我认为你⾸先要明确对⽅向你要proposal的⽬的是什么？对⽅⾸先是想通过你的研究计划看你发现问题，分析问题以及提出解决⽅法的能⼒。这⾥⾯牵涉到的问题很多：
1、你的proposal是否具有创新性，你对当前国际最新的研究进展是否熟悉，你有⽆⾃⼰的思路？
2、你提的计划是否结合你⾃⼰和对⽅的背景知识，是否具有可⾏性？
3、你的计划是否充分完备，是否提供备⽤⽅案，也就是说你是否充分估计了你计划实施的困难？
呵呵，上⾯说的三条看起来有些空洞。但是写作组织起来并不复杂。广东人吃什么
第⼀段，背景介绍，充分阅读相关最新的⽂献（04、05年的），提出科学问题；
第⼆段，简要分析你的主要思路及意义；
第三——？段，制定相关研究计划，不需要具体的每步的细节，但是你的论述应该让对⽅认为你对该细节有着充分了解和认知，并⾮天马⾏空似的漫谈；
乌尔班最后⼀部分，分析你的Proposal中潜在问题，并进⼀步提出潜在⽅案。
亦威猛我想如果对⽅发现你的思路如此明确，即使⽅案在他看来还⽐较naive或者premature，他也会对你另眼
相看的。
What's the purpo of a rearch plan?
It depends on who's asking the question, and who’s answering it. From your immediate point of view the purpo of a rearch plan is to help get you hired.
The rearch plan, though, rves another, very important function: It contributes to your development as a scientist. Your rearch plan is a map for your career as a rearch science professional. As will become apparent later in this document, one of the functions of a rearch plan is to demonstrate your intellectual vision and aspirations. It's also an opportunity to begin to demonstrate the creative and independent thinking required of a successful scientist.
Not yet on the job market? Just starting out as a postdoc? A rearch plan isn't just for demonstrating; it's also for honing and refining. It's possible to function quite well as a postdoc or grad student while giving little thought to your future. Writing a rearch plan casts your gaze forward and prompts you to begin planning for when you have your own laboratory. And if you've already started to think about your own lab, it will help you to refine your plans. So take a stab at writing a rearch plan, even if you don't expect to be on the job market for a while. Think of it as a r
ough draft, a fantasy trip for your career.
* * *
But never mind about that. Most of you are trying to get hired. In that ca what matters is, What is the committee looking for? The answer: relief from anxiety.
Hiring committees desperately want to avoid making a rious mistake by investing institutional and intellectual capital in the wrong person. The aim of your rearch plan, then, as of the rest of your application, is to assure the hiring committee that life with you will be pain-free.
How do you do this? Provide the committee a compelling, reassuring, believable image of what their life will be like when you are working down the hall.
Tell them a story--a believable, credible story--about what your lab will be like 5 years from now: well-funded, vibrant, productive, pursuing a valuable, ambitious but realistic rearch agenda that meshes well with the department's mission and with the other rearch going on in the department.
Plea don't misunderstand: You shouldn't tell them this ("in 5 years my lab will be vibrant, productive, and well-funded ..."; rather, you need to lead them to believe it by describing a rearch
agenda that persuades them that you will succeed. There are two parts to this: You have to tell a good story, and you have to make them believe it. If the story isn't compelling you won't get hired, and if they can't quite imagine it becoming reality, you won't get hired.
How do I tell a good story?
* First, choo an important subject. If the rearch you plan is not compelling, no rhetorical skill will make it compelling to a committee of smart scientists. If the rearch you propo is not manifestly, obviously important, if you don't know why it's important, or if you can't convey its importance effectively, convincing the committee to hire you won't be easy. Note that there are two issues here: believing in the importance of your own work, and persuading others that your work is important.
娃娃家家If you don't think the work you'll be doing is important, your best bet is to change fields. The goal of science may be to uncover truth, but uncovering objective truth is a very difficult thing to do, and doing it requires passion. If you aren't passionate about your work, your best bet is to find work about which you can be passionate. It isn't easy to change gears midcour, but getting yourlf into an important area of rearch will be well worth the effort in the long term--to your hirability, your fundability, your tenurability, and also to your career satisfaction. Do another postdoc if you must.
Passion for your work is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for capturing the attention of hiring committees. After all, some people are passionate about, um, peculiar things. To convince the committee to hire you, you must convince them that your passion is justified and that they will benefit from investing in your passion--that is, that your work is important.
* Be specific. Curing cancer is not a suitable goal for one individuals' rearch plan--exciting, yes, but much too big to be believable. Inhibiting tumor growth? That's better, says one of our respondents--especially when that general goal is supported by more specific strategies. "[That kind of rearch] can travel down veral different mechanistic routes," this respondent says, "i.e., angiogenesis, breakdown of extracellular matrix, gene activation, induction of molecules involved--it can u different models--implanting tumors, using different tumor models, in vivo, in vitro, etc." The combination of a manifestly important goal with manifestly interesting, feasible approaches is the foundation of the rearch plan.
Being specific is not the same thing as including loads of detail. Being specific means including only as much detail as the job requires--not more. "Vague generalities are the sign of a vague mind," says one source. "This means that the proposal must walk the fine line of enough detail to show the reader that the candidate knows what they are talking about, but not too much detail that it confus 生物汽油
or bores the arch committee."
* Keep it short and focus on the major themes. "Brevity and clarity are the most important elements," wrote another respondent, expressing a ntiment shared by everyone. "Clear, conci writing ... is a plus," said another. "Superfluous details are not just unnecessary, they are often the hallmark of a poor plan. The specific aims must be clear and succinct." Identify your goals, state why tho goals are important, define your approach to achieving tho goals, and indicate the kinds of evidence that will validate your approach. Oh, and do it clearly and succinctly.
"If you were sitting for 4 hours reading such proposals, what would you look for? Clear and to the point wins every time in this arena."
柳树开花
Effective communication requires anticipating readers' needs, giving them exactly the information they need just when they need it. Constructing a rearch plan along the lines strengthens your application in three ways: You avoid alienating the committee by boring them; you tell the committee precily what you intend to do; and you show that you have a subtle mind and a deep knowledge of your field.
Can't do this yet? No hurry--consider spending another year as a postdoc, and study hard.
* Be rious about writing. Writes one respondent: "If the proposal confus the reader in almost any way, it is simply tosd out. I strongly recommend that the candidate have colleagues pre-review the proposal and make sure the English is clear and ideas explained so that a variety of people in the general area can understand what is being propod and the importance of the work."
If your writing skills are weak, it might be time to strengthen them. Or hire an editor. And by all means have veral people--preferably nior colleagues who have rved on hiring committees--critique your rearch plan.
But there were two parts to this, remember? You not only have to tell a good story--you also have to make it em real, to make them expect it to come true.
How do I make my rearch plan em real?
* Have a solid, well-considered, realistic plan. If you want to get a job at an institution that takes its rearch riously, you'll have to convince your future colleagues that you've gotten past the young, impressionable pha, where every idea glitters with promi despite the fact that it isn't feasible and isn't likely to work. Show the committee that, while your high ideals remain intact, your years of graduate and postdoctoral study have helped you to know the difference between good ideas and go
od intentions. In the words of one scholar, "You can tell a 'building castles in the sky' rearch plan. They are not built on solid data and go to the very bottom of the pool." Indeed ...
* Include preliminary data. Preliminary data offer the most convincing argument for the viability of your rearch plan. If you have them, u them--positive results will be of interest and persuasive to hiring committee members. The nature of your preliminary data and findings will vary--some will have much to share, others might be forced to share very preliminary data. Nothing grounds your hopes and dreams in the real world like good, solid data. Your plan might sound exciting, but will it work? It's one thing to make it sound good; if you can show that you've already taken the first, tentative but successful steps of that long journey, reaching your destination will em a lot less like a pipe dream. One of my sources was unequivocal on
this point: "Does the rearch question build on the preliminary data the person has generated? No preliminary data = no rearch question." Which also equals no job offer at that institution.
It is important to remember that just as institutions vary widely in their practices, so too do the expectations of hiring committees. Do your homework: Learn about the culture of the department and the experiences of previous faculty hires.
* Include redundant approaches. If you want to succeed as a scientist you have to be resourceful. You can't be a one-trick pony. And the focus must be on the science--on the problem you aim to solve--not on the scientist or a particular approach. No matter how knowledgeable you are, no matter how well considered your rearch plan, you can't predict the future. And if you haven't done the work yet, you don't know how it will turn out. That means that any one approach you specify might not work, even if it ems compelling. So if you want to convince the committee that you will succeed, give them not one, but two, or even three, compelling approaches, all of which have a good chance of success.
How do I demonstrate my independence?
Different institutions expect you to be at different stages of your career. Think of it as a continuum: At one end sit well-established rearchers with strong rearch records, many first-author (or last-author) publications, and their own rearch funding. At the other end sit rosy-cheeked freshly minted Ph.D.s full of enthusiasm, promi, and ideas, but with little yet to show for it. Most candidates for entry-level tenure-track faculty jobs at institutions that require rearch (that is, most of the people who write rearch plans for job applications) are somewhere in the middle. You probably won't get hired anywhere if you aren't well prepared to start a productive rearch program
at a scale appropriate for the institution.
But the days some institutions and departments are looking for more than that. Increasingly, especially in the biomedical field, universities are hiring established rearchers, even at the "entry" (assistant professor) level. How is this possible? The days some pre-tenure-track scientists are tting up their own rearch programs. Increasingly, nior postdocs are being promoted to rearch associate or rearch faculty positions during what the GrantDoctor calls the "postpostdoc" pha of their rearch career. In that position they write rearch grants in their own names and their host institutions sponsor them. Very often the folks have an R01 before they begin applying for a tenure-track job.
The key objective if you’re applying to one of the institutions is curing rearch grants: If you have a grant in your own name you'll be a strong candidate; if you don't have your own grant, you are less competitive. It's a cynical copout on the institution’s part, really, taking a pass on the difficult job of evaluating talent and capitulating to the reality of big-time biomedical rearch: It's all about the cash. Still, increasingly it's a fact of life. But how do you know if the institution to which you hope to apply is one of the? Ask.
Tho scientists and institutions--the ones sitting at the experienced far end of the continuum--are exceptional. Indeed, cond-tier rearch institutions tend to expect the most experience; Harvard and Johns Hopkins do not expect you to have your own rearch grant. Most hiring committees aren't looking for completely independent work; they're looking for original, creative ideas, together with a record of accomplishment. Few people applying for tenure-track jobs have had the opportunity to start their own rearch programs. After all, traditionally that's what assistant professorships are all about, and most institutions still think that way. It helps to be somewhere in the middle of that continuum, but most committees are still looking more for promi than for guarantees.
Demonstrate your promi by displaying your potential and actual independence. Show the committee that you have the deep thinking and talent to operate independent of your advir.
How do you demonstrate your independence when you have never been given the chance to work independently?
Likely as not, all your data were collected in someone el's lab, as a part of someone el's r e s e a r c h a g e n d a . H o w , t h e n , d o y o u d i s t i n g u i s h y o u r r e s e a r c h f r o m y o u r a d v i s e r ' s r e s e a r c h ? / p > p > / p > p > * O n p a p e r . I t ' s a n a p p a r e n t C a t c h - 2 2 : Y
o u n e e d t o s h o w t h a t y o u r i d e a s a r e f r e s h , n e w , a n d y o u r s , a n d y o u h a v e t o s h o w t h e y ' r e g r o u n d e d i n w o r k y o u ' v e a l r e a d y d o n e , u s u a l l y i n s o m e o n e e l s e ' s l a b . I t ' s a t o u g h s e l l , b u t m o s t o f y o u r c o m p e t i t o r s a r e i n t h e s a m e b o a t . / p > p > / p > p > S o h o w d o y o u d o i t ? O n e r e s p o n d e n t s a i d i t b e a u t i f u l l y : " T h e b e s t p l a n s u s u a l l y b u i l d o n t h e p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e a p p l i c a n t , b u t a r e n o t d i r e c t e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e i r p o s t d o c t o r a l w o r k . " / p > p > / p > p > I ' m g o i n g t o t y p e t h a t p h r a s e a g a i n , i t ' s s o i m p o r t a n t : T h e b e s t p l a n s u s u a l l y b u i l d o n t h e p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e a p p l i c a n t , b u t a r e n o t d i r e c t e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e i r p o s t d o c t o r a l w o r k . / p > p > / p > p > U n l e s s y o u ' r e o n e o f t h e s e l e c t f e w a p p l i c a n t s w i t h l o t s o f e x p e r i e n c e l e a d i n g y o u r o w n l a b , t h a t ' s t h e k e y t o y o u r r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g y . T h a t ' s t h e o u t l i n e o f t h e s t o r y y o u m u s t t e l l : " I d i d t h i s w o r k a s a g r a d s t u d e n t / p o s t d o c a n d i t w a s i m p o r t a n t a n d i t w a s g r e a t . N o w , a s a f a c u l t y m e m b e r , I w a n t t o d o s o m e t h i n g a l i t t l e b i t d i f f e r e n t , b u t t h e w o r k I ' m p r o p o s i n g t a k e s f u l l a d v a n t a g e o f t h e k n o w l e d g e a n d s k i l l s I g a i n e d d u r i n g t h e t r a i n i n g p h a s e o f m y c a r e e r . " I t ' s d i f f e r e n t e n o u g h t o b e o r i g i n a l , b u t s i m i l a r e n o u g h t h a t y o u r y e a r s o f t r a i n i n g a r e n ' t w a s t e d . / p > p > / p > p > A n o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t w r o t e , " M o s t c a n d i d a t e s ( 9 5 % ) s t i c k t
o e x t e n s i o n s o f w h a t t h e y a r e m o s t f a m i l i a r w i t h , b u t t h e k e y i s , h a v e t h e y f i g u r e d o u t s o m e r a t h e r c r e a t i v e n e w d i r e c t i o n s f o r t h e r e s e a r c h a n d h a v e t h e y d o n e a g o o d j o b c o n v i n c i n g u s t h a t t h e y c a n d o i t b a s e d o n w h a t i s a l r e a d y k n o w n ? " " O n c e w e h a v e a s h o r t l i s t o f c a n d i d a t e s , " w r i t e s y e t a n o t h e r s o u r c e , " t h e r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l s a r e l o o k e d a t m o r e c a r e f u l l y f o r i m a g i n a t i v e i d e a s t h a t d i f f e r f r o m t h e c a n d i d a t e s P h . D . o r p o s t d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h . " G e t t h e m e s s a g e ? / p > p > / p > p > * W i t h y o u r a d v i s e r ' s c o o p e r a t i o n . O n e k e y t o d o i n g t h i s s u c c e s s f u l l y i s t o m a k e s u r e y o u r b o s s t e l l s t h e s a m e s t o r y . H o p e f u l l y y o u h a v e a g o o d , o p e n r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h y o u r a d v i s e r ; i f y o u d o , g o i n a n d c h a t a n d c o o r d i n a t e y o u r s t r a t e g i e s . D e c i d e w h a t t u r f i s h i s o r h e r s , w h a t t u r f i s y o u r s , a n d w h a t s t o r y y o u i n t e n d t o t e l l i n y o u r r e s e a r c h p l a n a n d h i s o r h e r l e t t e r o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . B u t m a k e s u r e t h e y d o n ' t m a t c h t o o p r e c i s e l y . / p > p > / p > p > I s t h i s s o r t o f c o o r d i n a t i o n u n e t h i c a l ? H a r d l y . T h e r e ' s n o d e c e p t i o n h e r e , n o a t t e m p t t o p u l l t h e w o o l o v e r t h e c o m m i t t e e ' s e y e s . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , i t ' s c l a r i t y y o u ' r e s e e k i n g : i n y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h y o u r a d v i s e r a n d w i t h t h e h i r i n g c o m m i t t e e . / p > p > / p > p > B e c a r e f u l t h o u g h : T h i s i s t r i c k y e t h i c
a l t e r r i t o r y . T h e i d e a s y o u ' r e c l a i m i n g m u s t b e y o u r s . D o n ' t j u s t t a k e y o u r a d v i s e r ' s i d e a s a n d p a c k a g e t h e m a s y o u r o w n , e v e n i f y o u r a d v i s e r s i g n s o f f o n t h e p l a n . / p > p > / p > p > I f y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h y o u r a d v i s e r i s n ' t s o c h u m m y , y o u s t i l l w a n t t o d o t h e s e s a m e t h i n g s ; y o u j u s t w a n t t o d o i t m o r e c a r e f u l l y . / p > p > / p > p > * I f y o u s t i l l h a v e t i m e , s e t u p y o u r o w n l a b i n t h e c o r n e r o f y o u r a d v i s e r ' s . I f y o u a r e n ' t a p p l y i n g f o r j o b s r i g h t n o w , t h e r e ' s s t i l l t i m e . T a l k t o y o u r a d v i s e r a b o u t c a r v i n g o u t y o u r o w n r e s e a r c h n i c h e w i t h i n t h e l a r g e r r e s e a r c h e f f o r t , w h e r e y o u d o w o r k m o t i v a t e d b y y o u r o w n o r i g i n a l i d e a s , s o m e t h i n g r e l a t e d b u t o b l i q u e t o w h a t y o u r a d v i s e r i s d o i n g i n t h e r e s t o f t h e l a b . / p > p > / p > p > I s t h e r e s e a r c h p l a n m o r e i m p o r t a n t i n t h e s c r e e n i n g p h a s e o r l a t e i n t h e g a m e ? / p > p > I n g e n e r a l , r e s e a r c h p l a n s a r e w e i g h e d m o r e h e a v i l y l a t e r i n t h e g a m e , w i t h m o r e r e a d i l y c o m p r e h e n s i b l e e v i d e n c e ( e s p e c i a l l y p e d i g r e e , l e t t e r s o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , i m p a c t f a c t o r o f j o u r n a l s , e t c . ) b e i n g w e i g h e d m o r e h e a v i l y i n t h e e a r l y r o u n d s . / p > p > / p > p > H o w e v e r , y o u r r e s e a r c h p l a n m u s t b e d e s i g n e d t o s e r v e m o r e t h a n o n e p u r p o s e . I t m u s t w i t h s t a n d i n t e n s e s c r u t i n y i n t h e l a t e r r o u n d s o f t h e j o b s e a r c h , a n d i t m u s t m a k e
a g o o d f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n . / p > p > / p > p > * * * / p > p > / p > p > H o w l o n g s h o u l d i t b e ? / p > p > O p i n i o n s v a r y . O n e p e r s o n I s p o k e t o s a i d t h a t a r e s e a r c h p l a n s h o u l d b e " a b o u t t h r e e p a g e s o f 1 . 5 - s p a c e d t e x t , a n d N E V E R m o r e t h a n f i v e . " A n o t h e r s o u r c e p r e f e r s " t h r e e s e m i - i n d e p e n d e n t ( b u t r e l a t e d ) s u b p r o p o s a l s n o t m o r e t h a n a b o u t t h r e e t o f o u r p a g e s ( s i n g l e - s p a c e d ) e a c h w i t h a h a l f p a g e o f i m p o r t a n t a n d r e l e v a n t r e f e r e n c e s . " T h a t ' s n i n e t o 1 2 p a g e s . T h e r e i s s o m e v a r i a t i o n f r o m o n e d i s c i p l i n e t o t h e n e x t ( t h e f i r s t o f t h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s c a m e f r o m a m e d i c a l s c h o o l , t h e s e c o n d f r o m a d e p a r t m e n t o f c h e m i s t r y ) , b u t t h e r e a r e f e w i f a n y s t a n d a r d s e v e n w i t h i n a f i e l d . T h i s s h o w s h o w m u c h o f a c r a p s h o o t g e t t i n g h i r e d c a n b e : B e c a u s e y o u u s u a l l y d o n ' t k n o w i n a d v a n c e h o w l o n g a d o c u m e n t t h e h i r i n g c o m m i t t e e i s l o o k i n g f o r , t h e r e ' s l i t t l e c h a n c e o f t h e s a m e c a n d i d a t e , n o m a t t e r h o w q u a l i f i e d , g e t t i n g o f f e r s f r o m b o t h o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s . / p > p > / p > p > M y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ? C a l l t h e c h a i r o f t h e h i r i n g c o m m i t t e e ( o r s e n d e - m a i l ) a n d a s k f o r a d v i c e . I f n o a d v i c e i s f o r t h c o m i n g , a i m f o r f i v e p a g e s , 1 2 - p o i n t T i m e s N e w R o m a n , 1 . 5 s p a c e d . S o m e w i l l t h i n k i t ' s a b i t t o o l o n g , o t h e r s a b i t t o o s h o r t , b u t n o o n e w i l l t h r o w i t o u 成都英语
在生活中英语
t b e c a u s e o f i t s l e n g t h . / p > p > / p > p > / p > p > R e m e m b e r t h a t w e s a i d t h a t a r e s e a r c h p l a n n e e d s t o h e l p y o u t h r o u g h i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g a n d w i t h s t a n d c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y i n t h e l a t e r s t a g e s . / d i v > / d i v > s c r i p t i d = " s h o w _ g _ d 1 " > / s c r i p t > s c r i p t s r c = " / / j s . 5 1 t e s t . n e t / m _ j s _ n e w / m _ s h o w _ d o w n . j s " > / s c r i p t > d i v c l a s s = " l i s t - b o x " >
