1. How to Critique a Proposal
Mary Farwell, East Carolina University
slides courtesy of Janet Stocks with input from others
I will talk about peer critiques, what is in it for us as a recipient and as a reviewer, why it is important, what comprises a critique and how we do it.

2. The benefits of peer critique of your proposal
Who
Someone who knows your discipline (a specialist)
Someone who doesn’t (a generalist)
Why
A fresh/objective perspective
Discussion of/clarification of ideas
Additional literature suggestions
We are often better at evaluating other people’s work than our own
At this institute, you will have the benefit of being both generalists and specialists but mostly generalists.
A generalist can often see flaws that a specialist overlooks
There will be a mix of generalists and specialists in most review panels

3. Benefits to you of critiquing others’ proposals
Learn something you didn’t already know
Obtain perspective on the structure of a proposal
Get tips about how to present arguments
Show that you are a good citizen
As a member of a community of scholars, you are the peers in peer-review
This institute is very instructive because of the opportunity for you to read other’s proposals. This, and just having time, may be one of the most valuable aspects.

4. What to critique Content of Proposal Intended Audience Presentation
Rhetoric
Exposition
Persuasion
Credentialing

5. What to critique (what panels look at)
Content of proposal
Research question/ statement of the problem/ program objectives
Significance of research question
Existing state of the field and gaps (literature)
Methods
Expected products/ outcomes/ contribution
Assessment/ dissemination

6. What to critique (cont.)
Intended audience
Is this the right funding agency for this proposal?
Does the proposal address the agency’s needs?
Has the researcher made appropriate contact with the agency?

7. What to critique (cont.)
Presentation
Is the writing clear and concise?
Is the reader’s interest engaged throughout?
Are you persuaded that this is worth funding?
Are all the elements presented logically and consistently?
Are there appropriate transitions between concepts and sections?
Does the writer present appropriate credentials?
Does the writer have the background/training to be uniquely suited to this research

8. How NIH panels work
Proposals are reviewed by a primary reviewer and a secondary and tertiary
As a reviewer, you will have 5-10 as primary, same amount as secondary and a few tertiary
You will be expected to write critiques before the panel as a primary reviewer
During the discussion, secondary reviewer will keep notes

9. The attitude of a peer critique
Constructive criticism (be supportive, not brutal)
Attempt to paraphrase main points (to see if they are clear)
Dialogue /Ask questions for clarification
Suggest additional literature if possible
Probe for methodological details
Point out gaps
Use the sandwich technique—a compliment as the top slice, the criticism in the middle, with the bottom slice another compliment
Some of these are more possible than others
Remember, even if you are far out of the field and you think you are asking a dumb question, there are always reviewers on panels who are often out of the field. By asking that question you may be able to help the writer clarify a point in a better way.

10. How to deliver a critique
Remember that this is not YOUR proposal (don’t expect that all your suggestions will be taken)
Your opinion is valuable, but assume that the proposal author knows a lot too
Therefore, tone is important—we are all in this game together!

11. How to receive a critique
Be grateful that the person took the time to take your proposal seriously
Take all feedback into consideration but make choices based on what YOU believe is best
Come back to the feedback a day or two later and consider it again