Show Less

Discourses and Tales of Grant-Seeking Activity

Academic Writing and Professional Expertise


Haying Feng

Grant seeking – the first step in knowledge production – has been an indispensable part of academic life, yet a challenging task for neophyte as well as veteran scholars. We are always curious about how grant winners compose their abstracts, cite previous work, present their proposed study, and negotiate with gate-keepers behind the scene. Building upon ethnographic data and a large corpus of authentic research grant proposals and grant reviews, this book intends to demystify the grant seeking activity. It is an invaluable resource for grant agencies, grant reviewers and grant writers, particularly novice grant writers and/or non-native English writers.
Discourses and Tales of Grant-Seeking Activity is however more than a resource book. It is one of the few studies that draw upon two genre theories, encompass both quantitative and qualitative research approaches, and unite an exploration of macro-level recurrences in discursive activity and micro-level examinations of individual writers’ agency, positioning, negotiation and identity construction. It enhances our understanding of the development of professional expertise in academia and thus will be of interest to researchers in the fields of academic writing, genre analysis and Language for Specific Purposes (LSP).


Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Appendix 4: Response Letter from the RGC - 241


241 As such, I would like to make known our case and seek clarification from all related parties. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Appendix 4: Response Letter from the RGC Dear Ms. xxx, Clarification of the Assessment of CERG Proposal xxxx/05H ཰I refer to your letter of 6 September 2005 regarding a request for clarification on the assessment of the captioned proposal by Prof. xxx. ཱIn keeping with our normal practice of transacting RGC business through institutions’ Research Offices, I am writing to convey RGC’s decision through your office. ིWe have thoroughly examined Prof. xxx’s case and consider that his proposal have been properly processed under the peer review system. ཱིIn the review process, we had invited four external reviewers and re- ceived two feedbacks. ུThe proposal was rated as fundable, but due to keen competition and the constraint of resources, the project was not funded. ཱུAlthough there may be different opinions on the proposal among the external reviewers and the panel members, it is common that academic judgments from various persons on the same project may not always be the same. ྲྀPlease assure Prof. xxx that the Panel had consi- dered all the external reviewers’ views before making the final judgment. ཷIt is the RGC’s policy that if no procedural or operational error oc- curred, its funding decision on the proposal will final. ླྀIn this case, we are satisfied that there is no procedural or operational error, and therefore our earlier funding decision on the proposal...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.