1 / 7

PREPARING & REVIEWING PROPOSALS

This guide delves into the nuances of preparing and reviewing academic proposals, emphasizing elements like problem identification, literature review, methodology selection, and impact assessment. John Lie from the University of California, Berkeley, offers valuable advice on distinguishing proposals from papers, leveraging disciplinary diversity, and ensuring feasibility and quality in research endeavors. Drawing on his expertise, Lie highlights the significance of originality, the value of experience in executing research, and the importance of readiness for the demanding review process. Intertwined with practical recommendations, this resource sheds light on the reviewer-reviewed dynamic, encouraging thorough preparation, idea experimentation, and a strategic approach to research excellence. It navigates the challenging terrain of scholarly innovation, urging scholars to embrace a rigorous mindset and engage with the intricate structures of academic feedback and publication standards.

mira-dillon
Télécharger la présentation

PREPARING & REVIEWING PROPOSALS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PREPARING & REVIEWING PROPOSALS John Lie University of California, Berkeley July2012

  2. Proposal vs. Paper • Promise vs. Achievement • Distinct modalities of “human sciences” • Continuing national differences • Disciplinary diversity • Stylistic / methodological diversity • Statistical, historical, interview etc. • Nonetheless, a common grammar

  3. Commonalities • Problematic / Topic • Review of the Literature • Thesis / Argument • Methods / Data • Budget, Schedule • Impact, Dissemination • More abstractly: • Originality • Feasibility • Quality

  4. Sources of Excellence • Originality  Mastery & Emulation • Feasibility  Experience • Quality  Exposure • Practically speaking: • Read widely and deeply • Work diligently (10 years / 10,000 hours) • Seek expertise • In Kazakhstan?

  5. General Recommendations • Preparation • Nothing like mastery of one’s field/sub-field, relevant methods etc. • “Push the Envelope” • Theoretical, Methodological, Substantive (Empirical) • Conceptual importation (“ideas that travel”) • Proposal and (the Final) Paper • The short distance between promise and achievement • In short: important to take it seriously

  6. “Think Like A Fish” • The Reviewer & The Reviewed • The Painter & The Studio • Tacit Knowledge • The Point of Post-graduate Education • Structure of Scientific Innovation (& Hierarchy) • Opaque Culture of Review & Publication

  7. Recommendations for the Review Process • Additional information • Scholarly track record • Triage • Some proposals clearly sub-standard • Summary recommendation • “the bottom line” • The whole can be greater than its constituents • Final selection • Common to have an executive committee • Staff enhancement • A key to US success

More Related