Abstract
The first reaction of many reviewers to a research proposal or a journal article is either excitement or boredom. If the proposal is boring, they may approve it, but they are unlikely to vote a high rating. In almost any science a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be important—which in this context means being fundable, being reportable in good scientific journals, and perhaps having an impact on the field—is that it is exciting. Thus, my first advice about getting proposals funded is to talk to friends in the field about your research idea and evaluate their reactions. Your proposal should elicit excitement; if it does not, you should think more about your ideas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Carroll, J., Wiener, R. L., Coates, D., Galegher, J., & Alibrio, J. J. 1982. Evaluation, diagnosis, and prediction in parole decision making. Law and Society Review 35; 199–228.
Dawes, R. M. 1971. A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist 26, 180–188.
Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. 1974. Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 81, 95–106.
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. 1989. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243: 1668–1674.
Lichtenstein, S., & Feeney, G. J. 1968. The importance of the data-generating model in probability estimation. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 42, 62–67.
Meier, P. 1972. The biggest public health experiment ever. 1954 field trial of the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine. In J. M. Tanur, F. Mosteller, W. H. Kruskal, R. F. Link, R. S. Pieters, & G. R. Rising (eds.), Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown. San Francisco: Holden-Day, pp. 2–13.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dawes, R. (1995). How Do You Formulate a Testable Exciting Hypothesis?. In: Pequegnat, W., Stover, E. (eds) How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2393-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2393-9_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-44965-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2393-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive