Writing European Projects: How to Prepare, Best Practices, and Mistakes to Avoid
“It was a dark and stormy night”: The challenging task of drafting European projects
Who isn’t familiar with this famous opening line, which marks the start of every one of Snoopy’s attempts to write his novel? It really captures the idea of the difficulties of writing—and the importance of style.
Anyone who has ever tried their hand at applying for a European project knows full well that writing is a complex process, in which technical content must be combined with a fluid style and appropriate language.
We have dedicated a section of the Manual to this topic, as well as articles on terminology (particularly in the Questions and Answers section) and a regularly updated Glossary.
In addition to addressing the technical aspects of a project proposal, it is essential to remember that it will be read by an evaluator, likely along with dozens of other proposals. For this reason, writing style and method are just as important as the technical content.
Let’s explore together some tips and common mistakes to avoid when writing a well-crafted and compelling project proposal, in terms of both style and method.
Before “picking up the pen”: the preparatory work
Effective project writing begins long before you start filling out the application. Before you “dive in” to writing the application form, it’s important to have a clear vision of the project’s basic structure.
Instead of jumping right into filling out the application form—a complex document that can be as long as 50–60 pages—the recommended first step is to develop a Concept Note, which is a very concise (3–4-page) summary of the project idea. The Concept Note includes the rationale for the project, the main objectives, the structure of the activities (or Work Packages), the main outputs (deliverables) of the project, the target audience, an indicative timeline, and the total budget.
The Concept Note is also the best way to get started, because it allows you to present yourself to potential partners with a clear initial idea of the project. It’s normal for the Concept Note to undergo several revisions after discussions with partners, but it’s certainly easier to reach a shared vision based on a 4-page Concept Note than on a 50- to 60-page form.
Once the Concept Note has been finalized with the partners, it is helpful to create editable and commentable versions of the form templates, the timeline (Gantt chart), and the budget, ready to be shared and developed with input from the partners. Once the preparations are complete, you can move on to the writing phase.
Best Practices for Writing a European Project Proposal
Here are some tips for writing a project proposal.
- Terminological consistency: It is important to use the same terms throughout the form by creating your own project “glossary.” If you refer to an element in different ways, the evaluator may think you are talking about distinct things, which reduces clarity and coherence. Furthermore, if you consistently use the same term, it’s also easier to use the “find” and “replace” functions when revising the proposal.
- Inclusive language: Avoid gender stereotypes and use language that respects diversity, in line with the values of the European Union and cross-cutting issues. This is a fundamental requirement.
- Labor limae: Writing is… rewriting. It’s important not to settle for the first draft, but to incorporate feedback from peers, streamline sentences, eliminate repetitions, and strive to make the text flow more smoothly.
- The “self-sustaining” rule: each section should be understandable even when read on its own. For this reason, it’s best to avoid generic references (e.g., “as described above”). If you want to refer to a concept mentioned elsewhere, it’s best to be specific or summarize it briefly so as not to disrupt the flow of the text.
- Alignment between the text and the budget: It is important to ensure that every activity described in the technical section is accurately reflected in the budget and schedule files, as well as in the other sections of the proposal in general.
- Handling Acronyms: Our advice is to use an acronym only when strictly necessary, and to clearly define it the first time it appears. A document full of incomprehensible acronyms quickly becomes unreadable.
“Stylistic Blunders”: Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Correct Them) When Writing European Project Proposals
What are the most common mistakes, and how can you avoid them?
The use of “project-speak”: “project-speak” is a filler language—repetitive and empty—that hides a lack of substance behind the use of technical terms from European project management. It is a language used to fill out form sections, one that fosters mediocrity and depersonalization. The antidote is authenticity: highlighting real needs, emphasizing nuances, and avoiding abstract categories.
First person or third person? Using “we” may be preferable if you want to convey the idea of a united team (the consortium) with a shared vision, add a sense of concreteness (“we will carry out” instead of “it will be carried out”), and make the text more dynamic. The third person, on the other hand, can be used more frequently in sections where you want to emphasize scientific objectivity (such as in a needs analysis) or when presenting the project as an entity.
The Use of Artificial Intelligence: This is a hot topic, and its impact on the drafting of European projects is becoming increasingly evident. In general, AI is an excellent assistant, but text generated by AI without “filters” and without an adequate input of “human” ideas and contributions can easily come across as flat, insubstantial, and “soulless” in the eyes of evaluators. Not to mention the risk of“hallucinations,”inconsistencies, generalizations, or phrasing that can betray the “artificial” origin of the content, causing the proposal’s value to plummet.
Uncontrolled copy-and-paste: Similarly, reusing parts of old projects without adapting them to the new call for proposals is a fatal mistake. Each call has specific objectives, so “copy-and-paste” is immediately noticeable and conveys a lack of attention to detail and superficiality.
Excessive technical jargon: Although the project must be technically sound, it is important to remember that the evaluator may be an expert in the field but not necessarily an expert specializing specifically in the project’s topic. The language should take this into account by avoiding (or explaining, with the help of definitions or notes) overly technical terms.
Neglecting the abstract: Often written at the last minute, the abstract is actually the first thing that gets read. If it is confusing or boring, there is a risk that the reviewer will approach the rest of the document with a negative bias.
Lack of connection: It is a stylistic and methodological error to present Work Packages as isolated entities. To avoid this error, it is helpful to use writing style to create narrative bridges, explaining the relationship and interdependence between activities and outputs of different WPs.
Peer Review: Once the project proposal has been drafted, it is important to have it reviewed by an outside person, such as a partner who did not play a major role in its development. An unbiased perspective helps determine whether the proposal is clear and compelling enough for an external evaluator.
Professional proofreading: especially if the project is written in English, having it reviewed by a native speaker can give it a more professional look and the polish it deserves.
Although form is important, writing a European project proposal is never an exercise in style for its own sake. Every effort invested in fine-tuning and paying attention to form is not an extra step, but a necessary strategy for giving the project its own character in a highly competitive environment.
