[2018-07-08]重要通知:所有用户的密码已全部重置!密码获取方法请点击此处!
查看: 9055|回复: 10

怎样写出好的课题申请(proposal)?

  [复制链接]
SunZhen 发表于 2011-2-23 12:08:54 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 SunZhen 于 2011-3-6 09:53 编辑

一年一度的国家基金申请又进入了准备阶段,同时很多老师也还有很多课题申请在撰写和筹备中,大家正在绞尽脑汁琢磨该写什么,怎么写了吧?
能不能请大家谈谈,怎么写,才能写出好的申请?

我的感悟是:一定要在以前工作(包括博士论文)的基础上提出一个好的科学问题,然后你掌握了或者准备利用适当的方法,通过合适的工作量开展工作,并且你可以针对这个科学问题,取得新的认识。

当然这当中还有很多的技巧和要点,请大家都来贡献一下好的意见,让大家尽快写出好的申请。

也预祝大家早日申请成功,开展自己感兴趣的科学研究。

收集来的技巧分享:Morgan Giddings

老外说申请基金3件绝对不能写的东东

(1)用高度密集的专业术语写成的只有你领域专家才能读懂的文字
Assume that your reader knows everything you know, including all the buzzwords and technical details.  Make sure to overwhelm her with all those details in order to impress her.  Don’t bother to be educational or make the prose easy to read.  We’re all smart, academics with all the time in the world to wade through difficult text, right?  Yes, definitely assume that your reader has unlimited time and energy to wade through your grant.
     最好尽量避免写的太专业,请尽量写清楚细节,且通俗易懂,以打动你的评阅人。

(2)在展开申请正文之前,不必费心详细论述你的工作的特殊目的。
    Don’t bother to thoroughly develop your Specific Aims page before launching into writing the text of your proposal. Just start writing, and ‘see what happens.’  Zigzag around a bit, change what you’re doing, and then keep going back and changing around your aims.  Make sure you are doing this up to the last minute, and that you forget to make your aims line up with what you say in your proposal.  Not only will you be having a lot of fun in your last-minute writing frenzy, but your reviewer will have the pleasure of consuming your spaghetti writing.  He’ll enjoy late nights reading your proposal trying to figure out what you’re proposing to do, much like Sherlock Holmes. Yes indeed, you’ll certainly win praise this way.
   请在申请的开头就清晰明确地写明你工作的目的和意义,且前后保持一致,千万不要弯弯绕绕,直至最后才揭示谜底,否则你会死的很难看。

(3)确保将漂亮实验的细节展示充分,而不用首先介绍为何这个项目非常重要
     Make sure to dive right into the technical details of your elegant experiments, without giving any background about why the project is important in the first place. Wow your reviewer with your elegant experiments, designed to answer obviously important questions.  Don’t worry about the funding agency thinks it’s important work, only worry about whether your experiments are elegant enough that only a buffoon could ignore that fact.  And of course assume that elegant experiments equals grant funded, because elegance equals importance.
    漂亮不等于重要,因此千万不要做买椟还珠的事。一定要把该申请中科学问题的重要性先论述清楚。

The bottom line is that you need to make it easy on your reviewer.  Each of these sins can be readily avoided if you simply put yourself in your reader’s shoes, realizing that the reader has a tough job, and as a writer, it is your job to make it easier for them.
    底限是你必须让你的评审人轻松读懂。其实如果你站在评审人的立场,这几个方面就可以避免,写的简单明了是你的职责!


滚滚长江都是水 发表于 2011-2-24 02:22:23 | 显示全部楼层
looking forward to more suggestions for this topic
 楼主| SunZhen 发表于 2011-2-24 10:13:03 | 显示全部楼层
再谈一点我刚刚获得的感受。最近在写一个申请,因为发现南海本身的问题局限于南海很难全部说清楚,所以想把研究范围扩大至将苏禄海、苏拉威西海、帝汶岛等地区包括进来,总体范围就是南到爪哇-苏门答腊弧,东到菲律宾弧;主要方式是海陆结合。自己很理想化的在区域内均匀地布了些点和线,但不清楚能做到什么程度,就打电话请教知识渊博的黄奇瑜老师,他说执行起来非常困难,因为那些岛屿很多连基础地质工作都没有建立起来,所以没有一个团队的30年工作是出不了成果的!
于是这个折腾了好多天的申请就这样搁浅了。
由此可见,可行性非常重要,大家写的过程中一定要多和别人交流、请教,确保有可行性。
 楼主| SunZhen 发表于 2011-3-4 22:17:13 | 显示全部楼层
Three deadly sins of grant writing
By Morgan Giddings
4 January 2011
You’ve just gotten the rejection back, and it stings.
Your reviewers wrote about all sorts of technical issues with your proposal. You scrambled to fix those issues – only to receive another rejection with a different set of “issues”.
Are your reviewers insane?

No, but they’re also not giving you the whole story of why they rejected your grant.
They’re not intentionally hiding information. Rather, they had a gut reaction (like/dislike/hate) to your proposal, and all that stuff they wrote was just a rationalization of their reaction.
It wouldn’t be so great for you or for the reviewer if they just wrote “I didn’t like this proposal, my gut told me so!”  They’d never be invited to review again. (Who knows, maybe that’s a strategy to get out of reviewing, like trying to get out of jury duty?)
But anyway: that’s the way we humans make decisions. It almost always starts from a subconscious (‘gut’) reaction, and then we must come up with reasonable sounding words to support that reaction.  This justification is not just for other people; it’s for ourselves.  It makes our egos feel good, because then we’re fully justified in any decision we made.
If you think you’re immune to that kind of decision-making process, just examine the next few decisions you make.  It can be illuminating (and you could also check out the book by Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational).
This brings us back to your grant: the first impression that you make is vitally important if you want the gut reaction to go in your favor. There are lots of ways to help you, and equally there are some ways you can seriously hinder that gut reaction.
Here is my current favorite top-3 list of deadly sins in grant writing, that you’re unlikely to overcome no matter how good your project is:



1.Write highly dense, technical prose that is designed only for a specialist in your field to read. Assume that your reader knows everything you know, including all the buzzwords and technical details.  Make sure to overwhelm her with all those details in order to impress her.  Don’t bother to be educational or make the prose easy to read.  We’re all smart, academics with all the time in the world to wade through difficult text, right?  Yes, definitely assume that your reader has unlimited time and energy to wade through your grant.
2.Don’t bother to thoroughly develop your Specific Aims page before launching into writing the text of your proposal. Just start writing, and ‘see what happens.’  Zigzag around a bit, change what you’re doing, and then keep going back and changing around your aims.  Make sure you are doing this up to the last minute, and that you forget to make your aims line up with what you say in your proposal.  Not only will you be having a lot of fun in your last-minute writing frenzy, but your reviewer will have the pleasure of consuming your spaghetti writing.  He’ll enjoy late nights reading your proposal trying to figure out what you’re proposing to do, much like Sherlock Holmes. Yes indeed, you’ll certainly win praise this way.
3.Make sure to dive right into the technical details of your elegant experiments, without giving any background about why the project is important in the first place. Wow your reviewer with your elegant experiments, designed to answer obviously important questions.  Don’t worry about the funding agency thinks it’s important work, only worry about whether your experiments are elegant enough that only a buffoon could ignore that fact.  And of course assume that elegant experiments equals grant funded, because elegance equals importance.

The bottom line is that you need to make it easy on your reviewer.  Each of these sins can be readily avoided if you simply put yourself in your reader’s shoes, realizing that the reader has a tough job, and as a writer, it is your job to make it easier for them.
If you’ve recently had a grant rejected, I suggest you have a look at it from the context of these three deadly sins.  Before trying to revise your project or approach, first consider whether you could simply fix things by eliminating these sins from your writing.  It is amazing how far that can go.
If you want a series of free training videos on grant writing, including how to write the ‘killer’ specific aims, have a look over here: https://marketyourscience.com/thescientistvids
————
Morgan Giddings, PhD trains scientists and academics from all over the world how to get more grant funding and recognition with less stress and effort.  She also does research in bioinformatics, proteomics, and genomics to address issues like cancer.

Full text Link: http://blog.the-scientist.com/20 ... of-grant-writing-2/
快乐流动 发表于 2011-3-6 12:07:23 | 显示全部楼层
感觉大家对这个问题的兴趣不高,也许都还没有走到这一步吧。
 楼主| SunZhen 发表于 2011-3-6 23:44:24 | 显示全部楼层
回复 5# 快乐流动


    是的,大部分经常上网的都是学生和年轻人,现在不感兴趣没关系,哪天需要的时候来看看,能用上就行了。
goldcheng 发表于 2011-7-11 23:29:02 | 显示全部楼层
谢谢吧
hitlby 发表于 2011-7-12 00:01:02 | 显示全部楼层
我的看法是:
1. 一定要认真,态度很重要。不能觉得xxx的本子写的不怎么样,也中了;xxx没有好文章,也中了……。基金申请诚然有运气的成分,例如:研究方向,研究单位背景,老板背景等等,但如果真是有意义的项目申请书,有充分的计划与分析,还是可以在运气不占优势的情况下,博得专家好评,靠实力成功申请的。
2. 格式一定要完美,包括参考文献格式一致,行距一致,不要有错别字,丟字等。至于技术路线,普遍都用word图来表达,可以通过立体、阴影、渐变、彩色等把图做的精美;年度计划普遍都直接叙述,可以用表格让人耳目一新。
3. 项目的提出,一定要有科学创新,在这个大背景下,继续完善,才有中标的可能。
4. 项目背景与意义部分,综述领域内的现状,体现逻辑性,易读性,水到渠成的引出不足,及本项目要解决的问题,有哪些重要的创新。
5. 研究目标与申请书的摘要差不多。我认为更重要的是研究内容,拟解决关键问题。这两部分我觉得要充分论述,而不能简单罗列研究xxx微观结构组织,研究xxx的性能。尤其是解决的关键问题,每一个问题都要解释一下,为何关键,对项目有哪些重要作用,引导专家的思维跟着申请书走。
6. 研究方法,主要针对项目要运用哪些手段,及完成项目的研究内容,对自己不熟悉的技术手段最好事先调研一下,有时领域跨了一点点写的就容易显得不专业。技术路线,就是画图了,在逻辑性为前提下,尽量画的美观。可行性分析最好详细论述,证明自己的项目确实有很大的可完成性。
7. 其他部分我觉得重要性不如以上几个,中规中矩写好即可。
本人也只申请了青年基金,以上仅为个人的一点粗浅看法,考虑到学科不同和主观因素,仅供参考。
aowei 发表于 2011-7-12 12:29:08 | 显示全部楼层
回复 6# SunZhen

呵呵,我也看过一两本基金申请书,感觉和我们写文章是一样的。
老师们的经验都是非常值得学习的
minifish 发表于 2013-7-31 11:32:08 | 显示全部楼层
顶!回复 8# hitlby
lfan 发表于 2013-8-1 11:09:32 | 显示全部楼层
学习一下,谢谢孙老师。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表