Skip to main content
  • 1136 Accesses

Abstract

Internal grants are unique and the specific requirements vary from institution to institution. However, the audience for internal grant proposals is often very similar. In most cases, grant proposals are reviewed by colleagues and administrators from various disciplines and these reviewers are seldom “experts” in the field. Insofar as the audience is comprised more or less of generalists, it is essential that grant proposals be prepared with this in mind. The success or failure of this proposal was heavily dependent upon the its ability to convey the unique nature of the spatial approach and how the geographical approach may yield decidedly different results relative to the earlier work of Knack. The following model proposal was submitted to the Indiana State University Research Committee (URC) and the grant was awarded. However, the budget was altered based on the availability of funds and URC’s assessment of current programmatic resources. For this reason, the original budget (not included in this model) was reduced from $1400 to $1150.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AllPolitics. 2000. Glimpses of voter turnout across America. CNN: AllPolitics.com, November 7. [http://www.cnn.com].

    Google Scholar 

  • Abelson, R. 1987 (n/d). Results of Experiment on Improving the Accuracy of Self-reported Turnout. Based on the 1987 NES Pilot Study. The University of Michigan, National Election Studies Center, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, G.D. and J.A. Harrington, Jr. 1995. A climatology of transition season Colorado cyclones. Journal of Climate, 8:853–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Wire. 2000. Press Release (from The Weather Channel): Election Day Weather: Who Wins When It Rains? The Weather Channel Offers the Election Day National Forecast. November 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. 1993. Weather and Crime. The British Journal of Criminology 30:51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNardo, J. 1980. Turnout and the vote: The joke’s on the Democrats. American Political Science Review 74:406–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNardo, J. 1996. Does heavy turnout help Democrats in presidential elections? American Political Science Review 80:1298–1304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fain, J. and Dworkin, J. 1993. Determinants of voter participation: Some simulation results. Public Choice 77:823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagge, A. P., A.C. Burton and H.C. Bazett 1941. A practical system of units for the description of heat exchange of man with his environment. Science, 94:428–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenwald, J. 1994. Rain dampens turnout but GOP see vote share rise. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, July 23, p. 2065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, J.R. 1991. A synoptic climatology of the westerlies: Process and patterns, Association of American Geographers Resource Publication, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. 1993. Dynamic Cost-Loss Ratio Decision-Making Model with an Autocorrelated Climate Variable. Journal of Climate 6:151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. 1994. Does rain help the Republicans? Theory and evidence on turnout and the vote. Public Choice 79:187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. 1992. Social Connectedness and Voter Participation: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. The University of Michigan, National Election Studies Center, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R. 1991. Groups in rational turnout models. American Journal of Political Science 35: 758–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, J. and McNulty, J. 2000. Partisan effects of voter turnout in presidential elections. American Politics Quarterly 28:408–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Election Studies (NES). 2000. The University of Michigan’s National Election Studies Center. [http://www.umich.edu/~nes/].

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff, B. 1994. Turnout and the Democratic vote. American Politics Quarterly 22:259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotton, J. and Cohn, E. 2000. Weather, disorderly conduct, and assaults: From social contact to social avoidance. Environment and Behavior 35:651–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, T. and Goidel, R. 2000. Who contributes? Checkbook participation, class biases, and the impact of legal reforms, 1952–1992. American Politics Quarterly 28:216–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluis, T. 2000. Weather blamed for voter turnout. Durango Herald, October 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H. and Grofman, B. 1981. Candidate evaluations and turnout. American Politics Quarterly 9:197–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y. and Oliver, J. 1996. The CLO: A utilitarian unit to measure weather/climate comfort. International Journal of Climatology 16:1045–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2005). Intramural Grants. In: Research Design and Proposal Writing in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27953-9_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics