Continuing efforts to be concise...

[rivka]

Current length of the research plan:14 pages. Maximum allowable length: 12 pages. Only two pages to go. Sadly, I only have two pages left to edit, and since they include my entire data analysis plan I don't think I'll be able to cut them out entirely. So I will still need to cut, cut, cut. But damn, 25 pages to 14 is a pretty good start.

Once I work through these two pages, I will have a complete draft![1] Yay me! I can send it off to my mentor and to my very kind NIMH Program Official. Maybe they'll know what else I can cut.


[1] Except for the project narrative, the Facilities and Resources section, the revised biosketches, and the appendices. Mercifully the human subjects section stays the same. And the budget. The budget is done.

Updated to add: 13! 13 pages! I am the awesomest person who has ever been awesome! I got it down to 13 pages 10 lines, and then realized that I would totally gain more space once I formatted my references as numbers rather than in-text Endnote tags. And it saved a TON! Go me!

Comments

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

"Mistrustful beliefs about ART and mainstream HIV medical care may create significant negative consequences for public health."

I'd be inclined to put that differently, and maybe in more general form. Look at the effect of the scares over childhood vaccinations.

"False health scares and distrust of mainstream medical care kills people."

I know. Different writing styles. And the English is slightly awkward--"kill" or "kills"? But they want brevity, and maybe you can, in some way, make your key points stand out with shorter, more abrupt, language.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Well, keep in mind that that's just the topic sentence (huh! I never thought I'd use the phrase "topic sentence" again after junior high) of a paragraph that is narrowly focused on HIV issues. There's no time to be broad or general in a 12-page application.

But also, the tone doesn't seem right for scientific writing. I've read enough grants to have a pretty good idea of the tone they're looking for.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

And that is the big problem: tone and the sometimes subtle technical meanings. I just don't know whether, for instance, "vital" could substitute for "critical".

But, to my eye, "significant negative consequences for public health" is a long-winded way of obscuring just what this is about. I've got a sneaking sympathy for Bulwer-Lyyton, but you need to get away from the equivalent of the infamous "It was a dark and stormy night..."

(And, yes, I know that some of this language is there to conserve the medical profession's sanity.)