Why Proposals Fail

This document can be downloaded as a pdf file .

Also read Nineteen Tips for Successful UROP Proposal Writing and What Does a UROP Proposal Look Like?

This document was originally written by the sponsored programs office at the University of Oklahoma. This document has been modified to apply more specifically to the IUPUI Undergraduate Research Program.

The application is outside the purview of UROP. The applicant either failed to learn about the UROP's restrictions or guidelines or misunderstood them.

UROP is not the most appropriate source of funds for the proposed project. If reviewers believe another university program is a more appropriate source of funding, they may decline a proposal regardless of its merits. In such cases, they will refer the grant seeker to the more appropriate source.

The project is not relevant to the priorities of UROP. The priorities of UROP are to encourage students to engage in independent research with a faculty mentor. The point of doing undergraduate research is to deepen the student's knowledge in a discipline, to develop critical thinking skills and writing skills and, by giving the student a taste of research, to encourage the student to go on to graduate or professional school. Note, however, this does not mean that, if you do not intend to go to graduate or professional school, you cannot apply and hold a UROP grant.

Proposals fail if the project does not seek to answer a particular, well-defined question or does not seek to solve a problem, yet unsolved. For artists and performers and for some of the humanities the criterion is that the project be creative and/or deal with new ideas. The programs demands students have a working relationship with an IUPUI faculty member who will guide the grant writing and research. Unless the proposed project addresses those priorities, your chance of funding is slim. Note that UROP is not restricted to scientific or engineering problems. Students in all disciplines at IUPUI may apply. Students should present objectives and use methodologies appropriate to their discipline.

The application does not demonstrate a relationship with a faculty mentor. UROP does not make grants to students alone but to a student working with an IUPUI faculty member. The mentor's enthusiastic support and a willingness to help the student must be evident.

The application does not demonstrate that the student understands the project. A poorly organized proposal or one with vague goals will not fly. The proposal should strive to demonstrate the student's expertise or growing expertise in the project area. This can be done by including a clearly written introduction to the proposal problem or question, a well-written statement of significance, relevant literature references, a reasonable time line, and some information about expected results or products.

The proposal does not address the significance of carrying out the project. The proposal must explain how the work fits into a larger context. This requires students to work with faculty. Most students will work on a small aspect of a larger project originally defined by the faculty mentor. This approach is acceptable and often necessary.

The methodology appears to be flawed. A proposal may address a problem of significance, but it may be rejected because it approaches the problem in a way that the reviewers do not believe adequately tests its own assumptions or because it fails to ask the right questions. A common error is to fail to state the methodology at all.

The applicant has not included measurable outcome indicators in the proposal. Without some means of measuring success of the project, funding agencies will not invest their resources. Likewise UROP will insist on clear objectives and a way of determining whether the objectives are met.

The proposed project budget does not allow for the highest and best use of the UROP funds. The budget should not have bogus expenses or include items that are obvious luxuries. The budget should be reasonable to accomplish the objectives. Generally the program's response to "wish lists", overstated costs, or disallowed expenses (such as books), is to revise the budget.

The proposal does not address required university research regulations. No funds are dispersed until all required paperwork is present, even if the proposal is deemed meritorious. Students and their faculty mentors that use human subjects, animals, radioactive or other hazardous materials, or recombinant DNA are required to demonstrate they are qualified to carry on projects with such requirements.