Preparing research proposals for contract research

Preparing research proposals for contract research Christine Fessey The author participated in the researchcommissioning exercise held in 1995 by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting, to award research contracts. She was involved in providing research review feedback to proposing teams who did not reach the shortlist. The feedback comments were derived from individual reviewers' commentary sheets and formed the basis of correspondence to each team at the end of the year. This paper aims to communicate the review comments concerning the structure and content of proposals to a wider audience, many of whom have asked for this information.

INTRODUCTION

Christine Fessey RN, RMN, DN, DipAdvanced NursScudies, DipNursEd, MEd, Education Policy Officer (1995-1996), English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting, Victory House, 170 Tottenham Court Road, London WI P 0HA (Currently a Post garduate in Education at Sussex University)

(Requests for offprints to CF) Manuscript accepted March 1996 The information reflects the personal recollections of work undertaken by the author in 1996, and may not represent the official policy or practice of the ENB at a later time. Nurse EducationToday(I 997) 17, 3-6

The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting (ENB) conducted a major commissioning exercise in 1995, advertising eight new research specifications for competitive tender. Educational institutions, universities and National Health Selwice (NHS) organizations were invited to submit research proposals to the EN13 by October 1995. This paper reviews the characteristics of research proposals that were not shortlisted, together with some details about the way shortlisting procedures are conducted within the standards for quality and equal opportunity. The author was an education policy officer at the ENB, receiving research training herself, and was not an authority on contract research. This article is a personal recollection of the issues involved in the shortlisting review which provided the basis for feedback. This was given to proposers in correspondence and used to design a series of workshops for lecturers in the 1995/6 session. These have been well received © 1997PearsonProfessionalLtd

and the information clarified people's understanding of the steps involved in getting through to the shortlist. In a recent letter in The Times Higher Education Supplement entitled When alpha is a non-starter, Wright (1996) demonstrated the importance of research proposal feedback to support the morale of researchers. Supporting the emerging research culture within new integrated faculties of nursing and midwifery is an important aspect of ENB work. Many nurse lecturers have been. 'publication-active' for some time but may have limited experience of contract research. Others may have published personal research, but have limited experience in heading a multidisciplinary team for proposal preparation in contract research. The Research Assessment Exercise has placed pressure on staff employed in higher education who were not previously research-active to engage in research and publication. These staff, who come from a number of fields of professional practice, may have held teaching and practitioner contracts loaded with student contact hours and technical teaching work. They have not previously had research as a condition of their employment and require similar support and development opportunities. The ENB advertised the research specifications by letter and media advertising in the U K and Europe. Official correspondents of all the educational institutions were notified and invited to submit proposals. Research specifications and protocols were mailed to all institutions involved in nursing, midwifery and health visiting education. The response period was 12 weeks between July and October/995. The preparation of a research proposal can be an intensive and collaborative enterprise. Board research priorities are identified during each year, and approval to begin the commissioning process may not coincide with the structure of the academic year. The advertising of new research specifications and consequent proposal preparation may take place whilst academic staff are engaged in end of year examinations or summer teaching and research activity. The proposal review, individual academic critique and shortllsring process are subject to the ENB's standards of quality and equal opportunity. Proposals are opened, grouped and sent to reviewers within predetermined time scales. Reviewers are drawn from the membership of the ENB Research and Development (P,,&D) Group, who are academics from nursing, midwifery, health visiting, education and social science backgrounds. They are active researchers and may have gained experience in reviewing proposals for other national funding agencies. When research tenders specify specialist practice,

4

Nurse Education Today

academic reviewers are drawn from those fields of practice. The review panel responsible for shortlisting research proposals for interview is composed of five people: the Chair of the research group; the Assistant director for education policy; two senior academics from the ENB's R & D group; and an education officer representing the practice speciality. The reviewers receive all the proposals submitted for the particular tender and all supporting documents. These are the documents received in the tender specification pack, which includes a copy of the tender specification, a copy of the ENB's R & D protocols document describing the selection process, the proposal guidelines with budget and contract information. Reviewers are asked to evaluate each proposal using the standard critique which concludes with a summary of their decision of strengths and weaknesses. These are evaluated in terms of the proposal's capacity to communicate a strong and comprehensive research design set within the context of the research specification. Inclinations to reword the specification title, aims or goals are best avoided. The same principle applies to the budget, since one can be sure that if one spent time arguing that it cannot be done for the price, someone else will convince the panel that it can. The proposal critique guide sheet requires the reviewer to make full written comments under the headings listed below: • Understanding of the research problem • Review of proposed methods and research approach • Consideration ofrigour within the proposed approach. Vghere appropriate, rationales for sampling • Research management and composition • Summary to identify strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The correspondent is able to use these points in providing follow-up feedback to the proposers. The critiques are signed and dated by the reviewer and returned to the Chair of the shortlisting panel in preparation for the review meeting. The review panel meets to discuss each proposal, having recorded individual reviewers' rankings at the outset. An agreed literal grading scheme of A to D records the results of panel decisions on a grid. Relative merits and limitations of each proposal are evaluated in discussion. The review panel reaches a decision to shortlist based on the number of top ratings awarded. The Chair and assistant director R & D have a duty to ensure that equal opportunities for proposers are maintained throughout the review. Ratings are awarded by

reviewers on the basis of academic merit demonstrated in the quality of the proposal submitted, rather than influenced by personal or institutional reputation. The ENB 1K & D protocols are based on those used in the N H S R & D group.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1995 SUBMISSION Understanding the research problem Proposers usually begin with a discussion of the significance of the research problem within relevant practice contexts and changing health~social~educational policy contexts. The introduction provides the opportunity for the researchers to demonstrate their interpretation of the scope of the research question and its relationship to other issues. The quality and style of the presentation can make a strong impact on the reviewers at this early point. The literature review usually precedes or integrates with the introduction. Those who did not include a review and those who presented what appeared to be an 'off-the-shelf review failed to integrate the significance of the problem within the context of previous research. House styles between research funding organizations differ and it is worth finding out what balance is preferred within a proposal.

Feedback on interpretation of the scope of the problem Some proposers interpreted the research specifications from a viewpoint of previous doctoral studies or current research in order to gain more funding for work already in progress. These issues are apparent within the proposal and at the interview stage need skilful handling. Reviewers act in the interests of the funding body. They are aware of attempts to rework specifications to 'fit' other lines of enquiry. Funding agencies are concerned with achieving optimum interpretation of their research questions, unencumbered by design factors inherited from protocols of other projects. There are issues related to finance, project management and data copyright wherever there is a confluence of interests. Some literature reviews were too brief and unfocused in a number of proposals. If a study is primarily dependent upon the literature review and documentary analysis, then a detailed account of the reviewing techniques and searching protocols should be included. These searching skills can be learned through

Preparing researchproposalsfor contract research 5

dialogue with specialist librarians and documentary researchers.

Review of methods and research approach A succinct methodological overview of the design is welcomed, setting out the research approach and reflecting the proposers' view of the research problem and design choices for examination of the issues. The research methods need to be discussed in relation to the research questions. The discussion should demonstrate the proposers' understanding of the 'fit' of methods to the problem. The coherence of the selected methods should be apparent through examination of planned datagathering and analysis activities. Departure from the standard treatment of methods requires skilful argument in the text. If methods that have particular advantage are argued for within a proposal, the reviewers expect to see a 'carry forward' in terms of data analysis, human resourcing and financial projections for these resources to cover costs in the budget. It occurred to the author during the experience that proposers may prepare in a linear way, whilst reviewers read the proposals like an architect's plan. Proposers might ask colleagues to read their work from this point of view.

Feedback on methodology and methods within the design Substantial method detail was omitted in some proposals. The reviewer is looking for more than a list of methods and a time frame. There has to be good quality discussion of the methods and the way in which their deployment within the design can optimize the study and meet the scope of the specification. The section should demonstrate a 'work out' of the design, and the limitations of particular methods require discussion. Changes to the aims and scope of the specification argued on financial grounds by one group of proposers was not well received, when 10 other proposals offered to meet the requirements for the price. If the specification asks for 'mapping the national picture', then a design and methodology that allows numeral and graphical data-gathering nationwide is required. Some proposals presented coherent and logical methods. However, the discussion lacked depth and left many questions unanswered. The crux of the section is perhaps the team's capacity to demonstrate their mastery of the planned methods and communication of how the research phenomenon will be demonstrated. This has to 'stand out' on

paper. Successful proposals discussed limitations and made plans to mitigate them. Some general statements of intention failed to provide enough detail to judge the proposal. For instance, the statement 'an analysis of the legislative framework' requires development. Similarly, information about the formation of cases and the likely membership of focus groups varied. In a quantitative design, this kind of clarity should not be a problem. Within a naturalistic design there are guidelines in the literature (Lincoln & Guba 1985) for the planning phase of a qualitative design, and these require full discussion. They demonstrate the differences between the conventional and the naturalistic research design. Reviewer panels are familiar with the arguments for both paradigms and look for a strong articulation of the rationales that underpin the methods the proposers have selected. The degree of detail required may differ between funding agencies and is worth clarifying.

Rigour and sampling If the proposers plan to use a mixed methods design for their research, they need to include a discussion of rigour within the intended approaches. This engages the reviewer in the academic arguments and is better than blanket statements about the redundancy ofrepresentativeness or sample size in qualitative design. The reviewer has to decide whether the team has presented a comprehensive design demonstrating the confidence to deliver the research. Maximum rated proposals are called for interview. The 'nuts and bolts' of a strong proposal are demonstrated through its design, scope and engagement with the methodological challenges posed by the complexities of the tender within the field of enquiry.

Feedback on management of rigour in a design The following method issues were incomplete in a number of proposals: design of a national mapping exercise; sampling size and procedures; sample representatives; ethical issues, including remembering the rights to informed consent for students and practitioners; and gaining access to organizations. The national mapping projects required reliable and representative sampling procedures and an adequate range ofcentres for further case study work. The rigour within proposed qualitative methods could have been improved in terms of the level of discussion.

Research management The quality of information in this section may indicate the team's experience of research

6

NurseEducation Today

management. Support from the researchers' institution may assist in proposal preparation (statistical, computational support and budgetary advice). Reviewers select research teams with comprehensive skills and experience. The research management section o f the proposal demonstrates the proposers' knowledge of research management and their uptake o f support from the home institution. Inclusion o f precise information about the 'replacement' costs of all team members is important because it indicates commitment to completion within agreed time scales. The number o f days dedicated to the project per week of the academic year per team member may be specified. This detail is required particularly when specialist clinicians or academics are imported to fulfil particular functions for the research team, for example statistical or computational advice.

Feedback to convey competence in project management Budget details may be simpler for smaller projects. Difficulties arose in the budgets for the larger projects where insufficient specification o f costs (human, materials or travel-subsistence) occurred within the distinct phases o f the project. For example, if tape-recorded data are transcribed in the data analysis section o f the project, the reviewers turn to the budget to see how much money has been set aside for typing of the transcripts. Researchers experienced with this method will have a benchmark of, say 100 hours of preparation for 35 hours of tape recorded conversation. Failure to specify the costs of analysis may signify inattention or inexperience. There are nlany similar 'black holes' into which the proposer may be drawn. The budget should add up! Estimation o f staff costs and 'on costs' usually form the largest proportion o f the expenditure. Institutional 'overheads' vary between 20% and 40%. Equipment costs usually give rise to careful scrutiny and the question 'are we to understand University X has no computer resources provided for its staff?.' If proposers claim hardware within the budget, an explanation should be prepared and will be well received.

Research methods management by appropriately qualified and experienced individuals should appear costed in the budget. Clinically qualified staff should be reflected in a team proposing clinical projects. Some proposals failed to ensure the inclusion o£ clinical/practice specialists costed within the core research team. Reviewers look closely at who plays the central research role and are concerned about who takes the daily responsibility for the project.

CONCLUSION The c o m m o n characteristics o f non-shortlisted proposals formed the focus of this discussion. Submission feedback was offered in acknowledgement of the intensive developmental work and collaborative effort currently underway within new integrated faculties o f nursing and midwifery. The review panel brings forward to interview those proposals which received top ratings to compete in the interview round o f the commissioning process. Those involved in contract research over the years put this activity into perspective. It is an achievement to be shortlisted and a challenge to prepare for the interview. Winning a research contract is a team opportunity rather than a certainty. Collaboration in competitive tendering may lead to advantages which include increasing inter-faculty collaboration, enhancing the development of scholarship and the research culture in nursing, midwifery and health visiting. However, even this is under scrutiny in a world where demonstrable advantage is often served by specialization and the creation of research-only units (Burton 1993).

REFERENCES Burton C 1993 The research foundation ofgTaduate education. Universityof California Press English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery& Health Visiting i995 Research protocolsincludedin the ENrBR & D proposalapplicationpack Lincoln Y, Guba G 1985 Designinga naturalistic enquiry. Sage Publications, London Wright G 1996 When alpha is a non-starter. The Times Higher Education Supplement February2:14