Home - ACU (The Australian Catholic University)

Site Navigation

Building Your Research Profile

Workshop

Writing Grant Applications

The workshop is designed to help academics develop their knowledge, understanding and skills in relation to writing and evaluating grant applications. A research grant application will be examined in order to guide participants in the writing of their own research grants.

Learning outcomes

At the completion of this workshop, academics are expected to be able to:

  • read and critically review a research grant application;
  • identify issues with relation to judging the coherence of a grant application; and
  • transfer this understanding to the design of research grants in their own area of interest.

One of the major components of an ARC application is Part E. Part E can consist of no more than 10 pages in 12 point. The next section lists key statements from the ARC guidelines.

  • Project title
  • Aims and background
    • Include information about recent international progress in the field of the research and the relationship of this Proposal to work in the field generally.
    • Refer only to refereed papers that are widely available to national and international research communities.
  • Significance and innovation
    • Describe how the research is significant and whether the research addresses an important problem.
    • Describe how the anticipated outcomes will advance the knowledge base of the discipline and why the Proposal aims and concepts are novel and innovative.
    • Detail what new methodologies or technologies will be developed in the course of the project.
  • Approach and methodology
    • Outline the conceptual framework, design and methods, and demonstrate that these are adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal. Include a research plan and proposed timeline.
  • National benefit
    • Describe the expected outcomes and likely impact of the proposed research.
    • Describe how the Proposal might result in any economic, environmental and/or social benefits for Australia.
  • Communication of results
  • Role of personnel
    • Summarise the role, responsibilities and contributions of each Chief Investigator, Fellow and Partner Investigator.
    • Summarise the roles and levels of involvement of other participants, for example technical staff and Research Associates.
  • References (these can be in 10 point)

Activity 1

  1. Read and evaluate Part E (pdf, 370kb). [N.B. this is a mock Part E presented at an AARE workshop 2008]
  2. Discuss the project's strengths and weaknesses.
  3. Use the attached criteria sheet (MS Word, 75kb) to evaluate the project. 

Activity 2

The College of Experts members assess and rank grant applications submitted under the competitive grants schemes. Usually each grant is ranked by two College Experts.

Compare your group's evaluation with the evaluations (pdf, 166kb) supplied by three members of the SBE College of Experts.

The score is out of 100. The ARC makes its decision on the following criteria:

  • > 90 exceptional and highly likely to get funding
  • 80 - 90 very good and may get funding
  • 70 - 80 good but will not be funded
  • < 70 not allowed to re-submit for two years

Activity 3

Reflect on the application, your evaluation and the College of Experts evaluation.

Discuss the implications for writing grant applications that will have a high chance of success.

What is the implication of the membership of the College of Experts on writing grant applications?

Remember, the College of Experts evaluation has the greatest weighting in the decision process.

[Top of page] 

Writing Research Proposals

Getting Started

A research proposal begins with the identification of a research problem. Ideas for research come from many sources, current literature, your past research or from your day-to-day practice. Even though you may be passionate about an issue, external support will depend on whether it is an issue that others are interested in addressing.

If you are writing a proposal (MS PowerPoint, 736kb) for external funding then often the problem is not one that you generate yourself, but one that has been generated by the funding body. For example, the DEEWR website gives clear indication of the research problems they are interested in funding. These can be found on the DEEWR Tenders page, or register with Research Services to use SPIN (Sponsored Program Information Database).

Some key questions:

  • Is the research feasible?
  • Are others interested in this problem; if so, who are they?
  • Should I break the problem down to something smaller that is 'doable'?
  • Can I rethink my problem (MS Word, 83kb) so that it begins to 'fit' other people's agendas? 

Most external bodies welcome questions with regard to tenders and are often willing to give you a 'ball park' figure to work towards. It is important to obtain this information before you write your proposal as it gives you a clear indication of the scope of the project they are willing to fund. Remember that the more your research matches what they are interested in, then the more success you will have.

Use these documents as road maps. Read them at least three times, at the beginning of writing your proposal, halfway through and finally when your proposal has been completed. 

Is the Research Important?

What should I include?

The structure of a research proposal is usually fairly standard. If you are applying for external funding then it is essential that you carefully read any specific instructions that these bodies have provided. Often they also provide the headings they want you to use when you write your proposal. A typical proposal includes:

  • Project title
  • Very brief background (this could include the context in which the problem is situated)
  • A statement of the problem
  • Objectives and aims

Be concise about the particular objectives that your study intends to achieve. Write clearly and convincingly. Remember that often the reader may not be as familiar as you are with your area of research. Avoid all jargon and get to the point quickly. Your reader may also have hundreds of these to read, especially if you are looking for external funding. They need to quickly understand what the problem is, why it exists and what you intend to do about it in your project.

You need to convince funding bodies that you know exactly what you are doing and have the capability to complete the project on time with appropriate outcomes. Many researchers launch into full-scale proposals when a pilot study would be a more appropriate beginning.

Is the Applicant Aware of Other Research in the Area?

Significance and innovation

This section needs to answer the question: why is this research needed?

It builds on the previous section and includes a brief review of the literature (what has already been done in the area) and shows the reader why your research is significant and how it begins to fill in the gaps. It should clearly show the reader why the research you are proposing is important and how it is innovative.

Be sure to make a compelling case even if the reasons are obvious to you.

Is the Research Well Planned?

Methods

This is often the weakest dimension of many research projects. Remember, you must clearly show the reader that you know exactly how you will go about answering the problem. It needs to answer the question: what is to be done, by whom, when and how?

The questions that the reader will be asking as they read this section are:

  • Does the methodology chosen match the problem?
  • Is it feasible to achieve in the proposed timeline?
  • Does the analysis match the methodology chosen?
  • Can it be achieved in the budget?

Include statements about the following:

  • Study design
  • Setting and sample (this needs to be detailed)
  • Data collection procedures (need to match the problem you are exploring)
    • who is doing it
    • when
    • what instruments will be used
  • Data analysis
  • Timelines - including the dates for interim and final reports

Address issues about trustworthiness/reliability/validity.

Your proposal must show that your research is significant and that your project is 'doable' and scientifically sound.

Is the Support Requested Appropriate for the Project?

Budget

  • What are the costs associated with the project?
    • Items that can be included are salaries for research personnel, equipment, travel, printing and postage.
    • The budget needs to be detailed and accurate - the funding body needs to see your requirements.
  • Is your budget accurate?
  • Have you budgeted so that you have met all costs?
    • Remember that you can't ask for more money after the fact.
  • Did you include enough detail so that your budget is transparent?
  • Does your budget match your research methods section?
  • Is the research feasible in the budget asked for?

Don't forget to include GST (10%) and ACU infrastructure costs in your budget. These add up to a minimum of 25% so it is important to take this into consideration in your project budgeting (MS Excel, 56kb).

The reviewer should be able to comprehend why the expenditure is needed and how you reached each calculation.

Does the Applicant Have the Ability to Complete the Project?

Most applications also require you to include evidence of your past research in this area. They are particularly interested in two dimensions of your CV; namely, have you the ability to manage the research? and have you published off your past research? All funding bodies are interested in your track record in the area. If you have had research money in the past but have a low publication rate, they may see you as a risk. Refer to other research that you have done in the area. Are there any pilot studies?

  • Is your proposal easy to read and well presented (no less than 12 point and headings)?
  • Have you had your proposal proof-read?
  • Are all the components consistent and appropriate?
  • Have you threaded ideas through your project, especially your aims, methods and analysis?
  • Can someone else who is not as familiar as you are with your area read and clearly understand your proposal?
  • Is it clear within the first page what the problem is, why it is important, and how you aim to address the problem?

[Top of page] 

Categories of Research Income

The Australian Competitive Grants Register (ACGR) lists qualifying, nationally competitive research schemes. The income that Higher Education Providers receive from schemes listed on the ACGR drives the allocation of over $200 million of Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG) annually.

Applications for inclusion on the 2009 ACGR are now closed. While DIISR relies substantially on the Application for Listing, meeting all the criteria does not guarantee inclusion in the ACGR. Once applications are received, DIISR will determine whether an application satisfies the criteria for listing on the ACGR and may contact applicants for further information during the assessment process. DIISR remains the sole authority for determining a scheme's inclusion on the ACGR.

See the HERDC Specifications for Collection of 2008 Data (pdf, 195kb) - refer Part A 7.1 to 7.7.

Category 1: 2009 Australian Competitive Grants Register (ACGR) - List of Schemes

Subject to meeting the definition of research (see section 1.3.9) and the specifications set out in this part (Part A, section 7), 7.4.1. Category 1 includes:

  • only Australian Government competitive research income and other non-Australian Government competitive research schemes listed in the 2009 Australian Competitive Grants Register (pdf, 38kb).
  • other grants received from the Australian Government and not included in the ACGR may be eligible for inclusion in Category 2: Other Public Sector Research Income.

If a specific scheme or schemes of a funding body are listed in the ACGR, grant or stipend income received by the reporting HEP through other schemes of (or arrangements with) that funding body cannot be counted in this category.

Category 2: Other Public Sector Research Income

Subject to meeting the definition of research (see section 1.3.9) and the specifications set out in this part (Part A, section 7), 7.4.2. Category 2 includes:

  • any other research income received from the Australian Government that is not eligible for inclusion as Category 1 research income.
  • research income from Australian Government business enterprises.
  • research income (including contract research) from both state and local governments.
  • research income from state government business enterprises.
  • research income from partly government owned or funded bodies (e.g. Telstra, or Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) in which the reporting HEP is not a partner).
  • research income from Cooperative Research Centres in which the reporting HEP was not a core participant (i.e. was not a signatory to the Commonwealth Agreement during the reporting period).

Category 3: Industry and Other Research Income

Subject to meeting the definition of research (see section 1.3.9) and the specifications set out in this part (Part A, section 7), 7.4.3. Category 3 includes:

Australian:

  • Contracts
  • Grants
  • Donations, bequests and foundations

International A: Competitive, Peer-Reviewed Research Grant Income

  • Competitive, peer-reviewed grants for research from non-Australian industry or non-Australian Government agencies including non-Australian industry collaborative research grants.

International B: Other Income

  • Any other research income from non-Australian industry or Governments that cannot be included in International A research income such as:
  • Contracts
  • Grants
  • Donations, bequests and foundations

7.4.4. Category 3: Additional Subcategory Explanatory Material

Subject to meeting the definition of research (see section 1.3.9) and the specifications set out in this part (Part A, section 7), Category 3 includes:

Australian:

  • contract research income provided by industry or other non-government agencies.
  • grants for research other than government provided grants (which should be reported in either Category 1 or Category 2).
  • donations and bequests for research from Australian business, Australian non-profit organisations and Australian individuals.
  • income received from syndicated research and development arrangements.

As many research income arrangements involve grants covered by a contract, in categorising funds as either Australian contract research or as Australian grants, HEPs should regard:

  • contract research as research where the project was developed primarily by the funding agency, or jointly by the funding agency and the investigator(s).
  • grants for research where the project was developed primarily by the investigator(s).

International A:

  • competitive grants, peer-reviewed grants for research from non-Australian industry or non-Australian Government agencies including non-Australian industry collaborative research grants.
  • in order to qualify for inclusion in this category, the granting schemes must comply with the following criteria:
  1. Funds must be provided on a competitive basis and clearly be for research only.
  2. The funding scheme must have a well-defined mechanism for competition and selection by a well-qualified panel.
  3. Grants in kind such as the use of facilities, equipment etc. or subsidised travel or accommodation are not eligible.
  4. Funding schemes used exclusively to fund student scholarships are not eligible.
  5. Schemes that provide funding wholly or mainly for infrastructure purposes are not eligible.

International B:

  • contract research provided by non-Australian industry or non-Australian Government agencies including non-Australian industry collaborative research grants.
  • non-competitive grants for research from non-Australian industry or non-Australian Government agencies including non-Australian industry collaborative research grants.
  • donations and bequests for research from non-Australian business, non-Australian non-profit organisations, and non-Australian individuals.

For donations and bequests (Australian and International):

  • where all, or a proportion, of a donation or bequest is invested, then only the income earned from that investment which is available for expenditure on research in the reference year should be included.
  • any portion of a donation or bequest that is not provided specifically for research purposes cannot be included.

Category 4: Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Income

  • University income from CRCs, whether derived from the Commonwealth grant to the CRC, from non-university participants, or from third parties contributing to CRCs.

See the HERDC Specifications for Collection of 2008 Data (pdf, 195kb) - refer Part B 8.1 to 8.6.

[Top of page]

ARC Grants Awarded

Building Your Research Profile Checklist

Budget Spreadsheet

[Top of page]