Grant proposals use various strategies to persuade their audience to choose them. This includes funding source analysis, rational appeals, building credibility, emotional appeals, and storytelling. While a lot of technical communication textbooks focus on the proposal document, the proposal is one step of applying for a grant.
The actual proposal document is only one part of a much bigger grant application process. Clark, Lawrence, and Lussos (2017) focus on this in their research article about how proposal writers outside of technical communication perceive grant proposals. They interviewed four research institution faculty from different fields with experience or interest in writing proposals. They also informally asked university administrators questions beforehand.
The main takeaway was a de-emphasis on writing. Unlike technical communication literature, other parts of the application process were seen as more important. For faculty, coming up with a research concept, finding a funding source, and showing enough qualifications to do the research were bigger challenges. The administrators had a large role identifying and responding to calls for proposals, but didn't do any actual writing.
Even the term "proposal" confused interviewees and was swapped for "application" instead. "Proposal" was understood to just be "the description of the project being proposed, not the entire package of material required to make a complete, compliant submission" (p. 41).
Wolff (2009) discusses this in her analysis of grant application forms. She brings up a government proposal engineers created, which had more than 400 forms in addition to the lengthy proposal itself (p. 303).
A proposal's audience decides if the applicant gets needed funding and resources. Most funding sources choose an applicant based on how well their proposal matches the agency's vision and values. Because of this, audience analysis is crucial to making a successful grant proposal.
The first step is finding the right funding source. In her article on effective proposal communication, Stokes (2012) warns against applying to many different agencies with interests unrelated to the proposal topic. She explains that high rejection rates hurt an organization's credibility and can cause "immediate negative responses from reviewers at grant-making agencies" (p. 226). Instead, proposal writers should look for a source concerned with issues and solutions similar to their proposed project. Many agencies describe their values and interests in a mission statement or RFP.
After they find an agency, writers should learn what the organization looks for in a proposal. Clark, Lawrence, and Lussos (2017) suggest sitting at review panels to learn about the agency's field and make connections with people who will review the proposals. They also recommend talking to the agency's grant program officers. They can give advice on which projects will be considered for funding and what their scope should be (p. 38).
Grant proposals are persuasive documents. Throughout these sources, three strategies for persuasion appear.
Before they let go of their money, funding agencies need to know an applicant is capable of doing what they propose. Proposal criteria are in place because readers have a real concern about spending their institution's money wisely (Wolff, 2009, p. 322). Bakey (1976) created a set of instructions for researchers trying to write persuasive grant proposals. In it, he tells applicants to include their qualifications and the qualifications of anyone else participating in the project (p. 13). He also suggests using references for facts and rationale to show reliability (p. 13).
Stokes (2012) says choosing the right funding source is another way to build credibility. Putting effort into researching and choosing an agency makes the project team look good.
Writers explain to the grant agency why their proposed solution is objectively the best solution. Proposals start by drawing attention to the problem they're trying to solve. Stokes (2012) calls this description a "needs statement" (p. 225). The writer proves the issue exists with past research and statements from experts. If the problem is an old one, they might talk about its history. If it's recent, they might explain what changes caused it. Writers should also demonstrate the seriousness of the problem with examples of its consequences.
The next step is to justify why the proposed project is the best option. According to Bakey (1976), the methods section of a proposal is written to justify the rationale of the project (p. 12). The applicant should include their reasoning for each method and expense.
Finally, the writer should make their reader emotionally invested in the proposal. Stokes (2012) focuses on this the most.
One method she describes is experienced grant writer Clarke's use of the classic story structure. The proposal should first set the scene by describing the current situation. The applicant organization is presented as a hero that can help the project's beneficiaries. This is where the organization's credibility is established. The proposal builds to a conflict, the problem the beneficiaries face, and resolves in the climax, where the proposed solution is applied.
Stokes also advocates for a "modality analysis." The writer examines the funding agency's RFP and other material and categorizes their communication style. They can then match the agency's communication style to build a sense of trust and familiarity in the reader.
Introduction to Grant Proposals