Beyond the Guidelines: Reading Between the Lines of RFPs and FOAs

Author | Martin Munyao Muinde
Email | ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) serve as foundational documents in the grant application process, providing structured guidance for prospective applicants. However, to succeed in competitive funding environments, applicants must develop the capacity to interpret these documents beyond their explicit content. This paper explores the strategic importance of reading between the lines in RFPs and FOAs. By deconstructing language, identifying implicit priorities, and analyzing rhetorical cues, researchers and grant writers can better align proposals with funder expectations. Drawing upon case studies and discourse analysis, the paper investigates how seemingly neutral or generic phrases often signal deeper agendas or institutional values. The findings underscore the value of interpretive literacy in grant writing and advocate for a more nuanced engagement with opportunity texts. Such critical reading can enhance proposal competitiveness, ensure alignment with agency missions, and foster more informed collaborations across disciplines.

Introduction

In the world of competitive grant writing, success often depends not only on the quality of a proposal but also on the applicant’s ability to decipher the underlying intentions and priorities embedded within RFPs and FOAs. These documents, issued by governmental agencies, private foundations, and international organizations, provide the official roadmap for funding applications. While they contain explicit requirements regarding eligibility, formatting, and submission deadlines, they also carry implicit messages about funder values, institutional agendas, and preferred methodological approaches. Reading beyond the guidelines involves interpreting these implicit signals and using them to craft more responsive and persuasive proposals. This paper argues that effective grant writing hinges on the ability to perform such deep readings. Through an analysis of language, tone, and thematic framing, applicants can gain strategic insights that significantly increase their chances of funding. The discussion draws on grant writing theory, linguistic pragmatics, and real-world examples to offer a comprehensive understanding of this vital skill.

Understanding the Purpose and Structure of RFPs and FOAs

Before delving into the subtext of funding announcements, it is essential to understand their formal structure and intended purpose. Both RFPs and FOAs are designed to communicate specific criteria, program goals, and funding parameters. They typically include sections on eligibility, proposal components, budget requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission procedures. At face value, these documents serve a regulatory function, ensuring standardization and transparency. However, they also reflect the philosophical and operational orientations of the issuing organizations (Porter, 2007). For example, a government agency focused on public health may prioritize scalable interventions and measurable outcomes, while a private foundation dedicated to the arts may emphasize creativity and community engagement. Recognizing these orientations requires more than cursory reading. Successful applicants treat RFPs and FOAs as strategic texts that reveal not only what is asked but why it is asked. This mindset shifts the focus from compliance to engagement, positioning the proposal as a tailored response to a larger institutional narrative.

The Role of Language and Rhetoric in Funding Announcements

Language is never neutral, and this is particularly true in the context of RFPs and FOAs. The choice of terminology, tone, and structure within these documents often communicates values, expectations, and implicit preferences. For instance, the frequent use of terms such as “innovation,” “scalability,” “interdisciplinary,” or “evidence-based” reveals more than thematic interest; it signals a funding culture that rewards certain epistemologies and methodologies over others (Belcher, 2019). A proposal that fails to echo or respond to this language may appear misaligned, regardless of its technical merits. Skilled grant writers therefore conduct lexical and semantic analyses of opportunity texts to identify recurring terms and conceptual clusters. They then mirror this language strategically within their proposals to signal resonance and alignment. Furthermore, rhetorical devices such as repetition, emphasis, and framing devices can indicate priority areas that are not explicitly highlighted in evaluation criteria. Interpreting the rhetoric of a funding call enables applicants to move beyond surface-level instructions and craft submissions that align with funder discourse.

Identifying Implicit Priorities and Hidden Agendas

Many of the most critical insights in RFPs and FOAs are embedded in language that is deliberately broad or ambiguous. Phrases like “preference will be given to,” “proposals are encouraged to,” or “consideration may be extended to” often indicate implicit priorities that are not formally required but are highly advantageous to address. Similarly, references to previous initiatives, strategic plans, or current institutional partnerships can reveal preferred topics, target populations, or methodological approaches (Reif-Lehrer, 2005). These signals provide crucial information about what the funder values and expects, even if those values are not part of the official scoring rubric. For instance, a call for community health research may nominally emphasize data collection, but a closer reading may reveal a strong interest in stakeholder engagement and participatory methods. Ignoring such cues can result in a technically sound proposal that nonetheless lacks contextual relevance. Identifying and responding to these unstated expectations is a hallmark of effective grant writing and often differentiates funded applications from those that are rejected.

Using Intertextual Analysis to Strengthen Interpretation

One of the most powerful tools for reading between the lines of RFPs and FOAs is intertextual analysis. This involves comparing the current funding announcement with related documents such as agency mission statements, previously funded project summaries, strategic frameworks, and public speeches by organizational leaders. These texts form a discourse community that collectively communicates the values, trends, and evolving interests of the funding body (Bazerman, 2013). For example, analyzing the portfolio of previously funded projects may reveal thematic continuities or shifts that are not apparent in the current FOA. An agency that recently funded several projects focused on climate resilience, for instance, may be seeking to build on that theme even if it is not prominently mentioned. By triangulating information from multiple sources, applicants can construct a more nuanced understanding of funder intent. This method not only strengthens alignment but also demonstrates due diligence and strategic awareness. It is an essential practice for those aiming to craft proposals that resonate deeply with funder priorities.

Leveraging Conversations with Program Officers

While RFPs and FOAs provide the official documentation for a funding opportunity, informal communication with program officers often offers invaluable interpretive insight. Program officers can clarify ambiguous language, confirm funder priorities, and provide guidance on proposal development. These conversations allow applicants to test ideas, assess fit, and gain perspective on how their proposals will be reviewed. In many funding environments, program officers play a consultative role, advocating for projects internally or offering feedback during the pre-submission phase (Jacob & Lefgren, 2011). Engaging with them can help applicants avoid common misinterpretations of funding language and tailor their approach to better meet programmatic goals. Furthermore, program officers can point to additional resources, such as webinars, past reviewer comments, or exemplary proposals. While such engagement must be conducted professionally and within ethical bounds, it is often the most direct way to read between the lines of an opportunity. Building rapport with program officers reflects initiative, seriousness, and a commitment to alignment.

Dissecting Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics

A close reading of evaluation criteria and scoring rubrics can also reveal important subtext. While these sections appear to provide objective assessment tools, they often embed subjective expectations and hidden weightings. For example, a criterion labeled “project significance” may implicitly include alignment with current political or social concerns. Similarly, the criterion “investigator qualifications” may favor applicants from established institutions or with prior funding histories, even if not explicitly stated (Frechtling, 2007). Some agencies publish reviewer guidelines that detail how to interpret these criteria, offering further insight into what evaluators are trained to prioritize. By comparing the language in the evaluation rubric with the rest of the FOA, applicants can detect inconsistencies or emphasis shifts that point to unspoken priorities. This comparative reading enhances the writer’s ability to strategically foreground certain aspects of their project. Instead of treating the scoring rubric as a checklist, successful applicants treat it as a coded message about what matters most. This interpretive skill is essential for maximizing proposal impact.

Case Studies: Reading Between the Lines in Action

To illustrate the practical value of interpretive reading, consider two case studies from different disciplines. In the first, a team applying for a public health grant initially focused on epidemiological modeling. After closely reading the FOA and related documents, they discovered a strong but implicit emphasis on community-based interventions. They revised their proposal to include participatory research methods and letters of support from local organizations. This strategic shift contributed significantly to their funding success. In the second case, a humanities scholar applied for a fellowship emphasizing “interdisciplinary engagement.” The applicant initially interpreted this as requiring collaboration with other humanities fields. However, by analyzing the funding agency’s portfolio and attending a pre-proposal webinar, they realized that “interdisciplinary” was being used to signal collaboration with the sciences. The revised proposal included a partnership with an environmental scientist, aligning more closely with funder expectations. These examples demonstrate how reading between the lines can turn a promising proposal into a winning one by refining scope, partnerships, and rhetorical framing.

Ethical Considerations in Strategic Interpretation

While strategic interpretation of RFPs and FOAs is an important skill, it must be guided by ethical principles. There is a fine line between strategic alignment and opportunistic misrepresentation. Applicants should not fabricate partnerships, exaggerate capacity, or distort research objectives to fit perceived funder interests. Such practices not only undermine the credibility of the proposal but also risk project failure and reputational damage. Ethical interpretation involves seeking genuine alignment between project goals and funder priorities. It also requires transparency in how proposals are framed and honesty about capabilities and outcomes. Many funding agencies emphasize values such as equity, inclusivity, and responsible conduct of research. Applicants who engage in ethical strategic reading align their proposals with these values both in content and in process. By doing so, they not only improve their chances of funding but also contribute to a more trustworthy and accountable grant-making ecosystem. Ethical interpretation enhances both proposal quality and institutional integrity.

Conclusion

Reading between the lines of RFPs and FOAs is a sophisticated interpretive practice that goes far beyond checking boxes and meeting formatting requirements. It involves a deep engagement with language, structure, and discourse to uncover the implicit messages that guide funder decision-making. Successful applicants view funding announcements not as static instructions but as dynamic texts situated within broader institutional narratives. They employ tools such as intertextual analysis, rhetorical reading, and stakeholder engagement to enhance alignment and impact. By developing this interpretive literacy, grant writers can craft proposals that resonate more deeply with funders, improve their competitive edge, and contribute meaningfully to their respective fields. This paper has demonstrated that the most successful grant applications are not just compliant with guidelines but are also informed by a nuanced reading of the complex signals embedded within funding texts. In an increasingly competitive funding landscape, the ability to read between the lines is not optional but essential.

References

Bazerman, C. (2013). Global and local communicative practices in academic writing. Routledge.
Belcher, W. L. (2019). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. University of Chicago Press.
Frechtling, J. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. Jossey-Bass.
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9), 1168–1177.
Porter, R. (2007). Funded: An insider’s guide to grant writing. Springer Publishing Company.
Reif-Lehrer, L. (2005). The grant application writer’s workbook: National Institutes of Health version. Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops.