Running Head: RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 1

Rhetorical Approaches to Grant Proposals

John Rymal

Oakland University
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 2

Abstract

Writing grant proposals is a large part of the writing profession, and for good reason.

Grant proposals are an ideal medium for exercising all of the skills a professional writer has

learned in the course of their education. Grant proposals are a key means of funding for a large

portion of government, non-profit, and educational groups. The importance of a well-written

grant proposal cannot be overstated, and yet of the several professionals in their fields who I

have spoken to, who are one way or another made responsible for writing grant proposals,

many have trouble being successful at it. Most grant proposal writing resources seem to mainly

give overviews of the grant writing process from an organizational standpoint, outlining

required sections and formatting, while leaving out persuasive approaches. This is an important

distinction; a grant is in essence a persuasive document, and yet there is a lack of resources

addressing this at its core.

There are many sections and specific pieces of information required in a grant proposal

which will be discussed here briefly. A proposal, as a professional document, must adhere to

these organizational standards, but these areas also offer the effective grant writer many

opportunities in which they can apply persuasive techniques while still maintaining these

standards. It is one thing to let the project speak for itself, but that is not enough. In an industry

of intense competition, subtle rhetorical techniques can make all the difference.

Writing grant proposals requires a very specific set of writing skills that the professional

writer, if they are competent, possesses. The author of a grant proposal must recognize who

their audience is, and anticipate their questions regarding the subject of the proposal. Aside

from strictly informational writing in the proposal, the writer must employ convincing and
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 3

effective rhetoric to successfully deliver that information; rhetoric being defined here as the art

of communication and persuasion. Or with a quote James Herrick (2005) credits George

Kennedy with, the energy inherent in emotion and thought, transmitted through a system of

signs. including language, to others to influence their decisions or actions" (p.6)

But what are the applications of rhetoric in grant proposals? In this paper, I hope to

outline the rhetorical possibilities of proposal writing. I will analyze grant writing through the

scope of several rhetoricians from Aristotle and his ideas of ethos, logos, and pathos, to more

recent sources such as Chaim Perelman and James Herrick. These rhetorical theorists and

others were chosen due to the fact that their ideas work so cohesively together. By the

conclusion of this paper, we will have a working outline of the necessary components of a

successful grant from several rhetorical standpoints. These ideas will be invaluable in creating a

successful grant proposal.

Why is a professional writer important in grant writing?

A professional writer brings many things to the grant writing process. They possess a

certain ethos in their very objectivity to the project described in the proposal,

a deep knowledge of formatting and document design, expertise in writing conventions,

audience recognition, and other skills. A professional writer can take a document beyond just

the factual information on the page, and through the means discussed in this paper, create a

compelling and persuasive document.

In 2014, Steve Laminski wrote a scholarly article on the role a technical writer can play in

the grant writing process. He began by citing some important statistics regarding the

importance of good grant writing overall:

RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 4

Grant writing is an important part of funding for most non-profit and academic

institutions. Success in proposal writing must be viewed as a low probability

game. At the National Science Foundation (March 2002) and the National

Institutes of Health (2002), two key federal agencies that together account for a

major portion of research funding at Americas universities, only a quarter to a

third of the 70,000 applications received annually get funded, a range that has

remained steady over the past several years [1, p. 28]. (p.212)

With the majority of grant proposals failing, understanding the effective rhetorical

means of creating a successful proposal is paramount. This means going beyond the mundane

details of the project, taking them past face value and using them to persuade. Any means of

persuasion should be exploited to the fullest, and those proven rhetorical means- as outlined

from rhetoricians as far back as Aristotle- are

applicable today. Ideally, these ideas would come from a professional with in-depth knowledge

of those rhetorical appeals.

As stated in Rita M. Carty and Mary Cirpriano Silva (1986), backed by the evidence

above, there is another aspect in choosing who writes your grant Attention to detail. The

grant proposal writer must he meticulous. He or she must know that the proposal competes

against other submissions. (p.75) This is an aspect of writing that the competent professional

writer is highly familiar with. Meticulous writing is an ingrained quality in any experienced

professional writer. Laminski (2014) goes on to say:

One thing that experts agree affects who receives those limited funds is the

quality of the proposals written. From their interviews and surveys with
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 5

government and foundation grant reviewers, authors Jeremy and Lynn Miner [3,

p. 2]. claim that many grants are rejected because they contain good ideas

poorly written (p.212)

This is not to say that experts in their field are not quality writers in their own right, but

Laminski (2014) notes that researchers have been trained primarily to write for their academic

peers, but sometimes their peers form only a small segment of their proposal audience. (216)

Researchers have a tendency to use technical jargon that those in their field are familiar with,

but the meaning of those words may be lost on

the audience of the grant proposal reader if he is unfamiliar with the technical terms of the

field. Here, a trained technical writer can assist in the grant proposal writing process by

spanning the gap between an expert in their field and the reader of a grant proposal. In fact,

Laminski (2014) agrees that one of the most useful contributions a technical communicator

can make to the ongoing efforts of a researcher to master proposal writing is helping that

researcher unlearn some old writing habits and develop a more reviewer-friendly style. (p.219)

It is nearly inherent that a professional writer would naturally be more effective at translating

ideas into more familiar terms, as they themselves would most likely have to be educated on

the contextual meaning of the terms used by those involved in the project.

It must always be kept in the forefront of the writers mind that grant proposals are

subjected to review from a number of audiences ranging from company owners, to

accountants, to managers, who may all very well be unaccustomed to trade language. Creating

a document that can be clearly understood creates stronger understanding with these

audiences, aiding every aspect of your argument. It is this audience awareness, and the
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 6

meticulous nature of proposal writing, that make the professional writer the ideal candidate for

this process.

Prior to Rhetorical Approaches

Before considering beginning a grant proposal there are many aspects that the writer

will need to consider. As Rita M. Carty and Mary Cirpriano Silva (1986) say:

Planning adequate time to prepare a thorough proposal is the first strategy for successful

grant writing. (p.75) Taking the time to analyze the most essentials parts of your proposal and

searching for all possible modes of rhetorical appeal is key. The grant proposal must

incorporate so many different things, as we learn from Carty and Silva (1986), most grant

proposals are comprised of at least eleven different sections: Title, Statement of Purpose,

Background Statement, Project objectives, Methodology, Evaluation Plan, Personnel,

Institutional facilities and resources, Extra-institutional facilities and resources, Budget, Post-

Funding Plans. (pp.75-79) Each one of these areas offers another possibility for persuasion and

rhetorical appeal, and can be changed to appeal to different funding audiences. This does

require a vast amount of preparation time and research on the part of the proposal writer, and

patient and methodical approach to this process is necessary. A quote from the Puget Sound

Grant Writers Association (2017) has this to say about the often unfocused proposal sent out

when the grant writer is given inadequate preparation time:

Some nonprofit managers may require grantwriters to submit an arbitrary

number of proposals each year. To meet this target, the grantwriter may use the

shotgun approach and submit the same generic proposal to a large number of
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 7

funders without proper research or cultivation. As a result, the success rate for

this approach is likely to be low. (para 3.)

This approach generally results in grant proposals that are untailored towards their

specific audience, missing opportunities to exercise rhetorical approaches effectively. Jimmie

Killingsworth and Jacqueline Palmers Ecospeak, a book dedicated to modern rhetorical

functions in the field of environmental preservation, still hold true for rhetoric and

communication in general. As Killingsworth and Palmer point out, All groups have a particular

perspective and use a specialized language developed specifically to describe and stimulate the

practices characteristic of their particular outlook on the world. (p.6) Background information

on the audience, if attainable, is a key aspect of creating a convincing and worthwhile grant

proposal. Cultivating knowledge of your audience and their means of communication is a

necessary aspect of a grant proposal.

This is taking audience awareness a step further; from being able to communicate with

those unfamiliar with technical jargon, to tailoring the document to a specific funding audience.

This approach will also be key in the following sections of this paper that discuss several

rhetorical appeals that can be used in the proposal writing process, where again we take the

idea of audience even further.

Classic Rhetorical Approaches

Classical rhetorical theories have been discussed to no end over the past two millennia

and can be applied to persuasion of all types, the grant proposal is no exception. The classical

rhetorical approaches theorized by Aristotle are still part of the

RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 8

foundation of argumentative writing and speech as we know it today. Aristotles enthymeme is

still an important lens in which to look at grant proposals. As defined by Walker (1994):

The enthymeme is a strategic, kairotic, argumentational turn that exploits a

cluster of emotively charged, value laden oppositions made available (usually) by

an exetastic buildup, in order to generate in its audience a passional

identification with or adherence to a particular stance, and that (ideally) will

strike the audience as an 'abrupt' and decisive flash of insight. (p.56)

This buildup is established in every aspect of the grant writing procedure, which by the end of

the proposal should be undeniably convincing to its audience. This why knowing your audience

and how to appeal to them becomes such a key aspect of the grant proposal. From Gross and

Walzer (2000):

Aristotle's conception of enthymeme figured in every stage of the argument.

Aristotle was not rationalistic or overly dependent upon logic, they insisted,

because his three sources of persuasion, logos, thos, and pathos, were by no

means independent in his theory rather, all three interacted in and were

integrated by the enthymeme (p.13)

RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 9

This same idea should be present in a grant proposal; an effective mix of ethos, logos, and

pathos working together throughout the piece to create exetastic buildup that will convince

the reader. From Gross and Walzer (2000) Aristotle's enthymeme is a deductive argument

structure which depends for its persuasive force upon audience agreement with premises that

are typically suppressed and frequently probable."(p.16)

These premises are the logos appeal, as Joseph Little (2016) puts it the proofs of persuasion

represent the set of all logical means whereby the speaker can lead a right-thinking audience

to infer something. (p.349) It is important to note, as the belief has become so persuasive, that

logos in the Aristotliean sense does not simply refer to logic, but to the proofs evident in all

aspects of the argument. Or as Little (2016) informs us the pistis of logos refers to the

argument or speech itself. It was not logical argument that Aristotle had in mind for this term,

but logical argument: establishing truths from the subject matter at hand. (p.352) Its

important to distinguish this difference in how logos is defined, so as to not discount other

appeals used in the proposal, this interpretation reinstates all three proofs of persuasion as

legitimate. (p.352)

Establishing ethos will be an important task for the grant writer, and logically speaking,

the simplest areas to incorporate this will be under the personnel and facilities headings of the

proposal. Here, the writer is given the opportunity to explain who is working on the project,

creating ethos not just for the writer but for the project

as a whole. The writer, if it is a professional writer, will establish their own ethos through the

writing, and their effectiveness in communicating effectively to all audiences of the proposal,
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 10

many of whom will probably be unfamiliar with the more technical aspects of the proposal. As

Ruth Amossy (2001) puts it:

The construction of an ethos in the discourse often aims to displace or

modify the prior image of the speaker. In some cases, the speaker can heavily

rely on the prior ethos; the speaker only has to confirm a preexisting image he or

she sees as appropriate to persuasion goals. (para.43)

For our purposes, the writer of the grant proposal must establish that they are

knowledgeable on the subject, but the actual ethos of the project relies in large part upon

those actually performing it. Aspects included within the proposal will also give ethos to the

project as a whole. This includes the facilities, staff, setting, and materials that will be used in

the project. In a successful 2006 grant proposal regarding conservation funding for the Bog

Turtle from the Knoxville Zoological Gardens, the proposal writers included descriptions of

those involved in terms that went beyond strict academic qualifications. Some of these were a

brilliant young man and accomplished naturalist. (para.16) These descriptions give those

involved a human quality that a simple list of their job titles and degrees cannot provide. From

Krista McCormick (2014) Aristotle recognized and memorialized the importance of ethos in

persuasion, that importance has been further investigatedand supportedby modern

scholars of rhetoric and by many legal scholars. (p.137) If this ethos is available, make it a

larger part of your rhetorical argument. Those who dole out funding are looking for capable

individuals to receive their funding.

Pathos appeals can also find their place in the grant writing process. Room for

emotional appeals in grant proposals may be scarce and often absent, but when possible they
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 11

should be included. The tone of a grant proposal is a professional and objective one, however

pertinent details that have emotional appeal to the audience can be used effectively. Ethos and

logos are the primary means of convincing your audience to fund your project, but there are

aspects that they can lack. According to Waddell (1990), Rational appeals may lead to

agreement, but not to conviction; that is, they may lack the motive force to move us to action

when action is called for. (p.382)

As implied earlier when speaking about the definition of logos, the pathos approach to

rhetoric isnt an irrational one; there are things that should and do bring about certain

emotions and feelings in the audience. As Mitchell Berbrier informs us this role is dependent

upon the recognition that knowledge is not a matter only of logical inference and reason (logos)

but of persuasive rhetorical strategies aimed at aligning emotional ties to world-views

(pathos). (p.36) As demonstrated in the $387,000 successful grant proposal for after school

programs in the Lightsville School District, (name changed for privacy) written by the Colorado

Grants grant writing

company, there is a place for such appeals. Much space is given in the beginning of the

proposal to explain the impoverished nature of the Lightsville community, and the need for

children to have a safe place to go after school. From the proposal: Colfax Avenue, a main

boulevard in the proposed service area, has long been a notorious haven for drug trafficking

and prostitution, and hosts businesses such as pawnshops, temporary day labor employment

agencies, adult-oriented businesses, dangerous bars, and check cashing sites. (p.2) This

information is included to rationally explain the pertinence of an after-school program. Most of

the other information included in the proposal is put into the form of statistics, graphs, and the
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 12

like. This sentence sticks out because though presented as a set of facts, it nevertheless paints a

picture of the problem in a way that statistics alone cannot, conjuring images of a seedy,

potentially dangerous neighborhood that the children of Lightsville, unsupervised until their

parents get home from work, are left to wander. Obviously, these types of opportunities for

pathos will not always be present, but in this case the use of an emotional appeal has helped to

set this proposal apart from the myriad others. It is fact that an emotional appeal can push for

action where a purely logical one may fail.

As stated earlier, your proposal is a combination of all of these rhetorical approaches,

but you do not need to limit yourself to the classical. In the following passage, we will discuss

modern approaches and their relation to classical ones, which you will find is a very cohesive

and effective relationship.

Modern Rhetorical Components

Modern rhetoricians, such as Chaim Perelman and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca, have also made

massive contributions to rhetorical study that can be helpful to the grant proposal writer. Their

examination of identifying the values of an audience are an important tool that can enhance all

other aspects of your rhetorical argument. Additionally, their ideas on presence is of

particular interest. It is this idea that can highlight the aspects of your proposal that will be of

the most value in persuading your audience. Many of the ideas discussed in Perelman and

Olbrechts-Tytecas The New Rhetoric: A Theory are nearly tailor made for the grant proposal

writer.

The ideas about the presence of facts in rhetorical argument have a good place to be

adapted to in grant proposals. From Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969):

RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 13

Facts and truths can be characterized as objects that are already agreed to by the universal

audience, and, hence, there is no need to increase the intensity of adherence to them. (1394)

This is pertinent to grant writing in that it again attests to the necessary objectivity that needs

to be maintained in the proposal writing process. Further, the need to push facts is unnecessary

and can actually prove to bring about skepticism in an audience. Related to this is their idea on

presumptions. Presumptions are opinions which need not be proved, although adherence to

them can be either reinforced, if necessary, or suppressed by proving the opposite. (p.1394)
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 14

These are the things that you assume your audience knows, although you can push them if it

furthers your persuasive position.

An important idea from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) is that of values: Values

are appealed to in order to influence our choices of action. They supply reasons for preferring

one type of behavior to another. (p.1394) When applying values to a grant proposal, it is

important to do some background research into those who could be providing the funding. As a

culture, there are some things that the vast majority of people subscribe to as good values,

but Perelman finds these values on the grand scale to be abstract. Finding the specifics on what

the organization, company, person, or government entity values makes them concrete, and is a

safe step and could reveal some rhetorical opportunities to use in the proposal. For instance,

the Lightsville Schools proposal that was discussed earlier is meant to help students in an

impoverished area. If the audience for your proposal has a history of funding projects for the

underprivileged, then that can be an important aspect to focus on.

This brings us to our next point, and the most important idea from Perelman and

Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) when it comes to the grant writing process; presence. The orator

must select certain elements on which he focuses attention by endowing them, as it were, with

a "presence." This does not mean that the elements left out are entirely ignored, but they are

pushed into the background. (p.1395) Once the audiences values have been determined, the

writer can tailor the grant specifically to

them using presence. Details that fall under their umbrella of audience values can be focused

on much more closely, reinforcing them and heightening their impact as it relates to the grant

proposal in the minds of the audience. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca state, this does not
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 15

mean leaving out those details that dont appeal to their values, as grant proposal writing

requires details of all aspects of the project as well as adhering to ethical standards.

The ideas of presence and values as defined by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca

work well with the classical approaches of Aristotle. Aristotle teaches us that it is important

present a rational argument and that pathos appeals can be effective, and it is in this context

that presence and values become important. The object is taking these value and pathos

appeals and giving them presence, while still addressing all other aspects necessary.

Final Thoughts

Grant proposals are the perfect document on which the professional writer may apply

their rhetorical skills. In a field where so many proposals are written by professionals in other

industries, the professional writer can stand out with their unique knowledge of rhetorical

approaches, writing style, and audience awareness. Adherence to necessary organization and

formatting is also a skill of a good professional writer, which is another key point in preparing

grant proposals.
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 16

Rhetoric in grant writing is not about a flamboyant, impassioned argument. The tone of

the proposal must always remain objective and conform to industry standards. As we have

learned, there are still was to approach the writing in a persuasive manner. The many aspects

of the proposed project that must be included offer so many possibilities for subtle approaches

to convince your audience. In an industry where many proposals will present the same facts

about their projects, it is imperative to gain any edge possible. This is where the professional

writer becomes a key part of any team that requires grants.

The rhetorical approaches discussed here are merely the tip of the iceberg. In a field

that has had so much research and theorization, it is impossible to cover all the possibilities in

this, or any single text. Aristotles rhetoric, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tytecas values and

presence were chosen due to how cohesively they work together and for their direct and

obvious ties to the grant proposal writing process. When used correctly, I believe they will

create a subtle yet highly persuasive document tailored to the specific audience who will read

it. The subject is an interesting one, and in a lengthier article, specific scenarios and examples

could be discussed to more finely tune this approach. I hope that this article is merely a

gateway into further study of rhetorical approaches in proposal writing.

Gaining knowledge of the audience, writing in a manner that creates ethos, and

analyzing the rhetorical approaches that would be appropriate and effective is where

the grant writer can turn a proposal into something that truly has appeal to the audience. The

rhetorical methods discussed in this document are ones that have been tried, tested, and

discussed for many years- and in some cases, millennia. When combined with an expertly

written proposal that conforms to the standards of those that provide funding, these
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 17

approaches will have appeals that simple data cannot provide, appeal that drastically increases

the likelihood of receiving the necessary grants.

References

Amossy, R. (2001). Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics,

Sociology. Poetics Today 22(1), 1-23. Duke University Press. Retrieved April 7, 2017,

from: http://muse.jhu.edu.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/article/27846

Aristotle. (1954) Aristotles Rhetoric, (Roberts, W. Trans) 1954. Retrieved from:

http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/index.html
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 18

Berbrier, M (1997) From logos to pathos in social psychology and academic argumentation:

Reconciling postmodernism and positivism in a sociology of persuasion. Argumentation.

11:1. Doi: 10.1023/A:1017982511497. Retrieved

from:http://link.springer.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1017982

5 11497

Carty, R., & Silva, M. (1986). Writing effective federal grant proposals. Nursing Economic$, 4(2),

74-79. Retrieved from:

http://search.ebscohost.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&A

N=107570513&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Colorado Grants. Retrieved from: http://www.coloradogrants.org/assets/pdf/lightsville-public-

schools.pdf

Gross, A. G., & Walzer, A. E. (2000). Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Carbondale, Ill: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Herrick, J. A. (2005). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and

Beacon.

Killingsworth, M. J., Palmer, J., (1992) Ecospeak. Southern Illinois University Press, 2012.

ProQuest Ebook Central, Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral. proquest.com.huaryu

.kl.oakland. edu/lib/oakland/detail .action?docID=1354441.

Laminski, S. (2014) Proposal Pitfalls Plaguing Researchers: Can Technical Communicators Make

a Difference? Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. Volume 44, Issue 2.

RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 19

Retrieved from:

http://journals.sagepub.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/doi/abs/10.2190/TW.44.2.f

Little, J. (2016) Confusion in the Classroom: Does Logos Mean Logic? Journal of Technical

Writing and Communication. Vol 29, Issue 4, (pp. 349 353)

Retrieved from: 10.2190/7ATY-RVVU-53FJ-MVC5

McCormack, K. (2014) Ethos, Pathos and Logos: Benefits of Aritotelian rhetoric in the

courtroom. Washington University Jurisprudence Review. Retrieved from:

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=law_jurisp

rudence

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation.

Notre Dame [Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Puget Sound Grant Writers Association (2017) How can we evaluate our grant writers work?

Seattle, WA. Retrieved from: https://www.grantwriters.org/nonprofit-faqs#dowe

Tryon, B. (2006) Conservation, restoration, and management of Bog Turtles, Glyptemys

muhlenbergii, in Tennesee. Knoxville Zoological Gardens. Retrieved from:

https://www.aza.org/assets/2332/06_633_applicationtnbogturtles.pdf

Waddell, C. (1990). The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric of

science policy. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 76(4), 381.

Walker, J. (1994) A theory of the enthymeme. College English. 56(1). Pp. 46-64

Retrieved from: http://studylib.net/doc/8303434/the-body-of-persuasion--a-theory-of-

the-enthymeme
RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO GRANT PROPOSALS 20

Weresh, M. (2012) Morality, trust, and illusion: Ethos as relationship. Association of Legal

Writing Directors. 9. Retrieved from: http://www.alwd.org/lcr/archives/fall-

2012/weresh/