FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

GRANT APPLICATION &

EVALUATION

Muhammad Fauzi Mohd ZainCRIM, UKM24 April 2015

1 Introduction

FRGS Fundamental Research Grant Scheme

- Penyelidikan yang menghasilkan teori, konsep,

dan idea baru

- Menjawab persoalan “WHY?” dan “HOW?”.

TRGSTrans-Disciplinary Research Grant Scheme

- Hasil penemuan boleh dikembangkan kepada

projek bersifat gunaan

- Menjawab persoalan “WHAT?” dan “WHERE?”.

LRGSLong-term Research Grant Scheme

- Penyelidikan fundamental yang memerlukan

tempoh pelaksanaan melebihi 3 tahun

PRGSPrototype Development Research Grant Scheme

- Penghasilan produk penyelidikan, tetapi belum

sampai ke peringkat pengkomersilan

1 Introduction

Program

Penyelidikan

Fundamental

2015

Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS)

-permohonan projek penyelidikan melibatkan satu (1) bidang penyelidikan.

-siling peruntukan adalah RM250,000.00 sepanjang tempoh penyelidikan.

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 Introduction

BIL PERKARA FRGS TRGS RAGS LRGS RACE* PRGS

1Siling

PermohonanRM250,000 RM1,500,000

RM50,000 –

RM80,000

RM3

juta/tahun

RM50,000 –

RM80,000RM500,000

2Tempoh

Penyelidikan

1 hingga 3

tahun

1 hingga 3

tahun

1 hingga 2

tahun

3 hingga 5

tahun2 tahun 2 tahun

3 KPI • 1 PhD

• 3 papers in

index link

journal (2

years)

•4 PhD or 8

sarjana

• 8 jurnal

terindeks (2

Q1)

• 1 paten

• 1 PhD

• 3 papers in

index link

journal (2

years)

• 10 PhD (3

years)

• 50 papers

(3 years)

• 3 IP (per

program) -

number of

researchers

with Citation

Index of 100)

• 1 PhD

• 3 papers in

index journal

• 1 IP (filed)

•1 IP/project

CARTA ALIR PROSES KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI

Ketua Penyelidik membuat pembetulan dan penambahbaikanmengikut saranan Panel Penilai

Penilaian dilakukan

Pelantikan Panel Penilai peringkat Universiti mengikut Kluster

RMC terima proposal

Pemberitahuan pembukaan geran dan garis panduan kepadapenyelidik

CARTA ALIR KERJA RMC DI PERINGKAT UNIVERSITI

Semakan semula proposal oleh pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkanoleh 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

Senarai Dokumen Yang Perlu Disemak

1. Proposal asal

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

Characteristics of good governance

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

1 Introduction

2 Fundamental Research-FRGS

� Fundamental Research (FRGS)�Basic research�Pure research

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

2 Fundamental Research-ERGS

� Exploratory Research (ERGS)� Relies on secondary research� To gather preliminary information

Research intended only to provide greater familiarity with the phenomena that researcherwants 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 F. Research-Cutting Edge

2 F. Research-High Impact Journal

2 F. Research-Int. Collaboration

4 Grant Application

� Most common reasons for grant writers (GWs) not receiving funds1. Not new or lack of original ideas2. Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology5. Uncertainty concerning the future directions6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach7. Unacceptable scientific rationale8. Unrealistically large amount of work9. Insufficient experimental detail10. Uncritical approach

�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.

4 Grant Application

� 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.

� Characteristics of a good proposal:

4 Grant Application

5 Evaluation: Evaluator

� Internal evaluation�Department/Faculty/Institute level�University level

Internal evaluators improve the quality of grant submissions

How to “improve”

5 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”

5 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� 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???

5 Evaluation: Evaluator

� Conflict of InterestEvaluators 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.

� 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

� Main Criteria of EvaluationAll 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

� Main Criteria of Evaluation

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

� Proposal QualityDegree 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

� 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

� 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

� Main Criteria of Evaluation (detail)Review questions include, but are not limited to:

� Does the lead GW have the necessary background andexpertise?

� 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

� External evaluation� Sponsor level� Evaluators focus on the Four Cs

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

5 Evaluation: Process

� Research Proposal VS Research evaluation

Module of FRGS/TRGS Proposal

TitleDetails of ResearcherResearch InformationExecutive SummaryResearch Background

Problem StatementHypothesesLiterature Review

Research ObjectivesMethodology/Research DesignTimeline/ScheduleExpected ResultsFacilities and Special ResourcesBudgetResume/Brief CVAppendices

What Ext. Evaluators Look For:

Title (1)Details of ResearcherResearch InformationExecutive Summary (2)Research Background

Problem Statement (3)HypothesesLiterature Review

Research Objectives (4)Methodology/Research Design (5)Timeline/ScheduleExpected Results (6)Facilities and Special ResourcesBudget (7)Resume/Brief CVAppendices

5 Evaluation: F/TRGS Guideline

5 Evaluation: New Approach

5 Evaluation: Title

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 Evaluation: Title

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

5 Evaluation: Executive Summary

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 Evaluation: Research Background

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 Evaluation: Research Background

Research Background (RB)

1. Title2. Problem statements3. Objectives

Flows naturally from Title, Problem Statement to

Research Objectives

5 Evaluation: Research Background

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).

5 Evaluation: Research Background

� 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 Evaluation: Research Background

References-Most resent

�Up-to-date�Highly relevant with the problem�Original source

�First Order : High Impact Journals andBooks

�Second Order : Indexed ProceedingPublications

�Third Order : Reputable Technical Report

5 Evaluation: Objectives

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 Evaluation: Objectives

Objectives specify the outcome of the project, the end product(s). GWs must state the objectives clearly and keep them “S-M-A-R-T” or “S-I-M-P-L-E.“

� Specific - what GWs intend to change through their project.

� Immediate-time frame during which a current problem will be addressed.

� Measurable-what GWs would accept as proof of project success.

� Practical - how each objective is a real solution to a real problem.

� Logical - how each objective can contribute to achieving GWs overall goal(s).

� Evaluable - how much change has to occur for the project to be effective.

Goals Objectives

Broad terms, may be vague Narrow

Give direction Clearly define scope of goal

General intentions; overall purpose

Very precise; specific objectives

Intangible Tangible

Abstract Concrete

Cannot be validated as is Can be validated

Cannot be measurable Measurable, observable

VS

5 Evaluation: Methodology

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 includedSolution: GWs must explain how they plan to carry out and measure each objective

5 Evaluation: Methodology

�GWs state it explicitly �GWs give an overall summary of the research design and methodological approach.

�GWs provide the methodology for each specific objective.

�GWs describe �the specific design (what will they do and how, number of replicates, etc.),

�the materials and techniques that will be used, and �the feasibility of these techniques.�use literature to support design, materials & techniques

�Walk the reader through GW project�Describe the activities as they relate to the objectives

�Develop a time line and/or and organizational chart�How will the activities be conducted?�When?�How long?�Who?�Where?�What facilities?

Basically, GWs must provide answers to the following questions:

� What activities need to take place in order to meet the objectives?

� What are the start and finish dates for the activities? � Who has responsibility for completing each activity? � How will participants be selected? (Check…!?) � What factors determine the suitability of GWs

methodology? � Does this project build on models already in existence? if

not, how is it superior? � What facilities and equipment will be required to conduct

the activities?

5 Evaluation: Methodology

� 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 Evaluation: Methodology

Gantt’s Chart /Flow Chart

�GWs must clearly show the researchactivities and milestones (•/M)

�Reflection of the project objectives,methodologies, outputs, etc.

�Very important

10 Evaluation: Expect Output

Scientific Outcomes�New methodology�Patents�Publications (High Impact Journal)�Discoveries

Socio-Economic outcomes/impact�Betterment of Society�Development of the Economy�Improving Livelihood of People

What are the expected outcomes and what do GWs wish to achieve, e.g.:� A new theory� A prototype� A new model� An artefact� A new plant process� A solution to a practical problem� A specific aid to practitioners in a particular field� An instrument of use in the manufacturing industry, etc.

What contribution will this research make to the body of knowledge in the particular field of study?The expected outcomes must be clearly defined, as well as the likelihood that the research will achieve the expected results within the stated timeframe.

5 Evaluation: Track Record

Track Record (CV)Experience, Qualifications and Availabilityof Research Team

This section should begin with the principalinvestigator, and then provide similar information onall individuals involved with the project. Two elementsare critical:� Professional research competence (relevant

research experience, the highest academic degreeheld, and technical societies).

� Relevant management experience (if any).

5 Evaluation: Quality of Proposal

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 Evaluation: Quality of Proposal

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 Evaluation: Elements of FRGS

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 Evaluation: Budget

Budget (Grants Fail…)

Problem: The budget exceeds the available amount� The budgeted items are not reasonable for the

work proposed� The cost of the program is greater than benefit� The budget justification is not included � There is a mismatch between activities and budget� The budget justification does not clearly explain

the budget item� Inappropriate use of funds

Solution: Outline budget items carefully and use standard amounts for expenses

Budget: Evaluators must ensure that…

� GWs present the budget based on the sponsorrequests. (Read Guideline)

� The budget must be reasonable, acceptable, andappropriate (GWs must not inflate…)

� GWs must follow strictly the Guidelines� Detail justifications on each item must be

provided (Vote 35000)�Itemized Budget�Budget Narrative

5 Evaluation: Facility and Support

Infrastructure/Facilities

� GWs must use whatever available in campus(related to proposed project)

� Reduce to a minimum any call upon outsidefacilities and expertise

� The requirements of infra will vary fromstudy to study. GWs must carefully list therelevant facilities and resources that willbe used.

� The costs for such facility use should bedetailed in GWs budget.

5 Evaluation: Evaluator Comments

Sample Comments

� Proposal is poorly written (confusing, not logical,poorly organized, typos, etc.) - Overall

� Too big a leap from preliminary data to theproposed hypothesis; failure to provide soundscientific data for the support of the hypothesis.– Conceptual Analysis

� Using sub-optimal techniques: i.e., using out-of-datetechniques, or conversely, using unnecessary newtechniques when standard techniques will workjust as well. Equipment is ill-suited for theproposed projects. - Methodology

6 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

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

� 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

6 Conclusion

Good Proposal

Grant Proposal (Failed/Success)-Sample

�Good Ideas

�Good Grantsmanship

�Good Presentation

�Good Review

�Good Luck

7 Bibliography

Kevin C. Chung, MD, Melissa J. ShauverCheryl Anne Boyce, Ph.DXander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.DGitlin, L. N., Lyons, K. J.Simon Peyton JonesBaharuddin Salleh

8 Ketua Panel Kluster Geran KPT

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

Thank youfauzizain@gmail.com