BY Prof. Mauri Yambo (Workshop Coordinator), March 19, 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
May I take the opportunity, as the workshop coordinator, to once again welcome you to this five-day workshop; and to thank you for deciding and finding the time to come. It was a good decision, and it is an honour to have you.
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
The overall purpose of this workshop, the eighth in a series of proposal writing workshops sponsored by UNES and the office of the DVC (RPE), is to significantly enhance the quality of research and project proposals written by academic and senior technical staff of the University of Nairobi.
It is expected that enhanced proposal writing capability will lead to:
a. A significant increase in the number of research/project grants, and related funding, won worldwide by University of Nairobi staff. As you may know, the university, as a corporate entity, expects a 15% share of the gross annual revenue from these grants;
b. The publication of more scholarly works: refereed journal articles, book chapters and books;
c. Increased participation by academic staff in scholarly and professional workshops and conferences, and an increased and growing number of evidence-based presentations at such gatherings.
A total of 500 staff are to be trained in these workshops. Out of these, it is expected that at least 10% will become proficient/successful proposal writers.
3. DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY
Quality has two broad dimensions: Form and Content.:
a. The Form (Design, Outline, Format or Structure) may be good, but the Content (such as Problem Statement, Gap Identification, Causality Statement, Logic, Premises) bad – that is, weak or incoherent or without a clear or persuasive or any value-proposition, or generally sub-par;
b. Or the Content may be good, but the Form bad (incoherent, disjointed, incomplete or idiosyncratic);
c. Or, as is too often the case, both the Form and the Content may be below the expectations of:
(i) The Funding Agency: Funding agencies tend to place a high premium on the coherence of argumentation and presentation; and, just as important, the promise of rigour: rigorous problem-solving backed by an evidence-based, logical and imaginative turn of mind; or,
(ii) The self-critical proposer: who, it is to be imagined, is always looking to reach higher levels of quality – in terms of conception and execution – but has generally lacked the opportunity and forum, such as are provided in this series of workshops, to openly and ‘safely’ speak heart-to-heart and share experiences and concerns with colleagues and peers across disciplines.
4. FACILITATORS
There are four facilitators in this workshop, as you have heard in the introductions. They are your colleagues. And though there is no denying that the university is endeavouring to realize workshop goals, as above stated, through them, they are your peers, not your teachers The flow of learning will be in both directions – and even in multiple directions. Believe me, I have already seen it in previous workshops.
All in all, the facilitators, as a group, have a big challenge, rooted in a clear set of deliverables – short-term and medium-term.
There is a certain degree of common ground which we, the facilitators, will endeavour to share with you. We have noted that this common ground has expanded in the course of the seven previous workshops, as we have responded to participants’ feedback, reviewed the programme and engaged in self-criticism. Beyond the common ground, however, we urge you to view the content of our presentations as if they emanated from four separate “books” – which it is up to you to digest: accept or disregard or query or synthesize as your critical faculties and/or research needs may direct you to do
5. WORKSHOP STRUCTURE
The workshop has three broad components:
(a) Presentations and discussions led by different facilitators, as indicated in the workshop programme already in participants’ folders;
(b) Group Work involving the drafting of research or project proposals;
(c) Presentation, on the last workshop day, of proposals developed by different groups.
6. CONCERNING GROUP WORK AND CALLS FOR PROPOSALS
As already noted, Group Work will revolve around the preparation of jointly written proposals, and the eventual presentation of at least the first draft to workshop participants. Participants may choose to respond to the call for a research or project proposal. In view of the constraint imposed on proposal writing by the workshop’s short duration and the ad hoc nature of the groups, the presentations will be very cautiously evaluated on the basis of score sheets prepared, just in the last two weeks, by the facilitators. But we urge you to take the format of the score sheets, and the weighting of the various items, very seriously as you carry on your task.
Five “Calls for Proposals” will be available to participants. Each group will be at liberty to choose any of the five calls for the purposes of Friday's presentations. Four of the calls are hypothetical, while one is actual and current, as follows:
(a) The Ogot Foundation: Call for project proposals on Hunger in the Horn of Africa, focusing on any of hunger’s myriad causes in any specified “local area” within the region. Value of the hypothetical call: Kshs 10 million;
(b) Capital Markets Authority of Kenya (CMA): Call for applied finance research proposals covering three broad areas of interest within Kenya’s asset management community: applied finance research, asset management knowledge and related issues, and knowledge dissemination. Value of the hypothetical call: US$15,000;
(c) Youth Advisory Board: Call for project proposals on Youth Community Service Learning Projects focusing on any of the following: environmental responsibility, disaster preparedness, driver safety, financial education, and bridging the achievement gap through higher education. Value of the hypothetical call: US$150,000.
(d) Domestic Violence Research: Call for research proposals designed, inter alia, to enhance community response capacity through direct services and support to victims and their families; and to strengthen governmental, legal and cultural interventions. Value of the hypothetical call: Kshs 5 million.
(e) Swiss Re’s International Resource Award for Sustainable Watershed Management 2013: Call for proposals for the implementation of sustainable watershed management projects. A proven track record in sustainable planning and/or management of water or other resources will be particularly advantageous. This is an actual annual award, which may be granted to one or several projects. Its value for the year 2013 is US$ 150,000. Deadline for the return of initial application forms: 30 April 2012.
7. PROPOSAL FORMATS AND LENGTHS
The Score Sheets alluded to above incorporate proposal formats which you should, at the very least, bounce off your own groups’ consensus-ideas of format, as you draft your full proposals. The respective facilitators will share with you their more detailed conceptions of format. Each workshop day should therefore be both interesting and full of perspectives to interrogate.
The maximum length of a full proposal is typically “not more than 15 pages” There will be at least two sources in your folders which point to the fifteen page limit; and that is before line spacing and font size are specified. At the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA, line spacing (whether double or single) is left to the discretion of the proposer, but maximum page limit is set at 15. The Center for Nonprofit Management also sets the maximum page limit at 15. The sample proposal prepared by Prof. Madara Ogot (former MD of UNES), which appears as Handout 2 in your folder, is already some 8 pages long, single-spaced. This is before we include certain essential components of a full proposal.
While it will be up to you to decide on the lengths of your proposals, of course within the above limits, I wish to inform you that each group will be given only ten minutes to present its proposal on Friday, beginning at noon.
8. FINAL WORD
I believe that you will find ways to make your respective teams work – the teams that you will join presently. That is, work closely enough to produce a draft, in five intense days.
Let me now give way to the first facilitator, Dr. Machoki, whose day Monday is, as the programme shows you. My day is tomorrow. Dr. Marete will facilitate on Wednesday. Mr. Matseshe will take you through all matters financial and budgetary on Thursday. He will be back Friday morning with Dr. Machoki, to round off their parts. All the four of us will be with you from the start of group presentations at noon on Friday until the end of the workshop at 4. Thank you.
