So, the problem you address is important and we want a solution now. The next set of questions are about approach, research design, and budget.
Why like this?
Why should we try to solve the problem you address in the way you propose? Aren’t there better ways to do it? Why do you deviate from the way things usually are done in your field? Will it work? And, what if not? Although you can ask these why questions about every minor detail, mainly why like this questions fall into two categories:
- Approach
- Why do you approach it from this discipline/this mix of disciplines?
- Why is it qualitative and not quantitative (or vice versa, or both)?
- Why it mono-, multi-, or interdisciplinary?
- Project structure
- Why these four work packages?
- Why WP1 first and then WP2?
- Why will WP1 work?
- What if WP1 fails, is WP2 still possible?
- What if your overall assumption is false, will there be still good science?
- What do you consider the most important risk?
- Budget
- Why do you request this much for that part?
- Why does this important part only consume a relatively small proportion of the budget?
- Why do you request an extra budget above the grant and what if we do not grant this extra amount?
This really is Pandora’s box. You can ask for the reason behind each micro part of the materials and methods section, but probably this is what you can answer easily and on the spot. However, do think about the major choices. What we are after here is the birds eye perspective on the proposal. There is a lens with which you are looking at the issue and there is the journey you take. Create such an overview of the things you are going to do, but also why you are going to do them.
Dichotomy #2: Ambitious vs feasible
A thing to consider here is the balance between ambition and feasibility. The more ambitious a proposal is, the more it raises questions about feasibility. At the same time a very feasible proposal can be perceived as unambitious. An already successful pilot study can contribute to the feasibility of an ambitious plan. Strong claims need strong evidence. At the same time this pilot study might lead to the suspicion that this proposal is just an incremental step instead of a step change. And, a very feasible plan needs highlighting of its challenging aspects. All this makes it important to be explicit about the inherent logic of the proposal, where it rests upon existing work and where it depends on innovation.