research proposal review checklist

• About Research & Innovation
• Advanced Cardiovascular Care
• Health Equity
• Inflammation
• Maternal and Fetal Medicine
• Musculoskeletal Care
• Neuroscience
• Opioid & Pain
• Research Centers
• Departments
• About the Office of Research
• Funding & Proposal Development
• Regulatory Review & Compliance
• Research Project Management
• Cores & Resources
• Education & Training
• Peter Arvan Lab
• Antiphospholipid Syndrome Research Labs
• J. Michelle Kahlenberg Lab
• John Varga Lab (ScleroLab)
• Mulholland Lab
• Raghavendran Lab
• ALS Center of Excellence
• Institute for Heart & Brain Health
• Center for Basic & Translational Science
• Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine
• Biomedical Research Core Facilities
• IT Route Map
• Clinical Research Route Map
• Commercialization Route Map
• Great Minds, Greater Discoveries
• Research Scouts
• Meet the ROMS Team
• ROMS Fellowship Application Information
• Working with a ROMS Fellow
• Pandemic Research Recovery
• Research Climate Council
• Support for Outstanding Research
• Research News Trivia
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Billing Calendar & Study Applications
• CRAO Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Pre-Onboarding Considerations
• Access Biospecimen
• Biospecimen Processing
• Biospecimen Inventory
• Regulatory & Governance
• Equipment & Instrumentation
• Central Biorepository Pricelist
• CBR Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Clinical Trials Support Units
• Clinical Research Coordinator Career Ladder
• Clinical Trials Management Systems: Accounts & Support
• Research Pharmacy
• Off-Campus Clinical Research
• Statistical Support for Large-Scale Clinical Trials
• MCRU Services
• MCRU Lab Study Team Guidelines
• MCRU Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Michigan Medicine Site Profile
• CTSO Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Self-Serve Data Tools
• Custom Data Request
• Data & Biospecimen Sharing
• Student Access to Patient Data
• FFMI fastPACE
• Frankel Cardiovascular Center Innovation Program
• Rogel Cancer Center Innovation Program
• Global Health Commercialization Competition
• Biomedical Innovation 101
• Certificate in Biomedical Innovation & Entrepreneurship
• Fast Forward Medical Innovation Fellowship Program
• Biotech Career Development Program
• Drug Discovery & Development Course
• Innovation Studio
• Oncology Drug Discovery & Development (3D) Workshop
• FFMI fastPACE Train-the-Trainer
• Intellectual Property in the Academic Setting
• Academic Drug Discovery
• Medical Device Regulation
• Idea to Impact Webinar Series
• 6 Tips for Customer Discovery
• Interacting with Industry
• Ask the Experts: A Biomedical Innovation Forum
• Business Development
• Michigan Biomedical Venture Fund
• R01 Boot Camp
• Facility & Resource Profile Templates
• BMRC Bridging Support Program for Biomedical Research
• Medical School Limited Submissions
• Budgeting & Costs
• NIH Specifics, Tips & Tricks
• Grant Routing Deadlines
• Proposal Review Checklists
• Department Contacts
• Authorized Signers
• Research Data Analytics
• Grant Processing Advisory Committee (GPAC)
• Post-Award Advisory Committee (PAAC)
• Grants Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Board Nominations Sought
• Informed Consent & Assent Templates
• IRBMED Seminar Series
• Information for IRB Members
• Information for Study Subjects
• SignNow Electronic Signature Service
• IRBMED Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• IRBMED Contacts & Roster

Use these printable/interactive checklists in reviewing proposals prior to routing to the Medical School for approval.

We have created a printable/interactive checklist as a useful tool to assist departments/units in reviewing proposals prior to routing to the Medical School for approval. This is not intended to be a replacement of sponsor directions or specific sponsor requirements for sections of the application.

(updated April 2024)

(updated November 2022) This new checklist is created for all NIH applications due on or after January 25, 2023.

This generic checklist covers key elements of most proposal applications submitted through the Medical School.

Information for the routing components of a clinical trial. It should be used in combination with the General Checklist.

ORSP has provided a video for the Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information Form.

The following "quick" list can be used to verify the completeness of the documents required in a grant application. If all of these items have been addressed, there should not be any questions at the Medical School before approval.

• All sections of the PAF have been completed and are correct.
• A copy of the final proposal or administrative shell has been attached for review.
• Long title on the PAF matches the proposal documents.
• If this PAF is related to a previously awarded project, enter the Project/Grant number from the existing project under question 1.5 "If Renewal/Continuation or Supplemental Request, enter Parent Project/Grant Number."
• If the application is in response to a specific Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) the number is listed.
• Sponsor and school deadlines have been included.
• Class code  is appropriate for the activity being proposed.
• Abstract/Statement of Work field is complete on the PAF (required on Medical School proposals).
• All faculty/research track individuals with effort on the project are listed as ‘Project Personnel’ on the PAF.
• Listed in the proposal as “investigator” or as key personnel are listed on the PAF as ‘Project Personnel’ (faculty or non-faculty).
• All investigators listed on a PAF need to complete the “Sign PAF Activity” The UM PI and Sponsor PI need to sign prior to Admin Home Unit Approval. All other investigators should sign within 30 days of submission to sponsor. See ORSP’s website  for more information.  
• The Associate Chief of Staff for Research of Veterans Administration Hospital (VAH) has approved if VAH is currently supporting salaries applicable to effort on the project.  You must obtain sign off outside the eRPM system and attach the approval.
• PAF includes all years of support requested or contracted.
• PAF includes budget figures for the total project period and the amounts agree with the amounts in the application itself (required on Medical School proposals).
• PAF includes budget figures for the initial budget period and the amounts agree with the amounts in the application itself.
• All resource commitments (quantified) included anywhere in the application materials (including cover letters) which will not be supported by grant/contract funds, are itemized on the PAF.
• Mandatory Cost Sharing consists of those commitments that have been quantified, either in dollars or effort.  When entering the details of the cost sharing under “Line Item” include a specific name of item, or person and effort percent. For each item listed, the dollar amount, project/grant number or source (type) of funds, and DeptID should be included. Also ensure that the short code or source (type) of funds listed for cost sharing is appropriate.
• Voluntary Cost Sharing consists of all non-explicit commitments (not quantified) which will not be paid by grant/contract funds. These items should be noted on the PAF as ‘Other UM Commitments.’  It is appropriate to mirror the language in the text describing the commitment.  Identify the DeptID responsible for providing. 
• Third Party Commitments or ‘Non-UM Cost Sharing’ should also be added to the PAF when an outside entity agrees to provide resources for the proposed project.
• Indirect costs  have been calculated at the rate appropriate for the funding agency.
• Budget Notes: Special circumstances or procedures have been noted. If completing a modular application for NIH, all exclusions have been listed by item, by year.
• Human Subjects Committee (IRB) and Animal Use Committee (IACUC) approvals are current sponsor requires it at the time of proposal submission or PAF execution will lead to an immediate award.
• Clinical space has been approved by the Chief Department Administrator (CDA). This may be accomplished by the CDA signing the PAF, attaching a document indicating approval, or use of Ad Hoc Activity.
• Specific directions for ORSP handling have been included.
• All items have been completed and are correct.
• Any requested dollars listed match the requested amounts in the budget and carry forward to the PAF.
• The face page reflects the department of the primary appointment of the principal investigator under "Department" and Medical School under "Division" for PHS (NIH) applications.
• The "type of application" section has been filled in. If a renewal/resubmission, the grant number has been included (for NIH this is the 2 letter + 6 number federal identifier).
• The appropriate assurance numbers are listed when requested:  Humans: 00004969; Animals: A3114-01.
• When IRB or IACUC approval dates are listed they match the dates listed on the PAF.
• All math is correct.
• When figures are quoted in more than one place, they agree.
• If a salary cap is used, ensure it is applied consistently for all personnel on the project.
• For further help on treatment of salaries visit the Budgeting Personnel page .
• The entire amount to be subcontracted, including indirect costs at the subcontractor's rate, is included in U-M’s direct cost amount.
• A budget for the subcontracted amount is obtained from the subcontract site and must have their institutional approval to move forward.
• If a PHS sponsor , or another sponsor following PHS guidelines, ensure that a Letter of Commitment form  covering FCOI regulations has been obtained with signature from the subcontractor’s institutional official.  If not, the proposal will not be submitted.
• The role of all persons listed in the budget is described.
• There are no ‘0 calendar month’ or ‘0% effort’ references for personnel in the budget. ‘No Salary Requested’ is acceptable.
• All amounts stated in the justification, or further breakdowns of amounts on the budget, agree with the amounts on the budget itself.
• All increases/decreases in years subsequent to the first year are explained fully, so that a reviewer will be able to arrive at the same figures as are in the budget for each year.
• Any statements as to University "policy" are true according to the U-M Standard Practice Guide.
• When submitting a NIH modular application with subcontracts the subcontractor’s justification should state whether it is a domestic or foreign institution, as well as the total dollars requested per period rounded to the nearest $1,000.
• For NIH modular applications, use an ‘Additional Narrative Justification’ to justify uneven modules, equipment or other indirect cost exclusions. Ensure it is attached in its own field separate from the personnel justification.
• The dates listed for each budget period are correct and that they match the overall dates listed on the cover page.
• On federal projects, the equipment category includes only items which are equipment by definition ($5,000 per item and useful life >2 years).
• Per the UM Patient Care Agreement , patient care includes only Hospital charges for inpatient or outpatient care that has built in overhead charges. When submitting to the NIH, if you use the MBECT tool, the costs do not go in patient care.
• Consortium/subcontracts include only funds which we will subcontract to another institution. Indirect costs are included at that institution's federal negotiated rate. A separate budget is included for each subcontract.
• The indirect cost type, rate % and base has been filled in for all years when requested.
• For NIH, the Cognizant Federal Agency Official’s office, name and phone number are listed on the budget page for each individual project period.
• The approval date for the most recent indirect cost rate agreement  is included.
• The indirect cost figure has been calculated at the current negotiated rate .
• Federally Sponsored Projects:
• Only the first $25,000 of each subcontract is included when calculating indirect costs
• Equipment items have been excluded before calculating indirect costs
• Tuition has been excluded from indirect costs
• Appropriate patient care has been excluded from indirect costs
• Alterations and renovations have been excluded before calculating indirect costs
• Foundation/Non-Profit Sponsored Projects: Indirect costs have been included at the maximum rate allowed by the sponsor. The rate has been applied to the entire direct costs amount unless sponsor regulations specifically exempt particular charges.
• The Medical School has specific requirements on expected IDC recovery. See the Budgeting & Costs page for more information.
• If you are unsure what the most appropriate rate to use for a particular project is check with Grant Services & Analysis ( [email protected] ).

The eRPM system will automatically route and require the approval of every Department and Dean’s Office that has faculty effort listed in the proposal.

We transform lives through bold discovery, compassionate care and innovative education.

• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• News & Stories
• Find a Doctor
• Conditions & Treatments
• Patient & Visitor Guide
• Patient Portal
• Clinical Trials
• Research Labs
• Cores and Resources
• Programs & Admissions
• Our Community
• Departments, Centers & Offices
• About the Medical School

Global Footer Secondary Navigation

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Research Proposal: Checklist Example

If you are a PhD doctoral or Master’s student approaching graduation, then a large research project, dissertation, or thesis is in your future. These capstone research projects take months if not years of preparation, and the first step in this process is first writing a compelling, organized, and effective research proposal.

Check out the  key differences between dissertation and thesis .

Research Proposal Checklists Are Important

We’ve got some good and bad news for the PhD and Master’s graduate students out there. 

First, the bad news. Research proposals are not easy to write. They require lots of preparation and planning. They can also seem to be an administrative task, with your PhD advisors constantly reminding you to write something that you’re not yet sure about. And of course, it’s also yet another written document that could be rejected. 

Now, the good news. Research proposals help you organize and focus your research. They also eliminate irrelevant topics that your research cannot or should not cover. Further, they help signal your academic superiors (professors, advisors, scientific community) that your research is worth pursuing.

Research proposal checklists  go one step further. A research proposal checklist helps you identify  what  you will research,  why  it is important and relevant, and  how  you will perform the research. 

This last part is critical. Research proposals are often rejected for not being feasible or being unfocused. But an organized research or thesis proposal checklist can help you stay on topic. 

This article goes into the following topics about research proposal checklists:

What is a Research Proposal?

Research proposals are documents that propose a research project in the sciences or academic fields and request funding or sponsorship.

The primary objective is to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project as well as an organized plan to accomplish‌ ‌it. 

A main purpose of a research plan is to clearly state the central research topic or question that you intend to research while providing a solid background of your particular area of research.

Your research proposal must contain a quick  summary of the current literature , including gaps in your research area’s knowledge base as well as areas of controversy, which together demonstrate your proposal is relevant, timely, and worth pursuing.

But what functions does a research proposal perform?:

Research proposals explain your research topic

An  effective  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• What is my research about? 
• What specific academic area will I be researching?
• What is the current scientific and academic literature?
• What are the accepted theories in my area of research?
• What are gaps in the knowledge base?
• What are key questions researchers are currently trying to answer?

Research proposals explain why your research topic is important

A  compelling  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• Why is my research important?
• Why is my research interesting to both academics and laypeople?
• What are my  research questions ? 
• How does my research contribute to the literature?
• How will my dissertation or thesis answer gaps or unsolved questions?
• How or why would my research earn funding in the future?
• How does my research relate to wider society or public health?

Research proposals explain how you will perform your research

A  feasible  research proposal should answer the following questions:

• How will my research be performed?
• What are my exact methods?
• What materials will I need to purchase? 
• What materials will I need to borrow from other researchers in my field?
• What relationships do I need to make or maintain with other academics?
• What is my research proposal timeline?
• What are the standard research procedures? 
• Are there any  study limitations  to discuss?
• Will I need to modify any research methods? What, if any, problems will this introduce?

Research Proposal Example Checklist

Use this research proposal example checklist as an aid to draft your own research proposal. This can help you decide what information to include and keep your ideas logically structured. 

Remember, if your research proposal cannot effectively answer every single question below, then you may want to consult your advisor. It doesn’t mean your chosen research topic is bad; it just means certain areas may need some additional focus.

Click here for the full Research Proposal Example Checklist in .pdf form

Research Proposal Title

The title of your research proposal must attract the reader’s eye, be descriptive of the research question, and be understandable for both casual and academic readers.

The title of your research proposal should do the following:

• Effectively summarize the main research idea
• Be clear to the general public
• Be compelling to academic researchers and other graduate students
• Fully explain the independent and dependent variables
• Avoid abbreviations and excessive  use of articles

Research Proposal Introduction and Research Background

The introduction typically begins with a general overview of your research field, focusing on a specific research problem or question. This is followed by an explanation of why the study should be conducted.

The introduction of your research proposal should answer the following questions:

• What is the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study?
• What is the rationale behind my study? 
• Why is answering this research question important?
• What are the major issues your research will address?
• What are the major challenges in answering the research question?
• Did you highlight or clarify the research discrepancies?

Significance of Research Proposal 

Your proposal’s introduction section should also clearly communicate why your research is significant, relevant, timely, and valid.

To effectively confirm the significance of your proposal, make sure your study accomplishes the following:

• The research results fill a defined gap in the knowledge.
• The proposed study will advance understanding of the subject.
• The research results will lead to the improvement of commonly used experimental models and methods in the future.
• The research results will yield novel findings that have academic and/or practical value.

Research Proposal Literature Review

In the literature review section, you should provide a review of the current state of the literature as well as provide a summary of the results generated by your research. Determine relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research to support your research claim. 

State an overview and significance of your primary resources and provide a critical analysis highlighting what those sources lack and future directions for research.

• List your primary sources.
• List your secondary sources.
• Discuss influential research papers, paradigms, and modalities. 
• What is lacking in well-accepted research paradigms in your research field?
• What are the main theories, methods, and controversies in your research field?
• How does your research question or problem tie into the current literature? Does it extend a current idea or run counter to it?

Research Proposal Theoretical Methodology and Design

Following the literature review, it is a good idea to restate your main objectives, bringing the focus back to your own project. The research design or methodology section should describe the overall approach and practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To help you write a clear and structured methodology, use your plan and answer the following issues. This will give you an outline to follow and keep you on track when writing this section of your research proposal. 

• Explain whether your research method will be a study or an experiment.
• Is your research for a PhD dissertation or Master’s program?
• Explain the theoretical resources motivating your choice of methods.
• Explain how particular methods enable you to answer your research question.
• Credit any colleagues or researchers you will collaborate with.
• Explain the advantages and disadvantages of your chosen methodology.
• What is the timeline of your research experiment or study?
• Compare/contrast your research design with that of the literature and other research on your topic. 
• Are there any different or alternative methods or materials that will be used?

Additionally, explain how your results will be processed:

• How will your research results be processed and interpreted?
• What data types will your results be in?
• Explain the statistical models and processes you must perform (e.g. Student’s t-test).
• Will your study be more statistically rigorous than other studies?

Read about  how to explain research methods clearly for reproducibility .

Research Proposal Discussion and Conclusion

Your  discussion and conclusion section  has an important purpose: to persuade the reader of your proposed research study’s potential impact. This section should also directly address potential weaknesses and criticisms put forth by other researchers and academics.

• Explain the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research.
• Explain how any potential weaknesses would be justified by extenuating circumstances such as time and financial constraints.
• What, if any, alternative research questions or problems naturally can be answered in the future?
• How does the research strengthen, support, or challenge a current theoretical framework or model?

References and Bibliography

Although it comes at the end, your reference section is vital and will be carefully scrutinized. It should include all sources of information you used to support your research, and it should be in the correct citation format. 

• Provide a complete list of references for all cited statements.
• Make sure citations are in the correct format (e.g. APA, Chicago, MLA, etc.)
• References are present in the introduction, literature review, and methodology sections.

Use the Wordvice APA Citation Generator  to instantly generate citations in APA Style, or choose one of the formats below to generate citations for the citation style of your academic work:

Using Research Proposal Examples

Although every research proposal is unique, it is a good idea to take a look at examples of research proposals before writing your initial proposal draft. This will help you understand the academic level you should aim for. Be sure to include a reference list at the end of your proposal as described above. 

In addition to reading research proposal examples, you should also outline your research proposal to make sure no crucial information or research proposal sections are missing from your final manuscript. Although the sections included in a research proposal may vary depending on whether it is a grant, doctoral dissertation, conference paper, or professional project, there are many sections in common. Knowing the differences before you draft will ensure that your proposal is cohesive and thorough.

Research Proposal Proofreading and Editing

It’s vital to take the time to redraft, edit, and proofread a research proposal before submitting it to your PhD advisor or committee. Researchers and graduate students usually turn to a professional English editing service  like Wordvice to improve their research writing.

Our academic services, including thesis editing , dissertation editing , and research paper editing , will fully prepare any academic document for publication in academic journals.

• Proposal Preparation Checklist
• DARPA  Proposal Checklist
• DOE  Preparation Checklist
• NIH  Checklists and Preparation Guides
• NOAA  Checklist
• NSF  Proposal Preparation Checklists

Initializing the Proposal

• Have a discussion with the PI (Principal Investigator) to get as much information as possible at this stage; deadline, start/end date, solicitation number, basic budgeting information, and any other proposal specifics.
• Notify RAS contract administrator of the new proposal, and provide as much information as possible.
• Read the sponsor guidelines, RFA (Request For Application), RFP (Request For Proposal) carefully—they outline the proposal for you and will help you tailor this checklist to a specific submission. Be sure you are using current guidelines and forms.
• Does the sponsor require an electronic submission? If there are optional submission types, let RAS administrator know how you will be submitting the proposal.
•  Identify any proposal specific forms, formatting regulations, page limits, etc. Check that the PI and all other contributors are aware of the proposal specifications.
• Check PI status if necessary
• If the sponsor is a foundation, notify RAS administrator who will then follow-up with Foundation Relations.
• Establish with PI that there is a 5 business day lead time to RAS.

Determining Proposal Components

• Research Plan/ Statement of Work – Check guidelines to make sure all specifications have been completed. Also scan the document to see if there is any mention of humans, animals, and other special review items. Make sure if there is mention, these components have been indicated in the Kuali Coeus proposal under the Special Review tab.
• Will there be any subawards? If so, you will need scope of work, budget,and approvals from the subaward organization. Depending on the Sponsor’s requirements, you may also need a copy of the collaborating institution's F&A rate agreement, CV and/or bio sketch for key personnel; facilities/equipment/other resources, letter of commitment. Be sure to list sponsor and prime sponsor in the proposal. Also list the subaward entity under the organization tab as a performance site.
• Consultant(s) – Usually a letter from the consultant indicating the consultant’s role on the proposal, the consultant’s experience with the type of research and an established consultant rate is required. Check proposal guidelines to make sure any other specifications are met.
• Special Review Components – Make sure that any special review components are indicated under the Special Review tab, and that you have provided as much information as possible concerning the items. Many sponsors will require additional forms if there are special review items such as humans or animals. Below is a list of MIT’s special review categories that you should indicate on your proposal

Human Subjects Animal Usage Recombinant DNA Foundation Relations International Activity Biohazard Materials Radioactive Isotopes Space Change TLO Review

• Other MIT sign-offs - If the proposal includes faculty, staff, or students from another DLCI, make sure to route the proposal through that department.
• If required in the proposal, modify the CVs or Biosketches so that they match the sponsor guidelines. Make sure to include this document for all personnel specified in the sponsor guidelines.
• Include the references or letters of support (if needed)—have them emailed to you for the submission if they are arriving late, and keep originals on hand once you receive them.
• Standard statement of facilities and equipment if needed; may also be required of subawardees.
• Include Current & Pending Support , if it is required by the sponsor requirement. Make sure that the current and pending support listed matches what is in Kuali Coeus. If there are any differences, contact your RAS Contract Administrator so the most accurate information is in Kuali Coeus.
• Make sure all certifications have been completed . If the proposal required institute representatives/certifications, these will be provided by your RAS Contract Administrator.

NOTE: The proposal will not route unless certification requirements have been met. If it's an NIH proposal, and the Key Personnel have answered Yes to any of the three questions pertaining to Significant Financial Interest, then a full Conflict of Interest Disclosure will need to be completed.

• For those sponsors that require Paper Submission make however many copies are needed for final submission.
• Will there be an appendix that includes other publications (be sure you have enough copies for the submission—pay attention to agency restrictions on number allowed); are boxes necessary for shipping?

Creating the Proposal Budget

• Check sponsor guidelines - Use sponsor budget template if required.
• What is the project period? Confirm with sponsor guidelines for earliest starting date for new awards. Use an escalation factor for future years. Generally 3% is used for all expenses except tuition, which is inflated at 5% annually.
• Verify salary/stipend amounts of proposal personnel, and students that will be included on the proposal.
• Use the most current Fringe Benefit Rate ( Employee Benefits  & Vacation Accrual )
• Include cost share or matching only when required by the program guidelines. Generally MIT prefers to list subsidized tuition (66% of the subsidized tuition) or an appropriate level of academic year salary for the professor to meet mandatory cost sharing requirements.
• Subcontract budget material - Detailed budget with budget justification from the Subcontractor. When calculating subcontractor costs into the MIT budget remember that the first $25,000 has MIT F&A applied to it. If this is a NIH proposal you may also need to separate out the subcontract direct costs from indirect costs.

  Travel costs

• Equipment - Items with a cost of $5,000 or greater (effective July 1, 2013)  are not subject to F&A. Fabricated Equipment with a cost of $5,000 or greater (effective July 1, 2013) is also not subject to F&A. Note: Fabricated Equipment costs must be approved by the MIT Property Office .
• If requested -  Materials and Supplies, Publications, Consultant, and any other proposal specific items. Make sure that if it has been separated out in the sponsor’s budget forms that it’s separated out in the MIT budget.
• Facilities and administration (F&A) calculation (also known as indirect costs or overhead) Always use MIT’s negotiated rate. If the PI would like to apply for a grant or contract that has a rate lower than MIT’s established rate, the difference (under-recovery) should be discussed with the department head or director of administration and finance. The DLCI must identify the source of funds to cover any proposed under-recovery.
• Budget Justification – Explain the roles (and effort commitment, if required) of personnel on the budget, mention the institute Employee Benefit and Vacation Accrual rate as well and yearly inflation amount. List out budget categories and provide detailed information for what has been applied to each category.
• Uniform Guidance Fixed Rate Requirements
• F&A Methodology
• F&A Components
• MIT Use of a de minimis Rate
• Fund Account Overhead Rates
• Allocation Rates
• Determination of On-Campus and Off-Campus Rates
• Employee Benefits (EB) Rates
• Vacation Accrual Rates
• Graduate Research Assistant Tuition Subsidy
• Historical RA Salary Levels
• MIT Facts and Profile Information
• Classification of Sponsored Projects
• Types of Sponsored Awards
• How Are Sponsored Projects Generated?
• Cost Principles and Unallowable Costs
• Direct and Indirect Costs
• Pre-Proposals / Letters of Intent
• MIT Investigator Status
• Components of a Proposal
• Special Reviews
• Applying Through Workspace
• Proposals and Confidential Information
• Personnel Costs
• Subcontracts and Consultants
• Annotated Budget Justification - Federal Research
• Annotated Budget Justification - Non-Federal Research
• Annotated Budget Justification - Federal Non-Research
• Annotated Budget Justification - Non-Federal Non-Research
• Kuali Coeus Approval Mapping
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Submission of Revised Budgets
• Standard Contract Terms and Conditions
• Contractual Obligations and Problematic Terms and Conditions
• Review and Negotiation of Federal Contract and Grant Terms and Conditions
• Industrial Collaboration
• International Activities
• MIT Export Control - Export Policies
• Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreements
• Negative Confirmation On Award Notices
• Routing and Acceptance of the Award Notice
• COI and Special Review Hold Notice Definitions
• Limiting Long-Term WBS Account Structures
• SAP Project WBS Element Conditions
• Kuali Coeus Electronic Document Storage (EDS)
• Billing Agreements
• PI Absence from Project
• Cost Transfers
• Equipment Threshold
• Uniform Guidance and the FAR
• MIT Standard Terms and Policies
• Guidelines for Charging Faculty Summer Salary
• Key Personnel
• Limitations on Funds - Federal Contracts
• Managing Salary Costs
• Monitoring Project Budgets
• Monthly Reconciliation and Review
• No-Cost Extensions
• Reporting Requirements
• Return of Unexpended Funds to Foundations
• Determining the Sponsor Approved Budget (SAB)
• Working With the Sponsor Approved Budget (SAB)
• Sponsor Approved Budget (SAB) and Child Account Budgets
• Sponsor Approved Budget (SAB) and Prior Approvals
• Submitting an SAB Change Request
• When a PI Leaves MIT
• Research Performance Progress Reports
• Closing Out Fixed Price Awards
• Closeout of Subawards
• Record Retention
• Early Termination
• Reporting FAQs
• Using SciENcv
• AFOSR No-Cost Extension Process
• Terms and Conditions
• New ONR Account Set Ups
• Department of Defense Disclosure Guidance
• Department of Energy / Office of Science Disclosure Guidance
• Introduction to Industrial Sponsors
• General Considerations for Industrial Proposals
• SRC Guidance to Faculty Considering Applying for SRC Funding
• Find Specific RFP Information
• Industrial Proposal Checklist
• Proposal Formats
• Special Requirements
• Deadline Cycles
• Model Proposals
• Non-Competitive Industrial Proposals
• Master and Alliance Agreements With Non-Standard Proposal Processes
• Template Agreements
• New Consortium Agreements
• Competitive Industrial Proposals
• Collaborative (No-cost) Research Agreements
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration Disclosure Guidance
• NASA Graduate Research Fellowship Programs
• NASA PI Status and Definitions
• NIH Checklists and Preparation Guides
• National Institutes of Health Disclosure Guidance
• Human Subjects and NIH Proposals
• NIH Data Management and Sharing
• NIH Research Performance Progress Reports
• Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) proposals
• MIT Guidance Regarding the NSF CAREER Program
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Supplements
• National Science Foundation Disclosure Guidance
• NSF Proposals: Administrative Review Stage
• NSF Collaborations
• NSF Pre-Award and Post-Award Actions
• NSF Reporting
• NSF Frequently Asked Questions
• NSF Safe and Inclusive Working Environment
• Process, Roles and Responsibilities
• What Is Allowable/Eligible Cost Sharing?
• MIT’s Preferred Cost Sharing Funds
• Third-Party Cost Sharing
• Showing Cost Sharing in a Proposal Budget
• Sponsor Specific Instructions Regarding Location in the Proposal
• Funding F&A Costs as Cost Sharing
• Using Faculty Effort for Cost Sharing
• Information about Completing the Cost Sharing Template
• NSF Cost Sharing Policy
• Tracking/Reporting Cost Sharing
• Special Cost Sharing Topics
• International Activities Examples
• Rubicon Fellowships
• Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowships
• Criteria for Subrecipients
• Subawards at Proposal
• Requesting New Subawards
• Managing Subawards
• RAS Subaward Team Contacts
• Funding and Approval
• Proposal Phase
• Award Set-up
• Monitoring Research During Project Period
• Closeout Phase
• Voluntary Cost Sharing
• Sponsor-Specific Guidance
• Audits and Auditors
• Upcoming Trainings and Events
• Research Administration Practices (RAP)
• NCURA Virtual Workshops and Webinars
• Guide to RA Resources and Training
• Career Paths
• Newsletters
• Tools and Systems
• Award Closeout & Audits
• Award Setup
• Cost Sharing
• Export Control
• Financial Conflict of Interest
• Kuali Coeus
• Project Monitoring
• Proposal Preparation & Submission
• Research Sub Awards
• Research Administration Email Lists
• RAS Operations
• VPR Research Administration Organization Chart
• By department
• By administrator
• Research Administrator Day
• News & Announcements
• Onsite searching on the VPR public websites

• Find My GCO
• IACUC applications (Cayuse Animal Management System)
• IBC Applications (eMUA)
• IRB Applications (RASS-IRB) External
• Institutional Profile & DUNS
• Rates and budgets
• Report external interests (COI)
• Join List Servs
• Ask EHS External
• Research Development Services
• Cornell Data Services External
• Find Your Next Funding Opportunity
• Travel Registry External
• RASS (Formerly Form 10 and NFA) External
• International research activities External

Register for Federal and Non-Federal Systems

• Disclose Foreign Collaborations and Support
• Web Financials (WebFin2) External
• PI Dashboard External
• Research metrics & executive dashboards
• Research Financials (formerly RA Dashboard) External
• Subawards in a Proposal

Proposal Development, Review, and Submission

• Planning for Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Budgets, Costs, and Rates
• Collaborate with Weill Cornell Medicine
• Award Negotiation and Finalization
• Travel and International Activities
• Project Finances
• Project Modifications
• Research Project Staffing
• Get Confidential Info, Data, Equipment, or Materials
• Managing Subawards
• Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Project Closeout Financials
• Project Closeout
• End a Project Early
• Protecting an Invention, Creation, Discovery
• Entrepreneurial and Startup Company Resources
• Gateway to Partnership Program
• Engaging with Industry
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
• Export Controls
• Research with Human Participants
• Research Security
• Work with Live Vertebrate Animals
• Research Safety
• Regulated Biological Materials in Research
• Financial Management
• Conflicts of Interest
•   Search

Proposal Review Guidelines

The proposal review guidelines define the level of review performed by OSP based on the date the proposal was submitted to OSP vs. when the proposal is due to be submitted to the sponsor.

Your science/technical content does not have to be complete when you submit to OSP. You can keep working while OSP reviews the rest of the proposal.  * A full business day is an official Cornell workday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

**Adherence to Sponsor Guidelines includes; among other things, length, margins, line spacing, font size, file name and type, required information provided (e.g., Broader Impacts Statement); eligibility criteria; etc.

Risk Assessment

Pre-award research operations (pro), additional things to consider when preparing a proposal, find my gco (grant & contract officer), sample proposal library, limited submissions, pi eligibility, institutional profile, duns, and uei numbers, rass (form 10 is phased out), nfa (non-financial agreements).

• About Research & Innovation
• Advanced Cardiovascular Care
• Health Equity
• Inflammation
• Maternal and Fetal Medicine
• Musculoskeletal Care
• Neuroscience
• Opioid & Pain
• Research Centers
• Departments
• About the Office of Research
• Funding & Proposal Development
• Regulatory Review & Compliance
• Research Project Management
• Cores & Resources
• Education & Training
• Peter Arvan Lab
• Antiphospholipid Syndrome Research Labs
• J. Michelle Kahlenberg Lab
• John Varga Lab (ScleroLab)
• Mulholland Lab
• Raghavendran Lab
• ALS Center of Excellence
• Institute for Heart & Brain Health
• Center for Basic & Translational Science
• Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine
• Biomedical Research Core Facilities
• IT Route Map
• Clinical Research Route Map
• Commercialization Route Map
• Great Minds, Greater Discoveries
• Research Scouts
• Meet the ROMS Team
• ROMS Fellowship Application Information
• Working with a ROMS Fellow
• Pandemic Research Recovery
• Research Climate Council
• Support for Outstanding Research
• Research News Trivia
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The Office of Research at the University of Michigan Medical School is constantly striving to enhance the research enterprise, including maintaining an investigator-focused infrastructure, facilitating and diversifying investigators' avenues for funding, and streamlining research processes.

Whether you've got a question about the next "station" or have hit a break in the tracks, the Medical School Office of Research is committed to providing personal service that helps you navigate your own project route on a path to successful research.

What are bold ideas? From diverse disciplines across the Medical School, Research Scouts were given $150,000 and empowered and motivated to support their fellow researchers’ bold ideas.

The University of Michigan Medical School’s strategic research plan, “Great Minds, Greater Discoveries,” is focused largely on our people, who remain our greatest resource.

Find funding opportunities on Competition Space, an innovative online platform that streamlines the process of finding, and applying for, funding opportunities through the U-M Medical School.

Below are a list of quick links to our most-visited services. We look forward to working with you!

• Animal Care & Use Policies
• IRBMED Policies
• Michigan Experts

At Michigan Medicine, we unequivocally recognize racism as a public health issue and we stand together against bias and inequality.

We transform lives through bold discovery, compassionate care and innovative education.

• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• News & Stories
• Find a Doctor
• Conditions & Treatments
• Patient & Visitor Guide
• Patient Portal
• Clinical Trials
• Research Labs
• Cores and Resources
• Programs & Admissions
• Our Community
• Departments, Centers & Offices
• About the Medical School

Global Footer Secondary Navigation

Checklist for an effective review - AHRC

This checklist was collated from college members’ responses to what constitutes an effective review. Reviewers may find the checklist a helpful guide for providing a high quality review.

Preparation for review

Before starting your review:

• ensure you read the entire proposal thoroughly
• familiarise yourself with the strategic aims of AHRC and the aims of the scheme for the proposal you are assessing
• be aware of the full range of grades and their descriptors at your disposal and contact staff at AHRC if anything is unclear.
• be realistic about your own confidence and expertise. Provide clear evidence of your own expertise in the subject area and state if you’re unsure about something
• always provide evidence to support your observations. Use only the information provided in the application form
• take into account the information you are being asked to provide under each review form heading. Ensure sufficient detail is provided for each one
• give a clear assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and indicate whether these are major or minor concerns
• provide an evaluation of the risks associated with the project
• contextualise the proposal that you are reviewing within current work in the field, and comment on its relative importance and significance
• identify any inconsistencies and contradictions in the proposal
• identify issues needing clarification by the applicant in their response
• in the case of interdisciplinary applications: do the different disciplines meet up in a coherent way?
• provide enough information to enable a judgement on the relative quality of this proposal compared to other applications
• be receptive to new ideas and approaches to thinking within your discipline as well as methodology.
• provide an impartial, objective, fair and analytical assessment of the proposal you are reviewing
• avoid overly negative comments and do not include any personal comments
• make constructive criticism wherever possible, identifying how any issues could be realistically addressed by the principal investigator
• ensure you are providing an evaluation, not a description of the work proposed
• ensure that the language you use is clear and jargon-free. Could your review be understood by a non-expert?
• is your grade justified by, and consistent with, your comments?
• could a non-expert make a final grading decision based upon your review?

The proposal you are asked to review includes a case for support. In some instances, the case for support may include a link to a website containing information on the research proposed. Reviewers are not required to consider this additional information when providing comments on a proposal. If you do choose to look at this information, note that it is possible that your anonymity to the applicant may be compromised.

Last updated: 28 February 2022

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

• Request new password
• Create a new account

The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project

Student resources, checklist for writing a research proposal.

☑ Access and refer to successful proposals

☑ Find a clear voice for your writing

☑ Write tight and concisely

☑ Yet, write sufficiently

☑ Write for the non-expert

☑ Proofread

☑ Keep quotes to a minimum

☑ Meet all deadlines

☑ Be prepared to draft and redraft

• Resources & Guidance

Checklists & Worksheets

• Study teams   may  use  checklists to anticipate criteria for approval but they are not required.
• Study teams are also encouraged to use  post-approval monitoring checklists to regularly monitor their research compliance .   Study teams may be required to complete post-approval monitoring checklists upon request, but they are not submitted in eIRB+.  
• Study teams are encouraged to review worksheets as they write their protocols to address the criteria for approval but they are not required.   

General Checklists

Post-approval monitoring checklists.

HRP-410 - CHECKLIST Waiver or Alteration of Consent Process

HRP-411 - CHECKLIST Waiver of Written Documentation of Consent

HRP-412 - CHECKLIST Pregnant Women

HRP-413 - CHECKLIST Non-Viable Neonates

HRP-414 - CHECKLIST Neonates of Uncertain Viability

HRP-415 - CHECKLIST Prisoners

HRP-416 - CHECKLIST Children

HRP-417 - CHECKLIST Adults with Impaired Decision-making Capacity

HRP-418 - CHECKLIST Non-Significant Risk Device

HRP-419 - CHECKLIST Waiver Consent Process - Emergency Research

HRP-441 - CHECKLIST HIPAA - Waiver Authorization

HRP-1403 - CHECKLIST IRB Member Appointment

HRP-1404 - CHECKLIST IRB Member Re-Appointment

HRP-1408 - CHECKLIST Principal Investigator (PI) Transfer of Responsibilities

HRP-443 - CHECKLIST Observation of the Consent Process

HRP-427 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Drug or Device Clinical Trial

HRP-428 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Participant File

HRP-430 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Human Research

HRP-433 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Studies Without an Expiration Date

HRP-1401 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Recruitment Activities

HRP-1405 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Registry, Data Review, and/or Specimen Collection

HRP-1406 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Studies Under External IRB Review

HRP-1407 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Site File

HRP-1409 - CHECKLIST Post Approval Monitoring: Humanitarian Use Device

HRP-301 WORKSHEET Review Materials

HRP-302 WORKSHEET Approval Intervals

HRP-303 WORKSHEET Communication of Review Results

HRP-304 WORKSHEET IRB Composition

HRP-305 WORKSHEET Quorum and Expertise

HRP-306 WORKSHEET Drugs and Biologics

HRP-307 WORKSHEET Devices

HRP-308 WORKSHEET Pre-Review

HRP-310 WORKSHEET Human Research Determination

HRP-311 WORKSHEET Engagement Determination

HRP-312 WORKSHEET Exemption Determination

HRP-313 WORKSHEET Expedited Review

HRP-314 WORKSHEET Criteria for Approval

HRP-315 WORKSHEET Advertisements (Recruitment Materials)

HRP-316 WORKSHEET Payments

HRP-317 WORKSHEET Short Form Consent Documentation

HRP-318 WORKSHEET Additional Federal Agency Criteria

HRP-320 WORKSHEET Scientific or Scholarly Review

HRP-321 WORKSHEET Reportable New Information Items

HRP-322 WORKSHEET Emergency Use

HRP-323 WORKSHEET Criteria for Approval for HUD

HRP-325 WORKSHEET Compassionate Use of an Unapproved Medical Device

HRP-330 WORKSHEET HIPAA Authorization

HRP-331 WORKSHEET FERPA Compliance

HRP-332 WORKSHEET NIH GDS Certification

HRP-333 WORKSHEET Certificate of Confidentiality

HRP-334 WORKSHEET Media Relations

HRP-335 WORKSHEET GDPR Data Protection

HRP-336 WORKSHEET Mobile Apps and Mobile Medical Apps

HRP-830 WORKSHEET Communication and Responsibilities

HRP-1301 WORKSHEET Industry Sponsored Agreement Guidelines

HRP-1302 WORKSHEET Permission to Serve as PI

HRP-1303 WORKSHEET Genetic Biobanking Studies

HRP-1801 WORKSHEET Authorization Agreement Review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Res Policy Syst

Developing a checklist for research proposals to help describe health service interventions in UK research programmes: a mixed methods study

Hannah dorling.

1 National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK

Donna White

Sheila turner, kevin campbell, tara lamont.

One of the most common reasons for rejecting research proposals in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme is the failure to adequately specify the intervention or context in research proposals. Examples of failed research proposals include projects to assess integrated care models, use of generic caseworkers, or new specialist nurse services. These are all important service developments which need evaluation, but the lack of clarity about the intervention and context prevented these research proposals from obtaining funding. The purpose of the research presented herein was to develop a checklist, with key service intervention and contextual features, for use by applicants to the NIHR HS&DR Programme to potentially enhance the quality of research proposals.

The study used mixed methods to identify the need for and develop and test a checklist. Firstly, this included assessing existing checklists in peer-reviewed literature relevant to organisational health research. Building on existing work, a new checklist was piloted. Two reviewers used a small sample (n = 16) of research proposals to independently assess the relevance of the checklist to the proposal and the degree of overlap or gaps between the constructs. The next two stages externally validated the revised checklist by collecting qualitative feedback from researchers and experts in the field.

The initial checklist was developed from existing checklists which included domains of intervention and context. The constructs and background to each were developed through review of existing literature. Eight researchers provided feedback on the checklist, which was generally positive. This iterative process resulted in changes to the checklist, collapsing two constructs and providing more prompts for others; the final checklist includes six constructs.

Conclusions

Features relating to intervention and context should be well described to increase the quality of research proposals and enhance the chances of the research receiving funding. Existing checklists do not have enough focus on areas relevant to research proposals in complex health service interventions, such as workforce. A formative checklist has been developed, and tested by end users. Tentative findings suggest usefulness and acceptability of such a tool but further work is needed for full validation.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme funds research in the UK for managers and service leaders on the quality, access, and organisation of health services, including evaluations of how the National Health Service (NHS) might improve delivery of services. Additionally, the programme aims to support research that is likely to lead to changes in practice that will have a significant impact, is likely to generate new knowledge of direct relevance to the NHS, and has the potential for findings to be applied to other conditions or situations outside the immediate area of research [ 1 ]. When considering research proposals in a competitive funding process, weight is given to the team’s track record and the appropriateness of the research design. However, one of the most common reasons for which the funding board rejects research proposals is failure to adequately specify the intervention or contextual features in research proposals. Many complex interventions are staff-based, but little information is given on the composition of the team in terms of skill-mix and grade-mix. Other factors which may be harder to measure include aspects of organisational culture, including levels of staff engagement or the degree to which the organisation is data-driven or embraces change. Examples of failed research proposals include projects to assess new integrated care models, use of generic caseworkers, specialist nurse service, and streamlined services. These are all important complex service developments that need evaluation, but have lacked clarity about the intervention and context, which meant that opportunities to obtain funding for valuable research were missed.

Complex interventions are often described as “interventions that contain several interacting components, but they have other characteristics that evaluators should take into account” [ 2 ]. The Medical Research Council’s complex interventions guide notes that the ‘active ingredient’ in healthcare interventions can be challenging to describe [ 3 ]. This can include components of an intervention such as behaviours and methods of organising and delivering those behaviours, for example different types of practitioners, settings, and locations. This is unlike ‘simple’ interventions, such as a drug where researchers face fewer problems in providing details where, for instance, the intervention can be defined in terms of dose and frequency [ 4 ], whereas one of the key details when evaluating complex interventions is to consider whether they are generalizable to everyday practice. Therefore, it is essential to understand the whole range of potential effects and how they may alter, for example, among recipients, staff, or between sites [ 2 ]. Such initiatives may be poorly described, such as exact staff and grade mix which limits the fidelity and reproducibility of the intervention. Many workforce type interventions build upon existing services and it may be difficult to isolate the particular features of the intervention which are new and distinct from ‘care as usual’, as required for experimental or quasi-experimental design. Other factors which may be harder to communicate include aspects of organisational culture, including levels of staff engagement or the degree to which the organisation is data-driven or embraces change.

Often in health services research there is a blurring between intervention and context [ 5 ], particularly in workforce interventions, which can increase the difficulty of designing robust evaluations. A lack of clarity could in part be due to the complex nature of contexts; therefore, the role of context in intervention development needs to be well understood to reduce ambiguity [ 6 ]. This blurring between intervention and context may make it more challenging when writing research proposals, due to the multifaceted nature of such interventions. For instance, important elements of the research proposal may be overlooked or undervalued, but need to be embedded within the research. A checklist may be useful to help researchers identify these elements and help explicitly explain how they will be considered in a research proposal.

A checklist can be a useful prompt for completeness of key information or processes in any given activity [ 7 ]. For example, Taylor proposes a checklist with classified features of context which may be particularly relevant when evaluating patient safety interventions [ 6 ]. Other tools typically focus on checklists that aim to improve the reporting of research, such as the CONSORT statement for clinical trials [ 8 ] and SQUIRE guidelines on implementing service improvements [ 9 ]. Similarly, other publications have presented evidence, systematically reviewing studies that evaluate interventions [ 10 ]. For instance, checklists have been used to ascertain whether elements of the intervention were fully described. Glasziou et al. reviewed 80 studies and concluded that over half were missing details [ 11 ]. Schroter et al. developed a checklist and used it to evaluate 51 trials published in the British Medical Journal [ 12 ]. More recently, Douet et al. used this checklist to assess whether NIHR Health Technology Assessment randomised controlled trials published in the Health Technology Assessment journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice [ 13 ]. Much of this work is focused on research around therapeutic or diagnostic interventions or procedures, which tend to be more defined and well-bound than complex people-based service interventions. Nevertheless, all the checklists have a common theoretical underpinning; they are a mnemonic device, with a list of components or constructs in order to perform a certain task. This function makes them useful in evaluation, since a systematic approach can be used to determine value complex factors. However, none of these checklists focus on improving the quality of research proposals, but their content and benefits are well recognised and valuable to researchers.

Taking these points into consideration, it was felt that the development of a checklist may be a useful tool that could enable less experienced applicants to more successfully address the complex set of requirements involved in writing research proposals to the NIHR HS&DR Programme. In turn, it is hoped that such a tool may enhance the quality of research proposals, so the programme can fund important complex service developments which need evaluation. This is not expected to solely answer the problem, but begin to improve the situation. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to develop a checklist, with key service intervention and contextual features [ 14 ].

A mixed methods approach was used in four stages to meet the aims of the research.

Firstly, an initial checklist was designed by HD and TL, based on a review of existing checklists, reporting standards, and relevant literature. A snowball sampling technique was used to identify literature, which was prompted by reading a patient safety checklist paper [ 6 ]. This technique allowed us to produce a collection of relevant articles built around the initial article and facilitated insights into a broad background of research. Literature that was considered was firstly informed by what is needed in research proposals and is relevant to applicants to the programme and, secondly, by an understanding of complex interventions that are delivered by the NHS and their context.

The second stage was to pilot the checklist, by conducting a retrospective review of a sample of previous applications. To provide focus, this sample was kept to research proposals received in response to two NIHR HS&DR invitations to apply for research funding. Since the checklist concentrates on research employing an intervention, secondary, theoretical, and methodological studies were excluded. From the two invitations for funding, 16 full research proposals were included, which covered a balance of service and workforce interventions across a range of health settings and care groups. These research proposals described studies with a wide range of settings and interventions such as training packages, community healthcare services, discharge packages, and hospital design.

Initially, two reviewers (HD and DW) examined 4 out of the 16 research proposals independently, assessing the relevance of the checklist to the proposal, and the degree of overlap between the constructs. The results of this initial investigation were then discussed in person to assess the level of agreement between reviewers. The remaining research proposals were then reviewed and discussed. The two reviewers examined the relevance of the initial checklist to the research proposals and made judgements on whether the checklist constructs were useful, whether the appropriate terminology was used, and whether any elements were missing. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion supervised by TL.

Stage three

The next stage was to validate the content of the checklist and determine whether it was a suitable tool for researchers to use. This was done in several steps. The first step was to gain feedback from researchers who were preparing to submit detailed full proposals to the NIHR HS&DR Programme in response to the invitation to apply for funding for studies on ‘the organisation and delivery of 24/7 healthcare’. Out of the five researchers contacted, three were able to give feedback.

To further validate the checklist, the next stage was to contact researchers who currently had a NIHR HS&DR funded project. A meeting welcoming those working on newly funded projects to the NIHR was used as an opportunity to make contact with researchers. Researchers from each project were asked to complete the checklist for their study (unless they felt their study did not have an ‘intervention’, as the checklist would not be applicable to them). Five researchers were able to give feedback, which was collected by HD via telephone and email, using semi-structured questions. We asked about their experience of using the checklist, its usability, and the suitability of the content of each checklist item. Lastly, the checklist content was assessed by consultant advisors, who provide professional advice to the NIHR HS&DR Programme and regularly view research proposals submitted to the Programme.

Eight key constructs were identified from the literature review – organisation, location, patient group, workforce, staffing, activity, culture/leadership, and costing (Figure  1 ). An initial checklist was designed, containing a very brief description of each of these constructs and specific prompts for each. Many of the checklist constructs originated from other checklists, such as those developed in the research by Taylor [ 4 ] and Schroter [ 10 ], reporting tools [ 6 , 7 ], and other literature on complex interventions [ 15 , 16 ] and context [ 17 , 18 ], including important features such as leadership [ 19 , 20 ] and culture [ 21 ].

The development of the checklist constructs.

The checklist constructs were adapted for use by researchers by giving further explanation to clarify the background to each one by considering their relevance to NIHR HS&DR research proposals. Once this had been completed a number of changes were made, which are discussed further on.

Stages three and four

On the whole, the researchers responded positively to the checklist; a sample of the feedback from researchers is presented in Table  1 . The researchers appreciated having a tool to aid them in writing their research proposals and commented that it made them think about factors that they would not have considered previously. Overall, the essence of the checklist appeared to be clearly understood.

Perceptions of the checklist

The main construct which researchers had not considered when writing research proposals was the ‘other contextual information’. This may be due to its complex nature, unlike a simple intervention. Some of the principal investigators for service evaluations were clinicians without experience in carrying out complex mixed-methods evaluations. The inclusion of this general construct appeared helpful in prompting researchers to consider issues such as sampling strategy (“how ‘typical’ is my organisation?”) and attribution (“how will I know that the results are not due to the charismatic medical director in that hospital?”) in the research design.

Some researchers also had concerns about the checklist and recommendations for improvements were given. For instance a couple of the researchers interpreted the meaning of a few words differently to what had been intended, therefore, the wording was changed to improve clarity. Other recommendations were made, such as giving a weighting to each category, but this was not applicable to meet the aims the checklist, therefore, no further changes were made.

Consultant advisors from the NIHR HS&DR Programme fed back that some of the wording needed to be updated due a recent reorganisation within the UK’s NHS, but otherwise they felt the checklist was suitable for researchers to use to make a good quality research proposal.

The final checklist includes six constructs, each with a few bullet points to the background (Table  2 ). Decisions about whether to include or exclude each construct were made during the different stages of the project, as illustrated in Figure  1 .

The final checklist

Organisation

Organisation is the first construct in the checklist. It is important to understand the characteristics of an organisation, as it can have an influence on how an intervention is delivered and its effectiveness. Organisation has been included as a feature in a number of reporting tools such as CONSORT [ 8 ] and other checklists [ 6 , 12 ]. Often, this is included in the broader heading of ‘setting’. However, it was important to make the checklist more specific and clear to the researchers. Few changes were made to this construct throughout the development process.

Another characteristic of a setting is the location. The location construct was considered as important from the beginning of the checklist. In research proposals it is useful to know whether the location is in an area of deprivation, or if it is in an urban or rural location. This will ultimately affect the delivery of the intervention, which may not be generalizable in another location.

Patient group

Patient group was included from the start of the development of the checklist. Most checklists which are used to report research emphasise the importance of having a good description of the participants. However, the word ‘participant’ can mean a range of groups who take part in a study. For the purpose of the checklist we made this specific to the patient group. Nevertheless, if the intervention is evaluating a workforce intervention, this is covered by the next construct (workforce and staffing). Therefore, the term ‘patient group’ was used as this appeared clearer to what is needed in research applications.

Workforce and staffing

Workforce and staffing were considered to be important from the outset of the development of the checklist. Elements of this construct have been seen in other checklists such as those used for patient safety [ 6 ]; however, the wording has been adapted to suit the needs of this checklist. When originally forming the checklist, workforce and staffing were separate constructs. However, when conducting the retrospective review, the two constructs were merged, as it was difficult to distinguish between the two.

Intervention

Originally, this construct was called ‘service provided’, as it was felt this would be the best wording to describe the active ingredient. However, there is often confusion about what the active ingredient is, especially when it relies on the context in which it is being delivered. For instance, an intervention such as care closer to home for children with complex conditions might build on some existing community nursing services but with some modification to skill mix or grade mix. As a result, this then overlaps with other constructs, such as ‘workforce and staffing’ and can appear unclear; this became particularly apparent when completing the retrospective review. Therefore, for simplicity, this construct was changed to ‘intervention’ which would be clearer to the researchers.

Other important contextual information

When initially forming the checklist ‘culture/leadership and costing’ were each considered an essential construct. However, these were difficult to justify and it was not thought appropriate to represent them in a separate single construct, although they were of high importance. Therefore, a construct called ‘Other Important Contextual Information’ was added to cover all other aspects, which would be missed by the other constructs. A number of these elements were considered important, as highlighted in Taylor et al. [ 6 ], such as organisational and structural features of provider organisations (size, teaching status, and number of beds) with other facets, which may be more difficult to measure, such as levels of team working, cohesion, and leadership. However, when completing the retrospective review, these were removed from the checklist as it became apparent that it is particularly difficult to describe these in research proposals. Nonetheless, it is important to try and capture these important aspects in a research proposal. Thus, the ‘other important contextual information’ construct was developed to ensure the researchers have considered all characteristics of contextual information in their research proposal, particularly those that affect the generalizability to other sites. One of the main difficulties in health service research is generalising findings from one service to another, given the importance of context and local determinants of practice. Consequently, it was essential that these elements of a research proposal are clear and well described. Examples include any policy initiatives related to the intervention; issues at the study sites around exceptional leadership, for instance championing by nurse director or clinical team and local features such as unusual geographical or service configurations; whether there is participation in an improvement collaborative or Commissioning for Quality and Innovation initiative on particular clinical area; or a relevant pay-for-performance initiative for a clinical pathway.

This paper reports on a small action-orientated mixed methods study which aimed to develop a checklist to be used to aid researchers when writing research proposals to submit to the NIHR HS&DR Programme. There are many constructs which would be useful to a researcher; however, some have changed shape or have been removed at various stages during the development of the checklist. The final six checklist constructs have a blurring between intervention and context, as debated in peer-reviewed literature [ 5 ]. The blurring was recognised as a difficulty for researchers, but it has not been possible to keep the two separate. However, as the feedback confirms, having six clear constructs may make applying for research funding more straightforward for less experienced applicants, so the blurring should be less of a concern.

This study’s main strength is that, to our knowledge, this is the first time someone has developed a checklist to aid the development of research proposals in health services and delivery research. There are also several limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, in the retrospective review of research proposals we only included a small selection of research proposals. Future research could look at a different and larger selection of research proposals. Next, only two people conducted the retrospective review. Therefore, there is a possibility that someone with different expertise would have collected different information for the checklist or would have had a different view on the checklist. Lastly, it is important to highlight that only some initial small-scale work was completed with a sample of funded researchers to test usefulness, acceptability, and face validity of the constructs and checklist. Future work could include more rigorous validation of the checklist.

Initial positive feedback from researchers indicated that this checklist may be a useful tool to help address the problem of not being able to fund important research proposals. The work presented in this paper should be considered the first step in a longer-term process of subsequent research. The checklist was developed essentially as an in-house, pragmatic tool for the NIHR HS&DR Programme and further research is needed to strengthen the checklist. It would be useful to test the checklist constructs with a wider sample of stakeholders using techniques such as consensus building or a Delphi model.

There is a body of literature which discusses intervention, context, and the use of checklists. However, these checklists are not always relevant to complex, staff-based organisational research in healthcare; existing checklists do not have enough focus on areas relevant to complex health service interventions or consider research applications. We have developed a checklist, with a focus on complex health services and delivery interventions and context. Small-scale iterative testing suggested it was acceptable and useful for researchers. Further validation is needed to demonstrate relevance to a wider range of researchers and funding bodies.

Abbreviations

HS&DR: Health Services and Delivery Research; NHS: National Health Service; NIHR: National Institute for Health Research.

Competing interests

The authors are employed at the National Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, which manages the HS&DR Programme on behalf of the NIHR.

Authors’ contributions

HD led the research and the writing of the paper. All authors contributed to or commented on successive drafts of the paper. The study was conceived and designed by TL. HD and DW conducted the retrospective review. All authors contributed to the steering of the research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge staff at NETSCC, particularly Ruairidh Milne and David Wright, for their help and advice. This project was funded as part of NETSCC Research on Research Programme and we wish to acknowledge the support of the NIHR. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health and of NETSCC.

• National Institute for Health Research. HS&DR Programme Remit. [ http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/remit ]
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337 :a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Medical Research Council. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. [ http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC004871 ]
• Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J, Taylor J. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012; 13 :1–17. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens DP, Shojania KG. Tell me about the context, and more. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011; 20 :557–559. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000206. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor SL, Dy S, Foy R, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Ovretveit J, Pronovost PJ, Rubenstein LV, Wachter RM, Shekelle PG. What context features might be important determinants of the effectiveness of patient safety practice interventions? BMJ Qual Saf. 2011; 20 :611–617. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.049379. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosk CL, Dixon-Woods M, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Reality check for checklists. Lancet. 2009; 374 :444–445. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61440-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Medicine. 2010; 8 :18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008; 17 :i3–i9. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, Clarke M, Eccles MP, Fitzpatrick R, Wong G, Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Med. 2009; 6 :e1000086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008; 336 :1472–1474. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C. Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2012; 2 :e001978. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douet L, Milne R, Anstee S, Habens F, Young A, Wright D. The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2014; 4 :e003713. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003713. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ovretveit JC, Shekelle PG, Dy SM, McDonald KM, Hempel S, Pronovost P, Rubenstein L, Taylor SL, Foy R, Wachter RM. How does context affect interventions to improve patient safety? An assessment of evidence from studies of five patient safety practices and proposals for research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011; 20 (7):604–610. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047035. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000; 321 :694. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Bastian H, Boutron I, Brice A, Jamtvedt G, Farmer A, Ghersi D, Groves T, Heneghan C, Hill S, Lewin S, Michie S, Perera R, Pomeroy V, Tilson J, Shepperd S, Williams JW. Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. BMJ. 2010; 341 :c3852. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3852. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meijers JMM, Janssen MAP, Cummings GG, Wallin L, Estabrooks CA, Halfens YGR. Assessing the relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing: systematic literature review. J Adv Nursing. 2006; 55 :622–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03954.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Estabrooks C, Squires J, Cummings G, Birdsell J, Norton P. Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9 :234. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-234. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The King’s Fund. Leadership and Engagement for Improvement in the NHS. Together We Can. [ http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/leadership-for-engagement-improvement-nhs-final-review2012.pdf ]
• McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K. Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of ‘context’ J Adv Nursing. 2002; 38 :94–104. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02150.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannion R, Konteh FH, Davies HTO. Assessing organisational culture for quality and safety improvement: a national survey of tools and tool use. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009; 18 :153–156. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.024075. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Ultimate Checklist for Research Proposal Writing

How to convince the committee that you have a distinguished project and an exceptional plan to prepare it? To write an outstanding research proposal!

There is no single format for all research proposals because different disciplines and academic institutions have different formats and requirements. However, there are some components that should be included in every proposal.

We’ve prepared this ultimate list for research proposal writing to get you through the process as smoothly as possible.

Make sure that a cover page includes all necessary information to identify your topic, institution and degree:

• concise and eye-catching title
• your name and qualifications
• department and university
• your supervisor’s name

Your cover page provides the first impression of your proposal, so check one more time whether the title introduces the key ideas of your project and presents the right direction of your investigation.

Table of Contents

Make certain the table of contents:

• presents the parts of a research proposal in a hierarchical way, with the help of titles and subtitles
• indicates exact page references for every part

Introduction

The main aim of the introduction is to provide background for your research problem. Think about it as a narrative written to answer these 4 important questions :

1. What is the core research problem? 2. Which topic of study is related to it? 3. What methods should be used to analyze the problem? 4. Why is this research important? After reading your introduction, the reader will have an understanding of what you want to do. Your introduction may include a theoretical starting point, a personal motivation or historical/cultural/ social/political information about the research question.

Purpose and Aims of the Study

This section describes the objectives and desired outcomes of your work to find the answers for the researched problem. Make sure:

• the purpose is expressed in terms of the broader context of the study
• there are not too many research questions, so the focus is manageable
• the aims are related to the stated purpose

Literature review

The literature review demonstrates that you are aware of the diversity of material that is related to your research proposal. You need to show understanding of the relative theories, studies and models. Successful literature review:

• keeps focus on the literature essential to your investigated problem
• combines various theories, findings and arguments on the topic
• gives the reader enough ties to the literature that you have found and read during the research
• shows that you can take a critical approach to your area of research

Research Design

The research design is aimed at describing your plans and methods and should:

• indicate the research operations you will use and the way you will interpret the results of these operations
• specify why these methods are the best way to investigate the problem
• anticipate any potential challenges you may face while finding information or analyzing data
• provide a timetable and action plan to explain how each of the tasks will be carried out

Expected Outcomes

Surely, you don’t have the results when you start writing your proposal, but you should have some suggestions about the possible outcomes. Therefore, this section should provide:

• the expected results
• a series of paragraphs foreseeing the importance of the research

Glossary of Terms

Make sure you have a list of:

• specialised terms

and their meanings.

Be sure to reference texts and sources that play a significant role in your analysis, in addition to your planned readings. These include:

• all textbooks
• journal articles
• relevant books
• Internet sources

These references will help you avoid plagiarism, so make sure to cite them properly.

A high-quality proposal not just promises success to your project, but also impresses your committee about your potential as a researcher. Therefore, make sure your writing is coherent and compelling, and your research idea is clearly stated and persuasive.

Before submitting the completed work, check it carefully to make certain that your research proposal has all essential sections and follows all specified instructions. Our ultimate checklist will help you with that!

Related posts

Research Templates and Checklists

The following templates and checklists should be tailored for each individual application. For grant section examples, please visit the ONR Grant Library.

The UW Research Office offers additional guidance within the  MyResearch Lifecycle

Templates and Checklists

Budget templates.

All School of Nursing proposals require a detailed budget attached to the eGC1.

Either use one of the Excel spreadsheets below or the SAGE Budget Module. The budget spreadsheets are Excel files and must be saved after they are opened. You may customize the workbook for the correct number of years, subcontracts, or budget forms. The budget templates are updated quarterly and include any changes to:

• F&A Rates
• Fringe Benefits
• Mileage Rates
• Tuition Rate

Single Year Budget

LoS Template

Multi-Year Budget

Detailed Budget Justification

Research Plan and Other Project Info Templates

Research Plan

NIH Biosketch Sample

NIH Other Support Sample

Letter of Support Template

Other Project Info Facilities and Resources Template

Recommended by the NIH ,  SciENcv  is  an NCBI/NIH tool that allows researchers to store Biosketches and Other Support electronically and eliminates the need to repeatedly re-create them. SciENcv automatically formats Biosketches and  reduces administrative burden and error s.

All checklists with embedded timelines are used by pre-award staff, department reviewers, and ONR to assist in the preparation and review of grant proposals in the School of Nursing. PIs should work with their pre-award staff to adapt proposal timelines specific to their submission deadlines.

Application Checklists

F31 Checklist

Proposal Reviewer Checklists

Proposal Review Checklist

Be boundless

Connect with us:.

© 2024 University of Washington | Seattle, WA

Research Administrator Lead - Remote or Hybrid

How to apply.

A cover letter is required for consideration for this position and should be attached as the first page of your resume. The cover letter should address your specific interest in the position and outline skills and experience that directly relate to this position.

The University of Michigan School of Public Health's Department of Epidemiology uses a multidisciplinary approach to explore reducing and preventing disease in human populations with rigorous research, innovative education, and dedicated service. We are looking for a lead research administrator to oversee our pre-award proposal submissions, post-award research needs, and financial transactions. This person will join a dynamic team of research administrators to support our 45 highly productive faculty. Our research portfolio is robust with a variety of sponsors and varying levels of complexity.

Responsibilities*

Serve as team lead for the research administrative team who provides all pre- and post-award needs to the department. Direct supervision, delegation of work, coordinating weekly team meetings and regular 1:1 with the team. Provide training and feedback to ensure the team is functioning successfully. Conduct annual performance reviews and other supervisory functions as needed.

Provide high-level support to faculty with complex research portfolios. Serve as pre- and post-award contact for faculty. Advise faculty regarding management and monitoring of budgets to ensure sponsor guidelines are followed, as well as provide fiscal oversight by monitoring revenue and project expenditures. Create budget, budget justifications, route proposals through for internal review, ensuring all sponsor, school, and university requirements are met. Provide progress reports, account reconciliations, and other status reports to faculty after award is received. Communicate with sponsors as needed. Support faculty and grant needs from proposals to close out.

Create clear communications and process documentation for faculty and other research staff.  Create timelines, checklists, and other training documents to support continued process improvement and professional development across the department.

Partner with department administrator, faculty, and other administrators in the school research administrative processes and needs.  Serve as back-up signing authority to the department.

Required Qualifications*

Bachelor degree and 7-10 years of progressive grant and contract experience or equivalent combination of education and experience. Prior experience working with federal agencies, such as NIH and CDC, as well as non-federal sponsors. Supervisory experience is strongly preferred.

Desired Qualifications*

Advanced degree and Certified Research Administrator (CRA) certification preferred. Experience working with government training grants. 

Work Locations

This position has a flexible work arrangement that is open to both fully remote or a hybrid schedule, based in Ann Arbor.

Additional Information

This position offers a $1,500 signing bonus.

Michigan Public Health is seeking a dynamic staff member with a commitment to contributing to a diverse, equitable and inclusive environment for all members of our community.

Background Screening

The University of Michigan conducts background checks on all job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background checks.  Background checks are performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Application Deadline

Job openings are posted for a minimum of seven calendar days.  The review and selection process may begin as early as the eighth day after posting. This opening may be removed from posting boards and filled anytime after the minimum posting period has ended.

U-M EEO/AA Statement

The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.