KIAT MENYUSUN PROPOSAL YANG BAIK

Presentasi berjudul: "KIAT MENYUSUN PROPOSAL YANG BAIK"— Transcript presentasi:

1 KIAT MENYUSUN PROPOSAL YANG BAIK

2 Mengapa perlu menulis proposal? :
Pengetahuan yg diperoleh akan bermanfaat untuk siapapun Untuk diambil kelebihan dan kekurangannya oleh orang lain Sebagai lahan mengkritisi bagi orang lain Ada keberlanjutan dan penyempurnaan

3 Manfaat Menulis proposal:
Terlatih mengembangkan ketrampilan membaca secara efektif Terlatih meramu hasil bacaan dari berbagai sumber dan menyajikan fakta yg lebih jelas, informatis dan sistematis Memahami berbagai kegiatan penelusuran pustaka Mampu berlatih menyusun hasil pemikiran dan penelitiannya menurut kaidah yg benar Mampu melihat kesalahan sendiri sebelum dilihat oleh orang lain Meningkatkan dan memperluas pengetahuan Memperoleh kepuasan batin

4 Apakah proposal? Alat komunikasi, yang menyambung hubungan antara pengusul (peneliti) dengan pimpinan lembaga yang terkait Rencana kegiatan, yang menjelaskan latar belakang, manfaat, langkah-langkah apa yang akan dikerjakan dan bagaimana cara mengerjakan serta sarana pendukungnya Kontrak kerja, yang merupakan janji yang akan ditepati oleh pengusul

5 Penyusunan proposal penelitian sebaiknya:
Desain yang berseni Kreatif dalam penggunaan metode dan teknik Refleksifitas Penampilan yang elegan Berlatih Imaginatif

6 Menyampaikan bakat peneliti untuk mengkonsep, berimajinasi dan menulis
Proposal sebaiknya Menyampaikan bakat peneliti untuk mengkonsep, berimajinasi dan menulis Mengkomunasikan pengetahuan peneliti di lapangan Literatur, teori Menyampaikan sifat yang muncul pada desain penelitian Gunakan kata-kata seperti “tentatif,” “antisipasi,” “project, ” “rencana” Menerangkan alasan untuk setiap pilihan desain

7 Kiat menyusun proposal
Memahami faktor penentu diterima/ditolaknya suatu usulan Melakukan persiapan yang baik Memperhatikan penampilan suatu usulan Hal-hal penting yang perlu ditonjolkan dalam usulan Mengacu pada penilaian suatu usulan penelitian Strategi menulis usulan penelitian

8 Memahami faktor penentu diterima/ditolaknya suatu usulan
Dampak/output dari hasil penelitian a. Pembangunan institusi (termasuk SDM) b. Pengembangan Ipteks (dasar, general, komersial) c. Pembangunan perekonomian dan sosbud Peluang keberhasilan penelitian tersebut a. Merumuskan masalah b. Metodologi c. Sumberdaya dan sarana yang digunakan Ketersediaan dana a. Internasional b. Nasional c. Sektoral d. Proyek

9 Melakukan persiapan yang baik
Pilih topik yang tepat a. Belum diteliti orang, trendi atau futuristik b. Sesuai kriteria pendanaan, dampak yang akan ditimbulkan dan peluang keberhasilan Kumpulkan informasi ilmiah sebanyak mungkin sebelum menulis usulan a. Luangkan waktu yang cukup untuk mengumpulkan dan membaca pustaka b. Gunakan pustaka yang mutakhir dan tepat (teksbook bukan pustaka yang tepat) Baca penuntun penulisan usulan dengan cermat

10 Memperhatikan penampilan suatu usulan
Buat penampilan menarik a. Gunakan format penulisan ilmiah sesuai dengan petunjuk yang diberikan lembaga yang terkait b. Cetak usulan dengan huruf yang jelas Permudah penelaah (reviewer) menggali informasi. Usulan harus memberikan informasi yang lengkap, mengenai: a. Status penelitian (awal, lanjutan) b. Kemampuan pengusul, dan ketersediaan saranapenunjang pelaksanaan penelitian c. Metodologi (tepat, ruintut dan komprehensif)

11 Strategi Penulisan proposal
3 Kunci : Kreatifitas ide dan gagasan Kekuatan Materi Keberlanjutan dan manfaat Harus memenuhi persyaratan dan format yang digunakan secara khusus

12 Teknik Penulisan proposal
Lengkap Simpel (fokus, tidak mengulang kalimat, tidak mendramatisir) Akurat (nyata, terkini) Obyektif (berdasar literatur) Jelas (kaidah bahasa benar, mudah dipahami) Relevan (sesuai judul, lingkup, bahasan)  semua bagian harus saling terkait

13 Hal-hal penting yang perlu ditonjolkan dalam usulan
Penelitian mempunyai dampak/output yang baik untuk pembangunan (SDM, IPTEKS, Eksosbud) a. Latar belakang b. Perumusan masalah c. Tujuan Tunjukkan bahwa pengusul mempunyai kemampuan untuk melaksanakan penelitian a. Metodologi b. Curriculum vitae Metode yang dipilih dan sarana yang tersedia menjamin keberhasilan penelitian (penunjang: personalia, sarana-prasarana, dll).

14 Mengacu pada penilaian suatu usulan penelitian
Penilaian administratif a. Gunakan format baku b. Batas akhir pengajuan proposal c. Pengesahan kelembagaan Penilaian Isi a. Perumusan masalah b. Tinjauan pustaka c. Metode mencapai tujuan penelitian d. Kelayakan personalia, waktu dan dana Penilaian dana a. Usahakan rasional b. Komposisi dana mayoritas untuk pelaksanaan penelitian

15 Strategi menulis usulan penelitian
Tema Judul Latar belakang Perumusan hipotesis Tujuan dan manfaat penelitian Tinjauan pustaka Desain dan metode penelitian Kebahasaan Efektif, lancar, jernih dan komunikatif

16 Lanjutan ………. Disarm the reviewer in favor of design choices
Khususnya dalam kasus dimana reviewer akan mengharapkan sebuah pilihan yang mereka tidak akan dapatkan. Target kunci of disarmament: sampel “kecil”, dapat digeneralisasikan dan validitas Other: Unusual combinations of techniques, use of methods for purposes not linked to methods The limitations of limitations: Do not apologize for qualitative research; it requires none.

17 Strategi untuk meningkatkan kualitas presentasi
Aktif mengeluarkan umpan balik saat presentasi. Sepenuhnya pertanggungjawabkan dan terangkan filosofi dan metode penelitian Gunakan format kertas penelitian standar sebagai bentuk disiplin untuk efektifitas presentasi

18 Strategi lanjutan …….. Pertimbangkan penggunaan tabel untuk meringkas detail yang kurang menakjubkan untuk disampaikan. Gunakan kutipan dari partisipan – esensial dalam pandangan peneliti – berikan jawaban yang siap untuk pembaca. Gunakan diagram untuk menunjukkan analisis. Tuntun pembaca melalui paper yang telah disiapkan.

19 More shoulds Tunjukkan respek untuk audiens
Bertahan tanpa menjadi defensif Writer v. reader burden Reflexivity & context: The obligations of qualitative writers Informed criticism: The obligations of quantitative reviewers

20 What constitutes a good qualitative research paper?
Same standards as for any other type of paper - a tight chain of reasoning from introduction, methodology, findings and conclusion. Additionally - findings that are plausible, and that provide enough context for the reader to make their own interpretations. Not simply ‘a nice novel’...

21 Why qualitative manuscripts are rejected
In my experience, there are usually two main reasons for rejection: (1) lack of focus and contribution (2) the “story” is not convincing or plausible The first reason has to do with theory The second reason has to do with data or the writing up of the data The following comments are based on my experience as a reviewer, Program Committee member, Associate Editor of MISQ and ISJ I went through many of the papers I have reviewed or acted as an AE for, and I found two main reasons popping up over and over again In my experience . . .

22 Theory: Lack of focus (1)
It is not clear what the main “point” is (often there are many points) The literature review is inadequate The manuscript is not sufficiently new or original (it is 2-3 years too late) The manuscript does not contradict conventional wisdom Let’s discuss the first issue: lack of focus or contribution This issue concerns theory - not clear what the main point is - a classic journal article should have just one main point. - literature review is inadequate - haven’t cited some key references, or the literature review is out of date. The authors are not up to date with the latest articles published in the area - the manuscript is not sufficiently . . . It might have been good 2-3 years ago, but now it is a bit too late for MISQ. Others have beaten them to it, and so this particular paper is not new - the manuscript does not contradict - it tells us what we already know

23 Theory: Lack of focus (2)
Possible solutions: Complete the sentence: “the purpose of this paper is . . .” Have a paper in mind right from the start Ensure that the literature review is complete and current Ask to be a reviewer Attend IS conferences where excellent qualitative research is presented Ask other researchers what they are working on Here are some possible solutions. These are my suggestions as to how to improve one’s success rate. - complete the sentence I didn’t use to do this, but doing this forces you to be really clear on what the main point is - Have a paper in mind before you even start on a research project - you should know what the contribution or potential contribution might be right at the start. Otherwise how do you know it is new? - Ensure lit. review - But how do you do this? If you only read the published articles when they come out, you are usually already too late. You have to get hold of the latest research in your particular area BEFORE it comes out. How? - ask to be a reviewer . . . - attend IS conferences - like ICIS and IFIP 8.2 etc. This is where the first version is often presented - ask other leading researchers Find out what they are doing, and what are the current topics. Study today’s and tomorrow’s topics, not ones from yesterday In a nutshell - Get plugged in to the IS qualitative research community

24 Data: The “story” is not convincing or plausible (1)
There is a lack of depth to the story Evidence comes from a limited range of sources Important data about the organisation, the IS, the people etc are missing There is no “thick description” (important for an ethnographic paper) We are not sure what the researcher did or how they did it This issue concerns the data - lack of depth . . . - - not really sure about the quality of the research, what has been done, and how

25 Data: The “story” is not convincing or plausible (2)
Possible solutions: ensure a significant mass of data is collected include verbatim comments from interviews for interpretive research, review the seven principles from the Klein and Myers (1999) article make sure you clearly describe your research method - ensure a significant . . . - it is a lot of work to do good qualitative research. It can’t be done in 5 minutes. It takes time and effort - include verbatim - this gives some evidence of the fact that you have actually talked to people - 7 principles - if interpretive. We need contextual data, multiple perspectives etc - research method clearly described

26 Writing-up “Research is not finished until it is published”
Constantly seek to improve it before submission by asking colleagues to comment on the working paper version using the feedback from a conference presentation sending it to an appropriate journal if the manuscript ends up being rejected, do the revisions, then send it to another journal - When I was on sabbatical at Claremont some 7 years ago, Lynne gave me some excellent advice. She said “research is never finished until it’s published.” I believe she is absolutely right. If you never write it up and get it published, then it’s hard to see why it was done in the first place (except as a personal learning experience). But certainly no one else gets to benefit. So how to get it into print? - constantly improve by - don’t give up until at least one paper is published from a project. If some papers are not good enough for MISQ or even second tier journals, then send them to third tier journals or below. That’s what I do. I guess you might question the value of publishing in a lowly ranked journal, but if they are willing to publish it, then I presume they find some value in it. Better to do that than let the paper sit in the filing cabinet gathering dust. So there’s my suggestions. Let’s open it for questions and discussion.

27 Additional considerations
Strategic repetition, location Get the “right” help types of expertise Leave yourself time Preliminary work always helps Avoid jargon/”name” and “method” dropping: SAY WHAT YOU MEAN IN PLAIN TALK

28 Makes indexing difficult Forces researchers to access full articles
How do I search? Problems in studies Titles - often not very informative (clever, witty) Abstract - variable quality (missing, poor, misleading) Methods – often poorly reported Makes indexing difficult Forces researchers to access full articles

29 Conclusions Searching for qualitative studies is difficult, cumbersome and frustrating We need “better authors’ behaviour “ (precise titles, structured abstracts, …..) We need better indexing systems We need optimal methods for search strategies

30 Dan jangan lupa Anggaran Tim penelitian Style tulisan

31 Anggaran Realistis Konsisten dengan aktivitas Transparan
Sesuai dengan buku panduan

32 Tim penelitian Masing-masing mempunyai tugas yang jelas
Saling mendukung Kompak Bagi rata

33 Style tulisan Gunakan kalimat dan paragraf singkat
Gunakan bahasa yang baik dan sederhana Menyusun poin-poin kalimat Kesankan pembaca dengan berfikir dan alasan yang jelas Hindari akronim

34 Tip untuk sukses Menuruti panduan Bersemangat Mempengaruhi orang lain
Menegakkan kredibilitas Membangun rasa percaya diri Berbeda dari yang lain

35 Hindari perangkap ……. Rumusan masalah/Rasionalisasi lemah
Tulisan tidak jelas Keluaran/manfaat tidak pasti Tidak mempunyai pengalaman yang relevan Proposal sangat besar atau ambisius atau sangat terbatas Tidak merepresentasikan nilai pendanaan