Writing Research Proposals for Funding

Make deforestation newsworthy. That’s a core principle behind much of the work we do at Mongabay. We're not as eye-catching as Greenpeace (pictured), but we doggedly report on it. I highlighted this as one of our key strategies during a talk on Friday at the International Society of Tropical Foresters (ISTF) conference hosted at the Yale School of the Environment. My talk covered 5 main themes, including the role of science communication in tropical forest governance. One of the biggest gaps in forest governance is communication. Policy change is nearly impossible if the right information doesn’t reach the right people at the right time. And let’s be honest—many of the conversations happening in expert circles aren’t resonating with the decision-makers and communities who matter most. Good communication isn’t a footnote in conservation. It’s fundamental to progress. Here are 7 ways science communication can strengthen forest governance: Raise awareness & drive engagement ↳ Well-communicated science makes deforestation, degradation, and ecosystem services more accessible. 🌳 e.g. Forests don’t just store carbon—they regulate the water cycle. Water security is tangible to people in ways CO₂ isn’t. Making that connection can shift priorities. Broaden the constituency for forests ↳ Messaging tailored to local contexts builds public demand for better governance. 🔥 e.g. Environmental crises are becoming personal for more people. When science is clear and credible, it expands the base of those who care. Shape policy & promote transparency ↳ Translating scientific data into actionable insights helps leaders make informed decisions. 📉 e.g. Satellite imagery in the Amazon helped drive policies that contributed to a sharp drop in deforestation in Brazil. Foster cross-sector collaboration ↳ Effective communication aligns scientists, policymakers, businesses, and NGOs toward shared goals. 🐘 e.g. Emerging research links biodiversity loss to reduced carbon storage in forests—bringing two historically separate fields together. Build trust & navigate complexities ↳ Accessible, transparent communication increases public buy-in for science-based policies. 🤝 e.g. People are more likely to support solutions when they understand the science behind them. Facilitate behavioral change ↳ Science can influence consumer and corporate decisions by showing the real-world impact of unsustainable practices. 🌴 e.g. Data on deforestation for palm oil fueled campaigns that led to corporate zero-deforestation commitments—and a significant decline in forest clearing for the crop in Indonesia 🇮🇩. Inspire new ideas & innovation ↳ Stories of success empower people. Solutions can give them something to act on. 🌈 e.g. “Bad news drains me. Solutions make me feel like I can do something.” This shift in framing fuels creativity and action. The takeaway? If we want better forest governance, we need better science communication.

In sports science, generating high‑quality evidence is only part of the equation. Equally important, and sometimes overlooked, is how that evidence is communicated. The way we translate findings shapes whether insights are understood, trusted, and applied effectively in real‑world environments. Effective science communication isn’t about simplifying complex ideas, it’s about making research usable. That means tailoring messages to the needs of coaches, athletes, support staff, and decision makers, using clear language, relevant context, and thoughtful framing. Visuals, summaries, and structured conversations can bridge the gap between research and practice. Good communication also involves recognising the audience’s perspective: what they already know, what they need to know, and how they are likely to use the information. Infographics, visualisations, summaries, and structured conversations help bridge the gap between research and practice. When sports scientists communicate well, data and research becomes more accessible, more actionable, and more impactful. Read more on the Global Performance Insights blog:

Make writing a proposal for research funding easy. Here is how. There is a tendency to rapidly begin filling in the parts of the application form as soon as possible. With a deadline looming, I used to ask all the partners in a consortium project to state filling in their work packages right away after the first meeting. I had a sooner the better mentality. My plan would be that once we had work packages written I would piece them together. The result. Frankenstein projects. Work packages that did not align, and objectives that sounded like they were each describing different projects. It was a writing nightmare. I was trying sew different ideas together. Reviewers see stitches. Like a good scientific paper, a funding proposal has to have a good logical flow. I now realize that the panicked approach I took previously to funding proposal development is not how to do it. It is much better to be 100% certain of the concept. Then write. For some projects this happens very quickly. Other projects take much more time. Sometimes what you are aiming to do is just complicated and full of uncertainties. Take that time. For scientific papers an outline works. For funding proposals the first step is to get all those involved aligned on the concept. This is not to say you don't write anything at all. To the contrary writing is a way to think. But you need to build up the layers. 1️⃣ Describe the problem and what you will do on a high level. 2️⃣ Then the impacts, outcomes and outputs you intend to have 3️⃣ Then the methods. ➡️ Methods are where you often uncover subtleties and problems that were not apparent at first. You need to solve those problems and the accompanying doubts before you can really begin to write. 4️⃣ Then you can build a project plan. Not before. "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." -Abraham Lincoln Take the time to get the concept right, then write. 

📘 Handbook on Proposal Writing for Grants 💡 “Strong proposals don’t just secure funding; they build trust, accountability, and long-term partnerships.” Excited to share this Handbook on Proposal Writing for Grants, developed by Transparency Maldives (Transparency International) and compiled by Seeniya Saeed, with contributions from Asiath Rilweena, Shaziya Ali, and Jumana Niyaz. This practical guide is a valuable resource for NGOs, CSOs, and development professionals who want to strengthen their fundraising capacity and align with donor priorities. 🔑 Key highlights from the handbook: ✔️ Understanding the logical chain of proposal writing ✔️ Conducting problem assessments and building evidence-based cases ✔️ Setting SMART goals and objectives ✔️ Designing impactful programs with clear M&E frameworks ✔️ Budgeting realistically and transparently ✔️ Ensuring sustainability and amplification beyond the grant period This guide is more than a manual; it’s a roadmap for organizations striving to create credible, fundable, and impactful proposals. 📥 Sharing this open-access resource so more changemakers can benefit from it. #ProposalWriting #GrantWriting #Fundraising #NGO #CivilSociety #TransparencyInternational #Development #CapacityBuilding #DonorEngagement #SocialImpact #Governance #Accountability #Leadership #ImpactLeadership #NonprofitExcellence #ProjectManagement

Writing a good Marie Curie proposal 150,000+ views, happy that many young scientists find it useful. Check the full version in my free newsletter: "Early-career Funding Path". One of my friends, Prof. Klaus Jöns, once told me that Marie Curie was his first barrel of gold in the scientific career. Indeed a Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship is a key to success for many young scientists. But how to write a good proposal? Today I went through a real MSCA evaluation report from a unsuccessful proposal. The proposal was strong enough to have a score of 86%, yet still revealed many of the weaknesses. The first critical problem: the applicant simply wrote a “research proposal.” But, MSCA is more. Reviewers are evaluating whether the applicant has the potential to become an independent researcher within the European ecosystem. The largest component of the evaluation is Excellence, which accounts for 50% of the total score.“Excellent science” is more than “highly ambitious ideas.” In the review, reviewers were concerned with whether the proposal establishes a measurable narrative! A major weaknesses is that objectives are described in a visionary but vague manner. Statements such as “developing advanced systems” sound impressive, but are impossible to evaluate objectively. Another problem is describing the role of the host. It was weak. Strong proposals demonstrate how the host offers unique infrastructure, international collaborations, interdisciplinary expertise, etc. This directly connects to another crucial element: training. It is not only learning a new experimental technique. Reviewers want to see how the fellowship will help the researcher evolve from a skilled researcher into an independent leader. The second major evaluation category is Impact, accounting for 30% of the score. Unfortunately the applicant only mentioned publications and citations. In contrast, reviewers evaluate impact in terms of career transformation, societal relevance, and long-term value creation. Again, a strong proposal should clearly explain how the fellowship will enable the researcher to establish an independent research profile! Another criticism is exploitation and intellectual property strategy. Even in fundamental research, reviewers expect applicants to demonstrate awareness of how knowledge may eventually create scientific, or societal value. The final category is Implementation, which accounts for 20% of the score but often determines whether the proposal feels credible. The main weaknesses here is an unbalanced plan, especially when too many technically demanding activities are scheduled simultaneously toward the end of the fellowship. Risk analysis was weak. Many applicants avoid discussing risks because they believe it may weaken the proposal. In reality, the opposite is true. Strong proposals openly acknowledge the most critical uncertainties and present realistic mitigation strategies, backup approaches, and minimum achievable outcomes.

55,526 projects. All required to communicate their results. Science communication is no longer optional in EU research. It is a legal obligation embedded in how projects are funded. A new study in Public Understanding of Science by Luis Arboledas-Lérida examines what this looks like in practice, based on interviews with 26 professionals working on Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects. The picture is more complex than expected. Project-based science communication has become one of the main institutional settings where society encounters research. It is structured, funded and planned through dedicated communication work packages, often with specialised teams and clear deliverables. But this institutionalisation comes with trade-offs. Communication is both enabled and constrained by funding rules. While projects include dedicated resources, cost-efficiency pressures often limit ambition. Most activities converge towards standard formats such as websites, social media and stakeholder events, with less room for experimentation or public engagement. At the operational level, the main bottleneck is internal. Communicators depend on researchers for content, input and visibility, but not the other way around. This creates an asymmetric relationship where communication is required, but not always prioritised. Many professionals describe internal coordination, not external outreach, as the most difficult part of their work. At the system level, scale creates its own problems. The multiplication of projects produces saturation. More outputs, more campaigns, more content competing for the same limited attention. Visibility becomes harder, and impact more difficult to measure. In some cases, communication risks becoming a formal requirement rather than a meaningful exchange. And yet, the perceived value remains high. Practitioners consistently see their work as contributing to transparency, accountability and public understanding. Communicating how public money is spent emerges as a central function.

🚀 Grantwriting post 🚀 Imagine your reviewer or panel/committee member. It's 9 PM, the night before the review meeting. They've got a toddler on their lap, a glass of wine in one hand, and your proposal in the other. They've been interrupted 5 times while reading and they need to get through 9 more proposals before going to sleep. Can they understand what you want to do? No? Make. It. Simpler. Over the past few months I've been reviewing grants for Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the Research Council of Finland | Suomen Akatemia, and the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Submitting a grant takes an enormous amount of effort, but so many fail simply because **the reviewers can't understand what you want to do.** A few suggestions applicable to almost any grant ➡️ 1️⃣ Include a sentence saying, "The goal of this project is ________." Ideally make it the first sentence of your abstract and your proposal, but at minimum put it in the first paragraph. If you can't state your goal in one sentence, refine it until you can. 2️⃣ Remove all acronyms. If it's less recognizable than "HIV" or "DNA," then spell it out every time. Acronyms can hopelessly muddle an otherwise strong proposal. 3️⃣ Start with *simplicity* then add *complexity.* First, write a half-length version of your proposal in an extremely simple way that an educated layperson could understand, and test it on a few people. When that's done, use what you wrote as header sentences/paragraphs, and add all the technical details below them. Now, each reviewer can easily skim past the parts outside their field, while still understanding the big picture. 4️⃣ List the central elements of your proposal, then REPEAT THEM. This is important for methods, e.g. - humans or mice? study design? case and control definition? recruitment strategy? sample size? statistical approach? These key facts (without details) can be repeated in the abstract, end of background, methods (here, include the details), and assessment of threats/weaknesses. If you repeat them with perfect consistency, your reviewer will understand what you want to do, and feel reassured that you have a clear plan. Happy grantwriting ✍ 😊

[For today] - How to prepare a research proposal? Preparing a research proposal requires careful planning and organization. A well-structured proposal clearly outlines your research idea, its significance, methodology, and expected outcomes. Here’s a step-by-step guide: 1. Title Page Title: Should be clear, concise, and reflect the research focus. Your Name & Affiliation: Include your name, designation, institution, and contact details. Date of Submission. 2. Abstract (Optional, but Recommended) A brief summary (150–250 words) covering: Research problem Objectives Methodology Expected outcomes 3. Introduction Background of the Study: Explain the context and importance of the research area. Problem Statement: Clearly define the issue you are addressing. Research Questions & Objectives: State the key questions your research will answer and list objectives. Significance of the Study: Explain why the research is important and who will benefit. 4. Literature Review Summarize previous studies related to your topic. Identify research gaps that your study will address. Show how your research builds on or challenges existing work. 5. Research Methodology Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Data Collection: Surveys, experiments, case studies, secondary data, etc. Sampling Techniques: How you will select participants or datasets. Data Analysis: Statistical, machine learning, content analysis, etc. Tools & Techniques: Software (e.g., Python, R, SPSS), lab instruments, or AI models. 6. Expected Outcomes & Impact State what results you expect and their significance. How will your research contribute to academia, industry, or society? 7. Timeline (Optional but Recommended) A Gantt chart or a breakdown of research activities over time. 8. Budget (If Required) If seeking funding, mention: Researcher’s salary/stipend Equipment/software Data collection costs Conference/travel expenses 9. References Cite sources using APA, MLA, IEEE, or journal-specific formatting. 10. Appendices (If Needed) Questionnaires, survey forms, consent letters, etc. Key Tips for a Strong Proposal: ✅ Keep it clear, concise, and focused. ✅ Ensure novelty—demonstrate how your research fills a gap. ✅ Use strong academic language but avoid jargon. ✅ Provide realistic timelines and feasibility. ✅ Follow the funding agency’s or institution’s guidelines strictly. #phd #phdtalks #research #proposal #drsunny

How to communicate " Scientific " and " Creative " at the same time? I’ve spent years sitting between two worlds: the rigorous, data-driven world of research and the engaging world of visual communication. Scientists are trained to be precise and cautious. Designers possess the skills to solve problems and facilitate communication. If we don’t find a middle ground, the message gets lost in the gap. Here are 3 ways we can bridge that gap to create impactful science communication: 1. Define the "Core truth" early I ask scientists: "If your audience only remembers one sentence from this 20-page paper, what is it?" That sentence becomes our North Star. It’s not about cutting the science; it’s about prioritising the impact. 2 Co-creating the "Story arc" We map out the "Problem, Process, and Solution" first. I involve researchers in the narrative structure and the creative process (Scriptwriting➡Storyboarding ➡ Animation) so that they feel ownership of the story. This ensures the final result feels like an extension of their lab work, not just a presentation. 3 The "Jargon audit" We go through the script and flag complex terms, words that make sense to the expert but stop the layperson in their tracks. We don't remove them; we illustrate them visually. If we say "Trophic Cascade," we show it happening in real-time through visuals. The best work happens when we stop seeing "accuracy" and "engagement" as competitors. They are teammates. To my fellow science communicators: What’s the biggest "translation" challenge you’ve faced when turning data into a story?

Democratizing public health communication isn’t just about multilingual press releases or Google Translate accuracy (the bane of my existence). It’s about shifting from a top-down flow of advisories to communication that is: 𝗜𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲’𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀: easily remixable, shareable, and locally contextual. 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲’𝘀 𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀: community leaders, creators, and businesses embedding health cues in their everyday touchpoints. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀: meeting them in their cultural humor, habits, and consumption patterns. So that could be your community health worker or your elder sibling or your Resident Welfare Association or surprise, surprise- Blinkit Yes, the same Blinkit that delivers groceries and more in 10 mins has a clever little series called “Buzzcast”, presumably because the rains have unleashed mosquito season. [See picture] And here is what's working 1. Everyday Integration-It’s printed on the brown paper bag in which groceries get delivered-this health messaging literally piggybacks on an everyday object. It takes it out of official “public health channels” and puts it right into people’s kitchens and living rooms. 2. Action-Oriented Design-The “Make Your Home Mosquito-Free” section is interactive and asks what we already know. That tiny checkbox makes the advice more memorable because it becomes an activity, not just a list. Also it's super kid friendly. The myths vs. facts section simplifies science into quick, debunkable nuggets (“Mosquitoes only breed in dirty water” → “Even clean water in buckets can breed mosquitoes”). 3. Relatable Humor & Storytelling-The “Buzzcast” comic turns mosquitoes into podcasters (“Top on my list are gym-goers. So sweaty!”). Humor lowers resistance, making the message sticky and shareable. No finger wagging! 4. Localization & Timeliness-Bangalore rains = mosquito season. Blinkit has timed this perfectly. It’s not abstract global health advice; it’s hyper-local, seasonal, and immediately relevant. 5. Democratization in Action-This is exactly what I am here for. It’s not a ministry campaign or WHO alert-it’s a private company using its own creative voice to slip health communication into the consumer experience. 6. Cross-Over Value-Though it’s playful, the advice is evidence-aligned: covering stagnant water, repellents, nets, daytime mosquito bites, etc. That means it straddles both worlds: credible information and consumer-friendly packaging. 7. Design Choices That Work-Clear sections (“Myth vs Facts,” “Make your home mosquito-free”). Big checkboxes and bold myths vs. facts → easy scanning. Black line art illustrations on brown paper → eco, minimal, not overwhelming. It’s topical, adorable, and instantly makes you pause. Can we track it? No. But is it an example of health messaging landing in people’s timelines, framed as part of daily life rather than distant advisories? Absolutely. Well done Team Blinkit [ #LinkedInFam / LinkedIn Editors (India)]