rejection of research proposal

Writing A Research Proposal

8 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid 🤦.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

At Grad Coach, we review a lot of research proposals , including dissertation proposals and thesis proposals. Some are pretty good, while others are, well, not fantastic. Sadly, many students only approach us after their proposal has been rejected , meaning they’ve wasted a lot of time and effort.

We’ll look at 8 common mistakes and issues we see cropping up in research proposals so that you can craft your proposal with confidence and maximise the chances of it being approved.

Overview: 8 Research Proposal Killers

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align .
• The research topic is not well justified .
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation .
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria .

#1: The research topic is too broad.

One of the most common issues we see in dissertation and thesis proposals is that the research topic is simply too broad . In other words, the focus of the research is not ringfenced tightly enough (or just not defined clearly enough), resulting in a proposal that has an unclear direction or attempts to take on too much.

For example, a research project that aims to “investigate trust in the workplace” would be considered very broad. This topic has no specific focus and leaves many questions unanswered, for example:

• What type(s) of trust?
• Between whom?
• Within what types of workplaces?
• Within what industry or industries?

As a general rule of thumb, you should aim for a fairly narrow focus when you craft your research topic. Doing this will allow you to go deep and investigate the topic in-depth , which is what the markers want to see. Quality beats quantity – or rather, depth beats breadth – when it comes to defining and refining your research topic.

A related problem is that oftentimes, students have a more refined topic within their mind, but they don’t articulate it well in their proposal. This often results in the proposal being rejected because the topic is perceived as being too broad. In other words, it’s important to ensure you not only have a clear, sharp focus for your research, but that you communicate that well in your dissertation or thesis proposal. Make sure that you address the who , what , were and when, so that your topic is well defined.

Let’s look at an example.

Sticking with the topic I mentioned earlier, a more refined and well-articulated research aim could be something along the lines of:

“To investigate the factors that cultivate organisational trust (i.e. a customer trusting an organisation) within the UK life insurance industry.”

As you can see, this is a lot more specific and ringfences the topic into a more manageable scope . So, when it comes to your research topic, remember to keep it tight .

#2: The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.

Another common issue that we see with weaker research proposals is misalignment between the research aims and objectives , as well as with the research questions . Sometimes all three are misaligned , and sometimes there’s only one misfit. Whatever the case, it’s a problem that can lead to proposal rejection, as these three elements need to link together tightly.

Let’s look at an example of a misaligned trio.

Research Aim:

To identify factors that cultivate organisational trust in British insurance brokers.

Research Objectives:

To measure organisational trust levels across different demographic groups within the UK.

To investigate the causes of differences in organisational trust levels between groups.

Research Question:

What factors influence organisational trust between customers and insurance brokers within the UK?

As you can see, the research aim and research question are reasonably aligned (they are both focused on the factors that cultivate trust). However, the research objectives are misaligned, as they focus on measuring trust levels across different groups, rather than identifying what factors stimulate trust. This will result in a study that’s pulling in different directions – not good.

A related issue we see is that students don’t really understand the difference between research aims (the broader goal), research objectives (how you’ll achieve that goal) and research questions (the specific questions you’ll answer within your study). So, when you’re preparing your proposal, make sure that you clearly understand how these differ and make sure they’re all tightly aligned with each other.

#3: The research topic is not well justified.

A good research topic – in other words, a good set of research aims, research objectives and research questions – needs to be well justified to convince your university to approve your research. Poor justification of the research topic is a common reason for proposals to be rejected.

So, how do you justify your research?

For a research topic to be well justified, you need to demonstrate both originality and importance .

Originality means that your proposed research is novel , or at least that it’s novel within its context (for example, within a specific country or industry). While the extent of this novelty will vary depending on your institution, programme and level of study (e.g. Masters vs Doctorate), your research will always need to have some level of originality. In other words, you can’t research something that’s been researched ad nauseam before.

Simply put, your research needs to emerge from a gap in the existing literature . To do this, you need to figure out what’s missing from the current body of knowledge (by undertaking a review of the literature) and carve out your own research to fill that gap. We explain this process in more detail here .

Importance is the second factor. Just because a topic is unique doesn’t mean it’s important . You need to be able to explain what the benefits of undertaking your proposed research would be. Who would benefit? How would they benefit? How could the newly developed knowledge be used in the world, whether in academia or industry?

So, when you’re writing up your research proposal, make sure that you clearly articulate both the originality and importance of your proposed research, or you’ll risk submitting an unconvincing proposal.

#4: The study has a weak theoretical foundation.

As I mentioned in the previous point, your research topic needs to emerge from the existing research . In other words, your research needs to fill a clear gap in the literature – something that hasn’t been adequately researched, or that lacks research in a specific context.

To convince your university that your topic will fill a gap in the research, your proposal needs to have a strong theoretical foundation . In other words, you need to show that you’ve done the necessary reading and are familiar with the existing research. To do this, you need to provide an integrated summary of the existing research and highlight (very clearly) the theoretical gap that exists.

Some common signs of a weak theoretical foundation that we’ve encountered include:

• A general lack of sources and a reliance on personal opinion and anecdotes, rather than academic literature.
• Failing to acknowledge and discuss landmark studies and key literature in the topic area.
• Relying heavily on low-quality sources , such as blog posts, personal websites, opinion pieces, etc.
• Relying heavily on outdated sources and not incorporating more recent research that builds on the “classics”.

While it’s generally not expected that you undertake a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you do still need to justify your topic by demonstrating a need for your study (i.e. the literature gap). So, make sure that you put in the time to develop a sound understanding of the current state of knowledge in your space, and make sure that you communicate that understanding in your proposal by building your topic justification on a solid base of credible literature.

#5: The research design is not articulated well enough (or is just impractical).

Once you’ve made a strong argument regarding the value of your research (i.e., you’ve justified it), the next matter that your research proposal needs to address is the “how” – in other words, your intended research design and methodology .

A common issue we see is that students don’t provide enough detail in this section. This is often because they don’t really know exactly what they’re going to do and plan to just “figure it out later” (which is not good enough). But sometimes it’s just a case of poor articulation – in other words, they have a clear design worked out in their minds, but they haven’t put their plan to paper.

Whatever the reason, a dissertation or thesis proposal that lacks detail regarding the research design runs a major risk of being rejected. This is because universities want to see that you have a clearly defined, practical plan to achieve your research aims and objectives and answer your research questions.

At a minimum, you should provide detail regarding the following:

• Research philosophy – the set of beliefs your research is based on (positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism)
• Research approach – the broader method you’ll use (inductive, deductive, qualitative and quantitative)
• Research strategy – how you’ll conduct the research (e.g., experimental, action, case study, etc.)
• Time horizon – the number of points in time at which you’ll collect your data (e.g. cross-sectional or longitudinal)
• Techniques and procedures – your intended data collection methods, data analysis techniques, sampling strategies , etc.

For more information about each of these design decisions, check out our post detailing the Research Onion.

Of course, your research design can (and most likely will) evolve along the way , but you still need a starting point. Also, your proposed research design needs to be practical, given your constraints. A brilliant design is pointless if you don’t have the resources (e.g. money, equipment, expertise, etc.) to pull it off. So, get detailed in this section of your proposal and keep it realistic to maximise your chances of approval.

Need a helping hand?

#6: Poor writing and sloppy presentation.

As with any document, poor writing and sloppy presentation can heavily detract from your research proposal, even if you tick all the other boxes. While poor writing and presentation alone probably won’t result in your proposal being rejected, it will definitely put you at a disadvantage , as it gives a negative impression regarding the overall quality of your work.

The main issues we see here are:

• Directionless or scattered writing – for example, writing that jumps from one point to another with poor flow and connectivity, disjointed points, etc.
• Poor argument formation – for example, a lack of premises and conclusions, disconnected conclusions and poor reasoning (you can learn more about argument development here ).
• Inappropriate language – for example, using a very informal or casual tone, slang, etc).
• Grammar and spelling issues, as well as inconsistent use of UK/US English.
• Referencing issues – for example, a lack of references or incorrectly formatted references.
• Table and figure captions – for example, a lack of captions, citations, figure and table numbers, etc.
• Low-quality visuals and diagrams.

The good news is that many of these can be resolved by editing and proofreading your proposal beforehand, so it’s always a good idea to take the time to do this. It’s also a good idea to ask a friend to review your document, as you will invariably suffer from blindspots when editing your own work. If your budget allows, having your work reviewed by an academic editor will ensure you cover all bases and submit a high-quality document.

#7: Poor project planning and risk management.

While different universities will have varying requirements, there is usually a requirement (or at least an expectation) for a project plan of sorts. As I mentioned earlier, a strong research proposal needs to be practical and manageable, given your constraints. Therefore, a well-articulated project plan that considers all the practicalities (and risks) is an important part of a strong research proposal.

We generally recommend that students draw up a fairly detailed Gantt chart , detailing each major task involved in the dissertation writing process. For example, you can break it down into the various chapters ( introduction , literature review, etc.) and the key tasks involved in completing each chapter (research, planning, writing, etc). What’s most important here is to be realistic – things almost always take longer than you expect, especially if you’re a first-time researcher.

We also recommend including some sort of risk management plan . For this, you could make use of a basic risk register , listing all the potential risks you foresee, as well as your mitigation and response actions, should they occur. For example, the risk of data collection taking longer than anticipated, the risk of not getting enough survey responses , etc.

What’s most important is to demonstrate that you have thought your research through and have a clear plan of action . Of course, as with your research design, plans can (and likely will) change – and that’s okay. However, you still need to have an initial plan, and that plan needs to be realistic and manageable, or you’ll risk your proposal getting rejected.

#8: Not following the university’s specific criteria.

While research proposals are fairly generic in terms of contents and style, and tend to follow a reasonably standardised structure, each university has its nuances in terms of what they want to be included in the dissertation or thesis proposal.

Some universities want more or less detail in certain sections, some want extra sections, and some want a very specific structure and format (down to the font type and size!). So, you need to pay very close attention to whatever institution-specific criteria your university has set out.

Typically, your university will provide some sort of brief or guidance document to direct your proposal efforts, so be sure to study this document thoroughly and ask the faculty for clarity if you’re uncertain about anything. Some universities will also provide a proposal template . Pay careful attention to any specific structure they recommend as well as formatting requirements (such as font, line spacing, margin sizes, referencing format, etc.).

If your university provides an assessment criteria matrix , you’ve hit the jackpot, as that document will detail exactly what you need to achieve in each section of the proposal. Study that matrix inside out and make sure that your research proposal tightly aligns with the assessment criteria.

Recap: 8 Research Proposal Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot here – let’s recap on the 8 common mistakes that can hurt your research proposal or even get it rejected:

• The research design is not articulated well enough.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

If you have any questions about these common mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. You may also want to have a look at some examples of successful proposals here . If you’d like to get 1-on-1 help with your research proposal , book a free initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

Thanks a lot for sharing these tips, very usefull and help me a lot, Many thanks

I just want to express my sincere gratitude for everything you guys are doing. You held my hand when I was doing my dissertation. I successfully completed it and got good marks. I just got myself reviewing this so I could help others struggling. May God bless you. May he bless you abundantly.

Thank you so much, I got it very important, and your presentation is also very attractive.

I find the text very educative. I am just preparing to start work on my PhD thesis. I must admit that I have learnt so much about how to organize myself for the task ahead of me. Thank you so much for being there to support people like me.

I found this video highly educative, it gave me a full glance at what is ahead of me – starting my Ph.D. now! Thank you for these amazing facts.

Thanks a lot for such an insightful video and explanation on Research Proposal design. I’m a beginner and pursuing my B.ed , these tips are really helpful to get a good start.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Why a Research Proposal Can Rejected (What You Need to Know)

by  Antony W

December 13, 2021

Research proposal rejection is common in academic publishing, and it’s by far the most demotivating and devastating experience in learning. After you’ve spent years researching and months writing and formatting the document perfectly, the very last thing you want is to see your research proposal getting a rejection. The question is why do students get their research proposals rejected?

A review board might reject your research proposal because: 

• You failed to meet the deadline for submission
• The topic you proposed isn’t appropriate for your area of study
• Your proposed question, design, and methods are questionable and unusual
• You failed to follow the research proposal guideline
• The research proposal suggests an unrealistic budget, with the cost to execute the project being greater than the expected benefits
• Your research proposal is not complete
• You don’t have a well-written literature review
• Your proposal seems to be beyond the capacity of the principal investigator 

We’ll look at these reasons in more details in this guide. But as you can already see, it’s clear that you can get a rejection for your research proposal for surprisingly small set of simple and familiar mistakes, which aren’t difficult to fix.

X Reasons Why a Research Proposal Can Get Rejected

If you’ve had your research proposal rejected, it could be because of one or more of the reasons discussed below. 

1. Late Research Proposal Submission

One of the most common reasons for rejecting research proposals is late submission. A student may have written a well-researched and comprehensive proposal, but submitting it late is a clear indication that they either didn’t read the submission guideline or ignored the instructions altogether.

You need to take the deadline of your research proposal seriously. Create a plan that you can use to research, outline, and write your research proposal every day. Stick to the schedule and don’t leave room for procrastination. Working on the proposal everyday will not only get you to complete the work fast but also leave you with enough time for revision.

If you feel overwhelmed because you have many other assignments to complete, consider asking for Research Proposal Writing Service from Help for Assessment. Our team of proposal writers can help you to research, write, and edit the proposal fast. So you don’t have to overwhelm yourself with work when you can ask for help.

2. Failure to Follow the Research Proposal’s Guideline

Instructors give research proposal briefs because they want students to follow recognized academic writing standards to do the work from start to finish. Sadly, some students fail to read these briefs carefully and end up submitting substandard research proposals that fail to meet those guidelines.

You don’t want to be this type of student, or you will end up having your research proposal rejected as well.

The solution here is simple. You need to read the research proposal guideline provided and do so carefully. Spend about an hour or so going through the brief. Note the areas that you don’t understand and write some questions down. Schedule a reflection session with your instructor and go through the questions together to get more insight.

Once you’re certain that you’ve read the whole research proposal guideline and understands what it requires, start writing. It also helps to reference the guidelines as you write because it will help to ensure you write your research proposal by following the instructions to the latter.

3. The Proposal Doesn’t Have an Impact

Many research proposals get rejections either because they don’t reflect a potential positive impact on humanity or because they don’t contribute to the already existing body of knowledge. If you think about it, grant sponsors aren’t interested in funding projects that lack solid value, and this explains why very few proposals get approval.

Before you start working on a research proposal project, determine whether there’s something valuable about your research that will the work stand out from similar works.

4. Poorly Written Literature Review

Every research proposal must have a literature review that looks into already existing research into a specific body of knowledge. Unfortunately, it’s the section of a research proposal that many students don’t write very well, which is a likely explanation for the rejection of their research proposal.

We recommend that you learn everything you can about literature review so you can get this part of the assignment write. Some of the most helpful guides to help you are: 

• How to write a literature review step-by-step
• The importance of a literature review
• The length of a literature review
• Dos and don’ts of literature review

Each guide goes into deep details on what you need to know about the topic. By exploring these resources, you will not only gain more knowledge about literature review but also write review of existing literature that makes your research proposal stand out.

5. The Proposal Is Incomplete 

Writing an incomplete research proposal isn’t any different from not writing a proposal at all. Such a written assignment will get an immediate rejection because it doesn’t meet the expected writing standards as instructed in the proposal guideline.

The last mistake you want to make is fail to write every part of a research proposal from start to finish. Again, this is the point where we insist that you should start the project early so you can cover all the section in-depth. Your proposal should have an introduction, background and significance, literature review, research design and method, preliminary implications, and conclusion.

Make sure you describe each section thoroughly, leaving out what’s irrelevant and sharing only the most useful in formation with the potential reader.

Final Thoughts on Research Proposal Rejection

The reasons why research proposals get rejections aren’t anything extra ordinary. Rather, they are just common mistakes that you can avoid. We recommend that you start working on your proposal as early as possible so that you have enough time to identify potential errors in the document and fix them in the shortest time possible.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

How to Deal with Rejection in Research

Overcoming Research Rejection: Strategies for Resilience and Growth

Table of contents

1. embrace emotional resilience, 2. learn from rejection, 3. maintain perspective, 4. seek feedback and collaboration, 5. persevere and adapt:.

In the world of research , rejection is an inevitable part of the journey. Whether it’s a rejected paper submission, a grant proposal that didn’t get funded, or an experiment that didn’t yield the expected results, facing rejection can be disheartening and challenging. However, it is essential to remember that rejection is not a reflection of your worth as a researcher. Instead, it is an opportunity for growth and improvement. The effective strategies to deal with rejection in research, fostering resilience, learning, and ultimately achieving success are discussed in this article.

Discover effective strategies to handle rejection in research and turn setbacks into opportunities for growth. Learn how to leverage feedback, revise your work, and persist in pursuing your research goals. Stay resilient and maintain a positive mindset to overcome obstacles and make valuable contributions in your field.

How to Deal with Rejection in Research: Overcoming Obstacles and Embracing Growth

Rejection can trigger a range of emotions, from disappointment and frustration to self-doubt and sadness.

• It’s crucial to acknowledge and accept these emotions rather than suppressing them.
• Give yourself permission to feel and process your emotions, but avoid dwelling on them for an extended period.
• Seek support from colleagues, mentors, or friends who can provide a listening ear and offer valuable advice.
• You are not alone in experiencing rejection; it’s a common part of the research process.
• Rejection offers an opportunity for learning and growth.
• Take the time to carefully analyze the feedback you receive, whether it’s from peer reviewers, grant committees, or supervisors.
• Constructive criticism can provide valuable insights into the weaknesses or limitations of your work.
• Identify specific areas for improvement and consider how you can address them.
• Use rejection as a stepping stone to refine your research, strengthen your arguments, and explore alternative methodologies or approaches.
• It’s easy to take rejection personally and feel as though your entire research career is at stake.
• However, it’s essential to maintain perspective and recognize that rejection is a normal part of the scientific process.
• Even the most successful researchers have faced rejection numerous times.
• Each rejection brings you one step closer to success by refining your work and enhancing its quality.
• Maintain a growth mindset, focusing on progress rather than perfection, and use rejection as motivation to keep striving for excellence.
• Actively seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or experts in your field.
• Engage in open discussions about your research, present your work at conferences, or participate in peer review activities.
• Constructive criticism and diverse perspectives can help you refine your research, strengthen your arguments, and identify potential flaws.
• Collaboration with other researchers can also offer new insights and opportunities to bounce back from rejection.
• Sharing experiences with others who have faced similar challenges can be immensely valuable in overcoming setbacks.
• The path of a researcher is filled with obstacles, and rejection is just one of them.
• The key is to persevere and adapt . Revise your research, address the feedback received, and resubmit your work to appropriate journals or funding agencies.
• Embrace the opportunity to explore new avenues and consider alternative approaches.
• Every setback is a chance to refine and strengthen your work, ultimately contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Dealing with rejection in research is undoubtedly a challenging aspect of the scientific journey. However, by embracing emotional resilience , learning from rejection , maintaining perspective, seeking feedback and collaboration, and persevering through setbacks, you can transform rejection into a catalyst for personal and professional growth.

Every successful researcher has faced rejection at some point, and it is how you respond to rejection that defines your path forward. Embrace rejection as an opportunity to learn, adapt, and become a better researcher, bringing you closer to achieving your research goals.

• academic rejection
• bounce back from rejection
• growth mindset
• handling rejection in research
• learning from rejection
• overcoming rejection
• positive mindset in research
• research feedback
• research perseverance
• research persistence
• research rejection
• research rejection challenges
• research rejection coping
• research resilience strategies
• research setbacks
• research setbacks and growth
• resilience in academia
• staying motivated after rejection
• turning rejection into growth

MS Word vs LaTeX: Which is Better to Write Your PhD Thesis?

Top scopus indexed computer science & engineering journals for fast publication – 2024, what is research design and how to frame it, email subscription.

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

WhatsApp Channel

Join iLovePhD WhatsApp Channel Now!

Contact us: [email protected]

Copyright © 2019-2024 - iLovePhD

• Artificial intelligence

How to Respond to a Rejected Grant Proposal

• May 30, 2023

How to respond to a rejected grant proposal if you encounter one as this article simplifies the steps you need to take.

Every organization, researcher, or individual who has pursued funding through grant applications has encountered the daunting prospect of rejection .

Though it might feel like a setback, a rejected grant proposal doesn’t signify the end of the road. Quite the opposite, it provides an opportunity for constructive feedback, reassessment, and the creation of a stronger, more competitive application. But how do you effectively respond to a grant proposal rejection?

Understanding Grant Proposal Rejection

Before diving into the response strategy, it’s essential to understand that grant rejection is common. There are many reasons why a grant proposal might not be approved.

The proposal could have been out of scope, lacked a compelling narrative, or simply faced stiff competition. There might have been budgetary issues or inconsistencies in your proposal.

Rest assured, rejection does not necessarily reflect on the worthiness of your project or your capabilities.

Responding to Rejection

When responding to a grant proposal rejection, professionalism, graciousness, and strategic planning are key.

Following are the steps to take:

1. Assess the Feedback:

Most grant reviewers provide feedback explaining the reasons for rejection. It’s a valuable resource for understanding the areas that need improvement. Read this feedback carefully, noting areas where the proposal fell short.

Example: Suppose the feedback indicates that the proposal lacked a detailed project timeline. In your response, you can acknowledge this shortfall and emphasize your intent to address it in future submissions.

2. Express Gratitude:

Write a thank you note to the grant committee. Acknowledge their time and effort in reviewing your proposal. This shows professionalism, respect, and can maintain a positive relationship for future opportunities.

Example: “We sincerely appreciate the time you spent reviewing our proposal. We understand the effort it takes and are grateful for your feedback.”

3. Acknowledge Their Perspective:

In your correspondence, indicate your understanding of the reasons provided for the rejection. This shows that you respect their decision and are open to improving.

Example: “We understand from your feedback that our project timeline was not adequately detailed. This is a valid point that we plan to address.”

4. Indicate Your Plan to Improve:

Share briefly how you plan to use their feedback to enhance your next proposal. Don’t offer excuses or try to justify the shortcomings they pointed out.

Example: “With your insights, we will revise our proposal to include a more detailed project timeline in our future applications.”

Revising Your Grant Proposal

Having responded professionally to the rejection, the next step is to revisit your proposal. Here’s what you can do:

1. Revise Based on Feedback:

Address each point raised by the reviewers. This could mean making the project objectives clearer, providing more detailed timelines, aligning the budget more closely with the project activities, or improving the overall structure and narrative of the proposal.

2. Consider Expert Review:

Engage a grant writing expert or consultant to review your proposal. They can provide valuable insights, help strengthen your narrative, and ensure your proposal meets the funder’s expectations.

3. Research More:

Look for additional or alternative sources of funding that may be more aligned with your project. Sometimes, rejection comes simply because the proposal doesn’t fit the grantmaker’s focus areas.

Resubmitting Your Grant Proposal

Once the proposal has been revised, consider resubmitting it.

Here are the steps to follow:

1. Confirm Eligibility:

Ensure that the grantmaker accepts resubmissions. Some funders have restrictions on this, while others welcome it.

2. Follow Guidelines:

Adhere to any specific resubmission guidelines provided by the funder. This might involve submitting a revised proposal within a particular timeframe or highlighting changes made since the previous submission.

3. Include a Cover Letter:

Along with your revised proposal, include a cover letter explaining the revisions made. This helps reviewers see that you’ve taken their feedback seriously and made the necessary changes.

Example: “In response to the feedback received, we have provided a more detailed project timeline and made a clearer connection between our project activities and budget.”

4. Seek Advice:

If possible, seek advice from successful grantees. They can provide useful tips and potentially review your revised proposal. Networking within your field and attending industry events can facilitate these connections.

Conclusion:

Grant writing is an iterative process. Each rejection is a step toward a successful proposal, providing valuable feedback and an opportunity for growth. A crucial aspect is maintaining a resilient mindset, viewing each rejection as a learning experience rather than a failure. Remember, resilience, patience, and perseverance are key in successful grant writing.

In summary, respond to a rejected grant proposal professionally, take advantage of the feedback provided, revise your proposal accordingly, and confidently resubmit when ready. With each cycle, you’re refining your grant writing skills, improving your project plan, and getting closer to your funding goals.

Your journey towards a successful grant proposal is a process of growth and development, with each iteration improving upon the last. So, take that rejected grant proposal and view it as an opportunity to learn, improve, and succeed.

Related Posts

Grants for Land Conservation

Grants for land conservation are a vital lifeline for preserving natural landscapes, ecosystems, and biodiversity. These financial resources support a wide range of activities, from purchasing land to protect it

Grants for Journalism

Grants for journalism are financial awards or funds provided to individuals, groups, or organizations to support the production of high-quality, public-interest journalism. These grants are essential for sustaining investigative reporting,

Grant Writing Academy is offering you full resources you need to win free money and boost your nonprofit impact.

No thanks, I’m not interested!

Grant writing for medical and healthcare professionals pp 179–187 Cite as

Dealing with the Rejected Grant Proposal: Learning from the Mistakes

• Mitwa Joshi 3 ,
• Prashant Joshi 4 , 5 &
• Julian A. Smith 4 , 5  
• First Online: 12 January 2023

364 Accesses

Having a grant application accepted by a funding organization can be pretty challenging, as only a small percentage of submitted proposals receive funding. The essential steps moving forward from a rejected grant proposal are to recognize any previous mistakes, attempt to revise such, and resubmit. The present chapter provides an overview of objectively reviewing the rejected proposal and correcting them for future submissions.

Success is not final; failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Australian Research Council. NCGP trends: success rate. 2020. https://www.arc.gov.au/grants-and-funding/apply-funding/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-success-rates .

National Institutes of Health. Funding facts. 2018. https://report.nih.gov/fundingfacts/fundingfacts.aspx .

Crow J. What to do when your grant is rejected. Nature. 2020;578:477–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00455-0 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chung K, Shauver M. Fundamental principles of writing a successful grant proposal. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(4):566–72.

Article   Google Scholar  

Grant Writing Mastery. Common reasons for rejected grant proposals. 2020. https://grantwritingmastery.com/common-reasons-for-rejected-grant-proposals/ .

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Some reasons proposals fail. 1998. https://www.montana.edu/research/osp/general/reasons.html .

National Health and Medical Research Council. Research funding statistics and data. 2020. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/data-research/research-funding-statistics-and-data .

Pfizer. COVID-19 Vaccine Grants. https://www.pfizer.com/purpose/independent-grants/covid-19-vaccine .

Zlowodzki M, Jönsson A, Kregor P, Bhandari M. How to write a grant proposal. Indian J Orthop. 2021;41(1):23–6.

National Institutes of Health. Pilot studies: common uses and misuses. 2021. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/pilot-studies-common-uses-and-misuses .

Animate Your Science Team. What to do if your grant is rejected and how to ensure you get funded. 2020. https://www.animateyour.science/post/what-to-do-if-your-grant-is-rejected-and-how-to-ensure-you-get-funded .

Bellinger K. Top 10 reasons why grant proposals don’t get funded... and how to improve your chances! 2015. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-10-reasons-why-grant-proposals-dont-get-fundedand-bellinger-msw/ .

Hume K, Giladi A, Chung K. Factors impacting successfully competing for research funding: an analysis of applications submitted to the Plastic Surgery Foundation. J Am Soc Plast Surg. 2014;134:59.

Google Scholar  

National Institute of Mental Health. Common Mistakes in Writing Applications. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/grant-writing-and-application-process/common-mistakes-in-writing-applications .

Cayuse. Avoiding audit findings: examples of grant fraud and how to prevent it. https://cayuse.com/blog/avoiding-audit-recent-grant-fraud-cases/ .

Grant Connect. https://www.grants.gov.au .

GRANTS.GOV. https://www.grants.gov .

Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and Faculty of Pain Medicine. Research Grants. 2021. https://www.anzca.edu.au/research/research-grants .

Smith J. Benefits of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Scholarship Program highlighted. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86:855. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13668 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Mitwa Joshi

Department of Surgery (School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health), Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Prashant Joshi & Julian A. Smith

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian A. Smith .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry, India

Subhash Chandra Parija

Department of General and Gastrointestinal surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India

Vikram Kate

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Joshi, M., Joshi, P., Smith, J.A. (2023). Dealing with the Rejected Grant Proposal: Learning from the Mistakes. In: Parija, S.C., Kate, V. (eds) Grant writing for medical and healthcare professionals. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7018-4_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7018-4_16

Published : 12 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-7017-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-7018-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

scientify RESEARCH research funding database

Dealing with grant rejections: how to go from getting multiple rejections to getting the big yes  .

• Author: Titilope Oladiran

Home » Blogs » Dealing with Grant Rejections: How to go from getting multiple rejections to getting the big YES  

Share this post

According to the University of Dundee [1], the average success rate for most funders is between 10%-20% and every applicant will face rejection at one point or the other. It is then important we know how to deal with rejections and continue with application submissions.   

Over the past one year, I dealt with a lot of application rejections (more than 100). And that is why I am able to connect with how researchers feel and the unpalatable experience they go through when their grant applications get rejected.  

My experience taught me a very vital lesson and it is that: you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. This means that for you to go from not getting any grant to getting grants, you need to improve your application. And this is the main message of this blog post; what can you do to go from getting NOs to getting the big YES.  

When you receive a grant rejection, you experience several emotions like anger, frustration, sadness, among others. It is normal to have such feelings and the best way to deal with it is to accept how you feel and then talk to someone about it. You could talk to your friend, colleague, mentor, or partner about it. Grant rejection doesn’t have anything to do with your intelligence. Often it comes down to the suitability of your proposal, the sheer number of other qualified applicants or your ability to prepare the proposal with sufficient detail and explanation. 

After a rejection, you can take these steps: 

Respond to the rejection email respectfully and gracefully  

‘Unfortunately, your grant application was not successful. We wish you the best’ 

People often don’t remember to respond to emails when they are about rejection, because the excitement to respond is not there, unlike an acceptance email. However, despite our feelings, it is good that we write an email back to the funding body to achieve two main goals; to appreciate the funder and request for feedback. Getting feedback about your application will help you understand why your application was rejected and also to identify what needs to be improved upon before submitting another application.  

Keep your email simple, respectful, and straightforward. You should start by thanking the funder for their time and consideration of your application. Then you go ahead to ask for feedback politely, stating how the feedback will help you prepare better for future applications. You can also ask about the possibility of submitting an application in the next cycle for the same grant.  

Here is an example of an email you can send to the funder: 

Dear Greater Foundation,  

Thank you for your email. I appreciated your consideration of my project ‘’ for the Greater Foundation Grant 2023.  

I would love to try another submission in the future and would like to receive your feedback on my last submission. Would you be available for a short discussion about my application and sections that need more strength.  

Thank you once again for the opportunities you provide scientists and researchers in the community.   

Best Regards,  

Writer’s Name.  

Review the winner’s application, if possible 

For some grant applications, you are either able to access the winner’s application after the results are published or able to access the funder’s comments about the winner’s application. You may also reach out to the successful applicant and ask if they are willing to share any portion of their proposal. If available, I advise you review such documents to evaluate what the person did so well to stand out from others. You can learn from such and apply the strengths to your application moving forward.  

Get more knowledge about preparing grant application documents   

The more we learn, the better we become, right? It is advisable that you continuously get more knowledge about grant applications and most importantly, you should improve on your research proposal. Applications are mostly rejected because of the insufficiency of the project plan to answer the research questions. Sometimes, it might be the research question itself that is not well formulated. It is by getting more knowledge and by critically reviewing your application documents that you know what can be improved on for your next application. 

Ensure you meet all requirements before submission  

I would advise you direct your focus and energy to grants where you meet all requirements, not the ones where you have one or two requirements you do not meet. There is really no reason to apply for a grant that focuses on a specific geographic location whereas you stay in a different geographic location.  

Finally, always remember that the rejection is not about you, but about your application. You shouldn’t let the rejections define you as a person, else you start feeling incapable whereas you are more than capable. You only just need to improve on your application to make it stand out. For example, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2017 got 49,415 proposals and only funded less than 25% of the total submissions. This means that more than 12,000 applicants received rejection letters. This doesn’t mean the applications were bad, but a competitive selection process was put in place.  

Therefore, to make your application stand out and be the best for grant selection, you need to keep improving on yourself and your application. You are smart and intelligent, and you can do this! To read more about what makes a proposal strong, check out some of the interviews on our blog with funding managers, e.g. with Jullienne Kay from The American Institute for Yemeni Studies (AIYS) here: https://www.scientifyresearch.org/blog/american-institute-yemeni-studies-aiys-perspective-from-funder-jullienne-kay/.  

Here is a checklist you can adopt to assess your application documents before submission: 

• Do not wait until the deadline is close to prepare your documents. 
• Proofread and edit your documents to avoid grammar, formatting and punctuation errors. 
• Always check you answered all application questions and meet all application requirements. 
• Ask for review/second opinion from your colleagues or mentor. 
• Ensure your grant proposal includes all major parts such as abstract, introduction, problem statement, objectives, methodology, budget, etc. 
• Your research proposal should be innovative and clearly show how the proposed project will be successfully carried out.  

[1] https://www.dundee.ac.uk/guides/funding-application-unsuccessful 

Related content

• Turku Intersectoral Excellence Scheme (TIES): Perspective from a funder, Dr. Martin Cloonan, Director of the Turku Institute for Advanced Studies (TIAS) 
• Thrasher Research Fund: Perspective from a funder, Brittni Smith, Research Manager
• The Letten Prize: Perspective from a funder, Håkon Sandbakken, Letten Prize Coordinator 
• The American Institute for Yemeni Studies (AIYS): Perspective from a funder, Jullienne Kay, Program Manager
• SciComm: The Significance of Science Communication and Funding Opportunities Dedicated to SciComm
• Research funding database
• Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance (OCRA): Perspective from a funder
• Navigating challenges and securing funding: The life of new principal investigators
• Michelson Medical Research Foundation (MMRF) and Human Immunome Project: Perspective from a funder

Would you like to be featured on our blog?

Get in touch with us.

To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.

Sign-up for our monthly research funding newsletter

Be the first to know

Sign-up for personalized grant alerts.

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

6 ways to deal with rejection

Rejection in academia seems particularly personal, but it doesn't have to be.

Staci Zavattaro

Credit: Gary Waters/Getty Images

31 July 2019

Gary Waters/Getty Images

I just graduated from my doctoral program and was attending my discipline’s annual conference. That week, I had gotten several papers rejected in a row. Back to back. I began to question if this job was even right for me.

So what did I do? Cried in the elevator of course. The doors opened and standing there, oddly enough, was my dissertation chair. He asked what was wrong so I told him.

He basically said, "Oh that’s all?" Looking back now I can see he was right. In the moment I thought, "Well this is totally serious, and he needs to take it as such!"

Rejection is a part of academic life, just as it is part of the corporate world, nonprofit sector, and things we do every single day. Somehow though, rejection in academia seems personal because someone, usually a total stranger, is judging your work.

You might write a course paper that receives a lower grade than you wanted. You might not pass your comprehensive exams on the first try. Your first dissertation proposal surely will have major revisions. Your first article... I could go on, but you see my point.

What helps me cope is to realise rejection is happening to everyone around you, even if they do not tell you.

My colleague Shannon Orr and I edited a book called Reflections on Academic Lives . In it, we start with what we called an ode to rejection because, believe it or not, rejection can actually be a positive thing if you let it.

In that volume, we have 70 academics of all levels – from doctoral students to a retired provost – giving their best advice for surviving academia (or removing yourself from it).

One reflection that is pertinent here comes from Steven R. Shaw from McGill University . Some of you might know him as @Shawpsych on Twitter . In our book, Steven writes about the 'shadow CV,' meaning what you do not see is all the failure behind the success.

That article? You do not see that it was rejected three times before. The grants? You do not see the countless rejections and revisions each went through. His message is to look beyond the success to see the silver lining in rejections.

Here I share with you some advice that has helped me cope with rejection. This list is not exhaustive, and some of the things might not work for you. I would be thrilled to hear other tips and tricks you have learned that can also support me with continued rejection.

1. Put it away – Rejection often hits hard. It feels like the journal or the grant agency is rejecting us. Really they are rejecting the version of the work they got on that day. Put the reviews away until you are in a better mental space to look at them.

Chances are there is some feedback in there that will be meaningful as you progress with the project. Your task is to find those nuggets and build from there.

2. Everyone gets rejected – For me, I never think senior scholars still face rejection. I imagine that when 'Big Name Scholar' sends a paper to a journal, he or she gets their work accepted with no question. Whenever I speak with senior scholars, they always laugh and tell me that of course they get rejected. And each time it somehow blows my mind.

But this is important for everyone to hear because it tells me that rejection happens all throughout your career, so you better develop a thick skin.

3. Speaking of a thick skin – You really do need one. And I say this as someone who is incredibly sensitive. I told you I was crying in an elevator! I have been an academic for almost a decade now, and this is a skill I need to practice every single time a rejection comes in. I need to stop, breathe, and remember it is not about me.

I tell my students now that rejection does not bother me as much, and they look at my strangely. Notice I said as much. Because when it stops bothering me totally that means I have given up and do not care.

4. See rejection as a learning opportunity – From each rejection comes a silver lining – if you let it. Remember above I told you my friend Shannon and I edited a book on surviving academia? Well, we met thanks to rejection. I applied for a position at her university. I received a campus interview, and she was so lovely to me.

I did not get the job (which is probably a good thing because she is in Ohio, and I am a Florida girl through and through, so that means snow and I do not mix), but we stayed in touch throughout the years. I posted on Facebook about changing my doctoral course, and I asked for feedback from friends.

I got so much that I wondered if maybe there was something more to this. Shannon messaged me literally the next day and said, “I think there is something here.” So we put together a book proposal, and the rest, as they say, is history.

5. Ask for help – Do not be afraid to ask others for feedback or input. Sometimes we are afraid of normalizing rejection in academia. We want to appear as all-knowing sages immune to failure. That simply is not true. For anyone.

So if you are not sure how to handle rejection, talk to someone. Colleagues have all been through it so they can lend an ear. Talk to friends. All I am suggesting is that you do not hold in rejection, because perhaps from talking comes a partnership you did not expect, or an idea you never would have had prior.

6. Have fun – Sometimes in academia we like to have a "busy competition." You know that game. It is where everyone tries to out-busy the other. People compare projects they worked on during spring break. Or brag about getting no sleep so they can push out a grant proposal. I hate it. I really do.

Because the reality is, we are all busy. Instead I tell my students and colleagues to go have fun. Clear your mind. Do something you love. Really, it does not matter what. Just do it. Your work will be there when you get back.

I do encourage all of you to normalize rejection in your classrooms.

Be open with your students about this omnipresent academic reality. I like to walk my students through the ways in which I revised a paper. I also tell them when I had to simply let a project languish. It is okay to admit that something did not work out the first time. Or even the second time.

I know I am getting better at handling rejection because I no longer cry in elevators.

Staci M. Zavattaro , PhD, is an associate professor of public administration and a research associate with the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management at the University of Central Florida. She serves as editor-in-chief of the international journal Administrative Theory & Praxis.

This article was originally published on the LSE Blog . Read the original article .

Here’s how to deal with failure, say senior scientists

Q&A Wendy Belcher: How to write a journal article in 12 weeks

Q&A Niamh Brennan: 100 rules for publishing in top journals

• Sponsored Research
• Proposal Development
• Faculty Internal Funding
• Internal Student Funding
• How do I find available funding?
• Forms, Policies, Committees, and Tech Transfer
• Grants Management

Common Reasons Grant Proposals Are Rejected

The proposal review process involves individual, human readers. This fact produces an implacable rule. What is not noticed is not funded.

Amidst the sometimes formidable stack of proposals, the document that does not catch the attention of the reader cannot compete on the more formal criteria associated with quality of design and congruence with the agency's priorities. The abstract and introduction sections of the proposal are thus very important, since they must project whatever unique or attractive elements are contained in your research question or approach.

The most common reasons for proposal rejection boil down to a surprisingly small set of simple and familiar failures:

• Deadline for submission was not met.
• Proposal topic was not appropriate to the funding agency to which it was submitted.
• Guidelines for proposal content, format, and/or length were not followed exactly .
• The proposed question, design, and method were completely traditional, with nothing that could strike a reviewer as unusual, intriguing, or clever.
• The proposed area of study was not an agency priority for this year.
• The proposal was not absolutely clear in describing one or more elements of the study.
• The proposal was not absolutely complete in describing one or more elements of the study.
• The authors review of the literature indicated they did not know the territory.
• The proposed study appeared to be beyond the capacity of the authors in terms of training, experience, and available resources.
• The proposed method of study was unsuited to the purpose of the research.
• The budget was unrealistic in terms of estimated requirements for equipment, supplies, and personnel.
• The cost of the proposed project appeared to be greater than any possible benefit to be derived from its completion.
• The authors took highly partisan positions on issues, and thus became vulnerable to the prejudices of the reviewers.
• The quality of writing was poor (e.g., sweeping and grandiose claims, convoluted reasoning, excessive repetitions, or unreasonable length).
• The proposal contained an unreasonable number of mechanical defects that reflected carelessness and the author's unwillingness to attend to detail. The risk that the same attitude might extend to execution of the proposed study was not acceptable to the reviewers.

Because the probability of rejection for any given proposal is high, it is particularly important to be mindful of the items above in bold.

As adapted from: Locke, L.F., W.W. Spirduso, and S.J. Silverman. 1987. Proposals that Work . Second edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., by the University of Montana’s Office of the Vice President for Research & Creative Scholarship.

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Research Proposals!

• July 21, 2023

Writing a research proposal is the most important task for students in their academic careers. But it doesn’t have to be confused with traditional essay writing assignments. Many students spend day and night writing research proposals only to receive a message: “Your research proposal has been rejected!”

The rejection of a research proposal is the worst nightmare for a student. Many times, there are a couple of mistakes that need to be rectified, but still, they require time and effort from the students to be reinvested. 

So what can you do to skip this hassle? 

By knowing the common mistakes to avoid when writing research proposals, you can take care of them and save yourself from facing rejection.

Below are some mistakes you can go through and learn what needs to be avoided in your research proposal writing.

Let’s start discussing them without any further delay!

Choosing a Broad Topic

The first and major mistake made by most students in research proposal writing is the selection of a topic that needs to be narrower. This mistake needs to be avoided when writing research proposals because it won’t just result in losing some marks, but it can lead you to rejection when you submit. Your efforts and time will go in vain if you choose a broad topic. Therefore, it’s essential to be specific while choosing a topic for your research paper. 

If your research topic doesn’t focus on a specific detail, it won’t provide you with the right direction to sail. You can ensure that your topic is not broad and won’t face rejection by taking care of the 4Ws: what, where, when, and who. By addressing these 4Ws, you’ll be able to come up with a well-defined topic for your research proposal!

Lack of Originality

When writing a research proposal, it’s more than important to ensure originality in your work. Many people make the mistake of creating a research proposal on a topic that has already been researched. Understandably, your thoughts can match up with other researchers in the same field, but it definitely doesn’t permit you to take originality for granted and submit a replicated research proposal.

You can ensure originality in your research proposal by using a plagiarism checker . Using an online plagiarism detector allows you to scan your written work and identify the existence of plagiarism. 

Whether you’ve copied a phrase, sentence, or paragraph, a plagiarism tool can detect duplication in a matter of seconds. As plagiarism can also occur unintentionally, you shouldn’t submit your research proposal before confirming its originality with an online plagiarism checker. 

Missing Citations

Another mistake observed in research proposals is missing citations. Before writing a research proposal, it’s essential to keenly go through landmark studies that support your research and cite them in your dissertation adequately. If you fail to cite significant studies related to your field, you might lose marks, which can directly affect your grade and CGPA. 

To avoid it from happening, you should go through the published research papers of others in the same field. It will give you access to a variety of essential studies in your research proposal writing, as you can pick out the relevant sources to cite. 

While overcoming this mistake, you shouldn’t start using too many citations, which is another problem. You must cite sources that are extremely important to support your research findings. 

Impractical Research Design

With all the efforts you put into justifying your research proposal, you cannot afford to face rejection because of an impractical research design. The justification of your research will be limited to describing its value, and you’re doing good until here. But what about explaining the methodology you’re going to follow for executing your research? It can be done by creating and explaining the research design for your study. 

Many students don’t know the importance of this section in their research paper, and it leads to the refusal of their study. It’s because the institutions are interested to see how a student will achieve the research findings through a properly structured plan. 

In a nutshell, whatever plan you have in your mind regarding the execution of your research, it’s essential to pen it down in your proposal by following the research tips. 

Poor Quality Writing

Even if you’ve done a great job justifying your research topic and creating a research design, the poor quality of your writing can make all your efforts go in vain. It’s because when the professors face the distraction of reading a poorly written research proposal, they won’t be able to put their minds to understand what’s written in it. Therefore, it’s essential to make your document errorless. 

Many institutes provide a prompt for research that indicates the factors that need to be taken care of in the writing process. You must take it very seriously and make sure you tick all the boxes. Moreover, it’s also recommended to take the assistance of an online grammar checker, which can allow you to rectify grammar and spelling mistakes existing in your research proposal.

More Articles

How long should an essay be 6 different essay lengths, compare and contrast essays: explained with examples, causative verbs – definition and examples, absolute phrases explained with examples.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Writing a Rejection Letter (with Samples)

• Sarah Green Carmichael

A quick no is better than a long maybe.

I have a friend who appraises antiques — assigning a dollar value to the old Chinese vase your grandmother used for storing pencils, telling you how much those silver knickknacks from Aunt Fern are worth. He says the hardest part of his job, the part he dreads the most, is telling people that their treasure is worthless.

• Sarah Green Carmichael is a former executive editor at Harvard Business Review. skgreen

Partner Center

Transforming Grant Rejection Letter into Future Success

Reviewed by:

February 6, 2022

Last Updated:

January 29, 2024

Table of Contents

So it happened. The hours you put into your grant application, the agony of waiting for a decision, the hopes you had hinged on starting a new program all came down to the mailed letter or the short email explanation:

Your grant application has not been selected.

In the process of applying for grants, even the most seasoned nonprofits and grant writers must inevitably come to terms with rejection. But don’t hang your head or give up!

In this article, we’ll cover how to respond to grant rejection letters—from following up with a thank you (yes, a thank you) to identifying key takeaways and applying them to your future grant applications to staying dedicated to your grant pursuits.

Let’s get started!

How to Respond to a Grant Rejection Letter‍?

Receiving a grant rejection letter is unavoidable, but it can also be emotionally painful and discouraging. 

If you receive a grant rejection letter, it’s always helpful to honor your disappointment before moving on . Often, we hurry through the emotional part of our work and hastily pursue the next opportunity. However, writing grants takes time and effort, and it’s okay to feel let down when the outcome of the opportunity does not turn out as planned. 

These following steps can help you process through your disappointment: 

• Allow yourself to feel sad or frustrated. 
• Talk to your supervisor, coworker, or another grant writing colleague about it. 
• Try not to get stuck in the negative feelings of the outcome for too long. 
• Remember: one rejection is just one rejection, and professional resources reveal that only between 10-20 percent of all grant applications get approved ( Check out our article for more grant writing stats ) 

While a well-crafted and thoughtful proposal certainly yields a greater chance of acceptance, even polished applications are often denied for reasons that have nothing to do with the application itself. 

After processing these initial feelings and commiserating with coworkers, it’s important to follow-up with a response to the rejection letter. Keep reading for tips on how to craft a response that’s succinct, gracious, and ushers in the opportunity to gain more information about why you were rejected.

What to Do If You Receive a Grant Rejection Letter?

There are many reasons why you might receive a grant proposal rejection letter . However, no matter the reason, there are a few things you should do in response: 

Acknowledge Emotions

Rejection is a part of life, but that doesn’t make getting a funding grant rejection letter any less disappointing and frustrating. 

It is easy for someone to tell you to “not take it personally” after your grant is rejected, but that doesn’t make it any less painful. Just remember one thing: the grantmaker rejected your proposal, not you.

Like we mentioned earlier, grant rejection is inevitable at some point—so you’re not alone! 

Here are some tips to help keep your emotions in check after you receive a grant application rejection letter:

• Don’t take the rejection personally. 
• Focus on what you did well in the grant proposal.
• Remember that grantmakers simply cannot allocate funding to everyone.
• Talk to your colleagues, friends, and family about your frustrations.

By first acknowledging your emotions, you can be in a better mindset to move on. Then you can focus your energy on the next funding opportunity. 

Inform Key Stakeholders

Once you receive a grant rejection letter, it’s important to inform key stakeholders at your organization. This might include the head of the fundraising department, your team, and even the Executive Director . 

Don’t be afraid to be transparent with them about the rejection—they should be understanding. It can be especially helpful to come to them with explanations for why you were rejected and how you will apply that feedback moving forward (more on that below). 

Review Feedback From the Rejection

One of the most important steps in receiving a grant rejection is to review feedback from the grantmaker. 

If you did not receive detailed feedback, or any feedback at all, you should contact the funder and respectfully request feedback on why your grant proposal was rejected. 

Reach out to the grantmaker either via email or by phone, thank them for the opportunity to apply for the grant, and then ask if they would be willing to meet with you to review the feedback on your proposal.

Some questions you can ask them during the meeting include the following:

• How many proposals did you receive for the award?
• What specifically disqualified my proposal from the award?
• Is there specific feedback I can use to strengthen my proposal?
• Can I re-submit a proposal in the future? If yes, when?

Use the feedback shared to better identify the weaknesses of your grant proposal . That way, you can avoid the same missteps with funding opportunities in the future.

If the feedback you receive is incomplete, you can use the Freedom of Information Act to request copies of a complete list of the reviewer’s comments and even how they scored your proposal, if available.

Capture Learnings

Once you’ve reviewed all of the grantmaker’s feedback, you can use it as a learning tool for future grant proposals. 

You should make a detailed list of everything that you could have done better in the proposal based on the funder’s feedback. That way, you have a quick reference tool to use if you ever re-apply for this grant or with any future funding opportunity.

Some nonprofits use Excel or Google Notes to keep track of funder-specific feedback, and we also offer grant tracking tools where you can easily store your funder notes for later use. 

Seek External Opinions

Not only should you seek feedback and opinions from the grantmakers, but also from external sources. This could include feedback from your peers, advisors, and any experts in grant writing. 

Having an expert who is outside of your nonprofit organization review the rejected grant proposal could give you an outside perspective and help you identify areas that need to be improved.

Refine Your Proposal

You should now be equipped with what you need to refine your grant proposal. Whether this means simply revising your narrative or completing an entire overhaul of the content, you should review the feedback and apply what you’ve learned. 

Among other things, we suggest you review the following:

• Any areas that were said to be unclear or vague.
• Specific feedback about making your proposal stronger or more aligned with the funder’s goals and objectives.
• Questions that either were not entirely answered or did not answer the specific needs of the grant.
• Any noted weaknesses in the proposal.
• Grammatical and writing errors!!

You can check out this ultimate guide to grant proposals to help you refine and strengthen your proposal.

You can also review successful applications , either from the grant you missed out on or similar projects and programs. Request a copy of the winning proposal from the grant funder or visit federal sites that publish their winning grant proposals (private funders are not required to release this information).

Take note of what made them stand out and apply these learnings to your refined proposal. 

Plan for Reapplication

After receiving a grant rejection, make sure to mark your calendar for the next reapplication date! 

Don’t forget to check whether you are allowed to resubmit a grant proposal in the next funding cycle. Some grantmakers will even invite you to reapply at a later date in their rejection letter! 

Receiving a grant rejection letter is not the end of the grant funding process. Try reapplying once you are armed with the information needed to improve your grant proposal and make any changes necessary for success.

Explore Alternative Funding Opportunities

While receiving a grant rejection is always disappointing, it’s important to remember that there are thousands of funding opportunities out there for you to apply to next! 

Signing up for a grants database like Instrumentl is a great way to find new grants that align with your nonprofit’s mission and funding needs! 

Instrumentl organizes grants by focus area and location to help you find funding opportunities that best fit your organization to increase your chances of success.

Maintain a Relationship With the Funder

Receiving a grant rejection letter does not have to be the end of your relationship with the funder. 

You should make sure to send a thank you letter to show your appreciation for them considering your proposal. Then, you can maintain communication by putting them on an email list or even inviting them to upcoming events at your organization. 

That way, the funder can get a sense of the good your nonprofit does for the community, and you will be prepared to resubmit your grant application when the next funding cycle opens up.

Click to find the best grants for your nonprofit from 12,000+ active opportunities.

Search 150+ subcategories

Grant Letter Rejection Response Sample

After receiving a grant rejection, it’s important to respond to the funder with a letter of your own. 

Overall, a well-crafted response should accomplish two goals: thanking the organization and requesting information as to why the grant application was rejected.  

Some grantmaking organizations will even be available for a debrief meeting to discuss why the application was declined and offer suggestions to make a future application stronger.

Make sure to keep the response succinct and straightforward. It should be just a few sentences. The response is not a place to launch into a compelling rebuttal about why the funder should change their decision. Make sure the tone is respectful and appreciative. Be gracious and grateful for their consideration.

Below is an example of a sample email response to a grant rejection letter :

Learning how to respond to a grant rejection letter is a skill that successful grant writers will grudgingly develop. However, you can learn how to capture some takeaways from the process and apply them to future applications moving forward. Keep reading for more info on how to go about using this knowledge in your next steps.

For more reading on this specific topic, check out our article on Sample Grant Rejection Letters and What to Do .

Can You Change a Funder's Mind About Your Grant Proposal?

Right from the get-go, there are a few tips you can apply to up your chances of creating a better application in the future. The following five tips cover some of the basic, yet easily overlooked, factors that will improve your outcomes.

1. Check grammar, punctuation, and formatting.

Simple, I know, right? But you would be surprised to see how many people in their rush to finish by the deadline forget to spell check or make copy and paste errors, leaving a great idea packaged in a sloppy application. As grant applications become more and more competitive, the details indeed matter.

2. Make sure you have answered the application questions.

Another seemingly basic point. Almost too basic! But many proposals fail to answer the basic questions on the application in the space allotted, even with expert writers. Consider the questions thoughtfully and make sure your narrative fully answers all of their parts.

For example, a section may state:

Describe your project and its impact on the community in the space below . (Maximum 500 words).

You may have written a very eloquent description of the project for 450 words and then only used 50 words to describe its impact. Or even worse, you didn’t describe its impact at all! Be sure that your narrative matches the application’s request for information and that you don’t short your descriptions or explanations by including unnecessary information.

3. Make sure you have provided a detailed Who, What, When, Where, and Why.

The grant application should at some point include each of these elements. These are basic concepts of a project description or, in a general operations proposal, elements of day-to-day operations.

Even if the grantmaking foundation is local, do not assume that the reviewer knows anything about your organization’s mission, history, or programs. Write each application as if the reviewer knows nothing about your nonprofit.

When answering questions, include the titles of and numbers of staff, the mission statement, service area, population served, reason for existence, rationale for programs, and vision for the future. Be succinct, yet cover all these basics so that the grant reviewer is not left with any hanging questions about the structure and purpose of your nonprofit or its proposed project.

For example, if your project description started off by stating that your organization intends to provide food to homebound individuals (the what), make sure that you include the necessary supporting information. In the description or subsequent sections, reflect on if you have included the why (demonstrated need), the how (the mode of delivery), the when (days/times per week), and the who (staff or volunteers) .

4. Describe partnerships and/or supporters.

Grant reviewers love to hear about existing or proposed partnerships. Be sure to include information about other funders who are invested in your project or organization. Include community partners with whom you are working on a shared goal. This gives reviewers increased assurance and demonstrates your organization’s collaborative capacity.

5. Include community input and outreach efforts.

It is always best to have community-led projects and to include peer advice within programs. Nonprofits are designed to serve community needs, and thus, should always include input from the population the program or organization hopes to serve.

Consider these questions:

• Do you adequately tell the story of why your organization began or how you got an idea for a proposed project?
• Does your narrative explain the community's need and response?
• Does your organization have any data from public outreach events or forums where residents provided input?
• Does your organization have a youth, elder, or resident advisory board?
• If so, describe this data and/ or your nonprofit’s processes for engagement.

5 Actionable Ways to Improve Your Grant Proposal After a Rejection

Right from the get-go, there are a few tips you can apply to up your chances of creating a better application in the future. The following five tips cover some of the basic, yet easily overlooked, factors that will improve your outcomes. 

Simple, I know, right? 

But you would be surprised to see how many people in their rush to finish by the deadline forget to spell check or make copy and paste errors, leaving a great idea packaged in a sloppy application. As grant applications become more and more competitive, the details indeed matter.  

Another seemingly basic point. Almost too basic! But many proposals fail to answer the basic questions on the application in the space allotted , even with expert writers. Consider the questions thoughtfully and make sure your narrative fully answers all of their parts. 

For example, a section may state:  

Describe your project and its impact on the community in the space below . (Maximum 500 words).  

You may have written a very eloquent description of the project for 450 words and then only used 50 words to describe its impact. Or even worse, you didn’t describe its impact at all! Be sure that your narrative matches the application’s request for information and that you don’t short your descriptions or explanations by including unnecessary information.  

The grant application should at some point include each of these elements. These are basic concepts of a project description or, in a general operations proposal, elements of day-to-day operations. 

Even if the grantmaking foundation is local, do not assume that the reviewer knows anything about your organization’s mission, history, or programs. Write each application as if the reviewer knows nothing about your nonprofit. 

When answering questions, include:

• The titles of and numbers of your staff
• Your mission statement
• Your service area
• Your population served
• Your reason for existence
• Your rationale for programs
• Your vision for the future 

Be succinct, yet cover all these basics so that the grant reviewer is not left with any hanging questions about the structure and purpose of your nonprofit or its proposed project. 

For example, if your project description started off by stating that your organization intends to provide food to homebound individuals (the what), make sure that you include the necessary supporting information. 

In the description or subsequent sections, reflect on if you have included the why (demonstrated need), the how (the mode of delivery), the when (days/times per week), and the who (staff or volunteers) .  

Grant reviewers love to hear about existing or proposed partnerships. 

Be sure to include information about other funders who are invested in your project or organization. Include community partners with whom you are working on a shared goal. This gives reviewers increased assurance and demonstrates your organization’s collaborative capacity.  

Consider these questions: 

How to Prioritize Funders More Effectively?

Now that we’ve explained how to respond to grant rejection letters, we will conclude with a step-by-step guide for prioritizing potential funders quickly and strategically.

Understand Your Organization's Needs

If you don’t understand your own organization’s needs, you won’t be able to determine if they align with the overall mission of the funding organization. The more aligned your mission is with the mission of the funder, the better chance you’ll have at winning a grant . 

If you do not understand your own organization’s needs and priorities, you’ll end up wasting your time applying for grants you probably will not get, as well as wasting the time of the funder.

Research Funders' Mission and Values

As noted above, it is essential that you also research the funders’ mission and values to ensure there is a fit. 

Most funding announcements will clearly state the mission and values of the funding organization right away. So, the first thing you will want to review is the overall mission of the organization to make sure your proposal meets that funding criteria.

Instrumentl also provides comprehensive funder profiles that you can look through to learn more about a specific grantmaker. 

Evaluate Past Funding Patterns

You should also research what types of nonprofit organizations a funder has worked with in the past. This should help you determine whether you have a good chance of winning a particular grant. 

Some websites congratulate their grant winners, while others give links to the actual winning proposals. By evaluating the wording and patterns of these winning proposals, you can better evaluate your own chances of winning a grant bid.

You can also use Instrumentl’s Advanced Funder Insights to evaluate funder profiles so you don’t have to comb through the information yourself. Instead, our data will show you where funders have awarded grants in the past, how much they’ve given, and their overall giving trends.

Determine the Size and Scope of Grants

Determining the actual size and scope of grants can also help you save time from applying for grants you simply don’t have the resources to achieve.

Grant announcements almost always include the size and scope of the funding being offered, as well as eligibility information.

By taking the time to review the size and scope of the grant itself, you can better decide if this funding opportunity is even worth pursuing for your nonprofit.

Assess Application Complexity

Do you even have the time to complete the application correctly? 

Grant proposals are not written overnight, so you will need to assess whether the application itself is too complex to be completed correctly in your given period of time.

Consider the Relationship Potential

When a funder announces a grant opportunity, they are looking to begin a partnership with the winning nonprofit organization. Don’t just look at this funding opportunity as dollar signs; you will want to consider the long-term relationship between your organization and theirs.

You can also check to see if anyone at your organization—employees, board members, volunteers—has a connection to that funder. 

Seek Feedback from Peer Organizations

Another reason you should make sure you have enough time to complete your grant proposal is so that you can seek feedback from other peer organizations. 

This could include other nonprofits that have successfully received grants, agencies similar to the funding organization, or even recommendations from members of your board.

Utilize Grant Management Tools

Instrumentl’s robust grant management tools can help you stay on top of different grant opportunities all in one centralized location that your whole team can access. 

For example, you can use our Grant Tracker to store notes on specific funders, keep track of deadlines, and plan out your proposal-writing process.

We will even send you automatic reminders if any of your saved grants have a change in deadline. 

Continuously Review and Adjust

Continuously review and adjust your grant proposals. 

In the end, your proposal needs to flow logically and maintain a consistent structure. This can only be done by continuously making sure your proposal meets every requirement in the grant announcement and adjusting is as needed. 

Get access to weekly advice and grant writing templates

10k+ grant writers have already subscribed

Wrapping Things Up: Responding to Grant Rejection Letters Effectively

As a grant writer, you’ll win some and lose some (and if statistics are correct, over time, even the best will likely lose more than win). Even after writing a strong proposal, it’s never a bad idea to prepare yourself for the possibility of a rejection letter.

When faced with the rejection of a grant application, acknowledge the rejection, express thanks for the opportunity, and welcome any additional information you can use to create more compelling applications in the future. 

The best way to rally from a grant rejection response is to seek out a new funding opportunity and apply what you have learned in the process. For more info on how to locate your next grant opportunity, check out our best grant research tools post here .

Instrumentl team

Instrumentl is the all-in-one grant management tool for nonprofits and consultants who want to find and win more grants without the stress of juggling grant work through disparate tools and sticky notes.

Become a Stronger Grant Writer in Just 5 Minutes

Share this article, related posts, 5 tips for using ai to write grants: 4 experts putting it to the test.

These days, it feels like Artificial Intelligence (AI) is everywhere. We spoke to four industry experts to learn how they are—or are not—using AI to support their grant-seeking efforts.

How to Make Your Letter of Inquiry Stand Out To Funders

Learn how to write compelling Letters of Inquiry (LOIs) with practical advice from grant experts. Discover essential tips from recorded events with Arnisha Johnson and Margit Brazda Poirier to increase your chances of success in securing funding for your nonprofit.

These Grant Writers Raised Millions: Tactics They Swear By To Win Over Funders

Unlock the secrets to becoming a game-changing grants professional with insights from industry experts who have secured millions in funding. Learn from their years of experience.

Try Instrumentl

The best tool for finding & organizing grants

128 reviews | High Performer status on g2.com

Do you know why your Dissertation Proposal Rejected? Here are the five mistakes.

Dec 8, 2020 | Special Posts , Students

Are you a university student who is curious to know about what a research proposal is? It doesn’t matter you are in an early stage of your university academics or nearing graduation; it is essential to know what a research proposal is and your ideas’ research prospect.

Almost all the universities require their students to research a partial requirement for degree completion. Research is the heart of the degree; if research does not fulfill the criteria, it is destined to face challenges.

Final research is structured sequentially. It is essential to understand the importance of every step to ace in the research study. The first step is idea generation, and then submit your proposal. Following is the general structure followed by universities globally.

• Supervisor selection/allotment
• Identification of research area
• Research proposal
• Proposal Defence
• Data Collection/ Experimentation
• Data Analysis/ Result Analysis\
• First draft
• Second draft
• Final revised draft submission
• Thesis defense

We will focus on writing the research proposal. A research proposal is a formal submission of your research idea for the supervising committee’s approval. A research proposal shall communicate the basis on which research base—the reasons for your choice and how your research will contribute to society.

It is vital to check the university requirements before attempting the first draft of your research. Consulting an example of a research proposal beforehand can come in handy to understand the critical points. It is also essential to avoid common writing mistakes while writing the proposal. A structured research proposal imparts a good impression on the instructor.

Reasons why research proposal can be rejected

Many errors can occur while crafting your proposal that can cause failure. Many random mistakes might pass your eye without detection, which can negatively affect your submission. So, it is essential to verify your document before submitting it. Writing research proposals require critical thinking and creative writing skills. If the document is poorly written, the presentation is not right, doesn’t satisfy the writing’s ethical standards, and might fail to impress the readers.

Rejections are not uncommon in academia on the first attempt, but don’t get demotivated; rectify your mistakes and get it approved for further proceeding. We will discuss the five major factors that can badly affect your document’s authenticity and impression so that you can understand how to minimize the risks of rejection. Most instructors or professors can reject your proposal based on the reasons listed below.

1.   Research Methodology

The research methodology is about the techniques or processes you will employ to conduct your research. It allows the reader to evaluate the credibility of your research. The research methodology is the core area to communicate with your audience. It must convey the approach you will adopt in the study, like experimental techniques and analysis tools.

There is a section or chapter in every academic journal or dissertation in which you must discuss the research methodology. In research methodology, you tell your techniques and research methods and show your objective towards the research. But if the method is flawed, it will seem like the data collected is not scientifically approved or significant. It will consequently affect the realism and accuracy of the document. An ill-written methodology will make the research seem flawed and might result in the rejection of your research proposal.

2.   Incomprehensible Writing:

Writing has a significant impact on your research as the reader or journals want the study to be written in the most straightforward English that is easier to understand. Grammar mistakes, incoherence, missing key elements like the names and list of authors from whom data is collected, spelling issues can lead the reader/publisher/instructor to reject your proposal.

One of the most common reasons for rejection is not following the journals’ standard of writing. It is essential to follow the guidelines for writing and thoroughly review the format and research before submitting.

Many tools are available in the market to avoid these kinds of mistakes and refrain from making vocabulary mishaps. You can use free professional plagiarism identifying mechanisms from Research Prospect to help you make your research writing better.

3.   Lack of research evidence

If the data collected and the research findings are not enough or aren’t appealing to the supervisor, then it is most likely that the proposal will be returned for revision. It can occur if the data used is irrelevant to the research or if the sample’s length is shorter than recommended. If the research conducted is not helpful or doesn’t contribute any advancement in the field, it is most likely to be rejected. The study is always based on strong foundations of prior scientific evidence. To find scientific evidence, do the following things.

• Read Lates research papers
• Consult relevant books
• Read the previous dissertation on similar topics.
• Attend conferences on the subject
• Consult your professor for help

It might be difficult to find factual data in the current COVID-19 scenario; however, you can learn how to improve your academic skills in quarantine .

4.      Hypothesis

The research hypothesis is a clear, specific, and predictive statement based on the research. It is a possible outcome of the scientific study. But if the paper’s hypothesis is not clear or is plagiarised, you might get yourself in trouble. Your research will be the ultimate justification of the hypothesis, so it is essential to structure present a concrete hypothesis that will promise the dissertation’s success. Invest time and effort to make sure that your suppositions and results will match.

Three main factors must be considered before writing or submitting your report.

·      Clarity

·      provability, ·      disprovability (falsifiability).

Scientific hypotheses need to be specific and clear of the outcome of the research. It should be testable to prove that it supports the hypothesis clearly and needs to have a way to identify whether the hypothesis is false or wrong.

5.      Conclusion

All that matters at the end of the research are the results obtained at the end of the study. A good proposal must be able to communicate the expected results from the analysis. Ensure that your proposal can convey the closure of the research, its value addition, and prospects.

All the factors mentioned above can be helpful for your research writings. Keeping these things in mind before starting the research or while can be very persuasive. For researchers, mostly the first-timers, getting their research proposals accepted in the first attempt is challenging. However, suppose you know which mistakes to avoid and how to structure a research proposal . In that case, you can easily overcome the hurdle of getting your research proposal accepted.

Author Bio:

Grace Griffin

Hello everyone. My name is Grace Griffin. I am a member of the writers Team on Research Prospect . I have my bachelors in Law, Masters in Literature and PhD in Economics. I wanted to explore all the possible subjects exists in the world,  but I am afraid I couldn’t do so. I am a technical writer and writes research-based content. As for my hobbies, I love reading articles, blogs, magazines, newspapers and books.

### December 8, 2020

PhD Assistance

What is the major reason for rejecting a ph.d. research proposal and how to avoid these problems.

• Best Ph.D. Proposal Writing Service is the ideal place to start the research work.
• The reason is the experts will know the order to be executed in the Dissertation Research Proposal.
• If the student knows about the reason for the rejection, then it becomes easy to do the planning.

Introduction:

In Australia and Britain, the students contact the supervisors regularly for research work. By the first year of the study, the student gets a PhD Doctoral Dissertation Proposal . This is compulsory as they promote research activities. By contrast, the students of North America have research work after the studies with a committee of people who are said as examiner and guide. The supervisors are external and internal in Britain. In Australia, the supervisors are external and if there is a dispute with Plagiarism correction, then the number of examiners rises to three.

In the final year of the study, the undergraduate students are supposed to submit the Dissertation Research Proposal. This is as per the interest and guidance of the undergraduate faculty. The word count is comparatively less than the postgraduate and Ph.D. program in the case of the undergraduate Dissertation. Generally, it is 10,000 to 15,000 words. Here the independent research is the idea to be adapted from the dissertation. The learning capacity, ability to use the different sources of information, and thinking skills are the points associated with the Ph.D. Research Proposal Assistance. Let me see the steps involved in the research, the chapters to be included, and the research methodology in the NO.1 Research Proposal Writing Services.

List out the reasons for the rejection of Ph.D. Dissertation research proposal?

The following are the reasons from a general viewpoint:

• If the content is A ssessed with P lagiarism issues then it gets rejected.
• The structure of the content is not good. If the elements like affiliations, references, main text, title, tables, figures, and list of authors are missing then the structure looks poor.
• If the content is out of the guidelines of the journal’s author.
• If the content is out of the scope and aim of the journal from the same subject then it gets rejected.
• The topic which the student selected for the research is not significant in the subject.
• The question behind the research is irrelevant.
• The study is not complete about the observations.
• The result of the research is not practical or flaw with the concluding points.
• The language of the content is not up to quality.

Ph.D. Doctoral Dissertation Proposal steps

The High-Quality Research Proposal Writing Service knows that the structure is unified for the postgraduate and writing to address the issues. The simple structure of a Research Proposal for a Ph.D. is an introduction, methodology, literature review, data analysis, and conclusion. One big idea is shared with the audience through dissertation writing. If the subject of the research is vast, then the writer may do changes to the structure of the dissertation. The Ph . D . Thesis goes as 50,000 to 60,000 words. The tense used in the Research Proposal for Ph.D. depends upon the subheading. For example, the introduction part starts with the present tense and the Literature Review Part communicates with the past tense.

With the help of past writing styles and principles, the best writing with an easy way of communication is used. The question of the research should be conceptual and logical. The answer to the question must be testable. The conclusion is given at the end of the content. But towards the end of each paragraph, the justification comes as a conclusion. This increases the flow of the content. The undergraduate thesis must consist of knowledge, application, and comprehension. The postgraduate or Ph.D. thesis must have higher-order thinking skills like evaluation, analysis, and synthesis. This helps the writers to satisfy the examiner. The previous study about the thesis would interpret the main points to be followed. If the Ph.D. Researcher is doing Qualitative Research then he must use the references or case studies of 45 numbers at least. Similarly, quantitative research must use a survey of 350 respondents or similar data collection. This is to replicate the research work with emerging findings.

The conclusion part is the chapter which takes more time. This chapter reflects the sound knowledge and references of the researcher. In professional exams like Engineering, ACS, and CA the candidates are requested to write open book exams. The logic behind this examination is the application of the subject knowledge. Similarly, the logic behind the Ph.D. Dissertation is the application of the subject knowledge. If the previous references are good then it helps for the application of the subject knowledge. In higher education knowledge and application of knowledge, both are equally important to impress the examiner with the content. These valuable points would help the student to write as per the expectation of the examiner.

The research methodology used by Quality Research Proposal Writing Service

The knowledge, application of knowledge, and the gaps in the knowledge are the areas to be focused on during the research. The Research Writing Experts justify the topic, understand the problem of the research from a different perspective, follow the main goal of the research, use the quality sources for data collection, proofread the content, and satisfy the examiner with a meaningful conclusion. The security of data and research is also an essential point with the dissertation writers. As the research is for publication it should be plagiarism free and secured. The professional writers will guide the students and assure the quality of service. Students take dissertation writing seriously as they want more grades. Check the quality and security before choosing the right academic writing services. The dissertation will initially speak to the examiner and then to the reviewers about the subject. The research is the documentation of the points that you gather through faculties, books, and online resources. So, do proper planning for a better evaluation. The career planning and research subject have inter-connection with the success of the student. So, the expert team from Dissertation Writing Services would add value to your resume and help with career planning.

References:

• Bayarri, M. J., Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., & Sellke, T. M. (2016). Rejection odds and rejection ratios: A proposal for statistical practice in testing hypotheses. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 90-103.
• Perry, C. (1994). A structured approach to presenting PhD theses: Notes for candidates and their supervisors. ANZ Doctoral Consortium, University of Sydney.
• Elliott, N., & Higgins, A. (2012). Surviving Grounded Theory Research Method in an Academic World: Proposal Writing and Theoretical Frameworks. Grounded Theory Review, 11(2).

Quick Contact

• Adversial Attacks
• Artificial Intelligence
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML ( Machine Learning )
• Big Data Analysis
• Business and Management
• Categories of Research methodology – PhDAssistance
• Category of Research Proposal Services
• coding & algorithm
• Computer Data Science
• Category of Machine Learning – PhDassistance
• Computer Science/Research writing/Manuscript
• Course Work Service
• Data Analytics
• Data Processing
• Deep Networks
• Dissertation Statistics
• economics dissertation
• Editing Services
• Electrical Engineering Category
• Engineering & Technology
• finance dissertation writing
• Gap Identification
• Healthcare Dissertation Writing
• Intrusion-detection-system
• journals publishing
• Life Science Dissertation writing services
• literature review service
• Machine Learning
• medical thesis writing
• Peer review
• PhD Computer Programming
• PhD Dissertation
• Phd Journal Manuscript
• Annotated Bibliography
• PhD Publication Support
• Phd thesis writing services
• Phd Topic Selection
• Categories of PhdAssistance Dissertation
• Power Safety
• problem identification
• Quantitative Analysis
• quantitative research
• Recent Trends
• Research Gap
• research journals
• Research Methodology
• research paper
• Research Proposal Service
• secondary Data collection
• Statistical Consulting Services
• Uncategorized

PhD Assistance | Blog

Content Search

Request for proposal - gender equality, social inclusion, and environmental analysis consultancy - rfp\jor\2024\501.

• World University Service of Canada

You can download the soft copy of the RFP following this link on Google Drive: (Full copy)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-JIJHGhE4B9PjYy2hcg59pFkf_U04HQR/view?usp=drive_link

*************

Advertisement – REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

WUSC invites proposals for the following « Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, and Environmental Analysis Consultancy » services:

« PR\JOR\2024\501 »

Closing date for receipt of proposals will be « 05/05/2024 » at« 16:00 Amman Local time » –

All Submissions must be electronically submitted to jordan procurement email address

[email protected]

For further information, contact WUSC through « [email protected]»

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS 2

1. Description of the Procurement 2

2. Eligibility and Qualification of Bidders 2

3. Language of the Proposal 2

4. Documents included in the Proposal 2

5. Clarification and Amendment 3

6. Modification and Withdrawal 3

7. Payment and Currency 4

8. Format , signing and submission of Proposals 4

9. Deadline for Submission of Bids 4

10. Bid Opening 4

11. Evaluation of Technical Proposals 4

12. Evaluation of Financial Proposals 5

13. Confidentiality 6

14. Notification of Award 6

15. Award of Contract 6

16. Signing of Contract and Performance Security 7

17. Settlement of Disputes 7

18. Compliances 7

Annex 1: Terms Of Reference (TOR) 8

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS

• Description of the Procurement

WUSC intends to procure a Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, and Environmental Analysis Consultancy as per the Terms of Reference attached in Annex 1.

• In order to be awarded the contract, bidders should possess the financial, economic, technical and professional capacity to perform the contract. Bidders should fulfill their tax and social insurance liabilities in the country and should not currently be subject to a debarment penalty.
• Bidders must adhere to the highest ethical standards, both throughout the bidding process and execution of the contract.
• WUSC has a zero tolerance for unethical behavior/corrupt practices including:
• Bribery: the act of unduly offering, giving, receiving or soliciting anything of value to influence the procurement process;
• Extortion or coercion: the act of attempting to influence the process of procuring goods or services, or executing contracts by means of threats of injury to person, property or reputation;
• Fraud: misrepresentation of information or facts for the purpose of influencing the procurement process;
• Collusion: an agreement between bidders designed to result in bids at artificial prices that are not competitive;
• Guilt of misrepresentation in supplying the information required by the contracting authority as a condition of participation in the contract procedure or failing to supply this information;
• Anti-terrorism: support of any terrorist or terrorist group as defined by donors;
• Other civil, criminal acts or otherwise illegal activity which would be detrimental to the financial interests of WUSC
• WUSC may declare the consultancy firms, their boards of directors and/or individual personnel ineligible to register with the organization either indefinitely or for a stated period of time.
• WUSC will reject a proposal if it establishes that the bidder recommended for award has engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices in competing for the contract.
• Freelance consultants are eligible for this RFP.
• Languageof the Proposal

The Proposal as well as all correspondence and documents related to the proposal shall be written in English Language.

• Documents included in the Proposal

The proposal will be prepared, submitted and evaluated in two parts as follows:

• Technical Proposal Format and Content

The Technical Proposal shall be prepared using the format provided below and shall comprise the documents listed**.** The Technical Proposal shall not include any financial information. A Technical Proposal containing material financial information shall be declared non-responsive.

Section 1 (In case of an open tender where the suppliers are not known to WUSC; the following documents should be requested) for eligibility and compliance check/evaluation

• Covering letter on firms headed paper giving complete details including email addresses, telephone contacts, office location.(Where applicable; not required for freelance bidders).
• Copy of Certificate of incorporation/registration (Commercial registration) Where applicable; not required for freelance bidders.
• Valid Tax compliance certificate (where applicable)
• Copy of Current Trading License (Vocational license) Where applicable; not required for freelance bidders.

Failure to submit the documents requested in section 1 will lead to rejection of the proposal.

• Financial Proposal Format and Content

The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in the format below and it shall list all costs associated with the assignment, including (a) remuneration for Key Experts and Non-Key Experts, (b) reimbursable expenses as follows:

• Summary of Costs
• Breakdown of Remuneration of the key experts proposed
• Reimbursable expenses if any

4.2.1 The prices given in the financial proposal must include all taxes and duties in accordance with the laws of the country.

4.2.2 The price offered must remain fixed during the contract performance.

4.2.3 The bid price must be in the requested Currency, which is Jordanian Dinar (JOD).

• Clarification and Amendment

WUSC will, within 5 working days, respond in writing or electronic mail to any request clarification received in writing or electronic mail no later than 7 days before expiry of the deadline for submission of the bid. The response will be distributed to all bidders without identifying the source of the request. All enquiries should be written to WUSC through ([email protected]) .

• The bidder may submit a modified bid or a modification to any part of it at any time prior to the proposal submission deadline. The bidder’s withdrawal notice must be marked as “Modification”. No modifications to the bid shall be accepted after the deadline.
• The bidder may submit a bid withdrawal notice to any part of it at any time prior to the proposal submission deadline. The bidder’s withdrawal notice must be marked as “Withdrawal”. No withdrawals to the bid shall be accepted after the deadline.
• Payment under the Contract shall be made in the currency or currencies in the bid which is (JOD)
• Payment will be made within 30 days upon submission of invoice and satisfactory receipt of goods.
• An authorized representative of the bidder shall sign the original submission letters in the required format as one original.
• The original Technical Proposal shall be clearly marked “TECHNICAL PROPOSAL” Title of the attachment.
• The original Financial Proposal shall be clearly marked “FINANCIAL PROPOSAL” Title of attachment. Note (Note : Technical and financial proposals must be submitted in one email with separate attachments).
• Deadlinefor Submission of Bids

The proposals must be submitted through the email with the subject (Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, and Environmental Analysis Consultancy )- RFP reference number, must be received by WUSC by 0 5 May 2024 16:00 Amman local time*.* Bids received after this date will be rejected.

Proposals submitted must be valid for 90 days from the bid submission date.

• WUSC evaluation committee shall conduct the opening of the proposals immediately after the bid submission time.The opening date will be May 07, 2024.
• At the opening of the proposals, only the Technical proposal shall be opened while Financial Proposal shall remain at the procurement department and shall be securely stored. bids the following shall be read out: (i) the name and the country of the bidder (ii) any modifications to the bid submitted prior to proposal submission deadline; (iii) any other information deemed appropriate. This information will be filled in the bid opening form.
• The evaluators of the Technical Proposals shall have no access to the Financial Proposals until the technical evaluation is concluded.
• The tender committee shall evaluate the Technical Proposals on the basis of their responsiveness to the Terms of Reference and the RFP, applying the evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and point system specified below. Each responsive Proposal will be given a technical score.

A Proposal shall be rejected at this stage if it does not respond to important aspects of the RFP or if it fails to achieve the minimum technical score.

During evaluation of bids, WUSC may request the bidder, in writing using mailing address or email address, to provide clarification of his bid. No change in price or substance of the bid shall be sought, offered or permitted.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Criteria, sub-criteria, and point system for the evaluation of the Technical Proposals:

• Technical (which includes; Relevance of education and experience, Experience in conducting similar studies and researches, understanding environmental and climate issues, Knowledge and understanding of Canada’s FIAP policy, technical knowledge related to paid and unpaid care work, experience in applying systems and market systems analysis approaches to women’s economic empowerment programs.(70 points)
• Financial Proposal (30 points)

Total points for the four criteria ***:*** 100

The minimum technical score (St) required to pass is: 65

The minimum Overall score 70

• The Financial Proposals of the bidders who attain the minimum technical scores are opened and the summary of cost prices read out and recorded in the bid opening form by the tender committee. All other Financial Proposals are returned unopened after the Contract negotiations are successfully concluded and the Contract is signed.
• Arithmetical errors will be rectified in the following manner. If there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price, obtained in multiplying the unit price by quantity, the unit price will prevail. If there is a discrepancy between the words and figures, the amount in words shall prevail. If the bidder disagrees with such his bid will be rejected.

The lowest evaluated Financial Proposal (Fm) is given the maximum financial score (Sf) of 100.

The formula for determining the financial scores (Sf) of all other Proposals is calculated as following:

Sf = 100 x Fm/ F, in which “Sf” is the financial score, “Fm” is the lowest price, and “F” the price of the proposal under consideration.

[or replace with another inversely proportional formula acceptable to the WUSC]

The weights given to the Technical (T) and Financial (P) Proposals are :

T = [70], and

P = _______[30]

Proposals are ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights (T = the weight given to the Technical Proposal; P = the weight given to the Financial Proposal; T + P = 1) as following: S = St x T% + Sf x P%.

• No bidder will contact WUSC on any matter related to his bid except for requests related to clarifications of the bid. Information concerning procurement process and evaluation of bids is confidential. Any clarification related to the selection process, shall be done only in writing.
• Any attempt by the bidder to influence improperly WUSC officials in the evaluation of the bid or Contract award decisions may result in the rejection of its bid, and may be subject to the application of prevailing WUSC’s debarment procedures.
• The Consultant with the Most Advantageous Proposal, which is the Proposal that achieves the highest combined technical and financial scores, will be notified of award of contract by WUSC in writing.
• At the same time WUSC notifies the successful bidder, WUSC will notify all other unsuccessful bidders and provide a debrief where one is sought in writing within 5 days.
• The notice of acceptance will be given by the successful bidder within 7 days of the notification of award.
• WUSC will award the contract to the bidder whose bid is determined to be substantially responsive and who offered the best evaluated bid.
• WUSC reserves the right to accept or reject any bid or all bids and to cancel the bidding process at any time prior to award of the contract without thereby incurring any liability to bidders without being required to inform the bidders of reasons for such actions.
• WUSC will send the successful bidder the Contract. The bidder will sign and date the contract and return to WUSC within 14 days of receipt of the notice of award.
• Together with the signed Contract, the bidder will furnish WUSC with a Performance Security, if required to do so.
• If the successful bidder fails to submit the performance security, if required to do so, within 14 days, then it shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the award of the contract. In this case, WUSC will award the contract to the next bidder.
• A performance security may be required in cases where the supplier is given an advance payment. Performance Security must be in the form of a Bank Guarantee or a bond from an Insurance Company licensed by the Bank.
• Settlement of Disputes

Disputes that may arise during the performance of the Contract shall be settled in accordance with the laws of the country, by arbitration or mutual agreement between the parties.

• Compliances

Bidders must submit valid certificates of compliances from the relevant bodies as requested.

Annex 1: Terms Of Reference (TOR)

Call for Consultant(s): Burden of Childcare Reduced and Addressed for Women in Jordan (BUCRA) Project

Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, and Environmental Analysis Consultant

Terms of Reference

Amman, Zarqa, Madaba,Irbid, Ajloun, Ma’an, and Karak

Duration of Contract

BUCRA team with technical assistance from the Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Advisor

Application Deadline

05 May 2024

Expected Start Date

12 May 2024

World University Service of Canada (WUSC) is a leading Canadian international development organization focusing on three programmatic areas: Economic Opportunities, Education, and Empowerment. Our vision is a better world for all young people. It is a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable world in which all young people, especially women, and refugees, are empowered to secure a good quality of life for themselves, their families, and their communities.

WUSC currently works in over 25 countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, with an annual budget of approximately CAD 50 million. Globally, we partner with a network of higher education institutions, civil society organizations, private sector partners, professionals, students, volunteers, faculty, and community leaders who help us achieve our mission.

BURDEN OF CHILDCARE REDUCED AND ADDRESSED FOR WOMEN IN JORDAN (BUCRA) PROJECT

The Burden of Childcare Reduced and Addressed (BUCRA) project for Women in Jordan (BUCRA - meaning Tomorrow in Arabic) is a five-year collaborative initiative from 2024 to 2029, funded by Global Affairs Canada that aims to enhance economic empowerment for women in Jordan (ultimate outcome). BUCRA takes a systems approach, engaging and supporting local stakeholders from government, training bodies, the private sector, and communities to drive gender-transformative change and address the most pressing childcare issues preventing women from participating in the workforce. BUCRA targets over 8,600 women in 7 regions in Jordan, including Amman, Irbid, Zarqa, Madaba, Ajloun, Maan, and Karak. This approach of equipping key stakeholders to address systemic barriers will enable the impacts to be experienced by women throughout Jordan over the long term.

BUCRA aligns with national and international policies and structures to address these multi-dimensional economic challenges facing women in Jordan. It builds on the success and lessons learned of WUSC’s Women’s Economic Linkages and Employment Development (WE-LEAD) project, funded by Global Affairs Canada, supporting women through increased access to accredited early childhood care and development (ECCD) vocational training and employment opportunities. By engaging and supporting systemic change among training providers, business and financial services providers, policymakers, ECCD employers, and other stakeholders, BUCRA will enhance women’s equitable access to fair and decent employment and entrepreneurship opportunities in the ECCD sector in Jordan. BUCRA will also address gendered social norms and work to improve communities’ attitudes and perceptions about women's work and ECCD services to free more women to enter the workforce in Jordan. Relevance and impact will be optimized through approaches that ensure the needs and voices of the intended women beneficiaries drive the change.

Childcare impedes women’s equitable workforce participation and economic empowerment in Jordan. Women’s heavy and unequal childcare responsibilities limit their capacity to pursue decent employment or other roles in public life. Limited availability of quality, affordable, inclusive ECCD services, or perceptions thereof, limit the uptake of ECCD services that can free women to pursue economic opportunities in Jordan. Lack of formalization of the ECCD sector impacts quality, reinforces harmful perceptions about ECCD, limits demand, and reduces the sector’s potential as an area of economic opportunity for women.

Women working in the sector face low pay, limited social protection, and capacity to exercise their workplace rights. Gendered social norms dictate that women’s rightful place is caring for children rather than pursuing economic opportunities and reinforce harmful attitudes about ECCD services. BUCRA will enable transformative changes that address these barriers, especially for the most disadvantaged women caring for children in this context, including women caring for children with disabilities, women from rural and low-income areas, and refugee women in Jordan.

Key indicators of success include (i) an increased number of qualified childcare professionals throughout the country with skills relevant to the market and sector needs, (ii) the emergence and percentage growth of childcare businesses offering quality and inclusive childcare to families, and fair and decent employment for women, (iii) increased numbers of employers offering viable and inclusive childcare options for employees (iv) increased use of and satisfaction with childcare services among families, (v) increased numbers of women with fair and decent employment in the childcare sector, and (vi) changes in social norms expectations around women’s participation in the labor market and regarding families making use of childcare services including for children living with disabilities.

This initiative is grounded in the assumptions that:

• Increasing the quality, availability, and accessibility of childcare training will lead to more high-quality and accessible childcare services becoming available to Jordanian families, including families with children with disabilities.
• Engaging and supporting employers to make quality, inclusive childcare more accessible to their employees will lead to greater take-up of childcare services and increased demand.
• Women are interested in working in childcare, and interventions that support access to related training and fair and decent employment opportunities—including in home-based businesses—can play an essential role in connecting them to this work and will also positively impact the quality and availability of childcare.
• Challenging gendered social norms that act as barriers to women’s economic participation and families’ take-up of childcare increases parent engagement in childcare services to bolster trust, addressing the related stigma associated with children with disabilities and highlighting the broad-ranging benefits of childcare and women’s employment to the household, will encourage more Jordanian families to use childcare services, and free women to pursue other activities.
• Addressing these interconnected issues will lead to more women being employed and, ultimately, to their economic empowerment.

BUCRA is a collaborative initiative to be led by WUSC and delivered in partnership with several local implementing partners, including i) the National Council for Family Affairs (NCFA) working toward enhancing the environment for Jordanian families’ stability and well-being; ii) the Vocational Training Corporation (VTC) responsible for training services and vocational development in Jordan; and iii) SADAQA, a Jordanian NGO working towards an enabling and inclusive work environment for women.

KEY INTERVENTION AREAS

The project's ultimate outcome is Ultimate Outcome 1000: Enhanced economic empowerment for women in Jordan. WUSC and partners will deliver interventions in collaboration with other key stakeholders and contribute to the ultimate outcome through the following five key outcome areas:

Intermediate Outcome 1100: Enhanced equitable access of women to employment and self-employment opportunities in the ECCD sector in target regions of Jordan

• Training Providers: Immediate Outcome 1110: Enhanced capacity of training providers to provide quality, market-relevant, gender-transformative and inclusive ECCD training.
• Women Childcare Providers: Immediate Outcome 1120: Increased access by women to services that help them secure ECCD employment or start-up/expand quality home-based nurseries.
• Policy Makers: Immediate Outcome 1130: Improved capacity of key stakeholders to develop and implement gender-responsive policy and regulation, fostering the availability of quality ECCD services

Intermediate Outcome 1200: Increased use of ECCD services, particularly by women, in target regions of Jordan.

• Community: Immediate Outcome 1210: Improved attitudes among women and their communities about women's work and ECCD
• ECCD Employers: Immediate Outcome 1220: Enhanced capacity of employers to provide quality, gender-responsive and inclusive ECCD services

These interventions are expected to lead to gender transformative advancements in target regions by increasing the number of qualified women childcare professionals with market-relevant skills, including caring for children with disabilities. They will also lead to growth in childcare businesses offering quality and inclusive childcare and fair and decent employment for women. They will increase the use of and satisfaction with childcare services among communities in Jordan. They will lead to changes in social normative expectations around women’s participation in the labor market and families making use of childcare services, including for children living with disabilities. The interventions will be delivered in the targeted regions of Amman, Irbid, Zarqa, Madaba, Ajloun, Maan, and Karak, where several vocational training centers are already offering ECCD training programs and where NCFA has identified the need and opportunities for establishing new home-based nurseries and upskilling for women working in existing ECCD operations (both private and public).

The project aims to support additional home-based nurseries by creating more equitable and inclusive employment opportunities for women while tackling barriers related to transportation and the affordability of childcare services that limit women’s equitable participation in the workforce. Through these initiatives, WUSC is committed to positively impacting women's lives in Jordan by eliminating gender-specific barriers to women's entrance and retention in the workforce.

This project aligns with Canada’s approach to care work centered on gender equality and human rights. This project aligns with Canada's Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), as it promotes the core action area on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, action area 2 on human dignity through education and training, and action area 3 on growth that works for everyone. As the assessments show, the project will address some of Canada’s 5Rs (recognizing, reducing, redistributing, representing, and responding) approach to care work. The project is aligned with Jordan’s international and national commitments. Jordan is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The project will contribute towards SDGs 1 (no poverty), 4 (quality education), 5 (gender equality), 8 (decent work), and 10 (reducing inequality)

THE ASSIGNMENT

WUSC aims to hire a consultant to conduct a gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) and environmental analysis using secondary and primary data to inform program design and implementation.

Building on lessons learned and best practices from WUSC’s WE LEAD project implemented in Jordan and the findings of a recent GESI analysis completed at the proposal stage, this assignment aims to assess the needs, opportunities, and recommendations of women and relevant stakeholders working in the childcare economy, including home-based care nurseries, in seven targeted areas: Amman, Madaba, Zarqa, Irbid, Ajloun, Ma’an, and Karak.

The GESI analysis aims to provide essential insights into gender-based and inclusive considerations needed to ensure that women, in particular, will benefit from the project interventions. The study should, therefore, seek to examine the root causes of cultural, gendered social norms / institutional, political, and gender inequalities that are harmful to women’s access to higher quality, affordable, equitable, and inclusive childcare services, professional training opportunities, leadership and decision-making opportunities, and the constraints they face, while integrating an environmental sustainability and market systems lens.

TARGET STUDY PARTICIPANTS

The study proposes to consult project participants, partners, and stakeholders representing the public sector, including government officials from the NCFA, Higher Council for Persons with Disabilities, private sector micro-enterprises, home-based daycare owners, financial and business service providers, entrepreneurial ecosystem actors, environmental organizations, women's rights organizations such as SADAQA, INGOs such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), employers and decision-makers, community members (women, men, female and male youth), in addition to parents, Early Childcare Workers (ECWs), both paid and unpaid, instructors of vocational training centers, and civil society organizations in the targeted areas in Jordan.

PURPOSE OF THE GESI ANALYSIS

The GESI Analysis aims to undertake a more extensive analysis utilizing primary and secondary data from the targeted locations to confirm and/or inform the design of the BUCRA project. It also aims to ensure that local women’s rights organizations, partners, nursery owners, and national stakeholders working on the care economy are co-leading in designing objectives and activities to ensure that feminist principles are adequately integrated and applied. The findings from this analysis will enable WUSC and its local partners to effectively design and implement the initiative to address the gender and human rights issues that ECWs face in a transformative, inclusive, and contextualized way. They will also help develop mitigation strategies for gender-specific risks and aid in formulating a gender equality strategy to be submitted with the project implementation plan (PIP). Additionally, the findings will ensure proper and targeted capacity strengthening for staff and partners on gender analysis, gender mainstreaming, and monitoring of gender equality results throughout the project cycle.

The study's results will also inform a GESI-integrated market systems analysis and the project's environmental sustainability approach, focusing on the intersection between the care economy and environment/climate change. The successful consultant will work closely with the project’s Environment Advisor and Market Systems Advisor to ensure that these perspectives are integrated into data collection tools and analysis as appropriate.

THE GOALS OF THE GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ANALYSIS

The gender analysis aims to accomplish the following goals;

• To understand how gender dynamics affect or could affect the design of the BUCRA project in Jordan.
• To understand how the BUCRA project impacts or could impact gender dynamics in Jordan.
• To understand how the various groups are expected to benefit from the BUCRA project in Jordan.

OBJECTIVES OF THE GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ANALYSIS

The gender equality and social inclusion analysis will provide critical insights to inform the design and delivery of the BUCRA project interventions, contributing to the achievement of the following objectives:

• Validate and refine the gender equality issues, gaps, inequalities, and barriers related to paid care work focusing on the work of ECWs identified during the proposal phase and recent studies by program partners that impact women’s and men’s behavior regarding gender roles/relations/power dynamics, equitable access to and control over resources such as education, training, economic opportunities, leadership, and decision-making opportunities, gender-based violence (GBV), social, cultural and gendered norms, focusing on recommendations and best practices for addressing these issues.
• Provide an analysis of power dynamics in paid care work at the personal, household, organizational, local, or sub-national levels, document recommendations on how best to close the identified gender gaps, and consider the intersectional dimensions of inequality, discrimination, and exclusion.
• Recommendations and best practices for addressing human rights issues related to ECWs and paid childcare work. Identify the existing human rights policies, international and national legal context, and frameworks from treaty bodies; types of human rights violations concerning paid care work and the root causes of violations; power relations and influence of key actors in the early childcare workspace (rights-holders, responsibility holders and duty bearers) in terms of labor rights, women’s rights, children’s rights including children with disabilities, and the rights of those cared for; primary responsibilities for violations at different levels; strengths and weaknesses of the affected individuals/groups/communities to address violations; and willingness and capacity of responsibility holders and duty bearers to address the problem.
• Validate and refine gender-based constraints in paid care work and recommend key elements for ensuring that women and men living with disabilities and special needs will benefit from the project’s activities and intended outcomes.
• Validate the rights and well-being issues and barriers of those cared for (children’s rights) and how the quality of early childcare and paid care services can be improved, particularly for children with disabilities.
• Identify opportunities for promoting women’s economic empowerment and address barriers to women’s participation in leadership and decision-making roles, processes, and opportunities for paid care work, building on the proposal research, the WE LEAD project, and local partner knowledge and ongoing initiatives.
• Examine and analyze who has access to and control over resources, access to services, and decision-making opportunities, and identify barriers to women’s access to those resources and services related to education and livelihood opportunities in the childcare space.
• Identify and analyze gender-responsive models to be piloted with the ECCD providers to design and test parents' engagement approaches, accountability, and feedback mechanisms.
• Validate gender equality risks , vulnerabilities, negative, unintended consequences of the intervention, and mitigation strategies , including but not limited to sexual and Gender-based Violence and Safeguarding issues in paid care work (see tool 7 in the FIAP toolkit for examples here ).
• Identify and map out key actors within the paid childcare ecosystem in Jordan and analyze their incentives and capacities to help address constraints and leverage opportunities related to women’s economic empowerment.
• The project aims to incorporate an environmental risk assessment within the GESI analysis to explore the potential environmental implications of the project (both positive and negative), considering the everyday environmental relations (subsistence work done alongside care work), the intersection between the care economy and environment/climate change and the differential impact of climate change on women and their care burden. Relevant issues to explore include a) the water scarcity issue in Jordan, b) the impact of cleaning products utilized in childcare facilities, c) the potential for integration of environment and climate sensitization into the ECCD curriculum, and d) available incentives and challenges to promote positive environmental awareness and practices.

GENDER ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

The proposed GESI analysis framework is based on the WUSC GESI Analysis Guidance. These domains come from the USAID guidance on gender analysis and align with the FIAP (and GAC guidance on Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+), CARE's gender analysis tool (which has previously been used by WUSC), and pulls from other GESI analysis best practices. For WUSC, in alignment with our Gender, Age, and Diversity policy, we aim to take an intersectional approach that includes gender, age, and diversity, recognizing that there are many intersecting identity factors such as race, ethnicity, and mental and physical disabilities.

• Laws, policies, regulations, and institutional practices
• Access to and control over resources and assets
• Gender roles, responsibilities, and time use
• Cultural norms, social norms, and beliefs
• Patterns of power and decision-making
• Services, institutions, and programs

The consultant will ensure that the gender analysis framework facilitates the gathering of evidence on the context (opportunities/constraints) for women and men’s access to quality, equitable, and inclusive education and training opportunities in paid care work. Constraints, for instance, can be those emanating from their own lives, their families (general entourage/relations who have some influence over women's lives),the environmental context (subsistence work done alongside care work), or more structural barriers within the workforce that affect the opportunities of these women.

To facilitate this research process, a range of questions have been developed to guide the type of information the study should capture. These questions are only indicative; further refinement will be explored collaboratively with the consultant(s) during the inception meeting. Findings should be aligned with the FIAP objectives and core action areas. The most critical point is that the study's results provide relevant data that can inform the design and delivery of the BUCRA project, helping to meet the objectives stated above.

METHODOLOGY

The study should aim to collect primary data through key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with potential project participants (women, men, female, male youth, gender diverse individuals), partners, and stakeholders representing the public sector, including government officials from the Ministry of Social Development, the National Council of Family Affairs (NCFA), the Higher Council for the rights of Persons with Disabilities, persons from diverse groups, including persons with disabilities and refugees, private sector micro-enterprises, home-based care owners, women's rights organizations such as SADAQA, INGOs, employers and decision-makers, community members, ECWs, instructors of Vocational Training Centers, financial and business service providers, entrepreneurial ecosystem actors, environmental organizations, training providers, and civil society organizations in the targeted areas in Jordan. Collected data should be disaggregated by gender, age, and other diversity factors (where possible) when presented in the final report. Secondary data should also be collected from relevant global, regional, and national reports addressing the care economy, including home-based care. WUSC staff will provide input and feedback on the preliminary findings, recommendations, and conclusions.

SPECIFIC TASKS

• Develop a detailed inception report and work plan in close consultation with designated WUSC staff, clarifying and refining the study's approach, methodology, and timing.
• Refine the gender equality and social inclusion analysis guidelines and data collection tools as needed.
• Participate in an inception meeting with WUSC staff.
• Collect quantitative and qualitative data through reviews of secondary sources, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews.
• Prepare the final report as documented in the deliverables below, including actionable recommendations focusing on their relevance for interventions. The final report should also include a detailed bibliography of secondary research and a complete list of participants consulted.
• Revise the final report and recommendations following feedback from WUSC staff.

LEVEL OF EFFORT

The level of effort required for this consultancy is estimated at 25 days.

WUSC RESPONSIBILITIES

• To provide relevant documentation and respond to the Consultant's questions throughout the mandate.
• To mobilize the necessary team to support the Consultant and designate a person responsible for this assignment.
• To provide the Consultant with feedback and comments on the various documents produced, according to the approved writing plan.

TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES OF THE CONSULTANCY

The contract period is for 25 days in May and June 2024. Estimated contributions expected in working days will be determined in consultation with the selected candidate. The candidate will have to put in place all the necessary actions to launch the GESI analysis within the following schedule:

Signing of Contract and Inception Meeting

Submission of a detailed work plan, draft inception report, and data collection tools for WUSC review and feedback

19 May 2024

Submission of the final version of the inception report, which incorporates WUSC comments

23 May 2024

Data collection through desk review, key informant interviews & focus group discussions

04 June 2024

Submission of the draft report, including methodology, findings, and recommendations. The report should also include

• A detailed bibliography of secondary research
• A complete list of participants consulted

13 June 2024

Submission of the final report, including methodology, findings, recommendations, and conclusion, including WUSC comments

20 June 2024

CANDIDATE QUALIFICATIONS

• The candidate should have at least 5-7 years of professional experience and a demonstrated track record of conducting gender analysis for women’s economic empowerment projects.
• The candidate should hold a graduate degree in social sciences, gender studies, development studies, international development, or a related field.
• The candidate should have a foundational understanding of environmental and climate issues to effectively undertake the project's environmental implications aspect of the analysis and/or include time for a dedicated consultant to support data collection/analysis related to environment and climate change and paid care.
• Strong research and report-writing skills are essential for this consultancy.
• Knowledge and understanding of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy and Feminist International Assistance Gender Equality Toolkit for Projects
• Technical knowledge and experience related to paid and unpaid care work would be assets.
• Experience in applying systems and market systems analysis approaches to women’s economic empowerment programming would be an asset.

Price and payment

Quoted price would be open to negotiations; WUSC reserves the right to choose certain items from the itemized budget submitted.

Key Milestones

Payment Percentages

Pre-bid Clarification (Q&A)

All inquiries, questions & clarification requests should be directed to the email address [email protected]

The Deadline for the Pre-bid Clarification (Q&A) is 25 April 2024 at the close of business at 16:00 Jordan time .

APPLICATIONS

Interested parties are encouraged to submit an application package, including a technical and financial offer, to WUSC Jordan Procurement Email “[email protected]”

WUSC’s activities seek to balance inequities and create sustainable development around the globe. The work ethic of our staff, volunteers, consultants, representatives, and partners shall correspond to the organization's values and mission. WUSC promotes responsibility, respect, honesty, and professional excellence, and we will not tolerate harassment, coercion, sexual exploitation, or abuse in any form.

Only sealed envelopes (Hard copies) will be accepted. The application submission deadline is 05 May 2024 at the close of business at 16:00 Jordan time .

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

Any document shared with the service provider as part of this TOR is considered part of WUSC property that cannot be distributed or used by any other agency.

All produced materials under this TOR are the property of WUSC and cannot be distributed or to be used by any agencies.

How to apply

Related content.

Jordan + 1 more

“Let it stay in the heart and injure, rather than going out and exposing me”: Unpacking cultural concepts of distress among Syrian refugees in Jordan

Jordan + 5 more

2023-2025 Operational Strategy for the Prevention, Risk Mitigation of and Response to Gender-Based Violence (GBV) GBV Working Group – Jordan

Jordan: iswg meeting note february 2024, beyond the farm: how empowering women farmers drives change in jordan and beyond.