Profiling Lexical Frame Use in NSF Grant Proposal Abstracts

Purpose – The library’s strategic plan calls for the author to “Transform the role of the subject liaison librarian to better engage the campus community.” This statement specifically focusses on the aspect of the liaison role that builds relationships with the campus partners, “to better engage the campus community.” And like the peers, liaison librarians at this mid-size research institution have been struggling not only with implementing but also determining how to measure this new role. The purpose of this paper is to develop one measure of librarian engagement with the campus community. Design/methodology/approach – The author developed a “campus relationship matrix” that articulates dozens of products that could potentially be the result of liaison work, such as co-authoring a grant proposal, developing a class, co-presenting a workshop on article impact metrics, etc. These relationship products were generated by examining the own work and by scanning liaison responsibility statements from other institutions. These products fall into three relationship status levels: emergent, generative, and productive. Each subject librarian was asked to rate his and her relationship with each department he or she serves. Additionally, in order to achieve consistency across the organization in understanding of three relationship levels, the author engaged in an exercise to calibrate the categorization of these work products. During this exercise and through the discussions, greater nuances were revealed about what the author is hoping to achieve with the strategic goal. A review and summary of the ratings is presented. Findings – Baseline counts of relationship types were completed. The author is working to establish goals for next year’s comparisons. In actuality, the specific goals matters much less than the conversations surrounding these results about what work the author should be doing and why and how is valued. Originality/value – This study presents a tool useful for the exploration and measure of librarian relationships with campus.

Download Full-text

THE USE OF SOCIETAL IMPACTS CONSIDERATIONS IN GRANT PROPOSAL PEER REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF FIVE MODELS

Technology & Innovation ◽

10.3727/194982410x12895770314078 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 12 (3) ◽

pp. 213-224 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

J. Britt Holbrook

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Grant Proposal ◽

Societal Impacts

Download Full-text

How Can I Make my Grant Proposal Stand Out from all the Others?

Writing Successful Grant Proposals ◽

10.1007/978-94-6300-390-2_3 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. 29-44

Author(s):

Ellen W. Gorsevski

Keyword(s):

Grant Proposal

Download Full-text

Writing the Outcomes and Impacts Section

Write Like a Chemist ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195367423.003.0022 ◽

2008 ◽

Author(s):

Marin S Robinson ◽

Fredricka L Stoller ◽

Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽

James K Jones

Keyword(s):

Analytical Chemistry ◽

Grant Proposal ◽

Project Schedule ◽

Broader Impacts ◽

Project Description ◽

Expected Outcomes

All good proposals must come to an end. In this chapter, we examine conventional ways in which authors summarize and conclude their Project Descriptions. We consider project timelines, lists of expected outcomes, and statements of broader impacts. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to ■ Develop a project timeline ■ Generate a list of expected outcomes ■ Suggest broader impacts of your proposed work ■ Reinforce the importance of your proposed work in concluding remarks As you work through the chapter, you will write the closing section of your own Project Description. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter guide you step by step as you do the following: 14A Create a project timeline 14B Create a list of expected outcomes 14C Conclude the proposed work 14D Complete the Outcomes and Impacts section Like the previous sections of the Project Description (chapters 12 and 13), there is no one right way to end a proposal. However, proposal guidelines often instruct authors to include a projected timeline, a list of expected outcomes, a summary of objectives, and/or a statement of relevance or broader impacts in their concluding remarks. For example, the ACS Division of Analytical Chemistry Graduate Fellowship announcement (excerpt 11A) asks for a statement that links “the relevance of [the proposed] work to analytical chemistry.” The NSF Grant Proposal Guide (see excerpt 15B) asks for “objectives for the period of the proposed work,” their “expected significance,” and their “relationship to longer-term goals of the PI’s project.” Moreover, the PI must describe “as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts of the proposed activities.” Not surprisingly, each of the authors of our 22 CAREER proposals approached this task slightly differently. We examine several of their approaches in this chapter. We begin with an excerpt that you can read and analyze on your own (excerpt 14A), specifically, the conclusion to Harpp’s proposal regarding plume-ridge interaction in the Galápagos. She includes a formal timeline (titled “Project Schedule”) and conclusions for her work.

Download Full-text