Prompt Library: Research Grant Proposal Improvements

Microsoft Copilot Response

The grant narrative for "Northern Women, Work, and the U.S. Civil War, 1861–1867" is already compelling, well-researched, and clearly structured. However, to enhance its clarity, scope, and persuasiveness, here are some targeted suggestions:

🔍 Clarity Improvements

1. Streamline Dense Sentences
   Some sentences are long and packed with multiple ideas. Breaking them up would improve readability.
   Example:
2. Clarify Theoretical Frameworks
   The methodology section references complex theoretical works (e.g., James Scott, Mary Douglas) without always explaining their relevance in plain terms. Briefly summarizing how each theory directly informs the research would help non-specialist reviewers.
3. Use More Signposting
   Adding brief transitions or headings within sections (especially in the methodology and chapter outlines) would help guide the reader through the argument and structure.

“Contemporary music, poetry, and sentimental fiction drew a line separating the northern home from the battlefield…”
Could be revised to:
“Contemporary music, poetry, and fiction often portrayed a clear divide between the northern home and the battlefield. Yet, women regularly crossed this boundary…”

🌍 Scope Enhancements

1. Broaden Geographic Context
   While the focus on Pennsylvania and Massachusetts is strong, briefly acknowledging how these findings might relate to or contrast with other northern states could strengthen the national relevance.
2. Include More on Intersectionality
   The project touches on race, class, and gender, but could more explicitly frame how these identities intersect in shaping women’s wartime experiences. For example, how did immigrant women’s experiences differ from those of African American women?
3. Highlight Underexplored Groups
   Consider whether there’s room to include perspectives from Native American women or other marginalized groups in the North, even if only to note their absence in the records.

🎯 Persuasiveness Boosts

1. Strengthen the “Why Now?” Argument
   The proposal mentions contemporary resonance, but this could be expanded. For example, draw parallels between Civil War-era home front activism and modern grassroots movements to underscore the project’s urgency and relevance.
2. Quantify Impact Where Possible
   When discussing public engagement (e.g., museum collaborations, teaching grants), include estimated audience sizes or potential reach to demonstrate broader impact.
3. Emphasize Original Contributions
   The proposal could more explicitly state what new insights this project offers compared to existing scholarship. A short paragraph contrasting this work with key texts (e.g., Nina Silber, Drew Gilpin Faust) would help.

✅ Summary of Strengths

• Rich archival base with diverse sources.
• Clear chapter structure and timeline.
• Strong public humanities component aligned with NEH’s mission.
• Compelling narrative hook (Mrs. Derry’s story) that humanizes the research.

Would you like help rewriting specific sections (e.g., the significance or methodology) with these improvements in mind?

Google Gemini Response

Okay, I have reviewed the grant narrative for "Northern Women, Work, and the U.S. Civil War, 1861-1867" by Judith Giesberg. This is a strong proposal, as indicated by its prior funding. Here are some suggestions for improvements to clarity, scope, and persuasiveness, building on its existing strengths:

Overall Strengths to Maintain:

• Compelling Opening: The "Mrs. Derry" anecdote is highly effective in immediately drawing the reader in and illustrating the project's core themes.
• Clear Research Questions: The questions posed in the Significance section are well-articulated and guide the reader.
• Strong Methodological Foundation: The discussion of theoretical frameworks (Harvey, Ryan, Scott, Douglas, Higginbotham) is sophisticated and directly informs the primary source selection.
• Extensive Archival Work: The detailed description of primary sources found in various archives demonstrates thorough preparation and feasibility.
• Clear Plan of Work: The chapter breakdown and timeline are well-defined.
• Strong Outreach Plan: The commitment to public engagement and collaboration with institutions like the Pennsylvania Humanities Council and the Civil War and Underground Railroad Museum is excellent and aligns perfectly with NEH's "We the People Initiative".

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Clarity:

• Refine the "We the People Initiative" Connection:
  • While mentioned, the explicit connection to the "We the People Initiative" could be woven more deeply into the DESCRIPTION section. Instead of just stating it's a good fit⁷, briefly explain
• Clarify "Project Title" on Page 1:
  • The project title on page 1 is "Northern Women, Work, and the U.S. Civil War, 1861-1867"⁸. In the
• Ensure Consistent Terminology for "Politics of the Streets":
  • The term "politics of the streets" is used. While the concept is clear, ensure consistent use and perhaps offer a brief, explicit definition in the
• Briefly Explain "Infrapolitics" and "Politics of Respectability":
  • While the methodology references are strong for scholars in the field, for a general NEH panel, a one-sentence layman's explanation of terms like James Scott's "infrapolitics" ¹¹and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham's "politics of respectability" when they are first introduced would enhance clarity without sacrificing academic rigor, why it fits by highlighting the project's ability to "explore fundamental questions in American history" or "enrich understanding of American culture" early on.

ORGANIZATION AND PLAN OF WORK section, the book is referred to as "Northern Women". While contextually clear, explicitly stating early in the narrative (e.g., "This book, tentatively titled 'Northern Women'...") would enhance precision.

DESCRIPTION or SIGNIFICANCE section if not immediately intuitive to a broader NEH panel.

2. Scope:

• Emphasize Broader Applicability (Beyond North):
  • The project explicitly focuses on "Northern Women". However, the Significance section also mentions moving "beyond a regional divide among historians" and discusses scholarship on southern women. While the core is Northern, briefly reiterating how the findings might
• Explicitly State Contribution to "Gender Relations and Public Policy":
  • The significance section mentions answering questions about how the war influenced "gender relations and public policy in the North". While implied throughout, a slightly more direct statement in the introduction or conclusion about the
• Highlight the Intersectional Analysis:
  • The narrative mentions "women-black, white, and immigrant", and critically engages with "black women's independent civil rights projects". Explicitly emphasizing the project's intersectional approach (gender, race, class, immigration status) as a key contribution would underscore its comprehensive scope and inform our understanding of women's experiences elsewhere, or how the methodology could be applied in other contexts, could subtly broaden its intellectual scope. The specific contribution this work will make to our understanding of the evolution of gender roles or the formation of public policy during and after the war would strengthen the scope.

3. Persuasiveness:

• Reinforce the "So What?" for Each Section:
  • While the persuasiveness is generally high, for each major section (DESCRIPTION, SIGNIFICANCE, METHODOLOGY, ORGANIZATION), ensure a clear "so what?" is conveyed. For instance, in METHODOLOGY, reiterate not just what sources were found but how they uniquely enable the project to answer the core research questions.
• Strengthen the Connection Between Chapters and Overarching Argument:
  • The individual chapter descriptions are clear. To enhance persuasiveness, briefly state how the findings from Chapters 1-5
• Quantify or Give a Sense of Scale (if possible):
  • The methodology mentions "hundreds of letters" and "databases of admissions data". While specific numbers aren't always necessary, giving a sense of the scale of the data (e.g., "over X thousand entries in the admissions databases") can subtly underscore the robustness of the empirical foundation.
• Proactive Addressing of Potential Counterarguments (Subtle):
  • The project already does a good job of addressing the regional divide misconception. Perhaps a very brief nod to the challenge of uncovering marginalized voices (as indicated by "extensive rather than intensive" sources) and how the methodology overcomes this, could further demonstrate foresight and strengthen the argument for the project's unique contribution cumulatively build towards the larger argument about the blurred boundaries between home and war, and women's diverse political engagements. For example, after describing Chapter 5, explicitly link it back to the core argument of how "their appearance stood as a sharp critique of how the war objectified male bodies and how it blurred the boundary between home and war".

By incorporating some of these refinements, the grant draft can become even more accessible, impactful, and undeniably worthy of funding.