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
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
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:
Uses:
Mind maps can be used in a variety of ways:
Resources and Software:
A useful Youtube tutorial
Mindmeister: Mind mapping software
SimpleMind+: Mind Mapping app
Here's an example of what a mind map could look like:
Instructions:
- On a large surface (flip chart or white board works well), write your central idea in the middle.
- 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).
- After you have finished brainstorming, spend time analyzing your mind map and drawing additional connections between ideas.
- 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.
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
Resources and Software:
A useful Youtube tutorial
Mindmeister: Mind mapping software
SimpleMind+: Mind Mapping app
Friday, October 18, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, October 11, 2013
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:
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.
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)
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.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)