This is a quick list of key points to write successful grant and fellowship proposals in the humanities (based upon feedback from UF grants managers and scholars who have reviewed at the national level).
Tips on writing ‘reviewer friendly’ proposals
- Write for a non-expert (i.e., write clearly, making use of introductory overview paragraphs).
- Describe realistic amounts of work during the grant/fellowship tenure, and ask for correspondingly realistic amounts of money and time. Avoid “biting off too much” to attract many different reviewers.
- Showcase explicitly the originality of your idea and the “need” in the field.
- Demonstrate a thorough knowledge base, including a critical mass of publications and conference papers on the subject or a related subject.
- Demonstrate an awareness of important resources for accomplishing the project, as well as possible problems that may emerge and plans for dealing with them.
- Balance and dialogue between discussions of theory/problem and data/observations.
- Avoid applying for grants for next projects if your current project is not near completion.
- While focusing on the current project, identify some project outcomes and future directions that go beyond your immediate research or proposed publications. Take such questions seriously rather than as an afterthought in your proposal.
- Think creatively and broadly about “broader significance” or “impacts”. These can include a variety of activities, including in your teaching, establishing a Web site or digital resource, publishing your findings in another country to foster better relations/collaboration, outreach, etc. In some cases (e.g., the NSF), broader impacts need not draw directly on the proposed research project, but can concern the disciplinary area writ large.
- Choose referees carefully. Look for references who are full professors (at least two) who have a good understanding of the significance of your work, ideally (but not necessarily) someone who has previously received funding from the agency. Use referees to address gaps in your C.V. (e.g., referees can demonstrate that younger scholars show “great promise” in lieu of extensive publications). Avoid asking dissertation advisers if you are more than a few years past your doctorate, and use conferences as an opportunity to network with senior scholars who may have cited or reviewed your work in scholarly publications.