TO: Brian Wang
FROM: Diane Keyes
DATE: October 16, 2019
SUBJECT: Peer review of proposal for the UBC Farm water innovation node
Dear Brian,
It was a pleasure reviewing your proposal for the UBC Farm water innovation node. Below is a list of considerations to support you in revising this proposal, beginning with general comments and followed by specific comments on each section of the proposal.
Below are general comments on the proposal.
Initial Impressions
The proposal reads clearly, assertively, and concisely. The project was clearly outlined and provided all necessary information without being overly detailed. Several minor grammar and formatting corrections can be made, but overall a very strong proposal.
Document Layout and Design
- Very clear and easy to follow the document layout.
- Ensure spacing between headings and paragraphs is consistent.
Grammar
- The document requires some corrections regarding placement of commas and capitalization.
- Some words and phrases can be adjusted to elicit a more professional tone. For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘proposed solution’ section, I suggest re-writing the sentence ‘Maybe even brainstorm with him to arrive at possible solutions that work for both the researchers and the farmers’ to ‘Further, a brainstorming session could support the generation of solutions that are suitable for both the researchers and farmers.’
- Consistency is required when writing ‘UBC Farm’ as sometimes ‘the’ is included beforehand and other times it is not.
Below are comments on each section of the proposal.
Introduction
- The proposal begins with a strong introduction that provides both the macro-level context of water conservation by quoting the UN and then connecting it to the micro-level context of a water conservation initiative at the UBC Farm.
Statement of Problem
- Defining ‘black box system’ was skillfully done as it helped readers understand the concept and then apply it easily to the context of the project.
- The two problems were clearly outlined by separating each into their own paragraph and naming them as separate problems. However, I found it hard to fully understand the difference between the two problems. Perhaps the problem statements can be re-phrased to more precisely define the scope of each issue.
Proposed Solution
- I like your idea to volunteer for crop washing in order to familiarize yourself with the operations. I think this will provide you with a deeper understanding than if you were to interview those who work there.
- I assume that if you are part of the washing team you will become familiar with where washing happens, so there is no need to interview Matt which you have proposed as a second solution.
- I suggest defining what kind of solutions you imagine when you write ‘Maybe even brainstorm with him to arrive at possible solutions that work for both the researchers and the farmers.’
Scope
- The proposed scope seems reasonable given the time constraints of this project.
- I would suggest you mention the purpose of the study in an earlier section as it puts the proposed solutions into context.
- Consider using Matt’s last name to increase the professional tone.
Methods
- In the last sentence of this paragraph, consider being more specific with what these ‘adjustments’ would look like and how they would be made. For example, would Matt change the schedule of the farm workers? How would this affect the researchers and what they do or when they work?
Qualifications
- You are clearly qualified to carry out this research given your extensive involvement with this project since its start in January 2019.
- You could mention your ongoing working relationship with Professor Mark Johnson who is the lead principal investigator of the water innovation node.
Conclusion
- The conclusion sufficiently details the necessity of this research.
Concluding Remarks
Again, overall this is a very strong proposal that is clearly and concisely written with generally the right amount of detail.
In summary, I suggest editing the proposal with attention to:
- Grammar,
- Professional word choice,
- Precision on the two parts of the problem statement, and
- Adding more specificity to the methods section and proposed solutions.
In light of your interest to brainstorm possible solutions together with Matt that work for both researchers and farmers, I suggest involving a selection of both researchers and farmers (in addition to Matt) in this conversation.
I enjoyed reading your proposal and appreciated the opportunity to learn about this exciting initiative at the UBC Farm. I am curious to hear how it progresses! If you have any questions or comments regarding my editing suggestions, please feel free to be in touch.
Link to original proposal: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/10/10/formal-report-proposal-for-characterizing-water-use-during-crop-processing-at-ubc-farm/
Leave a Reply