Research grant proposals are a very important genre in many academic disciplines, and a window into which we are able to observe academic engagements and interactions. However, there has been little textual analysis of the genre and research on how successful scholars approach the writing task. Drawing on the social constructionist genre scholarship, this study collected and analyzed nine successful SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) research grant proposals from nine professors in the field of education at a Canadian university. The proposals were examined in terms of three important textual features: generic structure, referential behavior, hedges and boosters. Semi-structured discourse-based interviews with the nine professors as insider informants were also conducted. The main findings of the study include the following: (1) A three-move scheme was developed in this study as reflecting the generic structure of research grant proposal summaries. In analyzing the main text of research grant proposals, I first recognized the ICMC pattern (Introduction-Context-Methodology-Communication of Results) as the overall structure; ten moves as the constitutive functional components were then identified under this pattern. (2) Non-integral (where the name of the cited author does not appear in the actual citing sentence), non-reporting (where no reporting verb such as show, establish, suggest is employed to introduce the cited work), and generalization (where the proposition is attributed to two or more sources) forms of citations were found to be predominantly used in the research grant proposals. Self-citation was also used with a high frequency in this genre. 3) The use of boosters was found to exceed the use of hedges, and the distribution of hedges and boosters were found uneven across the rhetorical sections. Interviews with the nine professors further reveal how communicative purposes, institutional practice, and reader-writer relationship co-constructed the format as well as the stylistic features of grant writing. The study provides genre analysts as well as novice grant writers some useful insights into the research grant proposal writing.

This study surveyed grant writers at independent small colleges in Indiana and bordering states to discover their typical processes, personnel management, and whether these colleges encouraged effective grantsmanship. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics reported as percentages, frequencies, and means.Conclusions include the following:Over five-sixths of respondents had additional duties. The vast majority said grant writing time varies daily due to these other tasks. As a median, writers with dual or more duties devoted 33% of their time to grant writing.Over three-fourths were not required to attend introductory training. While most pursued training classes, superiors seemed to be nonchalant about their professional development. Self motivated study, grant writing associations, and mentors were major factors for growth in grant writing skills.Around 90% of presidents and 85% of advancement vice presidents met grantors. Just over half of other superiors and a plurality of other senior advancement personnel cultivated grantors.Over three-fourths helped faculty with proposals. This informal quality control involved editing, writing, and teaching faculty how to write proposals. Just over half the colleges used formal quality control. About two-thirds have internal permission systems to prevent embarrassments, so one-third cannot prevent disasters or track proposal success, failure, or origin. Colleges seemed complacent about liability since less than half required approval from an Institutional Review Board for proposals with human subjects.About half felt their colleges succeeded with grants. Actual results were decidedly mixed. Deciding factors were income, faculty engagement, and external and internal relationships. Many colleges seemed to lack easily accessible grant records. Having dual or more duties could hinder but did not prevent success.Over two-thirds contacted donors. About half who cultivated increased success rates or gained profitable insights. Most of the others tacitly implied increased success. The top three overall grant winners all cultivated. Respondents saw cultivating as good, but viewed skillful writing as crucial.Other attributes such as religious affiliation, enrollment, minority percentages, etc. seemed not to affect success.Results cannot be completely generalized, but descriptive data and inferred conclusions should assist all small-college grant writers. / Department of Educational Studies

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-130). Also available on the Internet.

Major paper (M.U.R. Pl.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1990. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 77). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-130). Also available on the Internet.

Research grant proposals are a very important genre in many academic disciplines, and a window into which we are able to observe academic engagements and interactions. However, there has been little textual analysis of the genre and research on how successful scholars approach the writing task. Drawing on the social constructionist genre scholarship, this study collected and analyzed nine successful SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) research grant proposals from nine professors in the field of education at a Canadian university. The proposals were examined in terms of three important textual features: generic structure, referential behavior, hedges and boosters. Semi-structured discourse-based interviews with the nine professors as insider informants were also conducted. The main findings of the study include the following: (1) A three-move scheme was developed in this study as reflecting the generic structure of research grant proposal summaries. In analyzing the main text of research grant proposals, I first recognized the ICMC pattern (Introduction-Context-Methodology-Communication of Results) as the overall structure; ten moves as the constitutive functional components were then identified under this pattern. (2) Non-integral (where the name of the cited author does not appear in the actual citing sentence), non-reporting (where no reporting verb such as show, establish, suggest is employed to introduce the cited work), and generalization (where the proposition is attributed to two or more sources) forms of citations were found to be predominantly used in the research grant proposals. Self-citation was also used with a high frequency in this genre. 3) The use of boosters was found to exceed the use of hedges, and the distribution of hedges and boosters were found uneven across the rhetorical sections. Interviews with the nine professors further reveal how communicative purposes, institutional practice, and reader-writer relationship co-constructed the format as well as the stylistic features of grant writing. The study provides genre analysts as well as novice grant writers some useful insights into the research grant proposal writing. / Education, Faculty of / Language and Literacy Education (LLED), Department of / Graduate

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Marshall University, 2009. / Title from document title page. Includes abstract. Document formatted into pages: contains iv, 101 p. Includes bibliographical references p.100-101.

This descriptive study, adapted from Holton and Bates' Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI), examined factors that facilitated and/or hindered transfer of learning for participants of a four-day grant writing workshop. The targeted population was a group of faculty and staff at a Midwest state-supported institution of higher education. The workshops included lecture, group and individual work time, and one-on-one consultation with workshop presenters. Learning focused on developing project ideas, searching for a funding sponsor, and developing the proposal narrative and budget. Multiple workshops were offered between December 2000 and December 2003.The LTSI represents sixteen factors for transfer of learning; these factors were adapted to construct an online survey related to Grantsmanship Workshop content. The survey items reflected the workshop phases and the transfer concepts of each phase: prior to the workshop (learner readiness, supervisor/peer support, motivation to attend, learning interests, pre-workshop preparation); during the workshop (workshop design, time allotment, feedback); and after the workshop ended (content validity, transfer design, personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use). In addition to these 49 Likert scale items, the survey included yes/no, short answer, and open-end questions related to post-workshop activity, allowing the opportunity to provide additional evidence of their workshop experiences. Of the sixty-six former participants contacted via email, twenty-two voluntarily completed the survey.Issues highlighted during the pre-workshop time period were (1) understanding the significance for learning about grant writing, (2) perception of external support for workshop attendance, and (3) preparation for the workshop. During the workshop, participants acknowledged the benefits of using individual interests to learn the general concepts surrounding grant writing and connecting the learning back to their respective transfer environments. Points of debate were raised regarding program design, particularly with time allocation; responses varied from "not enough individual time" and "too much lecturing" to "too fast-paced" and "not long enough." Two transfer issues emerged after the workshop: time for completing projects, and departmental- and college-level support for pursuing externally funded projects.Findings from the study were used to recommend strategies for future study, as well to suggest transfer strategies for program planners, instructors, program attendees, and other stakeholders. / Department of Educational Studies

Thesis (M.A.)--Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary, 1991. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 113).