Tis the Season of Giving: The Research Development Perspective

Tis the season of giving. In the United States, the winter holiday and end of the calendar year generally inspire Americans to make donations to or volunteer with local charities or causes they are passionate about. This is particularly the case this year, where Holiday giving has boosted year end giving to 17% above what we saw in 2012, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Certainly, this is lovely to witness and be a part of, but from a research grant development perspective, this giving time provides us an opportunity to understand how and why people give and offers us some insight into research sponsors and grant reviewers as well.

So, below I offer some reasons for giving and what aspects we can apply to grant development.

It's for a good cause.
This is often on the lips of donors when asked why they've gotten out their checkbook. But, it's also why sponsors and reviewers award money to researchers. A good cause is not named that because it is simply the neediest. It is a good cause because it is able to show the impact, or the change they can make in the community or the world because of funding.

I want to make a difference.
Although they may not realize it, donors do not tend to give to a cause that looks like every other cause on the block. The cause they give to must stand out, appeal to them, and really be something special, something different. So too is the case for sponsors; they want to fund unique and innovative projects that have the potential to be a game changer.

I want to give back to the community.
When it comes to individual giving, Americans give the most money to their church, temple, or place of worship. Although this might suggest a high level of religious devotion and commitment, at least part of the reason that these religious organizations bring in more individual donations is due to the community and level of engagement they have amongst their participants. In the fundraising world, there is a recognition that engagement and giving go hand-in-hand.

So, how does this apply to grant development? Well, the first is in the relationship side of grant development. Engaging and involving a Program Officer in your project idea and incorporating their feedback into your project and your grant can create an advocate in your Program Officer for your project. Additionally, find ways to engage your reviewers in your grant. You want to feel that they have an important role to play in funding your vital and exciting research.

There are likely many more connections and insights we can glean from individual donors that can help us in the grants world. And, as you make charitable donations or notice others making gifts this season, dig into the how and the why to see what it yields for your next grant.

Additional Resources:
Porter, R. (2009). Can we talk? Contacting program officers. Research Management Review, 17(1)

The Biosketch - it's all about you!

As we are in the holiday season, you are likely trying to focus on your spirit of giving.  So, I thought I would offer you some indulgence by talking about you and your biosketch. You are welcome!

Earlier this year, Dr. Amy Brooks-Kayal, our Chief and Ponzio Chair in Pediatric Neurology at Children’s Hospital, and Professor at AMC, spoke to us about the importance of the NIH biosketch. As a long-time grant reviewer and study section head, she thinks many PI’s overlook it.

Dr. Brooks-Kayal reminded us that when reviewers receive a pdf of a grant proposal, one of the first things they see, after the project summary and budget, is the PI’s biosketch. She suggested, “People don’t always pay as much attention to the biosketches as they should. Those are one of the first things your reviewers read so you want to make sure those are as strong as possible. If for some reason it’s not as strong as it should be, try to help your reviewers understand why in [the biosketch personal statement].”

She expanded on the fact that some PI’s have a lapse in their productivity due to a career shift, for example, and that the PI should be forthright about why they have had a lapse by using the personal statement portion of the Biosketch to explain. She also suggested having a mentor acknowledge the reasons for any lapse in productivity in their letters of support, but to remember that reviewers do not generally read those letters till the very end of their grant review.

 

Along with this idea of including justification in your biosketch, Dr. Morgan Giddings, Ph.D., suggests that PI’s tell a story with their biosketch in her blog, and really define the big problem you are trying to solve in your research – what is your long-term vision (not just this project)?

I must note that Dr. Giddings suggests that PI’s not include justification for a productivity lapse unless it can strengthen your application, so weigh the pros and cons and consider how your reviewers will receive your justification before putting it in there.

Unfortunately, not all agencies allow for a personal statement in the PI biosketch. For instance, the NSF does not have a clear mechanism for this sort of information right now, and it is relatively new for NIH as well. Our Senior Grants Administrator, Stefan Reiss, suggested that NSF applicants may be able to weave in some personal statement information into the Synergistic Activities section of their biosketch, but added that it is always a good idea to check with your Program Officer if you have specific questions about where to place information in your grant when it is not clear.

For our PI’s out there, please weigh in with your tips or rules of thumb for biosketches!

Also, to learn more about a new tool that the NIH is developing to streamline biosketches, see Dr. Sally Rockey’s blog.

Resources:
Dr. Gidding's blog on biosketches: http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/crafting-your-nih-biosketch-personal-narrative/

Dr. Rockey's NIH blog on biosketch tool updates:
http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2013/11/20/test-drive-sciencv/?utm_source=nexus&utm_medium=email&utm_content=nihupdate&utm_campaign=nov13

 

Some Grant Writing Tips

I have realized over the past few weeks, that I have a decent list of persuasive writing tips/techniques that I don't think I've put out in the blogosphere before, so below are a few of them. These tips are particularly pertinent to your project summary, since that is where your reviewer will start and will sometimes make the decision of whether to read the rest of your grant or not.

Grant Writing Tips:

1. Take advantage of primacy and recency, meaning readers tend to remember what they read first and what they read last, so make the first and last sentence of your project summary count - really drive home your most important point!
2. Reinforce your most important points. Do not assume that after you have said it once, your reader will remember it and understand how key it is. Say it again in another way when it is time to remind them.
3. Use images and conceptual diagrams. You may not be able to have these in your project summary, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and a meaningful image that ties things together for your reader will help reviewers remember your proposal.
4. Use buzzwords, not jargon. You want to speak the same language as your sponsor, so research them and incorporate the words and phrases that they think are important into your grant. Jargon on the other hand is technical speak that may not make sense to all of your reviewers.
5. Vary your sentence length. This makes for a more dynamic read.
6. Favor the active voice whenever possible.
7. Use headings and white space.
8. Anticipate your reader's questions and answer them as you go. They will be distracted from what you are trying to say if they have a list of questions building up in their heads.
9. Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your point.
10. Always remember who you are writing to and give them what they want!

What are your writing rules? Or better yet, if you have been a grant reviewer, what are your pet peeves?

Asking People for Money: A Girl Scout Analogy

Do you get girl scouts selling cookies in your neighborhood? Are you happy to see them when that time rolls around? Maybe you are and maybe you're not, but you likely are comfortable with them checking to see if you want any cookies, even if it does threaten to ruin your healthy diet.

Now, imagine how you would feel if you started to get three or four sets of girl scouts knocking on your door trying to sell you cookies - how would you feel then? It would probably get annoying having to tell each set of girls that you already bought cookies from other scouts, and it might even lead you to swear off buying cookies altogether in hopes that a girl scout would never grace your doorway again.

I heard a colleague use this analogy today to describe why it was important for those faculty researchers looking for funding from individuals or local private foundations to work with the CU Foundation. Our foundation manages our relationships with donors and foundations in the area to make sure that we are not overwhelming them with requests for funding and are only putting projects in front of them that are a perfect match with their mission and goals, thus making it more likely that CU will be funded in some capacity.

Now, happily, when applying for grant funding from federal sponsors in response to an RFP or program announcement, any researcher from the University can usually respond. But, even though it is easier to ask directly for money from these sponsors, it would serve us well to still bear in mind the relationship and fit aspect that is crucial in asking individuals or local foundations for money.

You must understand what your sponsor wants and what their major goals are and then offer them a grant proposal that fulfills all of their dreams and some of yours. Now this may seem a little counter intuitive to what you thought you were trying to do - fund your project. As one faculty member said, partly in jest, "I don't want a lot, I just want everything!" Now, at ORDE, we want our faculty to have everything when it comes to funding their research, but we also realize that everything comes with time to those who are strategic...

Unfortunately, most faculty members do not have their own foundation whose purpose is to fund their research agenda. Therefore, researchers must take baby steps toward their goals. One must write grants that fulfill all of the needs of the sponsor and can further their own research agenda in a smaller way. Even though this can be frustrating, the good news is that in the funding world, money attracts money. As a researcher builds their research and funding portfolio, they show their current and future sponsors that they are worth investing in and can begin to move their work more and more in alignment with their own research goals and agenda. But, again, it takes some time to build rapport with any sort of donor, including federal sponsors.

Know Your Agency: The American Heart Association

ORDE piloted a new series this fall, entitled, “Know Your Agency (KYA) Lunches.” For years, ORDE has offered Know Your Agency briefs on particular agencies of interest to our faculty. Now, to further understanding and facilitate Q&A around these agencies, KYA Lunches provide opportunities for faculty experts with experience and success in getting funding from an agency to give brief presentations and lead follow-up discussions on the agencies.

In early November, our KYA lunch focused on the American Heart Association (AHA) and Professor and Chair, Robert Eckel, former President of the AHA gave a presentation and answered a host of questions for both AMC and Denver Campus faculty who were interested in pursuing funding with the AHA. Dr. Eckel encouraged the participants, saying, “You can really spread your wings [with the AHA] from very basic to clinical to population science in almost anything that you could connect to cardiovascular disease. And that’s really grantspersonship isn’t it? How we write grant applications relates to the agency we’re applying to.”

As part of the Know Your Agency Lunch on AHA, ORDE put together a two-page brief on the AHA for grant-seekers: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/research/AboutUs/ORDE/funding/Pages/KYASeries.aspx

Also, at the link above are briefs on the following agencies:

• Air Force Office of Scientific Research
• BrightFocus Foundation
• Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation
• National Endowment for the Humanities

Understanding an agency, their goals, ideologies, and preferred approaches are crucial before you begin writing your grant. These briefs and KYA lunches are a first step in researching your target sponsor, but you should also review the projects that the sponsor has funded in the past to understand some of the trends and nuances of the sponsor and their grant reviewers.

Please suggest other agencies you are interested in applying to in the comments area.

 

 

What's in a Name? Titling Your Grant Proposal

Pardon my cliché title, but since this is a blog, I just cannot help myself with some of my dubiously clever titles! However, I do think that this gives us an example of a title that makes sense for a blog, but the tone of which would not be appropriate for a grant proposal.

Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.

1. That this won't be a horribly boring or overly technical blog post through my initial overused Shakespearean pun.
2. That this blog is about grant titling through the latter half of the title

For those of you who would like "just the facts ma'am," and are not interested in the background information, you have likely skipped to the tips at the very bottom. For those of you who are reading the whole thing, I take you on my brief mental journey to illustrate the very process to use in creating a title for your grant.

So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant?

Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation.

Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned.

Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support.

Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.

In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:

ORDE's Titling Tips:

• Review titles of funded projects by your sponsor (warning: do not assume these titles are the best, but consider your impression of the project based on the title)
• Be original and relevant (look up the hot language used by the sponsor and see if it fits with your concept)
• Be accurate and use agency-friendly keywords
• Use results/impact-driven words instead of describing a process
• Be authoritative (Questions, although they may seem intriguing can imply yours is an exploratory, risky, or questionable project)
• Only use abbreviations that are better understood by the reader (e.g., DNA)
• Use active verbs (e.g., remodeling, reconstructing, creating, etc.)
• Use plain language (remember, get the point across clearly)
• Get feedback from colleagues and your program officer
• Proofread your title along with everything else
• Use the same title in resubmittals so your reviewers know to focus on your changes

 
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction

Grant Writing Tips from an Artist's Perspective

In comparing an NIH project to a sponsored art project, there seems to be very little in common. However, when we look at grant development practices before funding is awarded, the process and strategies that the researcher or artist must use are quite similar. Gigi Rosenberg is an artist and seasoned grant writer who has written the book on The Artists Guide to Grant Writing, and below are some of her recommended strategies:

Don't work alone
Grants are large endeavors and can feel daunting, especially when you think about writing alone.  Consider creating a writing group where you share work on grants and other writings together. This can help keep you on task and also allows you to bounce ideas off of other writers. Even if a writing group doesn't work for you, at the very least, you need to have a person who can review your grant and provide feedback and advice. And, it is also important to have a proof-reader.

Desperation has no place in grants
One of the biggest downfalls in American fundraising is taking a needy approach to your grants. This is counter intuitive, because oftentimes begging seems like the most logical approach to getting funding, or desperation reflects how you are feeling about your need for funding. However, philanthropists, sponsors, and reviewers alike want to be a part of a vision, something that will propel us forward, allow us to think differently, or inspire us to build something new. So, unless you are the Red Cross, do not let any element of desperation creep into your grant.

Writing grants is a good idea even when you do not win
Grant writing involves more failure than success for almost every grant writer, and it is hard to look at the bright side right after you have gotten a rejection. But, once you have put the rejected grant away and nursed your ego a bit, it is important to take out any reviewer comments and feedback and learn from the suggestions of the sponsor. 

Even if you do not receive comments back, having written a grant has forced you to organize your thinking, define your project, and create a compelling case. You have set yourself up to go after other funding in the future.  Also, you have gotten your name out there. Whether you are an artist or scientist, those reviewing your project now know a great deal about you and your work - you have begun or continued to build a network.

Write an artist's statement
Now, for those non-artists still reading, this is still applicable to you.  What is an artist's statement but a mission and vision of the artist and their work?  Any person seeking funding should develop their statement or their elevator pitch.  This creates excellent fodder for grants and is asked for in many grant applications, but an artist's statement or elevator pitch language can be used to market yourself and your work at conferences, exhibitions, or when you run into someone on the street that may be able to help you in some way.

Certainly, artists and other researchers have very different work, but as a seasoned grant writer once said to me, "A grant is a grant is a grant." The process and strategies in grant writing are pretty much the same.

Resource: Gigi Rosenberg's Resources

Using mind mapping to focus your research and collaborate with your research team

Mind mapping is a tool that can help researchers in multiple ways as they develop their research. Mind mapping is an activity that allows you to organize your thoughts, expand on those thoughts, and draw connections between them.

Here's an example of what a mind map could look like:

                                Source of Picture

Instructions:

1. On a large surface (flip chart or white board works well), write your central idea in the middle.
2. Begin to identify connected and peripheral ideas to your main theme and write them around the central theme and connect them with a line or arrow (this is brainstorming, don't stop to erase or re-work ideas just get everything you can into your mind map).
3. After you have finished brainstorming, spend time analyzing your mind map and drawing additional connections between ideas.
4. Use a red marker to highlight what themes, ideas, and connections really jump out at you and use them to reframe your project, prioritize your foci, come to consensus as a team, etc.

Tip: When making mind maps, using different colors is helpful, especially for visual learners.

Uses:
Mind maps can be used in a variety of ways:

• Identifying new ideas or solutions to a particular problem or theme
• Realizing new connections between ideas
• Brainstorming with your research team to develop and connect areas of expertise and possibility
• Organizing your thinking when writing a grant, publication, or theoretical framework

Even if you think you are not a visual learner or that you are a more linear thinker, give mind mapping a try on your next project and see if you are surprised by any new ideas or connections you realize.

Resources and Software:
A useful Youtube tutorial
Mindmeister: Mind mapping software
SimpleMind+: Mind Mapping app

Academic Writing vs. Grant-Writing

I recently heard a story about a very high-level scholar who was resubmitting an academic journal article for the n-teenth time, and she kept getting feedback that it was too difficult to read for their audience. As she shared her frustration in re-writing and re-writing, she said in exasperation, "I just can't write for normal people!"

Although this is an extreme illustration, it does touch on a key dilemma that academics find themselves in when trying to write a grant. Not only does grant-writing require a different style, it requires a shift in perspective, from that of an academic and scholarly expert to that of a project manager and visionary.

In his award-winning article, Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals, Robert Porter suggests, "Sponsors rarely spend money on intellectual exploration. They will, however, consider funding activities to accomplish goals that are important to them." (2007, p. 163) This illustrates how traditional academic goals and writing will not fit the bill when it comes to sponsor goals and writing for them.

Porter offers a chart of differences (p. 162) between academic and grant writing in his article, but chief among them are to use collaboration, brevity, and passion in your grant-writing, despite any academic tendencies to the counter.

Whereas, in academic writing, oftentimes researchers approach it individually and largely for their own purposes and progress. In grant-writing, it is wise to look at your project as a partnership that needs to serve the needs and goals of the sponsor as well as further your research. Additionally, the grant-writing process should be collaborative.  You should be developing a relationship with the PO at your target sponsor's organization and incorporating their feedback into your grant.

As a recent assignment in my doctoral program reminded me, in the academic realm, page minimums seem to be the rule. It comes as a bit of a shock then when researchers, who are more used to writing dozens of pages on their research, are asked to summarize it in one page or less for a grant proposal, but this is indeed the reality of grant-writing: it must be succinct, clear, and compelling.

One key aspect that makes grant-writing compelling is when the PI's passion is incorporated into it.  This can again fly in the face of traditional academic writing that strives to be objective and dispassionate. Not that you want to overstate the importance or necessity of the research, but it is essential to include a contagious excitement in your grant-writing, so that you grab the attention and enthusiasm of your reviewers.

Grant writing is not as alien as it may feel when you first start doing it, it's just a different goal and audience than academics are generally used to. Porter suggests that we begin by poring through a program announcement to cull the goals and priorities of the sponsor and then, if it is a good fit, adapting our research to meet the needs and priorities of the sponsor.

Porter, R. (2007). Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals. The Journal of Research Administration. XXXVIII, 161-167.

How are Private Foundations Different?

In the midst of a competitive federal grants climate, not to mention government shutdown, researchers are wise to diversify their funding portfolios. However, the first challenge researchers face in considering private foundations, especially if you're used to going after R01s at NIH, is setting your sights quite a bit lower in terms of dollar amount.

Besides smaller funds, private foundation generally have the following attributes:

• They are unique and differentiated from one another in terms of mission, approach, cause, etc.
• They do not want to fund projects that are fund-able by federal or other public sources
• They want to fund projects that are innovative or even risky
• They want to fund projects that will further their specific cause
• They are sometimes a good place to find seed funding (when they see themselves as partners with government or institutional funders)

Susan M. Fitzpatrick and M. Bren Dolezalick expand on these attributes in their book chapter: Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders in Writing Successful Grant Proposals: From the Top Down and Bottom Up.

In his book, The "How To" Grant Manual, David G. Bauer differentiates private foundations into four basic types:

National General Purpose: These organizations fund projects across the nation and are looking for research that will have an impact on a broad scale.  An example would be the Rockefeller Foundation.

Special Purpose: These define the scope of research they will fund much more narrowly and generally focus on one target area. An example would be the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (focused on American Health Care).

Community: These foundations focus on issues or areas of focus that are important to a particular region or community.  An example would be The Denver Foundation.

Family: These foundations are often created as memorials by a family and the projects they fund must be in line with the family's goals and ideologies.

Clearly, You want to understand the type of foundation that will be a good fit for your research based on the foundation's goals and your own.  But, private funding can serve as a good source for supplementary funding or initial funding as a seed grant.

For CU faculty, oftentimes you need to work with the CU Foundation or through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for research when pursuing private foundation grants so that the university communications are coordinated and consistent, so be sure to check on the appropriate processes when pursuing a private foundation grant.

Re-framing Your Research

I've heard some great examples of re-framing projects to better appeal to sponsors from a few of our faculty researchers that were successful.

Anne Chin, a Professor in Geography and Environmental Sciences has significant expertise in mountain stream research, but with the wild fires sweeping through Colorado in the last couple of years, Dr. Chin realized that if she were to look at the impact of forest fires on mountain streams and their paths, she would be better positioned to apply for funding from the NSF. When the Waldo Canyon Fire struck, Dr. Chin was poised to apply for a RAPID grant from the NSF to conduct research on the streams at the site.

In another example, Jean Scandlyn, Professor of Anthropology, had begun a book project with a colleague at Colorado College on returning soldiers and their struggles with PTSD. Although the book had a social science perspective, Dr. Scandlyn and her colleague were able to re-design their approach to take a humanities perspective and to look at the issue of veterans with PTSD along the lines of classic hero stories and struggles (e.g., The Odyssey). By re-framing, Dr. Scandlyn and her colleague were able to attain funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

These examples illustrate different ways that researchers have been able to re-focus their work to better position themselves for funding and further their research and work.

Prioritizing: a Negotiation with Yourself

Dr. Jean Kutner, Professor and Division Head for General Internal Medicine, in CU Denver's School of Medicine recently served as our faculty expert for ORDE's seminar on Charting Your Research Path. Dr. Kutner shared her insight around how to prioritize and manage work load.

She suggested that work/life balance was the wrong way to think, but instead we should realize that it is "all life." She was quick to say that it didn't mean you should let your work consume your life. Instead, it is important to be clear on our goals and priorities and to choose our work and responsibilities based on this.

Dr. Kutner published an article on Balancing Competing Professional Commitments in the SGIM forum in September, 2011 that highlights the importance of recognizing that when we take on a new professional commitment, one of three things will happen:

• We choose to resign from another professional commitment
• We reallocate our personal time (vacation, evenings, time with family) to meet the new responsibilities
• Our level of focus and quality of work committed to the new responsibility and/or other commitments is poorer

Certainly, this is logical, but still many smart people, and especially our high-achieving faculty have difficulty putting it into practice.

Dr. Kutner passed along an interesting Harvard Business Review blog entry by Erica Ariel Fox that looks at how we negotiate with ourselves when we are setting priorities and taking on tasks. Entitled, The Most Important Negotiation in Your Life, Fox's entry talks about how each of us have four different internal forces at play in our decisions. She labels them, the dreamer, the thinker, the lover, and the warrior, and posits that any time we're making decisions or setting priorities, these forces are negotiating with each other.

Your dreamer side is focused on the big picture and prioritizing your long term aspirations. Your thinker side is more focused on the most reasonable choices and information right in front of you. Your lover side is looking at relationships and how you can build/strengthen important relationships. And, your warrior side is action oriented and driven.

Likely, one or two of these sides resonate more strongly for you, but what happens is oftentimes, we let our warrior or our lover make all of our decisions without considering the other perspectives. For instance, if our lover tends to be our strongest side, we may be prone to taking on more commitments just to please people who are important to us, but not listening to our thinker who's telling us we don't have the time to do a good job or our dreamer who is pleading for us not to sacrifice our long term goals.

Making decisions by first considering these perspectives is a way to make balanced decisions and set priorities that are rooted in reality, yet moving us in the right direction.

Metaphorical Problem Solving

Even the most innovative researchers get stuck. We all have days where it is hard to focus, get creative, or solve a problem. Metaphorical problem solving can be a useful technique to help unstick you in these situations.

If you are like me, then you have found that if you focus on a problem too much, all you can see is that problem, and it becomes an insurmountable barrier to whatever you are trying to do. Metaphors can allow us to see the problem from a different perspective and prompt us to consider unique solutions to that problem.

How does it work?
To get started, consider all of the aspects of your challenge and try to find a fitting metaphor. For example, a common challenge that researchers sometimes deal with is receiving ambiguous or confusing comments on a grant proposal that has been rejected. Based on this, we define the following problem and corresponding metaphor:

Problem: You don't understand the comments from your grant reviewers.
Metaphor: Flying blind

Now, forget about the actual problem and focus on the metaphor. Think of all of the solutions you can to the metaphor of flying blind. Below is my list:

• Find a co-pilot who can see.
• Use my instruments to tell me where to go.
• Call back to the airport, so someone can describe where I am / where I am going.
• Take off my blindfold.

Now that we have created a list of solutions, consider if and how these might be translated back to the original problem:

Metaphorical Solution	Translation
Find a co-pilot who can see.	Ask a colleague to look at the comments to get their interpretation.
Use my instruments to tell me where to go.	Go back through your grant to re-orient yourself and see if it offers you more clarity on the comments.
Call back to the airport.	Reach out to the Program Officer to get their take on the review.
Take off my blindfold.	Oftentimes, researchers are understandably frustrated when their grant is rejected. Take a few days to feel disappointed and when you are able to take off your blind-fold of frustration, take another look.

This example may be a little simplistic, but the more you experiment with metaphorical problem-solving, the better you'll get at it, and the more useful it will be.

Bonus:
Aside from using metaphors as a problem-solving tool, they also serve as a great communication tool. If you get good at converting complex ideas into metaphors, you will likely find that you have an easier time explaining your research to colleagues, funders, and the layperson and they may be more engaged in the conversation!

More on Metaphorical Thinking and Problem-Solving:
Thinking Metaphorically: How to Look at Things a Different Way - Michael Michalko
Metaphorical Thinking: Using Comparisons to Express Ideas and Solve Problems - Mind Tools
Collaborative Leadership in Action: Metaphorical Problem Solving (p.89) - Patrick Sanaghan and Paulette Gabriel

Preliminary Results - When do you have enough?

As you probably realize, there is no straightforward answer to what constitutes enough preliminary results to be ready to submit a major grant. It is dependent on the field, on the topic, and on the project. The only commonality, then, is that researchers across disciplines struggle with how much is enough.

Previously, I interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Stansbury, Professor and Associate Dean for Research for the School of Dental Medicine and Professor in Chemistry and Bio-Engineering at CU Boulder and he discussed with me a common mistake that he sees in Early Career Investigator (ECI) grants that he reviews: Often the ECIs could have done one more simple experiment and strengthened their preliminary results to a point where they would have likely been funded.

Yesterday, Dr. Stansbury spoke to a group of faculty at the ORDE Grant Writing Approach Faculty Seminar on the Anschutz Medical Campus and he offered some insight into this challenge. He urged ECI's to take a critical look at their research and preliminary results and to look for holes that peer reviewers would likely focus in on.

By acknowledging the gaps and trying to close them before writing your grant, sometimes you can discover some additional work that will be worth doing before you go after more funding.

Dr. Stansbury also suggested combing the literature to see what data is out there currently that you could possibly work with in another way instead of always creating what you need from scratch.

These are just a couple of expert suggestions around preliminary results, but let's not stop here...

How do you determine how far to go in gathering preliminary results before submitting a larger grant for your research?

Pre-Grant Timeline

Oftentimes, investigators do not start preparing for major grant applications earlier than a month before. Although some proposals are successful with a short timeline, investigators are likely to limit themselves and their opportunities for funding if they wait till the last moment.

ORDE recommends that investigators follow at least a 6-month timeline. You may think, "There is no way I need to spend six months writing a grant!" and that is fair, but this timeline suggests that you spend the first two months doing background research on potential sponsors and doing the important relational work and project-honing with a Program Officer (PO).

This work includes significant preparation and tailoring your project to get to the point that you are ready to reach out to a PO. Once you are ready, below is a suggested PO outreach process/timeline.

As you can see in this graphic, once you contact a Program Officer, things move fairly quickly. However, you need to have at least a draft of a pre-abstract and a one-two page concept paper draft ready to go before your first contact. Letting things lag once you have reached out can stall your progress; POs are busy folks and if your project falls off once they are interested, you have likely missed your chance to partner with them to create a better proposal.

Richard Nader, a former Program Manager with the NSF, has written an article that provides very practical tips on reaching out to and working with Program Directors (NSF's version of POs): Advice for Faculty Meeting Program Directors at NSF

In ending, your time is too valuable to waste in putting together grants that don't even get reviewed because they do not meet the sponsor's needs.  Grant development is a marathon, not a sprint, so give yourself the time you need to do it right!

Setting Goals and Charting Your Research Path

As, the fall semester takes off and ORDE is beginning to meet with early career researchers (ECRs) in a variety of fields, it seems like an ideal time to talk about setting research goals and planning to reach those goals. Now, this may seem pretty straightforward, but any researcher who has grappled with what to do and what not to do knows that it is not.

We meet with ECRs who run the gamut in terms of research focus. Many are wide open and have dabbled in a few research areas in their postdocs. Still, others have gone down a narrow path and have a very clear focus to their work.

For those that the world is their oyster, in terms of what path to head down, they may be flexible enough to mold their research and work to take advantage of great funding opportunities in some "hot" areas. However, as Professor Alan M. Johnson says, "no longer is it competitive to have a Ph.D. and let your research career 'drift' based on what comes along. You must be proactive rather than reactive in how you approach your research career." (Charting a Course for a Successful Research Career) So, the danger in being too flexible is that you may end up allowing the opportunities to create your research path instead of intentionally setting your own course.

For those with a narrow focus, the danger lies in a potential dearth of funding and/or high competition with more seasoned investigators in the area. Many ECRs applying to the NIH are particularly sensitive to the fact that with only one resubmission allowed for their grant, if what they have focused on comes back a "no" to a grant application twice, they feel stuck, with few options but to move in a new direction.

So, there are very real dangers on both sides of the spectrum, and navigating those is crucial to accomplishing a rewarding and well-funded research career. To help navigate these, the University of Michigan Medical School offers a "Mentored Research Academy" that asks the following questions of its ECRs:

• What do I want to be known for as a researcher?
• How crowded is the field? Given the competition, can I build a national reputation in this area?
• Are my research questions significant? Innovative? Fundable?
• What further skills/knowledge/abilities do I need to acquire?

In answering these questions, and as you begin to plan the next five years of your research career, it is vital that you understand the gaps/needs in the field you're planning to focus on. The faculty at the Auraria Library and the Health Sciences Library are available to help you plan and conduct a comprehensive literature search. Even if you think you've turned over every stone, you'll be amazed at how comprehensive our librarians can help you be.

Another important touch point to have is a sense of the funding landscape for your research. What's being funded currently? How big are the awards? Which agencies are funding the research and will their foci likely stay the same. The Office of Research Development and Education can help you with this by sitting down with you in a strategy session and offering you a personalized fund search.

Certainly, this blog just starts to touch on some of the things that ECRs need to think about to build an intentional and successful career, but if you're interested in delving into these topics with your colleagues, please watch for upcoming fall seminars on Charting Your Research Path and Searching Literature and Funding Landscapes (in partnership with our libraries). See our most up to date schedule here.

WIFM

Although, I'm not sure it needed an acronym, ala something you wear around on a bracelet or t-shirt, "What's in it for me?" or WIFM is a mantra that researchers would do well to remember as they seek funding for their projects. Now, don't be misled, WIFM does not refer to what's in it for the researcher, it refers to what's in it for the funder.

Each sponsor has a specific mission, whether it's articulated clearly or it's an unspoken assumption.  Your job, as the researcher applying for the grant is to find out what they want and then provide that in your project and grant application.

In her book, 4 Steps to Funding, Morgan Giddings, PhD, describes the importance to addressing WIFM in each of her four steps:

• Why is your project important?
• Who are you/why are you the right person to do the project?
• What is your project?
• How will you complete the project?

Giddings advocates for considering WIFM in each piece of your grant and in all your communique with a sponsor.

Dr. Joseph Ortega, Associate Dean for Research in the College of Engineering, agrees. He suggests that sponsors and their reviewers want to know what difference or solutions your project will provide to the country (if they're a national organization) and will you be a good steward of their resources (i.e., funds)?

Putting WIFM in Practice
So, not surprisingly, sponsors and reviewers are going to ask WIFM, and this isn't unlike any audience or consumer. Even before reading this entry, you've likely thought of the WIFM of your grants, but I would contend that even if you have, it's still not enough.

Many researchers consider the WIFM for agencies at some point, but do not thread it into every area of their grant.  They start with a grandiose connection between the sponsor and their project and then get right back to business as usual and write a grant that focuses on their own needs/interests. Instead, consider the WIFM in each section and each paragraph you write.  Whether developing your project summary or your budget, set down your pen or stop typing before you've thought about what your readers are looking for, what they want in that section and then, and only then, write a section that provides it to them.

Working with Program Officers

In conversations, I've heard investigators mention that they know that it is important to talk to program officers when preparing a grant application, but yet, many haven't gotten around to it. And, just in case not everyone is convinced of the importance of talking with program officers, here are the key reasons:

• PO's get to know you and your work and can advocate for you in some instances.
• If your project/idea is not a good fit, they can help you re-angle it or save you time in writing a proposal that might not even get reviewed.
• They can point you in the right direction, whether that be to another study section or another potential funder.
• They can give you thoughtful feedback and insight into the organization and reviewer tendencies.

Okay, sold on the importance? So, what stops investigators from sending an email or picking up the phone? Oftentimes, researchers are used to developing their work in a vacuum, and it may feel like cheating to call someone in the funding organization. Or, possibly, they're nervous about getting bad news about the project fit (although, wouldn't you rather get it early and save yourself some time and trouble?) However, I think the number one reason that investigators do not reach out to Program Officers is that the investigators aren't sure how to engage and use the PO effectively...

So, below are some pointers:

• Before calling/emailing, make sure you've done your homework - you have read all of the information on the website and other readily available sources.
• You can clearly and succinctly describe your research project or idea.
• You've developed some thoughtful questions to assess how best to present your research in the grant application or around what study group would be most appropriate to review your application.

In her book, Grant Writing Revealed, seasoned Grant Developer, Jana Jane Hexter discusses working with government Program Officers and highlights the following recommendations:

• Calling a PO is essential and expected; that is their job to discuss grant applications.  They too want the best proposals submitted. 
• A strong relationship with a PO involves being able to call them up and ask questions, with them already knowing who you are and your background.  You don't need to be buddies.
• Before hanging up the phone, ask your PO who else you should talk to; they may be able to point you to others who can offer you relevant advice on your project.

Hopefully, these pointers show you the importance of working with PO's and some tips on how to do it most effectively!

Don't have time to read this blog? Then it's for you!

This Winter, ORDE conducted a needs assessment with our faculty at the Denver Campus and the Anschutz Medical Campus via a survey and interviews to better understand their top challenges around grant development.

One of the top challenges mentioned by faculty was the limited time they had to accomplish several important things: research, teaching, course development, grant development, committee-work, etc... sound familiar? And, in this mix, seeking funding sometimes was put off to do more urgent things, that is until funding became urgent.

In the new book Manage Your Day-To-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, & Sharpen Your Creative Mind, edited by Jocelyn K. Glei, a variety of successful writers and other professionals share their time management and prioritization tips:

Do important/creative work first: So often, the first thing we do with our day is to check email, and although this is a simple task that can give us a small sense of accomplishment (ah, my inbox is clean again), it often means that we are spending our most productive and creative hours on a task that doesn't necessarily call for it.  Also, we're focusing on work that may feel urgent, but is perhaps not as important in the overall scheme of things. Instead, consider using your "best" hours on your most important work (and of course, in ORDE, we hope that includes some grant development :))

Establish a writing routine: Many great writers and thinkers establish a routine to train their minds to focus and get down to business with their important work. Stephen King begins work at the same general time each morning. He takes a vitamin, gets himself a cup of tea or water and sits at his same desk, with papers arranged the same way. Finding a place and time that you can be most productive and focused and replicating that daily or a few times a week can allow you to make great strides with your work.

Incorporate physical activity into your day: The Manage Your Day-To-Day book advocates for incorporating "renewal" into your day - taking breaks and changing activity to allow you to be the most productive.  Even mixing "mindless" tasks into your day can give your brain a break to process and digest your more  mindful work.  And, for an extra benefit, consider adding physical activity into your day.  A recent article in "Scientific American," by Professor Justin Rhodes describes some of the benefits of exercise for your brain and thinking.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-you-think-better-after-walk-exercise

Certainly, these tips are not earth shattering, but I think that they offer small ways that we can reflect on our work, routines, and habits to see where we can make small gains to save a little time, or, more importantly, spend our time more effectively.

I'd recommend this book; it is a quick read and offers thoughtful insights and recommendations from leaders who have really exploited the benefits.

Find more on the book here: http://99u.com/book/manage-your-day-to-day

If you are a faculty member of the University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, we're happy to send you a copy of the book, simply email your request to naomi.nishi@ucdenver.edu.

Storytelling in Your Grant

In his book Marketing for Scientists, Mark J. Kuchner suggests that the two things that make a story a story are a sequence of events and reflective pauses by the author. Think about the last great book you read, how was it sequenced and where/how did the author reflect on what was happening? And, how did that draw you in to what you were reading?

Now, how do these suggestions play out in your grant? Sequencing is essential. In the ORDE seminar, Creating a Compelling Case for Your Grant, NIH PI and Peer Reviewer, Dr. Amy Brooks-Kayal said that when she is reviewing a grant, she wants the author to give her the information she needs right before she needs it to make sense of things.

Deborah Koch agrees, in her book, How to Say It: Grantwriting, saying that it is important to anticipate your reader's questions and answer them as you go. She warns that if your reader has too many questions swimming in their head for too long, they will be distracted from your message.

The author reflection that Kuchner describes is a little more difficult to pin down, but gets at the essence of what makes writing compelling. As you know, showing the larger impact and implications of your work is essential to securing funding for your project. However, you can't show that impact explicitly by just running through the methods and technical details of your project. You, as the author and PI, need to break at the right points to reflect on what this all means and for who. Tell your reader the costs, whether financial, human, or intellectual, of not doing this work.  Explain how your project is a game changer and describe the benefits.

Taking this time out and incorporating reflection into your grant at the right times will demonstrate to the non-expert reviewer how important your work is, but will also invite the expert reviewer to reflect with you on the opportunities that are within reach if your project is funded.

In realizing these opportunities, the reviewers themselves will come to see their potential role in funding your project and will place themselves in your story. And, of course, what story is more captivating than one you can become a part of!

Using SEO Tactics to Promote Your Research

Whether you are trying to drive the impact of your research and publications, trying to garner the attention of potential collaborators, or build awareness of your work among potential funders and peer reviewers, using SEO (that is Search Engine Optimization) tactics can help your work to go even further.

Elsevier's Bigger Brains™ site offers these tips:

• Include an exhaustive list of search terms and synonyms to ensure your publication comes up when people do a related search
• Make sure your publication metadata is complete
• Use vector graphics so that the text in them is searchable
• Make your research citable: offer your findings/data clearly and/or provide quotable comments
• Publicize your publication via social networking and other web tools

For more information on these SEO tips, visit Elsevier's Bigger Brains™ site: "Get Found. Optimize your research articles for research engines"

Are you marketing your research effectively?

At the May seminar on "Creating a Compelling Case for Your Grant," Dr. Amy Brooks Kayal, Ponzio Family Chair and Chief of Pediatric Neurology at Children's Hospital, explained that as researchers, we aren't very good salespeople, and she stressed the importance of building awareness and highlighting the impact of your research every chance you get.

This blog highlights avenues and techniques for "marketing" your research.

Create an elevator pitch
You never know when you'll be talking to a peer reviewer, a program officer, a potential collaborator, or some other supportive person. So, are you ready to give them a quick and compelling rundown of your research?

If not, consider creating an elevator pitch that is 1-2 minutes along and focuses on the significance and impact of your research. Also, consider what you need from others for your research to be successful, so you're able to make connections on the spot with those that might have funding or expertise that will further your work.

Use conferences to build awareness
Similar to not knowing who you'll run into who may be able to support you and your research, you also do not know who will be in the audience when you're presenting your research at conferences.  A peer reviewer for your next grant may be listening.

But, aside from wowing the crowd with your research, don't forget to also go over the basics. Dr. Brooks-Kayal suggests always discussing the reach of the problem you're solving. In her research on Epilepsy, she noted that very few people know that 1 person in 26 will be impacted by Epilepsy in their lifetime or know how devastating the disease can be, so she begins each presentation she does with these statistics to show the significance and potential impact right off the bat.

Build and work your network
In Elsevier's guide, "Charting a Course for A Successful Research Career," Professor Alan M. Johnson points out that your PhD Supervisor, your formal and informal mentors, and any research collaborators are a given network. But, in addition, early career researchers should look to former classmates in your doctoral program or other members of societies to which you belong. Even building relationships at conferences can allow you to effectively build your network.

However, having a large network to tap is far less valuable to you if you're not using it. Keeping key people in your network informed of your work and your success is essential to make sure that as the folks in your network meet with others they are able to facilitate connecting other potential supporters and collaborators with you. Johnson suggests "your network can be of great value indirectly by 'singing the praises of you and your work' to others."

Find a mentor(s) who will support and tout your work
Lastly, among your fans, you want to have a known and successful researcher. This can be an important role for a mentor to play in addition to the guidance and support  they offer you in building your career. If your mentor(s) currently are not talking you up, consider asking him or her for more formal letters of support or accolades. It may be that these requests can get your mentor thinking about how they can easily promote you. Or, consider searching for additional mentor(s) that will provide you this type of support more naturally. Donna J. Dean offers these tips and more, in her book, Getting the Most out of Your Mentoring Relationships.

Although it is unsavory to consider a "wheelin and dealin" approach when it comes to research, I hope you can draw from some of these best practices in marketing and networking to give you an edge in this competitive research climate.

Welcome to the ORDE blog!

Welcome to the Office of Research Development and Education's (ORDE's) blog. This blog offers resources, tips, and best practices in the research development field and from faculty experts from the Denver Campus and from the Anschutz Medical Campus. Be sure to check back often for new resources, and share your expertise and experience with your colleagues using the comments feature. I look forward to our e-discussions!

Naomi Nishi, Assistant Director for Educational Outreach
Office of Research Development and Education (ORDE)