- Upload your grant proposal – one PDF – into ChatGPT. Prompt: analyze the grant proposal, identify words and concepts that would set of DEI triggers.
- Give an estimate of how much would have to be re-written, in our case 37%.
- Generate a list of keywords that are triggering
- Have GPT swap out that language/keywords for non-trigger alerting ones.
Example below.
How to Reduce Scrutiny While Maintaining Your Core Message
If you want to make your [agency] proposal more compliant while keeping its essential goals intact, here are the key areas to modify and how to reframe them strategically.
1. Reframe DEI Language into “Scientific Impact” Language
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “This project ensures the inclusion of marginalized communities, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals and refugees.”
- “We prioritize equity in data representation.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “This project ensures a comprehensive and representative dataset reflecting linguistic diversity.”
- “We employ a methodologically rigorous approach to ensure diverse linguistic data sources.”
🔹 Why?
- The scientific merit of diversity is still emphasized, but without using DEI/activist language.
2. Remove or Soften Direct Criticism of Institutions and Corporations
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “Google prioritizes Icelandic over Dinka despite having fewer speakers, reinforcing colonial biases in AI.”
- “Corporate neglect has left African languages underrepresented in machine learning models.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “Current AI training datasets underrepresent many African languages, including Dinka.”
- “Existing models prioritize high-resource languages, presenting an opportunity for further development in low-resource settings.”
🔹 Why?
- The criticism is still there, but it is framed as a research gap rather than corporate wrongdoing.
3. Adjust References to Systemic Issues
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “Dinka speakers in refugee camps are among the world’s most marginalized and face systemic exclusion.”
- “This project addresses systemic inequities in linguistic representation.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “Dinka speakers in refugee camps provide a unique opportunity to document an underrepresented language.”
- “This project expands linguistic data coverage to previously understudied populations.”
🔹 Why?
- It keeps the focus on research rather than implying activism or social justice intervention.
4. Reframe Humanitarian Aspects as Scientific Goals
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “Financial aid will be provided to participants to alleviate poverty in refugee camps.”
- “The ethical priority is the survival of the people, even over language preservation.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “Participants will receive compensation for their time, in alignment with ethical research practices.”
- “This research contributes to both linguistic preservation and the documentation of unique speech patterns within these communities.”
🔹 Why?
- Avoids framing the project as humanitarian aid, which [agency] does not fund.
5. Be Strategic with LGBTQ+ and Gender Language
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “Ensuring 10% of our dataset includes trans and non-binary voices.”
- “LGBTQ+ individuals will be prioritized for participation.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “This project ensures a broad representation of speakers across gender identities.”
- “We collect linguistic samples across a variety of social demographics.”
🔹 Why?
- Gender diversity is still there, but it is framed as an academic necessity rather than a social justice goal.
6. Remove or Soften Political Critique
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “U.S. foreign aid cuts have left this community without resources.”
- “Refugees face repressive policies that hinder their access to technology.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “Resource limitations present challenges in data collection.”
- “Infrastructure constraints impact access to digital tools for documentation.”
🔹 Why?
- Keeps focus on research barriers rather than policy critique.
7. Minimize “Advocacy” Language
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “The Dusoma Project is an advocacy-driven initiative to support indigenous language rights.”
- “This work challenges exploitative practices in AI-driven language documentation.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “The Dusoma Project is a research initiative focused on linguistic documentation.”
- “This study contributes to ethical best practices in AI-driven language preservation.”
🔹 Why?
- Keeps the mission intact while avoiding terms like “advocacy” or “challenge” that could signal activism rather than research.
8. Frame Foreign Collaboration as a Data Opportunity
❌ Current Triggering Language:
- “Collaborating with Masakhane and Rwandan research partners to empower African linguistic sovereignty.”
✅ More Compliant Reframing:
- “Partnering with established language documentation groups to enhance dataset accuracy.”
🔹 Why?
- Removes politically sensitive terms like sovereignty while keeping the collaboration clear.
Final Score After These Adjustments
- Compliance Score Before: 8.5 (Highly DEI- and advocacy-focused)
- Compliance Score After These Changes: 4.5-5 (More research-driven, still inclusive but strategic in wording)
Summary
- Keep the same goals but reframe language to focus on scientific inquiry rather than activism.
- Avoid politically charged words (advocacy, systemic, bias, oppression, colonialism, LGBTQ+ prioritization).
- Emphasize research gaps rather than corporate or government failures.
- Frame compensation ethically as a research necessity, not aid.
Would you like me to edit sections of your proposal directly for compliance, or do you want to take this guidance and apply it yourself?
0 Comments