#ERLM 
# Goals and Outcomes
Review [[ERLM_Structure_of_Objectives_Page.pdf]]
_Begin with the end in mind_  
_--- Steven Covey_

_You've got to be careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there._  
_--- Yogi Berra_

_Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?_  
_Cheshire Cat: [smiling] That depends a good deal on where you want to get to._

_What are you trying to achieve? Explain your outcomes using absolutely no jargon._

The Goals and Outcomes of your proposal are your chance to set the vision for your research. It is important at the beginning of your research to make clear to the reader where you want to be at the end. The proposal is a plan for getting to that place, and everything after the Outcomes is about explaining where you start and what path you will take.

An outcome is a thing aimed at or sought; it's a goal. That idea, however, creates confusion since a research goal is the broad purpose, and outcomes are specific statements about what you want to be able to achieve. For our purposes, we will distinguish between the research goal and the research outcomes, but both will be contained in the Goals and Outcomes section of the proposal.
## Research Goal
You must write the proposal with the reviewer in mind. The reviewer will want to know from the beginning what the proposal is about, so start every proposal with

"The goal of this research is to ..."

You can also say

"The purpose of this research is to ..."

This goal sets the vision for what you want to achieve; it is the circle on the map for where you want to go. Your goal should not be too broad or grandiose. Remember that your colleagues are trying to solve similar problems and know what can and cannot be achieved. Grand goals call for grand projects, and if the details of you project do not align with your goal, the reviewers will see the disconnect and decline funding. The goal should also not be too narrow or specific. Narrow projects are often overly constrained limiting inquiry, have solutions with limited impact, and lack vision. Researchers who lack vision often fail. They are unable to inspire teams, motivate performance, or create sustainable value.   The challenge, one that successful researchers often spend considerable time confronting, is to make the goal of the research "just right," thus creating a vision of a problem with sufficient intellectual merit and broader impact to be worthy of investigation.

It can be challenging or even unwise to stuff a big vision into just one sentence, but you don't want to have it take up a page or even half of one. Keep the research goal one to three sentences in length. If you have to go longer than that, you probably don't have a goal that is clear enough to you, which means it will not be clear to the reader, or you are trying to over define your goal, in which case some of what you are saying might be part of the outcomes or impact.

While your goal begins your vision of what you want to achieve in your research, it may not be tangible or concrete. Reviewers will want and need to see a more clear picture of where your research will go. It would seem, since the point of the proposal is to explain what you want to do in your research, that next you should lay out what you would do in your research. The trouble is that, while the reviewer does care what you will do, they care more where you will end up.  Think of them as the one with the money --- they sometimes are, but often are not --- and they want to know what it is they get for their investment. What are they buying? What is the product of your effort? What will you achieve? _These questions are not about the tasks you will undertake}_, but rather about where you will be if the research is successful and what you will be able to do that is new. The answer to these questions are the research outcomes.
## Research Outcomes
The research outcomes are brief, clear, concise statements of what you should be able to do if the research is successful. These are like mini-goals, but they are more specific. They are not necessarily steps along the way to a larger goal; rather, they are the sign posts that, if achieved, together would meet the overarching goal. The outcomes provide clarity and definition of your goal, and make clear what the specific things you want to be able to do if successful. This vision is something that you will return to throughout the proposal as you make connections between your efforts and how they will help you achieve your outcomes. Since you will be making these connections, the reader should be able to keep your vision in mind as they read, and you need to facilitate this by making each outcome sticky. Do this by making them simple, concrete, and credible. You do not need all of the traits, but do as many as you can.

Well formulated outcomes should do the following:

- provide a clear purpose for the research;
- direct your choice for research activities;
- guide the assessment of the success of the research.

Each outcome should be a single sentence that starts with a verb --- remember you are stating what you should be able to do if the research is successful. Ideally, the verb should convey something verifiable. Verbs like 'understand'', 'know', 'comprehend', or 'make sense of' may describe something we want to achieve in research --- understanding is a general goal of all research. But, these are not observable or verifiable. Remember the eighth Heilmeir question asked "What are the mid-term and final 'exams' of the research?'' By making your outcomes observable and verifiable you setting yourself up to answer that question.

Examples of an outcomes written to varying degrees.

**Goal:** The goal of this research is to generate artificial light.

|**Quality**|**Outcome**|
|---|---|
|Good|Use electricity to generate incandescent light from a wire filament.|
|Vague|Use electricity to make light.|
|Unmeasurable|Understand how incandescent light can be made with electricity.|
|Verbose|Use AC or DC electricity to generate light as a result of heating a wire filament to sufficiently high temperatures.|
|Not goal related|Determine the relationship between filament temperature and the characteristic of the light emitted.|

How many outcomes should you have? You want the reviewer to be able to remember your outcomes --- they should be able to recall your outcomes throughout the proposal--- so don't make too many, but don't make too few since that runs the risk of suggesting either a narrow scope for the research or overly broad outcomes that don't define the research sufficiently. Between three and five is about right. Less than three is too few --- the reviewer wonders what else you might be able accomplish. More than five is too much --- the reviewer thinks that you are over committing yourself. My preference is three outcomes, and there is room for more if you absolutely need them.

Presumably, your outcomes are not something that you were able to do before. That is, your research should extend the state of the art and redefine the limits of current practice. Who is the judge of the current art and limits? This depends upon the funding organization. If you are applying to the NSF, the state of the art may be much different from what a company sees as their state of the art. A large national funding agency sees their job as pushing the state of the art for the country, and you need to define an outcome that pushes the state of the art for the national science and engineering community. A small company may just want to innovate for their customers, and your research may be bringing new capabilities to the company and their customers but may not be as grand or far reaching it might be if you has applied, say, to the NSF. It is important to understand the organization to which you are applying and what their expectations are for what reasonable outcomes might be.

---
# Peer Review: Goals and Outcomes 1
Offer comment using Acrobat's comment feature.  Address the questions below, which  focus whether the content meets the intention of the section, but you can say more about whatever else you think will help.   Since it can be hard to know what the writer intended, it is best to highlight parts you find confusing or that you may have had to read several times before understanding.  Some questions will ask you to summarize your understanding of what was written.  This will help the writer see how well their message has been communicated.

A note about spelling, grammar, and typos:  Writers should make a point to eliminate these errors from what they write.  Typos, for example, distract the reader and detract from your writing.  As editors, it is not your job to ferret these mistakes out.  Focus on the message and substance of the writing, and only comment on these annoyances if you just can't stand it.

_When you offer a criticism, offer a remedy so the writer can improve their work._
## Research Goal
The goal sets the vision for what you want to achieve; it is the circle on the map for where you want to be if the research is successful.

- Is the goal a clear statement about what the research would achieve if successful?  Explain why or why not.
- Explain what you think the vision for the research is. 
- Is the scope of the goal of the research "just right'', not too grandiose or too narrow?  Explain how it could be made that way.
## Research Outcomes
The research outcomes should be brief, clear, concise statements of what could be done if the research is successful.  These are like mini-goals, but they are more specific.

- Are the research outcomes brief, clear, and concise statements of what should be able to be done if the research is successful?  Verify that the outcomes are not tasks or steps of the research.
- Explain how the outcomes, if achieved, meet the overarching goal.
- Are the research outcomes verifiable?  How so?
## Reader's Perspective
- In your own words, describe the goals and objectives.  Do you have a clear picture of where the PI wants his research to go?  Has the writer transmitted his message to you?
- Has the PI provided sufficient explanation about the goal and objectives?  Are they over/under explained?  Explain what pieces would be helpful to clarify the picture.