Skip to main site navigation
Skip to main content
Switch to text-only view
Switch to default view

Office of Research

Erika Zynda, Contracts & Grants Coordinator
Administration 248A
(574) 520-4181 | FAX: (574) 520-5549
ezynda@iusb.edu

Red bar

Grant Writing Workshop

SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PROPOSALS

Grade on a scale of 1 to 5; lowest score is best.
Criteria for scores 1, 3, and 5 are given.

I. SIGNIFICANCE

A. Importance of problem
  • 1- Problem as stated shows excellent potential for adding new information to present body of knowledge, or expanding relevant theory. or supplying new techniques or methodology.
  • 3- Problem shows potential for adding limited information to present body of' knowledge and/or theory, or shows innovative use Of existing methodology.
  • 5- Problem as stated deals with trivial aspect of' the field, or is nebulous, diffuse, or too broad and general, or is an oversimplification of 'a complex problem.
B. Theoretical base
  • 1- Awareness of' underlying theory well established. Inadequacies in present state of knowledge noted and based on awareness of current research and/or ongoing projects.
  • 3- Reasonable awareness of underlying rationale. May, to minor extent, lack awareness of some of the most recent research and/or recent or ongoing projects.
  • 5- Awareness of underlying theoretical base demonstrated to be insufficient, by showing lack of knowledge of similar research or projects, or project which is unaware of or premature in relation to the existing body of knowledge. Project is based on hypotheses or assumptions that rest on insufficient, doubtful, or unsound evidence.
C. Generalizability
  • 1- Results can be generalized to other populations, to a wide range of practical problems, and/or theoretical problems.
  • 3- Results will have some degree of generalizability beyond local significance.
  • 5- Results will have significance only for this study, extremely limited potential for generalizing.
D. Relation to similar research or projects
  • 1- Very innovative, will utilize results of previous projects and research, but goes beyond their findings.
  • 3- May be replication of previous work, but displays sonic innovative features.
  • 5- Similar or identical to frequently encountered research and projects.

II. PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES

A. Personnel
  • 1- Personnel named show evidence training and experience that will enable them to cope adequately with the proposed research
  • 3- Personnel reasonably qualified, and proposal gives indication of preparation to seek appropriate consultant help where needed.
  • 5- Personnel does not have adequate experience and training. Project administrators rely too heavily on inexperienced associates.
B. Facilities
  • 1- Facilities are adequate for purposes described, and, where appropriate. are backed by letters of assurance that their use is guaranteed.
  • 3- Facilities are fairly adequate, and reasonable assurance is made that necessary outside facilities are actually available.
  • 5- Requirements for facilities and equipment are unrealistic, and/or totally inadequate.

III. RESEARCH OR PROJECT DESIGN

A. Statement of' problems, objectives, and procedures
  • 1- Problems, objectives and procedures are clearly stated; objectives are operationally defined.
  • 3- Statement of problem, objectives and procedure are reasonably precise, may need minor clarifications.
  • 5- Statement of problem, objectives are nebulous, diffuse; aim of this project is unclear.
B. Relationship between problem, objectives and procedures.
  • 1- The relationship between the three sections is clear, each one logically follows from the other.
  • 3- Generally satisfactory, needs some minor clarifications and/or additions.
  • 5- Parts do not relate to one another, e.g., procedures unsuited to objectives, overall design not well thought out, approach to problem unsystematic.
C. Statement of Procedures
  • 1 - Adequate information is provided on sampling, controls, data collection, and analysis. Provisions for evaluation clearly spelled out, and realistic.
  • 3 - Generally adequate; may need some additional information or specification for evaluation, but these are minor.
  • 5 - Inadequate information provided. Statement of' procedures is too nebulous, diffuse or unclear to permit careful evaluation. Controls are inadequately conceived and/or described. Provisions for evaluation are vague or unsuitable.

IV. ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY

A. Relationship between the significance of the problem and the funds requested
  • 1- Problem is important enough and the results would be generalizable enough to warrant the requested expenditure.
  • 3- Problem is important enough to warrant pilot research, but not for large-scale funding at present. If problem is local, local money might better to fund the project.
  • 5 - Project couldn't be evaluated adequately to determine whether there would be a relationship between the outcomes and the effort or money expended. Problem is not a significant one, and doesn't warrant expenditures at this time.

Copyright (c) H. B. Chermside 1987

Special thanks to the VCU Office of Sponsored Programs


Last Updated: 26 October 2000
http://www.iusb.edu/~sbres/workshop/ProposalEval.html
Comments: ezynda@iusb.edu