234 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
234 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
#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.
|