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?