the
5
5
Evaluation: Research Background
Evaluation: Research Background
Problem Statements The most important aspect of a research proposal is the clarity of the
Problem Statements
The most important aspect of a research proposal is
the clarity of the research problem
The problem statement is the focal point of the research
Evaluators must ensure that…
GWs give a short summary of the research problem
that have been identified.
The research proposal may not acceptable or credible
if GWs not clearly identify the problem.
GWs present the persuasive arguments as to why the
problem is important enough to study or include the
opinions of others (politicians, futurists, other
professionals)
5
5
Evaluation: Research Background
Evaluation: Research Background
References-Most resent Up-to-date Highly relevant with the problem Original source First Order : High Impact
References-Most resent
Up-to-date
Highly relevant with the problem
Original source
First Order : High Impact Journals and
Books
Second Order : Indexed Proceeding
Publications
Third Order : Reputable Technical Report
5
5
Evaluation: Objectives
Evaluation: Objectives
F/ERGS 2013: Objectives (Grants Fail…) Problem: The grant proposal does not use clear, measureable goals
F/ERGS 2013: Objectives (Grants Fail…)
Problem: The grant proposal does not use
clear, measureable goals and objectives
The proposed goal is vague or
overreaching
The goals and objectives do not align
The objectives are not SMART
Solution: GWs should define their goals
and objectives clearly and ensure that
they are attainable in the given
timeframe
5
5
Evaluation: Objectives
Evaluation: Objectives
Goals Objectives VS Broad terms, may be vague Narrow Give direction Clearly define scope of
Goals
Objectives
VS
Broad terms, may be vague
Narrow
Give direction
Clearly define scope of goal
General intentions; overall
Very precise; specific
purpose
objectives
Intangible
Tangible
Abstract
Concrete
Cannot be validated as is
Can be validated
Cannot be measurable
Measurable, observable
5
5
Evaluation: Methodology
Evaluation: Methodology
F/ERGS 2013: Methodology (Grants Fail…) Problem: The methods section lacks clear measurable objectives. Many proposals
F/ERGS 2013: Methodology (Grants Fail…)
Problem: The methods section lacks clear
measurable objectives. Many proposals are
turned down because the methodology is
unsound.
The GW does not outline the tasks with a
given timeframe, staff responsible, or how
the task will be measured
No timeline is included
Solution: GWs must explain how they plan to
carry out and measure each objective
5
5
Evaluation: Methodology
Evaluation: Methodology
Basically, GWs must provide answers to the following Walk the reader through GW project GWs
Basically, GWs must provide answers to the following
Walk the reader through GW project
GWs state it explicitly
questions:
GWs give an overall summary of the research design and
Describe the activities as they relate to the
methodological approach.
objectives
What activities need to take place in order to meet the
GWs provide the methodology for each specific
Develop a time line and/or and organizational
objective.
objectives?
chart
What are the
GWs describe start and finish dates for the activities?
Who has responsibility for completing each activity?
How will the activities be conducted?
the specific design (what will they do and how, number
How will participants be selected? (Check…!?)
When?
of replicates, etc.),
What factors determine the suitability of GWs
the materials and techniques that will be used, and
How long?
methodology?
the feasibility of these techniques.
Who?
Does this project build on models already in existence? if
use literature to support design, materials &
Where?
not, how is it superior?
techniques
What facilities?
What facilities and equipment will be required to conduct
the activities?
5
5
Evaluation: Methodology
Evaluation: Methodology
Milestones The milestones are the results which the project seeks to achieve. The milestones should,
Milestones
The milestones are the results which
the project seeks to achieve.
The milestones should, as much as
possible relate to ‘tangible products’
(quantifiable, qualitative or verifiable)
from conduct of the research.
They indicate viable achievements.
5
5
Evaluation: Methodology
Evaluation: Methodology
Gantt’s Chart /Flow Chart GWs must clearly show the research activities and milestones (•/M) Reflection
Gantt’s Chart /Flow Chart
GWs must clearly show the research
activities and milestones (•/M)
Reflection of the project objectives,
methodologies, outputs, etc.
Very important
10
10
Evaluation: Expect Output
Evaluation: Expect Output
What are the expected outcomes and what do GWs wish to achieve, e.g.: A new
What are the expected outcomes and what do GWs wish to
achieve, e.g.:
A new theory
Scientific Outcomes
A prototype
New methodology
A new model
An artefact
Patents
A new plant process
Publications (High Impact Journal)
A solution to a practical problem
Discoveries
A specific aid to practitioners in a particular field
An instrument of use in the manufacturing industry, etc.
Socio-Economic outcomes/impact
Betterment of Society
What contribution will this research make to the body of
Development of the Economy
knowledge in the particular field of study?
The expected outcomes must be clearly defined, as well as
Improving Livelihood of People
the likelihood that the research will achieve the expected
results within the stated timeframe.
5
5
Evaluation: Track Record
Evaluation: Track Record
Track Record (CV) Experience, Qualifications and Availability of Research Team This section should begin with
Track Record (CV)
Experience, Qualifications and Availability
of Research Team
This section should begin with the principal
investigator, and then provide similar information on
all individuals involved with the project. Two elements
are critical:
Professional research competence (relevant
research experience, the highest academic degree
held, and technical societies).
Relevant management experience (if any).
5
5
Evaluation: Quality of Proposal
Evaluation: Quality of Proposal
F/ERGS 2013: Quality of Proposal (Grants Fail…) Problem: The planning process is not well organized,
F/ERGS 2013: Quality of Proposal (Grants Fail…)
Problem: The planning process is not well organized,
resulting in a poorly written proposal
The grant proposal is difficult to read or is not
concise
The GW uses incorrect grammar or incorrect
terms
The flow of the proposal is not logical and is hard
for reviewers to follow
GW does not collect the relevant information for
planning
GW does not delegate tasks
GW does not develop a timeline
Solution: Develop a work plan
5
5
Evaluation: Quality of Proposal
Evaluation: Quality of Proposal
Style: Use most recent form Follow guidelines (font, size, margins, etc.) Spell check, correct grammar
Style:
Use most recent form
Follow guidelines (font, size, margins, etc.)
Spell check, correct grammar
Highlight signposts (italic, bold, underlining)
One main idea per paragraph
Use topic sentences
Use transitions (e.g., in contrast, however,
likewise, etc)
Use graphics in methodology and needs sections
End paragraph with closing sentence
Evaluator-friendly application
GWs must give evaluators enough time !
5
5
Evaluation: Elements of FRGS
Evaluation: Elements of FRGS
Novelty, Cutting Edge, High Impact Does the research use novel techniques, tools, and procedures? Is
Novelty, Cutting Edge, High Impact
Does the research use novel techniques,
tools, and procedures?
Is new data required?
Is data gathered in a new way?
Is existing data utilised in a new way?
Can an existing application be used in a
new way?
Is the proposed research potentially
patentable and publishable?
5
5
Evaluation: Budget
Evaluation: Budget
Budget: Evaluators must ensure that… Budget (Grants Fail…) Problem: The budget exceeds the available amount
Budget: Evaluators must ensure that…
Budget (Grants Fail…)
Problem: The budget exceeds the available amount
GWs present the budget based on the sponsor
The budgeted items are not reasonable for the
requests. (Read Guideline)
work proposed
The budget must be reasonable, acceptable, and
The cost of the program is greater than benefit
appropriate (GWs must not inflate…)
The budget justification is not included
GWs must follow strictly the Guidelines
There is a mismatch between activities and budget
Detail
The budget justification does not clearly explain
justifications
on
each
item
must be
the budget item
provided (Vote 35000)
Inappropriate use of funds
Itemized Budget
Solution: Outline budget items carefully and use
Budget Narrative
standard amounts for expenses
5
5
Evaluation: Facility and Support
Evaluation: Facility and Support
Infrastructure/Facilities GWs must use whatever available in campus (related to proposed project) Reduce to a
Infrastructure/Facilities
GWs must use whatever available in campus
(related to proposed project)
Reduce to a minimum any call upon outside
facilities and expertise
The requirements of infra will vary from
study to study. GWs must carefully list the
relevant facilities and resources that will
be used.
The costs for such
facility use should be
detailed in GWs budget.
5
5
Evaluation: Evaluator Comments
Evaluation: Evaluator Comments
Sample Comments Proposal is poorly written (confusing, not logical, poorly organized, typos, etc.) - Overall
Sample Comments
Proposal is poorly written (confusing, not logical,
poorly organized, typos, etc.) - Overall
Too big a leap from preliminary data to the
proposed hypothesis; failure to provide sound
scientific data for the support of the hypothesis.
– Conceptual Analysis
Using sub-optimal techniques: i.e., using out-of-date
techniques, or conversely, using unnecessary new
techniques when standard techniques will work
just as well. Equipment is ill-suited for the
proposed projects. - Methodology

6

Conclusion
Conclusion

Make Life Easy for Evaluators

Evaluators are knowledgeable, experienced scientists, but they can’t know everything.

Problem: evaluators may not get the significance of the proposed research. Solution: GWs write a compelling argument. Problem: evaluators may not be familiar with all the research methods. Solution: GWs write to the non-expert in the field. Problem: evaluators may not be familiar with the research lab. Solution: GWs show to evaluators that they can do the job. Problem: evaluators may get worn out by having to read 10 to 20 applications in detail. Solution: GWs write clearly and concisely, and make sure the application is neat, well organized, and visually appealing.

6

Conclusion
Conclusion
6 Conclusion Ethical Statement Researchers undertaking any form of fundamental research using animals or people have

Ethical Statement

Researchers undertaking any form of fundamental research using animals or people have to submit a proposal to either the animal ethics committee or the human ethics committee for approval before the data gathering can begin.

6

Conclusion
Conclusion

Joel Orosz, of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, has sagely observed that there are really only four kinds of proposals

Bad idea, bad proposal Bad idea, good proposal Good idea, bad proposal Good idea, good proposal

of proposals Bad idea, bad proposal Bad idea, good proposal Good idea, bad proposal Good idea,

6

Conclusion
Conclusion

Good Proposal Grant Proposal (Failed/Success)-Sample

Good Ideas Good Grantsmanship Good Presentation Good Review Good Luck

Proposal ( Failed / Success )- Sample Good Ideas Good Grantsmanship Good Presentation Good Review Good
Proposal ( Failed / Success )- Sample Good Ideas Good Grantsmanship Good Presentation Good Review Good

7

Bibliography
Bibliography

Kevin C. Chung, MD, Melissa J. Shauver Cheryl Anne Boyce, Ph.D Xander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D Gitlin, L. N., Lyons, K. J. Simon Peyton Jones Baharuddin Salleh

Cheryl Anne Boyce, Ph.D Xander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D Gitlin, L. N., Lyons, K. J. Simon
8
8
Ketua Panel Kluster Geran KPT
Ketua Panel Kluster Geran KPT
8 Ketua Panel Kluster Geran KPT 1. Sains Tulin - Prof. Emeritus Dato' Dr. Muhamad bin

1. Sains Tulin - Prof. Emeritus Dato' Dr. Muhamad bin Yahaya, UKM

2. Sains Gunaan - Prof Emeritus Dato' Dr Md Ikram Bin Mohd Said, UKM

3. Sains Sosial - Prof. Dr. Samsudin bin A. Rahim, UKM

4. Sains Tabii dan Warisan Negara - Prof. Dato’ Dr. Nik Muhamad bin Nik Ab. Majid, UPM

5. Sains Kesihatan dan Klinikal - Prof Dato‘ Dr. Amin bin Jalaluddin, UM

6. Sastera dan Sastera Iktisas - Dato‘ Prof. Salleh bin Yaapar, USM

7. ICT - Prof Dr. Ku Ruhana binti Ku Mahamud, UUM

8. Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan - Prof Dr Muhammad Fauzi Mohd Zain, UKM

ICT - Prof Dr. Ku Ruhana binti Ku Mahamud, UUM 8. Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan - Prof
Thank you fauzizain@gmail.com
Thank you fauzizain@gmail.com
Thank you fauzizain@gmail.com

Thank you

fauzizain@gmail.com

Thank you fauzizain@gmail.com