Review of Proposals that Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals (2nd ed.).

1988 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 730-730
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”


2021 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Marina Christ Franco ◽  
Danielle B. Rice ◽  
Helena Silveira Schuch ◽  
Odir Antonio Dellagostin ◽  
Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci ◽  
...  

Genetics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 152 (3) ◽  
pp. 1229-1240
Author(s):  
Kara E Koehler ◽  
R Scott Hawley

Abstract In contrast to the more typical mock grant proposals or literature reviews, we describe the use of the creative essay as a novel tool for teaching human genetics at the college level. This method has worked well for both nonmajor and advanced courses for biology majors. The 10- to 15-page essay is written in storylike form and represents a student's response to the choice of 6–8 scenarios describing human beings coping with various genetic dilemmas. We have found this tool to be invaluable both in developing students' ability to express genetic concepts in lay terms and in promoting student awareness of genetic issues outside of the classroom. Examples from student essays are presented to illustrate these points, and guidelines are suggested regarding instructor expectations of student creativity and scientific accuracy. Methods of grading this assignment are also discussed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Sara Hultqvist ◽  
Oskar Jonsson ◽  
Håkan Jönson ◽  
Susanne Iwarsson

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 2519-2521
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chernoff

Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill—in the art of grant writing at least—could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1255 ◽  
pp. 012006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Sundari ◽  
Karmila ◽  
Masduki Nizam Fadli ◽  
Dedy Hartama ◽  
Agus Perdana Windarto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document