Blog Viewer

Volume LVII, Number 2 |

Karen E. Mosier
University of Saskatchewan

Abstract

This article presents a conceptually grounded framework for enhancing the persuasiveness of research grant proposals through the strategic application of the classical rhetorical appeals—Ethos, Pathos, and Logos—collectively known as the Aristotelian Triad. Rooted in ancient rhetorical theory, these three modes of persuasion work synergistically to strengthen arguments, particularly in the high-stakes context of grant writing, where justifying the allocation of limited funding is critical. Drawing on real-life examples from successful faculty grant applications and analyzing the structure of common Tri-Agency proposals, the paper illustrates how these rhetorical strategies are frequently employed in practice. By highlighting this dynamic interaction, the article offers research administrators practical insights into how intentional, persuasive communication can significantly enhance the quality and competitiveness of grant proposals.

Expanding beyond the Aristotelian Triad, the article explores the dual nature of communication in grant writing, emphasizing that proposals operate on both overt and covert levels. It examines how the interplay between rhetorical appeals, layered messaging, and the 5Ws + 1H framework can be used to analyze the grant review process to empower writers to be more strategic. By breaking down a grant review into its basic parts, it clarifies the review process, connects rhetoric to practice, reveals hidden layers of communication, anticipates reviewer thinking, and promotes strategic writing. Ultimately, this integrated approach encourages research development professionals to be intentional and deliberate when supporting faculty in proposal development. 

Keywords: Grantsmanship; Writing; Persuasion; Research Administration

Introduction

In today’s competitive funding landscape, where programs routinely receive far more submissions than can be funded, the ability to craft a compelling grant proposal is more critical than ever (Neema & Chandrashekar, 2021). Success depends not only on the merits of the research but also on how effectively its value, feasibility, and impact are communicated. Strategic, persuasive writing plays a key role in this process, bridging disciplinary gaps and making complex ideas accessible, credible, and engaging to a diverse audience. By clearly articulating why the project matters and why the researcher is uniquely positioned to conduct it, persuasive communication becomes a powerful tool for elevating a proposal’s chance of success. True grantsmanship moves readers beyond merely absorbing statistics to feeling an emotional response or ideological connection, and even a sense of urgency. Linking data to pressing problems and real-world consequences transforms arguments into compelling, impactful narratives (Kazanskaia, 2025; Varpio, 2018).

This emphasis on persuasive communication is especially important given the role of research funding in the broader research ecosystem. Funding, typically awarded through competitive processes, is an essential for enabling researchers to conduct their work, disseminate findings (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020), and spark new lines of inquiry (Heyard & Hottenrott, 2021). Applying for grants is not only a practical necessity but also a strategic endeavor that fuels innovation and advances knowledge (Neema & Chandrashekar, 2021). In this context, persuasive grant writing is not just a skill, it’s a key driver of research success, improving both the quality and competitiveness of grant proposals.

Faculty members often approach grant writing as a strictly factual task. While proposals may include elements that establish the credibility of the researcher or research team, they frequently lack the emotional and rhetorical depth needed to fully engage reviewers. Writing with passion or appealing to the reader’s emotions is sometimes seen as inappropriate or simply outside the writer’s comfort zone.

So, what is the missing piece in crafting a successful grant application?

At its core, grant writing is about constructing a persuasive argument (Lee, 2016; Lusk, 2004; Monte & Libby, 2018; Porter, 2007; Wisdom et al., 2015). A compelling and fundable proposal relies on critical components that work together to persuade reviewers with each element contributing to the overall strength of the argument (see Table 1). 

Table 1. Key Elements to Persuade Reviewers in Grant Proposals 

Applicants must convincingly demonstrate why limited funds should be allocated to a compelling idea with a high likelihood of success (Porter, 2007). Strong ideas require effective promotion; researchers must persuade reviewers to "buy into" their idea (Burrow-Sanchez et al., 2016). A grant proposal is not merely a technical document. It is an opportunity to introduce and advocate for a research project, requiring a well-structured and persuasive narrative (Gotley, 2000).

A compelling proposal can persuade reviewers of its value within just a few pages (Sandler, 2002). To do so, the author must emphasize both the significance of the proposed work (Gotley, 2000) and its merit for funding (Schepers et al., 2000). While a solid scientific foundation is essential, the way the message is communicated also plays a crucial role in influencing reviewers (Lusk, 2004).

A 2017 survey revealed that research development professionals spend about 70% of their time editing proposal drafts and supporting the development of large grants or individual investigator awards (Preuss et al., 2020), underscoring their vital role in guiding faculty towards persuasive communication strategies that help proposals resonate with reviewers intellectually and emotionally, ultimately increasing their chances of success (Kazanskaia, 2025; Varpio, 2018).

This article explores the value of persuasive writing in grant applications by examining the three classical modes of persuasion Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, and introducing a conceptually grounded framework that integrates classical rhetorical theory with layered messaging and the 5Ws + 1H framework to foster deeper alignment with reviewer expectations and improve funding success. 

Aristotelian Triad of Ethos, Pathos and Logos

To strengthen the persuasiveness of a grant proposal, writers can utilize rhetorical strategies rooted in classical argumentation. The Aristotelian Triad, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, form the foundation of persuasive communication (Aristotle, 1954). Their origins trace back to the philosophy of Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). Ethos appeals to the speaker’s character, Pathos to the audience’s passion and emotions, and Logos to logic and reason. Most importantly, Aristotle emphasized that these three elements work in concert, each reinforcing the others, to create the most compelling and persuasive arguments (see Table 2). 

Table 2. The Three Pillars of Persuasion

Their synergistic power of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (Aristotle, 1954) is highly relevant in the realm of grant writing, as these three rhetorical appeals, when thoughtfully incorporated, can help grant writers craft compelling proposals that engage reviewers’ trust, emotions, and intellect, ultimately enhancing persuasive strength and funding success (Varpio, 2018).

Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, work together to form a compelling argument. Ethos builds credibility through the “habit” of goodwill, good character, and sound judgment of the speaker. Pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions and value system; emotional and ideological resonance can be thought of as “shared values” or “shared thinkability”. Logos relies on logic and evidence conveyed through the words of the argument itself (Aristotle, 1954). In grant writing, understanding and integrating these elements can significantly enhance the persuasive strength of a proposal. 

How Ethos, Pathos, and Logos Work Together in Grant Writing  

These three rhetorical appeals, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos can significantly enhance the persuasive power of grant proposals (Varpio, 2018). To understand how they work together in grant writing, imagine them as the three legs of an old-fashioned movie projector with a tripod base. These “persuasion powerhouses” operate in unison to support and strengthen an argument, much like the tripod’s legs stabilize the projector to ensure a clear and steady image, or, in the context of grant writing, to deliver a clear, compelling, and well-supported message (see Figure 1). Naturally, if one leg is missing, the tripod wobbles or collapses, and the same is true for persuasive writing. Without all three modes of appeal, the argument risks falling flat or losing its effectiveness.

Figure 1. Aristotelian Triad of Ethos, Pathos and Logos

Analyses of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Successful Grant Applications 

A successful grant proposal goes beyond presenting required information (Streiner, 1996). It must persuade. Researchers need to develop strong persuasive writing skills. By harnessing the power of the three rhetorical appeals—Ethos, Pathos, and Logos—they can engage reviewers and make a lasting impact (Lee, 2016; Lusk, 2004; Monte & Libby, 2018; Wisdom et al., 2015). 

Understanding how persuasive strategies function in practice is essential for those who support the grant writing process. When research support professionals can recognize and analyze techniques in others’ writing, they are better equipped to identify the components of a strong argument and appreciate the role of persuasion in crafting successful grant proposals. While the three persuasive modes, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, can be identified through common rhetorical strategies, their interpretation is inherently subjective, shaped by the reader’s perspective, background, and expectations. Determining the use of each appeal in a grant proposal is not an exact science; rather, it reflects the reader’s interpretation of the writer’s intent and rhetorical emphasis. The following examples illustrate how these rhetorical appeals may appear in practice.  

Persuasive communication in grant writing must contend with inherent uncertainties—both in the likelihood of funding success and in the realization of proposed outcomes. Because truth is not objectively measurable, understanding rhetorical nuances becomes essential. These nuances offer valuable insight into how proposals are constructed to persuade funders, while also highlighting the complexity of identifying and evaluating persuasive strategies within such texts.

To explore how persuasive strategies function in grant writing, let us examine a paragraph from the Background section of a successful Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Catalyst grant. This text, rich with relevant information and evidence on hearing loss and vision loss in elderly populations, serves as a strong example for rhetorical analysis. Using the Aristotelian Triad, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, we can assess its persuasive strength and better understand how such appeals contribute to effective proposal writing (see Table 3: Analysis of CIHR Catalyst Grant Paragraph Using the Aristotelian Triad). 

Retaining Research Administrator Challenges

The most prominent challenges identified for retaining research administrators were workload/stress and the search for higher pay/increased salary. Limited career advancement opportunities were the third most frequently cited challenge, with each of the top three challenges selected by approximately half or more of respondents (59%, 52%, and 48%, respectively; Figure A7). One of the most prominent reasons influencing employees’ decisions to seek other employment was for higher pay/increased salary. Sixty-five percent of the respondents from the Midwest indicated that workload and stress were significantly larger challenges in retaining research administrators, while 51.7% of those from the South indicated that competitive salaries and benefits offered by other institutions were a big challenge. Furthermore, 51.5% from the South and 52.3% from the West indicated that limited career advancement opportunities within the organization were a challenge for retaining research administrators. Similarly, 64.5% from PUIs, and those with 8-15 years of experience in their current position (56.9% for 8-10 years and 56.6% for 11-15 years of experience in their current position) indicated that limited career advancement opportunities within the organization is a challenge for retaining research administrators.

For R1 institutions with medical schools, 44.4% of respondents identified competition with other internal departments as a major challenge in retaining research administrators. Similarly, 42.3% of land grant institutions indicated that this competition posed a challenge. Likewise, 40.5% of respondents with 26-30 years of experience in research administration also noted the difficulty of retaining staff due to internal departmental competition.

Among respondents with 0-1 years of experience, 23.1% indicated that lack of recognition or appreciation is a challenge for retaining research administrators, and 23.1% noted limited training and development opportunities as a challenge. Additionally, 23.9% of research administrators with 0-5 years of experience in the field indicated that the lack of management or leadership support is a major challenge for retaining research administrators.

Text 1: CIHR Catalyst Grant – Fall 2024

Hearing Loss (HL) and Vision Loss (VL) are each associated with age-related cognitive decline and are thus factors that might be addressed to increase resistance and/or resilience to cognitive decline (4,5). Our group has observed associations between sensory loss (HL and VL) and cognition (executive function and memory) in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), independent of age, socio-demographic and health factors (6,7) (asterisks indicate papers written by co-PIs). At this time, the CLSA has too few cases to test for associations with dementia, but the 2024 update of the Lancet commission on dementia reported that the global fraction of all-cause dementia cases potentially attributable to HL (i.e., the population attributable fraction, or PAF, for HL) was 7%, a value greater than for any other risk factor except LDL cholesterol (which also had a PAF of 7%). The PAF for vision loss was 2% (8). The PAF values for HL and VL reflect, in part, their high prevalence, but their prevalence, and thus their PAFs, differ across countries (9,10). Using CLSA data, our group estimated that 1.5 million males and 1.2 million females 45-85 years of age in Canada had HL in 2016, an increase of 12-15% from 2011; and 430,000 males and 490,000 females had VL in 2016, an increase of 11-14% from 2011 (11). Therapeutic opportunities to prevent or better treat HL and VL exist because of inadequate management of their modifiable causes (e.g., dangerous noise, ototoxic medications, vaccine-preventable infections, screen time in children, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease), and low uptake of effective care (e.g., hearing aids, refractive lenses, cataract surgery, rehabilitative training, and counselling) (12,13).

Table 3. Text Analysis of CIHR Catalyst Grant Paragraph Using the Aristotelian Triad

Let’s begin with Ethos. In grant writing, it is important to establishing credibility as a researcher in the eyes of reviewers (Lusk, 2004, Sandler et al., 2005). The CIHR Catalyst grant text is loaded with several phrases and technical terms that give the speaker credibility and points to the author’s expertise as an academic, including “Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging”, “Test for associations”, “The Lancet commission on dementia”, “Population attributable factor”, “Risk factor” and “Prevalence”. Identifying these elements is a useful way to gauge the use of Ethos in a paragraph. However, it is important to strike a balance. While precise terminology conveys authority, excessive jargon can overwhelm reviewers and discourage them from reading further.   

Ethos can, at times, be effectively combined with Logos, the appeal to reason through data, facts, and statistics, to amplify persuasive impact in grant writing. This combination not only enhances the speaker’s credibility but also reinforces the argument with both authority and logic. Examples of Ethos/Logos-driven statements in this text that convey the researcher’s depth of expertise held by the researcher in this field include “modifiable causes (e.g., dangerous noise, ototoxic medications, vaccine-preventable infections, screen time in children, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease)” and “low uptake of effective care (e.g., hearing aids, refractive lenses, cataract surgery, rehabilitative training and counselling)”. 

Furthermore, the text is rich in Pathos, emphasizing the importance of emotionally engaging the reviewers (Varpio, 2018; Walters, 2009). Though often subtle, Pathos can be deeply resonant. After all, who would not relate to the statement, “Hearing loss and vision loss are each associated with age-related cognitive decline”? Nearly everyone has had a parent, uncle, aunt, sibling, friend, or loved one who has struggled with hearing or vision impairment—only to later experience brain fog or cognitive decline. Such emotional resonance helps reviewers connect personally with the research topic, enhancing its persuasive impact. 

Pathos, understood as alignment of values with the speaker, is often intertwined with Logos. This combination strengthens persuasive impact by appealing to the emotions and ideologies of the reader. To use these appeals skillfully, authors must understand what their readers consider valid evidence. In the CIHR Catalyst grant text, examples of Pathos/Logos-driven statements include: “Observed associations between sensory loss and cognition in the CLSA”, “The global fraction of all-cause dementia cases potentially attributable to HL was 7%”, “1.5 million males and 1.2 million females 45-85 years of age in Canada had Hearing Loss in 2016, an increase of 12-15% from 2011” and “430,000 males and 490,000 females had Vision Loss in 2016, an increase of 11-14% from 2011”.  

This powerful pairing of these two “persuasion powerhouses” moves the reader beyond merely absorbing statistics—it evokes an emotional response and instills a sense of urgency. By linking data to real-world consequences, such as the potential acceleration of cognitive decline from untreated age-related conditions, the argument becomes both compelling and impactful.

Logos serves as the backbone of a grant proposal and plays a key role in the Background section of a proposal. Facts, data, and statistics are essential for demonstrating what the research aims to accomplish, why it is necessary (Streiner, 1996), and for effectively pitching the ideas outlined in the proposal (Walters, 2009). A strong logical foundation helps build a compelling case for funding (Walters, 2009).

However, researchers often overlook the cumulative power of incorporating more than one mode of persuasion from the Aristotelian Triad in their Background section. Combining Ethos, Pathos, and Logos can significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of a proposal by appealing to the reviewers’ logic, emotions, and trust.

Examples of Logos-driven statements in this grant text clearly define the issue that needs to be addressed as well as the problem that the research will address: “Factors that might be addressed to increase resistance and/or resilience to cognitive decline”, “Therapeutic opportunities to prevent or better treat HL and VL exist because of inadequate management of their modifiable causes and low uptake of effective care”.

The following paragraph, taken from the Importance of the Topic to Canada section of a successful Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Alliance grant, presents facts and statistics on preventing diseases in poultry without relying on antimicrobial use. Analyzing its persuasive strength through the Aristotelian Triad, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, can reveal how effectively the text engages credibility, emotional appeal, and logical reasoning to support its argument (see Table 4: Text Analysis of NSERC Alliance Grant Paragraph Using the Aristotelian Triad).

Text 2: NSERC Alliance Grant - Summer 2022

Chickens are undoubtedly the most farmed food animal with over 20 billion globally. The frequent occurrence of diseases in chickens causes heavy losses to the chicken industry. Preventing diseases, improving animal welfare, and producing pathogen-and antimicrobial-free safe chickens are the key values of the Canadian chicken industry’s commitment to sustainability. The chicken industry has been using small preventative doses of various antibiotics as feed additives to prevent diseases. There are growing concerns about antimicrobial use in poultry production, leading to the emergence of superbugs (bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics) adversely affecting human, animal, and environmental health [7, 8]. In compliance with the federal action plan on AMR control, Chicken Farmers of Canada have eliminated the prophylactic use of category I and category II antibiotics and agreed to abolish the prophylactic use of category III antibiotics in the near future. The pathogenic strains of Salmonella typhimurium, S. enteritides, E. coli and Campylobacter jejuni have zoonotic potential (can pass from animal to human) [10-12]. It has been reported that when the prophylactic use of antimicrobials is stopped, infection rate of these pathogenic strains increases in chickens; this adversely affects chicken health and welfare [13-15]. Additionally, studies have reported that prophylactic antibiotic withdrawal results in a substantial increase in therapeutic antibiotic use in the poultry industry [13-15].

Table 4. Text Analysis of CIHR Catalyst Grant Paragraph Using the Aristotelian Triad

Let us begin with the first “persuasion powerhouse” of Ethos. The line “studies have reported that prophylactic antibiotic withdrawal results in a substantial increase in therapeutic antibiotic use in the poultry industry” is a good example of an Ethos-related sentence to establish the author’s credibility. 

In this paragraph, Ethos is combined with Logos multiple times to magnify the persuasiveness of the argument. Examples of Ethos/Logos-driven statements in this text include “Key values of the Canadian chicken industry’s commitment to sustainability”, “Small preventative doses of various antibiotics as feed additives to prevent diseases”, “In compliance with the federal action plan on AMR control”, “Chicken Farmers of Canada have eliminated the prophylactic use of category I and category II antibiotics and agreed to abolish the prophylactic use of category III antibiotics in the near future”, “When the prophylactic use of antimicrobials is stopped, infection rate of these pathogenic strains increases in chickens; this adversely affects chicken health and welfare”, and “Prophylactic antibiotic withdrawal results in a substantial increase in therapeutic antibiotic use in industry”. 

Moreover, the writer effectively employs Pathos to connect the audience’s values to the writer’s agenda. Phrases such as “Preventing diseases” and “Improving animal welfare” resonate emotionally by invoking concerns about zoonotic diseases, public health, and the humane treatment of animals. These appeals help align the reader’s priorities with the proposal’s objectives.  

Examples of Logos-driven statements in this text include “Chickens are undoubtedly the most farmed food animal with over 20 billion [slaughtered] globally” and “The frequent occurrence of diseases in chickens causes heavy losses to the chicken industry”.

The author skillfully employs the dynamic duo of Pathos and Logos to establish emotional connectivity while presenting compelling facts and statistics. This persuasive combination draws attention to critical issues such as food safety, antimicrobial resistance, and the ongoing concern of diseases being transmitted from animals to humans. Examples include “Producing pathogen-and antimicrobial-free safe chickens”, “Growing concerns about antimicrobial use in poultry production”, “Emergence of superbugs adversely affecting human, animal, and environmental health” and “The pathogenic strains of Salmonella typhimurium, S. enteritides, E. coli and Campylobacter jejuni have zoonotic potential”.

It is important to note that while this article focuses on specific grants, these concepts apply broadly, regardless of the funder or grant type, whether in science, the humanities, or programmatic funding.

How to Apply the Aristotelian Triad When Reviewing a Grant Proposal

The Aristotelian Triad, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos, and its role in strengthening grant proposals is represented visually in Figure 2. Rather than treating these elements as separate, the diagram highlights their combined influence in shaping persuasive narratives. 

Figure 2. Using the Aristotelian Triad to Elevate the Quality of Grant Applications

Begin by reading the proposal carefully to assess whether it presents a clear, logical argument supported by relevant data, facts, and statistics. Ask yourself: Does the proposal make logical sense overall? Is it well-organized and coherent? Does it clearly explain why the research is needed, how it will be conducted, what results are expected, and what the potential implications might be? While Logos should be present throughout the proposal, certain sections such as the research plan, methodology, and expected outcomes naturally emphasize this appeal. The structure itself serves as a platform for the Logos appeal. If there is a lack of clear structure, there is a lack of effective Logos. Next, evaluate the credibility of the researchers—a key component of Ethos. Consider whether the principal investigator and team members have the necessary expertise and experience to carry out the proposed study. Look for words, phrases, or sentences that convey credibility, such as prior publications, institutional affiliations, or relevant accomplishments. If Ethos is lacking in certain sections, reflect on how it could be appropriately strengthened to build trust with reviewers.

Finally, evaluate the presence of emotional appeals in the proposal. Pathos is often underutilized, resulting in dry, acronym-heavy text that reads more like an academic paper than a compelling narrative. Ask yourself: Does the proposal evoke an appropriate level of emotional response, i.e., engaging without being manipulative or superficial? Can you relate to the issue through personal or professional experience? Does the proposal inspire excitement about its potential impact on individuals, families, or communities? Is there ideological resonance or value-based alignment with the writer? Highlight any instances of Pathos you find. Then, consider how emotional appeals could be strategically and appropriately woven into the narrative to help connect the reviewer with the human impact of the research and make the proposal more memorable and persuasive.

Analyses of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Common Tri-Agency Grant Proposals  

Now, let us apply this analytical framework to explore how Ethos, Pathos, and Logos strategically function within the context of Tri-Agency grant proposals (see Table 5), shaping how the arguments are constructed and how reviewers may interpret their effectiveness.

Table 5. Use of Ethos, Logos, & Pathos in a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant Proposal 

Let us begin with an analysis of the structure of an NSERC Discovery Grant proposal: 

The “Recent Progress” section should emphasize Logos by presenting relevant data, facts, or statistics, while also establishing Ethos through prior accomplishments such as completed research projects, awarded grants, or published papers related to the current area of study. Highlighting specific achievements by the team or individual members reinforces credibility and showcases a strong foundation for the proposed research.

The “Objectives” section should be grounded in Logos, clearly articulating the logical reasoning behind the research goals. Each objective should be specific, measurable, and directly tied to the research question or hypothesis, demonstrating an evidence-based rationale for what the research aims to achieve and why those aims are significant. This clarity establishes credibility (Ethos) by signaling competence and accountability. When objectives are well defined and measurable, they also build emotional trust with the reviewers, strengthening their emotional and ideological appeal through Pathos. 

The “Literature Review” section should strategically integrate all three rhetorical appeals—Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. It should be rich in Logos, offering a comprehensive overview of existing research, key findings, and identified gaps that justify the need for the proposed study. Ethos can be established by referencing relevant publications authored by the research team, reinforcing their expertise in the field. To incorporate Pathos, compelling statistics, or real-world examples, such as the burden of a disease, should potentially be paired with storytelling elements, to evoke an emotional response and underscore the societal relevance of the research. Ultimately, think of the literature review as a narrative arc: establish the context, summarize the current knowledge, identify the gap, and conclude with your contribution.

Primarily focused on Logos, the “Methodology” section should provide a detailed, logical explanation of the research design, including data collection methods, analysis techniques, and the overall approach. This approach demonstrates the feasibility and scientific rigor of the proposed study. Additionally, Ethos can be incorporated by referencing patented techniques, proprietary tools, or previously validated protocols developed by the team, establishing their credibility and innovative capacity.

The “Impact” section, arguably the most critical part of a grant proposal, should strategically incorporate all three rhetorical appeals. It begins with Logos, laying a solid foundation of evidence and logical reasoning to support the anticipated outcomes. Ethos is used to showcase the research team’s track record, reinforcing their capability to deliver meaningful results. Finally, Pathos plays a vital role in making the proposal compelling and memorable, by highlighting the human or societal significance of the research. Through evocative statistics or storytelling, this section should appeal to the reader’s emotions and values, underscoring the transformative potential of the work.

We now apply the Aristotelian rhetorical framework, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, to analyze a SSHRC Insight Development Grant proposal (see Table 6). 

Table 6. Use of Ethos, Logos, & Pathos in a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant Proposal 

The “Summary of Proposal” section should strategically incorporate Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to maximize its impact. Emphasizing Logos, it must provide a clear and logical snapshot of the entire proposal. As it is often the only part that reviewers read in detail, establishing Ethos is essential to convey the credibility of the researcher and the research team. Additionally, Pathos can be used to engage the reader, sparking interest, and encouraging deeper exploration of the proposal’s content. 

The “Roles and Responsibilities” section should be grounded in Logos, clearly outlining the roles, responsibilities, and relevant qualifications of each team member. Ethos takes precedent by demonstrating the expertise, experience, and reliability of the Principal Investigator and co-applicants. Highlighting the team’s collective capacity to successfully execute the proposed project strengthens the reviewers’ confidence in its feasibility. 

The “Roles and Training of Students” section should be rich in Logos, clearly outlining the rationale for student involvement, the structure of their training, and the methodologies they will learn. To reinforce Ethos, this section can highlight specific techniques and software programs students will use, describe the qualifications of their mentors, and emphasize opportunities for students to present their research findings at scientific conferences. These elements help establish the researcher’s credibility as a mentor and demonstrate a commitment to capacity building.

Knowledge mobilization is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of activities relating to the production and use of research results, including knowledge synthesis, dissemination, transfer, exchange, and co-creation or co-production by researchers and knowledge users (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, n.d.). The “Knowledge Mobilization” section offers a valuable opportunity for all three rhetorical appeals to shine. Logos forms the foundation by providing a clear, structured plan with justified methods and measurable outcomes. Ethos builds trust by highlighting the team’s experience, established partnerships, and institutional support for KMb activities. Pathos adds a human dimension by connecting the research to real-world impact, demonstrating how it will benefit individuals, communities, or society at large. 

The “Expected Outcomes” section should integrate Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to convey the significance of the proposed research. Logos demonstrates how the anticipated outcomes logically follow from the research question and methodology. Ethos builds the research team’s credibility by showcasing their capacity to deliver meaningful results. Pathos adds emotional resonance by emphasizing the human or societal value of the research, illustrating how it can improve lives, inform policy, or address pressing social issues.  

The “Detailed Description” section should strategically employ rhetorical appeals to enhance the proposal’s persuasiveness. Logos is used to articulate the research objectives and explain the rationale behind the study, including a comprehensive methodology section that outlines the approach and procedures for conducting the research. Ethos is conveyed through the demonstrated expertise of the research team, reinforcing the credibility of the proposed work. Pathos subtly fosters “shared thinkability” by conveying the team’s competence, accountability, and anticipated impact of the research, thereby resonating with the reader’s values and emotions.    

The “Timelines” section should be based on Logos to provide a structured overview of the tasks to be completed and their respective timelines. Ethos plays a key role here by showcasing the researcher's deep understanding of the project and thoughtful planning, which enhances trust in the team’s ability to execute the research successfully.

We now analyze the structure of a Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Project Grant proposal to explore the strategic use of rhetorical appeals, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which play a critical role in shaping a persuasive and compelling narrative (see Table 7). 

Table 7. Use of Ethos, Logos, & Pathos in a CIHR Project Grant Proposal 

The “Significance and Impact of the Research” section should strategically incorporate Logos, Ethos, and Pathos to effectively convey the importance of the proposed work. Logos is central to articulating the rationale for the research and its anticipated impact, including the presentation of data, relevant literature, and a clear explanation of how the study fills a gap or advances knowledge. A logical structure, well-supported claims, and clearly defined outcomes all contribute to a persuasive argument for the project's significance. Ethos is established by demonstrating the researcher's expertise, track record, and alignment with CIHR’s priorities. Referencing prior accomplishments, key publications, and collaborative efforts builds trust and reassures reviewers of the applicant’s capability to deliver meaningful results. Meanwhile, Pathos helps connect the proposed research to real-world human needs and societal challenges. By emphasizing the potential to improve health outcomes, alleviate suffering, or address urgent public health issues, the proposal evokes empathy and a sense of urgency, making it more memorable and compelling to reviewers.

The “Approaches and Methodology” section should strategically incorporate the Aristotelian Triad to present a compelling research plan. Logos forms the foundation of the approaches and methods section, as reviewers expect a clear, logical, and evidence-based plan for how the research will be conducted. Ethos also plays a crucial role, as reviewers must trust that the applicant possesses the expertise and resources to execute the proposed methods effectively. Credibility is reinforced by citing prior successful applications of the methods, highlighting the research team’s qualifications, and demonstrating familiarity with best practices in the field. Pathos enhances emotional and ideological appeal by articulating specific goals that resonant with the reader’s “shared values”, moving beyond mere emotion to create a sense of alignment and purpose.

The “Expertise, Experience and Resources” section should be rich in Logos, offering a clear, logical explanation of how the research team’s expertise and available resources align with the project’s objectives. Structured, evidence-based descriptions of team roles, institutional support, and resource availability demonstrate that the project is both feasible and thoughtfully planned. Ethos is equally vital, as reviewers must trust that the team possesses the qualifications, track record, and institutional backing necessary to deliver on the proposal’s goals. Pathos also plays a role by conveying the team’s commitment to addressing meaningful health challenges. Framing their dedication to solving urgent public health issues or their sustained engagement with affected communities evokes a sense of purpose and passion, resonating with reviewers on a personal level.

When reviewing these text analyses, remember that the goal is not to elevate one rhetorical appeal above the others, but to highlight their interconnectedness. Overlooking this synergy would undermine the purpose of this paper and diminish the persuasive power that emerges when Logos, Ethos, and Pathos work together.

Analyzing the use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in common Tri-Agency grant proposals is essential for understanding how persuasive communication shapes funding success. These classical modes of persuasion influence how reviewers perceive the researcher’s credibility, the project’s logical coherence, and its emotional and intellectual appeal. Together, they enhance the overall persuasiveness, impact, and competitiveness of the proposal. Notably, Pathos encompasses both emotion and thought, evoking not only feelings but also ideological resonance. When a proposal aligns with a reviewer’s values or beliefs, it creates a deeper connection, one that goes beyond emotional appeal and becomes the mechanism through which true persuasion occurs.

The Dual Nature of Communication in Grant Writing

Expanding beyond the Aristotelian Triad, it is essential to consider the dual nature of communication in grant writing, recognizing that proposals operate on both overt and covert levels.

To begin, proposals communicate on two distinct planes: overt and covert. The overt level communicates the core components of the research—who will conduct the research, what will be done, when and where it will take place, why it matters, and how it will be carried out (Streiner, 1996). These are the explicit, factual elements that form the backbone of any proposal. In contrast, the covert level consists of the unstated, implied, or between-the-lines signals. These unspoken cues shape judgments about the applicant’s credibility, competence, and potential for success, as well as the overall merit and feasibility of the proposal (Streiner, 1996).

Understanding and strategically addressing both levels of communication is critical to crafting persuasive proposals. While the overt content ensures clarity and completeness, the covert signals—embedded in tone, structure, and presentation—can significantly affect how reviewers interpret the proposal’s quality and the applicant’s potential. By consciously engaging with both dimensions, grant writers can enhance the rhetorical power of their proposals and increase their chances of success.

Gathering Complete Information in Grant Writing

To craft proposals that resonate with Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, while subtly signaling credibility and strategic intent, grant writers can leverage the 5Ws + 1H framework as a foundation for inquiry and persuasion. This framework is a practical tool for uncovering essential facts about a problem or situation. It relies on six guiding questions—What, Who, Where, When, Why, and How—to structure the information-gathering process. This method is widely used in fields like journalism, investigations, project planning, and strategic problem-solving (Continuous Improvement Toolkit, n.d.).

The framework is popularly associated with Rudyard Kipling, the English writer and poet, who famously wrote in his poem “The Elephant’s Child” about “six honest serving-men” named What and Why and When and How and Where and Who” (Kipling, n.d.). This poetic verse laid the foundation for using these six questions as a method for inquiry and storytelling, especially in journalism and education. As a result, this framework is often referred to as the Kipling Method (Markov, 2019).

In the context of grant writing, the 5Ws + 1H framework provides a structured approach to ensure proposals are complete, coherent, and compelling. By addressing Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How, writers can present their research plans clearly and thoroughly (Arthurs, 2014; Cunningham, 2020; Streiner, 1996). Moreover, this framework helps anticipate and respond to the kinds of questions reviewers are likely to ask, thereby strengthening the proposal’s clarity and persuasiveness. 

Importantly, the 5Ws + 1H framework is more than a checklist; it is a strategic communication tool. Whether used in journalism or grant writing, it enables writers to deliver information that is both comprehensive and compelling. By integrating this method into proposal development, grant writers can enhance transparency, build credibility, and increase their chances of securing funding.

The Interplay of Rhetoric Appeals, Layered Messaging, and the 5Ws + 1H Framework

Having explored how rhetorical appeals contribute to persuasive arguments, let us now examine how their interplay, combined with layered messaging and the 5Ws + 1H framework, forms the foundation of a strategic model for analyzing the grant review process. This integrated approach sets the stage for the Grant Writing Persuasion Model (GWPM), which empowers research development professionals to support faculty with greater intentionality and strategic insight (see Table 8).

Table 8. Grant Writing Persuasion Model (GWPM)

Bringing these elements together reveals how rhetorical appeals, layered messaging, and the 5Ws + 1H framework converge into a powerful strategy for persuasive grant writing. This synthesis is captured in the Grant Writing Persuasion Model, a practical tool for guiding proposal development. To understand why this model works, we must first break down the grant review process and uncover what reviewers truly value.

By deconstructing the grant review process into its basic parts, we uncover what reviewers prioritize and how rhetorical appeals influence their judgments. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are not just theoretical concepts, they are actionable tools for crafting compelling arguments. Persuasion operates on more than explicit statements; it also thrives in the implicit signals embedded within proposals, which we explore next. Recognizing the interplay of explicit and implicit communication reveals the hidden layers of persuasion in grant writing. Reviewers judge not only what is stated, but also what is implied. Anticipating these judgments through the 5Ws + 1H framework allows writers to proactively address potential concerns. When combined with rhetorical appeals, this dual approach creates proposals that resonate on multiple levels.

By mastering the overt and covert dimensions of persuasion, grant writers can craft proposals that resonate deeply, even when reviewers are unaware of these strategies. A balanced and intentional use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, guided by the 5Ws + 1H framework, elevates clarity, credibility, and impact. This sets the stage for a more strategic role for research development professionals.

Ultimately, this integrated model empowers research development professionals to move beyond surface-level edits toward a strategic approach grounded in rhetorical appeals, layered messaging, and the 5Ws + 1H framework. By aligning proposals with both explicit criteria and implicit judgments, professionals can help faculty craft submissions that are not only compliant but compelling. 

Conclusions

Intentional, persuasive communication plays a vital role in enhancing the quality and competitiveness of grant proposals. In today’s funding landscape, where decisions are rarely based on merit alone, how effectively a proposal communicates its value, feasibility, and impact can be the deciding factor. With programs frequently receiving far more proposals than they can fund, persuasive writing helps a submission stand out by clearly articulating why the project matters and why the researcher is uniquely positioned to lead it. Moreover, because reviewers may not be experts in the proposal’s specific field, persuasive language bridges disciplinary gaps, making ideas accessible, compelling, and credible to a broader audience.

Among rhetorical strategies used in persuasive communication, Pathos is often the most misunderstood, particularly in scientific contexts. Critics argue that fleeting emotion has no place in the scientific world. However, this criticism stems from a common misinterpretation of Pathos as merely an emotional appeal. In reality, Pathos goes far beyond emotion. It encompasses both feeling and thought, evoking emotional and ideological resonance. It elicits “shared values,” which leads to “shared thinkability”, where compatible ideologies connect on more than just an emotional level and where real persuasion occurs. 

To fully grasp the power of the Aristotelian Triad in grant writing, it is essential to examine the rhetorical strategies of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. These “persuasion powerhouses” are foundational tools of persuasive communication. Ethos builds trust in the researcher’s credibility, Pathos evokes emotional and ideological resonance, and Logos ensures logical clarity. Together, they help reviewers feel confident in the proposal’s merit and the researcher’s capability. Real-world examples from Tri-Agency proposals illustrate how these strategies shape funding success. They influence not only how reviewers perceive the credibility of the researcher and the logic of the project, but also how they emotionally connect and think about the proposed impact. By highlighting their dynamic interaction, this article offers research administrators practical insights into how intentional, persuasive communication can transform grant proposals into compelling cases for funding support.

To foster deeper alignment between the writer’s message and the implicit expectations of the reviewers, this article introduces a conceptually grounded framework that integrates classical rhetorical theory with layered messaging and the 5Ws + 1H framework. By unpacking the dual layers of communication embedded in the grant review process, the framework empowers research support personnel and faculty to move beyond surface-level revisions. Instead, it encourages more intentional, persuasive communication that significantly enhances the quality and competitiveness of grant proposals. 

In conclusion, the power of persuasive communication in writing successful grant applications cannot be overstated. If we aim to support faculty in navigating increasingly competitive funding environments, they need more than technical accuracy. We must equip them with the full range of rhetorical strategies that elevate proposals from informative to compelling. By embracing the persuasive dimensions of grant writing, research development professionals can help faculty in crafting applications that not only meet technical requirements but also resonate with reviewers on both intellectual and emotional levels.

Author's Note

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. John Moffatt, Associate Professor at the Ron and Jane School of Professional Development, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, for inspiring me to write this paper. His course, Rhetorical Theory and the Practice of Persuasion, was one of the most impactful courses I have ever taken. It deepened my understanding of the power of persuasion and how it can be effectively applied in both speech and writing to construct compelling arguments. It was a pleasure to be part of his class, and I am truly grateful for the knowledge and inspiration it provided. 

Special thanks also to Dr. Susantha Gomis, Professor and Head, Department of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan for sharing his successful NSERC Alliance grant “Delivery of probiotics in chicken embryos and modulation of the immune system with oligodeoxynucleotides containing CpG motifs to control bacterial infections”, and to Dr. Paul Mick, Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan for contributing his successful CIHR Catalyst Grant “The influence of genetics on sensory-cognitive associations in older age” for the text analyses.  

Most importantly, I would like to extend special recognition to Dr. John Moffatt, Associate Professor at the Ron and Jane School of Professional Development, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, for reviewing the final draft of my article. His generous feedback and rich insights, particularly on the concept of Pathos, including “emotional and ideological resonance”, “shared thinkability”, and “shared values”, greatly enriched the depth and nuance of this article. In addition, I would like to give my appreciation to the three anonymous Journal of Research Administration reviewers for their valuable comments and insights I received that contributed greatly to the quality of this published work.

Karen E. Mosier
University of Saskatchewan

Corresponding Author

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen E. Mosier, Research Coordinator/Navigator, Department of Surgery, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5. karen.mosier@usask.ca

References

Aristotle. Rhetoric. (1954). Trans. by W. Rhys Roberts. Modern Library.

Arthurs, O. J. (2014). Think it through first: Questions to consider in writing a successful grant application. Pediatric Radiology, 44(12), 1507-1511. https://www.doi/org/10.1007/s00247-014-3053-6

Burrow-Sánchez, J. J., Martin, J. L., & Imel, Z. E. (2016). Applying for grant funding as a Counseling Psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(4), 479-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000015626272

Continuous Improvement Toolkit. (n.d.). The 5W1H approach: Asking simple questions for great results. https://citoolkit.com/articles/5w1h/

Cunningham, K. (2020). Beyond boundaries: Developing grant writing skills across higher education institutions. Journal of Research Administration, 51(2), 41-57.

Cuschieri, S., Schembri-Wismayer, P., & Grech, V. (2018). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Writing a research grant–2, drafting the proposal. Early Human Development, 127, 109-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.07.014

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Aristotle. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved April 13, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle

Gemayel, R., & Martin, S. J. (2017). Writing a successful fellowship or grant application. The FEBS Journal, 284(22), 3771-3777. https://doi.org./10.1111/febs.14318

Gotley, D. C. (2000). Grantsmanship: Achieving success in research funding. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 70(4), 297-301. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01815.x

Heyard, R., & Hottenrott, H. (2021). The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-16. https://www.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00891-x

Inouye, S. K., & Fiellin, D. A. (2005). An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(4), 274-282.

Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Crafting a compelling grant proposal: Structure, clarity, and persuasion in non-profit funding. NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies. Neya Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-gr-wr-ms-04

Kipling, R. (n.d.). The elephant’s child. In Just so stories (Lit2Go Edition). University of South Florida. https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/79/just-so-stories/1299/the-elephants-child/

Kraicer, J. (1997). The art of grantsmanship. https://ubc-pathology.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/05/The-Art-of-Grantsmanship.pdf

Knafl, K. A., & Deatrick, J. A. (2005). Top 10 tips for successful qualitative grantsmanship. Research in Nursing & Health, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20099

Lee, Y. (2016). Tactics for seeking and obtaining funding in academia. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(1), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12177

Lusk, S. L. (2004). Developing an outstanding grant application. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26(3), 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903261843

Markov, S. (2019, March 19). The Kipling Method: A powerful 5W1H framework for problem-solving. GeniusRevive. https://geniusrevive.com/en/the-kipling-method-5w1h/

Monte, A. A., & Libby, A. M. (2018). Introduction to the specific aims page of a grant proposal. Academic Emergency Medicine, 25(9), 1042-1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13419

Neema, S., & Chandrashekar, L. (2021). Research funding—why, when, and how? Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 12(1), 134-138. https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.idoj_684_20

Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals. Journal of Research Administration, 38(2), 37-43.

Preuss, M., Eck, K., Fechner, M., & Walker, L. (2020). Research development and its workforce: An evidence-based compendium for higher education and other environments. International Journal on Studies in Education, 2(1), 1-25. https://ijonse.net/index.php/ijonse/article/view/1805

Ross-Hellauer, T., Tennant, J. P., Banelytė, V., Gorogh, E., Luzi, D., Kraker, P., Pisacane, L., Ruggieri, R., Sifacaki, E., & Vignoli, M. (2020). Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLoS Computational Biology, 16(4), e1007704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704

Sandler, R. S. (2002). Writing clinical grant applications. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 8(3), 196-200. https://doi.org/10.1097/00054725-200205000-00007

Sandler, R. S., Lewis, J. D., Robuck, P. R., & Sands, B. E. (2005). Funding and grantsmanship. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 11(suppl_1), S34-S37. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MIB.0000184847.54063.fe

Sauer, R. M., & Gabbi, C. (2018). Grantsmanship: What? Who? How? European Journal of Internal Medicine, 57, 22-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2018.10.006

Schepers, J. S., Sadler, E., & Raun, W. R. (2000). Grantsmanship hints. Agronomy Journal, 92(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.9211

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (n.d.). Guidelines for effective knowledge mobilization. Government of Canada. https://sshrc-crsh.canada.ca/en/funding/policies-regulations-and-guidelines/guidelines-effective-knowledge-mobilization.aspx

Streiner, D. L. (1996). “While you're up, get me a grant”: A guide to grant writing. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 41(3), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379604100302

Varpio, L. (2018). Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(3), 207-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0420-2

Walters, M. W. (2009). Write an effective funding application: A guide for researchers and scholars. JHU Press.

Wescott, L., & Laskofski, M. (2011). Grant writing tips for translational research. In V. Espina & L. A. Liotta (Eds.), Molecular profiling: Methods and protocols (pp. 379-389). Humana Press.

Wisdom, J. P., Riley, H., & Myers, N. (2015). Recommendations for writing successful grant proposals. Academic Medicine, 90(12), 1720-1725. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000811