Holiday Storytelling Lessons for Your Grant Writing

Around the holidays, I often find myself recounting family stories for various people at different occasions.  Having a toddler and a new baby, people ask what's new with the kids at holiday office parties, dinners with close friends and family, and old acquaintances you run into at the grocery store.

Especially around this time of year, I try to keep a couple of hilarious toddler stories in my back pocket, but as I regale folks with my story, I notice how the story changes depending on whom I'm telling and when, and have noticed how this also applies to grant writing and marketing one's research in general.

My story:
A few weeks ago, my three-year old, Linus, and I went for a walk around my block.  When we go for a walk, he likes to tell me what he wants to see - these holiday decorations, or the blow up Peyton Manning that our neighbor puts out on Broncos game days. On this particular occasion, Linus told me he wanted to see the "mantis." "The mantis?" I asked, having no clue what he was referring to. He and I went back and forth on it, he, more and more adamantly saying he wanted to see the mantis. Exasperated, I said, "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying!" And, Linus very clearly said, "I want to see the praying mantis!"

I could somewhat recall seeing a praying mantis during the summer and pointing it out to Linus and figured that's what he was talking about.  I explained that we probably wouldn't see one during the winter, but that we could keep our eyes open looking for it. Linus seemed somewhat happy with this explanation.

The next week while at the store, I saw a t-shirt with a picture of Peyton Manning on it. "Look Linus," I said, "it's Peyton Manning!" "Yeah," he replied, "It's Praying Mantis!"

What strikes me about this story is how I vary it as I tell it.  When I run into that acquaintance at the grocery store and they ask about the kids, I might say, "They're great! Linus is into the Broncos and calls Peyton Manning "Praying Mantis!" (chuckle) "Take care! Say hi to so and so!"

At extended family dinners, depending on how many glasses of spilled milk there are or how many people are trying to tell their own story, I may or may not tell the whole story. In all likelihood, I'll say something along the lines of - the other day Linus was saying he wanted to see the Praying Mantis and I had no idea what he was talking about until we saw a picture of Peyton Manning at the store and he said, "Look Mom, it's Praying Mantis!" Now, you'll notice that I've changed some details of the story in this iteration to get the idea across more quickly, but still put in a few of the details of the story that I thought were charming. If I'm sitting down for coffee with a good friend, I might decide to tell the whole story, or at least start the story, gauge their interest, and abbreviate the end if I see their eyes start to wander.

This is the balancing act we must manage whether we're telling cute stories around the holidays or we're trying to "sell" our research to potential collaborators or program officers - deciding when and how much to tell. As we initiate telling these research stories, be they written or verbal, we want to be clear and concise, yet we do not want to abbreviate "the story" to the point where it is not engaging. To do this, it's important to identify the clincher - what's the most interesting/exciting part of your research story and how do you hone your story down to include the clincher and give enough context for folks to get the gist?

A helpful exercise is to try narrowing your research story - or your current research project - down to one or two sentences that give enough context and interesting points. Perhaps you can state what you're doing briefly and then make a pun about it or a quick metaphor for your work. This helps you to be memorable. If your listener seems engaged, try giving a bit more detail or give the PO or collaborator a little room to ask a question. If you have different lengths of your story to tell and you pay close attention to how engaged your listener is, you can maneuver initial conversations to your benefit or at least not waste your time and your listener's if they're really not interested.

Hopefully this parallel allows you to better engage stakeholders in your research, but if nothing else, perhaps it will allow you to be the life of the party over the holidays! :)

Aligning Research to a Sponsor

Many faculty researchers, especially those in under-funded disciplines feel that aligning their research and work to funders' expectations is selling out. And, in all fairness, faculty that see external funding in that light won't apply and probably shouldn't. It really takes a perspective that includes funding agencies and potential sponsors in achieving some larger research goals to find grant success. So, in that respect, the PI needs to understand the goals of the sponsor to which they are applying and tailor their research project to allow the sponsor to invest in something that aligns with their priorities, preferred approach, ideology, etc.

This is not to suggest that researchers should throw their own background and agenda out the window to chase the big dollars. This will not work even if they do it, because they will be competing against researchers who do have the background and an agenda that lines up with the granting agency. Reviewers will see through an overly opportunistic PI and always go with the PI whose project and background are a match made in heaven. So, what to do? Developing a fundable project for an agency calls for a balancing act that I try to illuminate in this blog.

Find agencies that fit
As you develop a project idea, start searching for what agencies fund the sort of work you want to do. There are many resources available to you for this.  Faculty at CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses are encouraged to reach out to ORDE to have a personalized fund search conducted for them/their project. Please visit our website to get more information on this service. Other ways to discover potential sponsors are to look at where your colleagues are being funded and which sponsors are funding projects similar to yours.

Also, try to think outside the box.  How can your research become a fit for an agency.  We've seen PIs able to form and re-form their research to appeal to diverse sponsors - NSF, NIH, and private sponsors while still staying on their research career path.

Understand the agency
To be successfully funded by diverse sponsors takes some skill at being able to reframe your work in different ways. However, that's only half of the work. You must also really understand an agency to be able to customize your work for them. Understanding an agency should happen on different levels. Of course, you want to understand the subject matter that a sponsor funds, but beyond that, you want to understand the approach the sponsor prefers (e.g., exploratory or applied), the level of risk and/or innovation the sponsor desires, and any ideologies or political motivations that might drive the sponsor. Does your agency report to congress? Or, what is the back story on how your foundation began?

Develop your project
Once you understand your agency, it's important to meaningfully integrate their needs and priorities into your project.  Agencies and grant reviewers will see through superficial project changes that are tacked on to your project to respond to their interests. So, although you certainly have goals and a path for your research, this stage of aligning calls for you to step back to see how you can integrate sponsor priorities into your work. This may come in the form of new partnerships with colleagues in other disciplines that better connect your research to the sponsor. Or, it might come in the form of re-creating the story of your work to relate it to the agency - again, meaningfully.

Work with your PO
Another important way to gain insight into a funding agency as well as to receive feedback and a partner to help you customize your grant is to work with the agency's program officer (PO). POs generally have great insight into the agency and the grant review process and are interested in having the very best grants submission from you. Generally, you want to have a sense of the project you want to propose before you reach out to a PO. Once you do, send a short email to the PO (make sure the whole message fits in the view window), briefly describe your project (3-5 sentences), and ask to schedule a short phone call with them to discuss. If they don't respond to you within a week, follow-up with a call. Refer to your email and ask to schedule a call (they may not be ready to talk right then and there). When you talk to the PO, have specific questions ready that demonstrate that you are well-versed on the agency (don't let them catch you not having read the program announcement or information readily available on the website). Take careful note of any advice and feedback from the PO and integrate it into your project and ultimately your grant proposal.

Resources
Fund Search and Resources Page - ORDE
What do grant reviewers really want anyway? - Robert Porter, Ph.D.
Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter, Ph,D.

Early Career Investigators - Jump-Starting Your Research

For many early career investigators (ECIs), beginning a first tenure track faculty position is intense. Some find themselves in the first semester juggling a heavy course load, including courses they've never taught that they're scrambling to develop. It's no wonder that research goals sometimes fall off the radar until at least the winter semester. It absolutely makes sense, yet a chaotic start to your career can leave some faculty in a sort of slump as to how to really get things started around their research when they are ready to do so.

Drawing from ORDE and Office of Research Services (ORS) resources, as well as other successful research development offices around the country, I offer some tips to get started that can help to get your research and research funding work going.

Attend workshops and seminars
Even if you've written several grants with your mentor, leading a grant development effort can bring new challenges. By registering for grant development seminars and training, you can get insight on how to approach grant-writing, as well as meet other ECIs and seasoned PIs that you might collaborate with and/or learn from.

ORDE offers a seminar series that will begin in January of 2015, open to all CU Denver faculty. The Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI) also offers various educational programs, including Pre-K and K to R programs for aspiring NIH ECIs. Many professional organizations offer grant development training or intensive programs to their members as well. It's always worth exploring what these organizations offer as it may be a good fit for you.

Meet with a mentor, RD professional, or leader
Having a one-on-one conversation with a mentor, an accomplished investigator or a research development professional can help you put your research career and plans into perspective. Having someone to serve as a sounding board and/or an adviser can be incredibly helpful to ECIs as they juggle their responsibilities and find ways that they can move forward.

The ORDE team is always available to meet with any of our faculty in strategy sessions as folks who you can bounce ideas off of. This can be particularly helpful when you're also wondering what funding sources are available to you.

Conduct a fund search
ORDE is also available to conduct personalized fund searches for our faculty. We work with you to understand your research goals or your specific research project, and provide you with a planning document that outlines potential funding agencies, a summary of those agencies, deadlines, eligibility, etc. These fund searches and our follow-up updates are all focused on your research.

Find seed money
Seed money can be difficult to come by, but it can really make the difference for ECIs trying to grow their research. ORDE offers a New Investigator Funding e-Book and an e-Book for Pilot Project Funding. Additionally ORS offers small and large grants to researchers on the Denver campus. This seed money can help to jump start your project and put you in a more competitive position when applying for larger external grants down the road.

Identify/form a writing group
Although a large amount of grant development and research is done independently, recruiting and working with a group of peers in a writing group or something of the like can keep you moving forward. A writing group that meets regularly can give you accountability to your peers as well as give you a mutually beneficial group of peer reviewers to offer you feedback on draft grant applications.

These resources and tips can be helpful as you grow your research and research support.

Resources
Office of Research Development Education (ORDE)
Office of Research Services (ORS)
Colorado Clinical and Translational Service Institute (CCTSI)

Supporting Documents for Grants

Letters of recommendation, letters of collaboration, references, oh my! Unfortunately, these important support documents are often left to the last minute by grant-writers. But, there is a danger to leaving these documents to an afterthought...

Get them early
First, they take time to get together.  If you're waiting till you finish writing your grant to reach out to your collaborators or supporters to provide a letter for you, it oftentimes frustrates those vital partners who are forced to turn something around so quickly, if in fact they can turn it around as quickly as you ask. Waiting till the last minute can also impact the quality of the letter you get. As we all know, writing is only as good as the time put into it.

Clarify what the sponsor wants to see
In some situations, agencies are happy to see letters that speak to the character or strong qualities of the PI, but more and more, agencies want to see specifics in letters of support, and do not want to see any "fluff" on how great the PI is. For instance, depending on the program and agency, they may want to see specific resources that a collaborator is providing - including time, numbers, access, etc. Some sponsors want to see letters from department heads that assure them that the institution and department are supportive of the PI, the project, and their career trajectory.

Write them yourself
Although you don't want to be presumptuous, most letter writers appreciate if the PI provides a draft of the letter (including exactly what the sponsor is looking for) that they can then alter or put into their own words. More often than not, the letter writer will just sign the letter written by the PI, although if there is any misunderstanding around commitments, the letter can bring those to light early on.

Consider submittal requirements
Most grant submissions use an electronic process. Make sure that your letters are submitted appropriately and once submitted, print out the full application to make sure that it looks right and that all of the letters look professional, especially if they are in a different format than other parts of the application with signatures, etc.

Resources
How to write an effective letter of support - Tufts University, Office of Proposal Development
Letters of Support - Fresno State, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
Letters of Support - The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Office of Research

Getting Funding in the Arts and Humanities

It seems that this year there has been a lot of buzz around seeking external funding for the arts and humanities in the research development world. Despite this particular funding landscape being particularly challenging, it makes sense that RD folks offer more support to those faculty in the arts and humanities. But as soon as someone asks what we should be doing for these essential faculty, there is either a resounding silence or someone timidly points to the Foundation Center's Directory for Arts and Humanities Funding.

At any rate, in this week's blog I offer some tips and resources for those faculty in the arts and humanities both from conversations I've had with our own A&H faculty and from other experts - both those faculty writing grants in these fields and those supporting them.

Finding a common language
Artists have a unique perspective on their work, what it does, and how they cultivate that work. They sometimes have what feels like a different language to discuss their creative process that us art dummies (and I'm referring to myself) have a hard time following. The dilemma here is that depending on the genre of art or creative work we're talking about, these languages don't necessarily translate even within the arts.  And, when the art dummies come into the process, either as research developers, grant reviewers, or sponsors in some cases, the faculty member's work can be greeted with confused looks.

This is where research developers can provide support. When working with those in grant development, they can help you cull out the common language that will speak to sponsors. They can also help to illuminate where there are holes in your story and thus your case for funding.

Humanities PIs have a similar challenge in that it is often difficult for them to quickly and succinctly get to their case and point, often forcing them to skip over or abbreviate centuries of foundational work that may seem obscure to the layperson, but is necessary to really see the richness of a new project. Again, use an outside perspective of layperson to help you translate some difficult concepts into something simpler. Although it may be difficult to set aside some of the details that seem so crucial, always remember that effective writers, and certainly funded PIs must learn to "murder their darlings," which refers to cutting the language that although you may love, does not help your reader to understand your point.

Write your story
The University of Colorado Boulder's Center for Arts and Humanities offers some tips to A&H grant writers. Among their suggestions is that faculty write a 3000 word grant-like description of their work. Whether this is in response to an RFP or just an exercise you go through, answering what you're doing, how you're doing it, and why it's important for a broad audience will offer you clarity on your own work that will extend beyond your artist's statement or your research mission statement.

Susan Stanford Friedman of Carleton College's English Department suggests that A&H grant writers focus on the big picture of their research and work, to really try and step back and conceptualize the whole of your work and how all of the pieces then fit together.

Open up to different funding opportunities
I mentioned already how competitive grant funding is for A&H, but there is a larger span of funding opportunities than most faculty are aware.  First, being aware of the big A&H sponsors in the federal and private arenas and what they fund is important, especially if your work is a good fit for any of the major funders.

Funding in the arts and humanities also often take on different forms than traditional grants.  Opportunities like residencies, travel opportunities, etc. may not look like funding opportunities, but they are competitive support programs that can further your work and build your credentials as you go after other funding (traditional and non) in the future.

Lastly, faculty can find success by looking at how they can partner with faculty and researchers outside of their field and be eligible for funding on larger grant applications where they play a unique role as a co-PI or consultant. It's also good to note that by collaborating with others outside your field, you will further improve how you position and discuss your work and its relevance to laypeople.

Resources
Funding Opportunities in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences - NORDP presentation
Writing Effective Proposals - Susan Stanford Friedman
Gigi Rosenberg's Blog - Author, Artist, and Entrepreneur

The #1 Threat to Your Grant Success...Procrastination

It always feels ironic when I'm researching procrastination. I ask myself, do I really need to be spending this much time learning about procrastination, or am I just putting off writing my weekly blog? This is part of the haziness around procrastination that makes it so easy to justify. Really, only the procrastinator truly knows that they are procrastinating, and sometimes they're not even sure.

ORDE and other grant experts recommend that grant developers spend at least six months developing a grant application. Yet, when I suggest that to our researchers, I follow-up very quickly saying that if you don't have that much time for whatever reason, you should at least include the important elements on the timeline in a shorter time period before they laugh me off.

According to Psychology Today, approximately 20% of the population are chronic procrastinators. They clarify that although everyone procrastinates at some point on some task, it is the chronic procrastinators that experience more dramatic and ongoing consequences in their lives and work.Chronic procrastinators have a difficult time weighing long-term rewards against immediate gratification. They may also procrastinate due to fear of failure or success.  And, procrastination seems to be a larger and larger problem in the technology age. Canadian Psychologist, Timothy Psychl says that "50% of the time people are online, they are procrastinating." That's a remarkable statistic when you consider how many people are constantly online for work or with their smart phones!

Although I don't have the research to back it up, I would suggest that grant development is a task that is often procrastinated - it somehow takes all of those drivers of procrastination and puts them into one effort - fear of failure, unclear/unsure rewards, and a large amount of time and thought required. So, because we often see our researchers avoid getting started on that next grant, here are some remedies to combat this great enemy - procrastination.

Work with someone: Forming a writing group with other grant-writers/colleagues can keep you on task and give you a group to bounce ideas off of and review your work.

Build a routine: Try setting aside a small amount of time everyday to work on your grant and gradually see if you can increase that amount. Maybe start with 20 min.

Write in the morning: People tend to do their best and most thoughtful work best in the morning, yet many waste that time on less creative/thoughtful work, e.g., checking email.

Write grants or nothing: One extreme solution posed by writer, Gretchen Rubin, is to set aside a large block of time each day where you can either write or do nothing.  She doesn't force herself to write, but she won't let herself do anything else.

Reduce/eliminate distractions: Since email, texting, social media, and the Internet in general are such large distractions for people, try to disconnect for a while or even just silence you phone to try and allow yourself some time to focus.

Many experts compare and link procrastination to other addictions, such as alcoholism or gambling. So, it makes sense that awareness can be the first step for procrastinators, too. Try to recognize when you're procrastinating and identify why. Then you can begin to remedy the situation.

Resources
Articles on procrastination - Psychology Today
Grant Development Timeline - ORDE

Grant Development Resource: Video Clips

As another outlet/format for grant development education, ORDE has edited short video clips from our seminars from the past year.  These clips are around five minutes long each and feature one of our seasoned faculty researchers discussing their experiences in grant development. Below, please find descriptions and links to these videos. We hope you find them useful!

Grant Development Videos

• NIH grant development tips
• Conveying your case in visuals, research strategy, and innovation
• How do you persuade your reviewers that your research is important?
• Showing impact and significance in an NIH grant
• Project summary examples and lessons learned
• Incorporating passion
• What makes a strong proposal for NSF
• Overview of the NSF grant

Agency Specific Videos:

PCORI:

• An Overview of PCORI
• PCORI priorities
• PCORI criteria
• PCORI hints
• PCORI patient centeredness

NIH:

• NIH grant development tips
• Conveying your case in visuals, research strategy, and innovation

NSF:

• Project summary examples and lessons learned
• Incorporating passion
• What makes a strong proposal for NSF
• Overview of the NSF grant

Institute for Education Sciences (IES):

• IES: Tips for intervention studies
• IES: Focusing on methodology
• IES: Attrition and letters of cooperation

Research Career Development

• Choosing and working with collaborators on your grant
• When to apply for grant funding
• Maintaining focus and flexibility
• Effectively using mentoring
• Recruiting mentors
• Rethinking Work/Life Balance

Grant Development - Guiding Questions

There are many questions that need to be answered in a grant application. The mistake that many grant writers make is to begin answering these questions when they are actually writing the grant. Without clarity at the front end, grant writers often find their writing muddy and must spend more time writing and re-writing. Now re-writing/revising should always be a part of the grant-development process. Remember the grad school adage, "write to re-write." However, when you go into grant-writing clear on your message, you can spend your revising time on making your grant clear and compelling, instead of spending your time just getting it to understandable.

Below are some guiding questions to use to build a clear case for your grant before you write. You may want to use the questions to draft an outline of your project. You might also consider sitting down with a colleague and having them interview you using the questions and expanding on them to draw you into articulating your story clearly.

• What is your project?
• Who benefits from this project and how? 
• What are the human, financial, and ethical benefits to your project?
• What will be the major costs to complete this project?
• What is the timeline you anticipate for your project?
• How could you scale this project down and up based on the funding you're able to get?
• What is the long-term vision for your research that your project fits into?
• How will you fund your long-term vision?
• Why are you the best person to lead this project?
• Who will be on your team and how will that be the best team to complete the project?
• What funding agencies would be interested in this research?
• Why is your project the best fit for the agency?
• How will you prove that your project is the best fit?

Certainly this list could go on and get more detailed, but it gives you a sense of how you need to clarify and articulate your research and research project, as well as how you need to understand your sponsor(s) and how your work fits with their goals.

By doing this work first, you can identify gaps in your work early on so that you can begin to correct them. And, you set yourself on the path to developing a more focused grant.

Resources

Proposal Development Resources - ORDE

Grant Writer Resources - National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP)

Sabbatical Funding

The word sabbatical refers to a time of rest - and certainly faculty need and deserve this time to recoup. But, of course, for most, this is also a time to conduct or develop research or work on the book or project that you haven't had time for.

When considering what work and exploration you will pursue on sabbatical, it's important to consider the costs for that work and your time and to explore what grant opportunities might be in line with your sabbatical research. In doing so, consider the following:

Start looking early
In all the hustle and bustle, many faculty researchers don't consider what funding might be available for their sabbatical until it's too late to apply for that funding. ORDE suggests that applicants give themselves six months to prepare a solid grant application, and review and award processes can take as long as a year. So, you want to give yourself at least a year beforehand to start grant-writing. Ideally, you want a one and a half to two years to seek funding for your sabbatical.

Figure out what's fundable
You may have a very cool idea or something brand new planned for your sabbatical, but is it something that sponsors will invest in?  As you begin considering sabbatical funding, take a look at the types of sabbatical funding that are typically available in ORDE's e-book on sabbatical funding opportunities.

Also, ask you senior colleagues where they looked for funding and what their experience was in attaining funding - what were their lessons learned and suggestions for you?

Consider the long term
Although faculty going on sabbatical often have just received tenure, it's important to consider how any projects you take on in your sabbatical fit with your longer term research career development. With tenure under your belt, what do the next five years hold for you? What are your goals and how can you use your sabbatical and sabbatical support to strategically position you to hit the ground running when you get back?

Being strategic in these three ways can provide you with a rewarding and productive sabbatical.

Resources
e-book on sabbatical funding - ORDE
How to enjoy a sabbatical - InsideHigherEd

The Entrepreneurial Researcher

Perhaps like many of you, I am an avid NPR listener. This weekend, I caught a portion of "This American Life," entitled "It's Not the Product, It's the Person," which focused on pitching business ideas and getting the right people to invest in you and your product or service. As I listened, it struck me that these tips from entrepreneurs and private business investors were directly relevant to researchers seeking investment from sponsors through grants.

As part of the segment, one of the producers of This American Life was tutored in pitching his business idea to Chris Sacca, a venture investor, known for his early investments that launched the likes of Twitter and Instagram,

Spoiler alert: although Sacca does not end up investing in the narrator's idea, he does coach him in what sells ideas as outlined below:

Conviction
Sacca describes how when he was approached with the idea of Instagram, he thought that the idea of photosharing had passed. Although the idea didn't necessarily sell him, what did sell him was the conviction of the creators. Sacca describes that he got a sense from the founder that "He's actually looking through you to some spot behind you that's five years in the future and he just knows the inevitability of the success of his platform. And, by the end of the conversation, you're like, 'please take my money.'"

Conviction can make the difference between a good idea and a funded idea. You have to be so sure of your work and its importance that it is contagious. Sacca invested in Instagram because of the creator's conviction. It's worth noting that he did not invest in Dropbox or Airbnb when these businesses were pitched to him. These were also good ideas, as evidenced by these companies' later success, but the creators lacked the conviction at the time to persuade Sacca.

FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out
Successful grant writers have described the importance of describing one's research as a train that's leaving the station - work that is happening and going to be successful, sparking some urgency in the investor that they need to get on the train!

This urgency relates to what Sacca refers to as FOMO, or the fear of missing out.  Researchers must cast their research idea as too good to miss, making reviewers and sponsors feel like they will be kicking themselves if they didn't support the next nobel laureate when they had the chance.

Create a pitch deck
Whether you use it or not, those entrepreneurs looking for investors suggest developing a pitch deck to organize your ideas. Using the pitch deck outline can be a way to organize your message when preparing to write a grant.

This is the basic outline of the pitch deck
- What's the problem I'm trying to solve?
- How is my idea going to solve it?
- What will the return be for everyone who invests in this? What results can they expect?

A more detailed pitch deck outline can be found at Forbes.

What is your unfair advantage?
Chris Sacca advises those pitching ideas to identify their unfair advantage. What makes you the perfect person to start this business and make it succeed. Plenty of people have good ideas, but those that succeed with those ideas generally have an edge, a leg up on the competition. This is true in the grants world as well.  It's not enough to have a great research idea and have great conviction, you must also be the best person to do it.

For early career investigators (ECIs) going up against seasoned PIs, this should not deter you. For one thing, many major sponsors, such as the NIH, have a mandate to fund a certain percentage of ECIs. But, for ECIs who aren't immediately competitive for the largest grants (and most aren't), find smaller grant or career development competitions for which you will be.  Also, form strategic partnerships with senior PI's and participate in their projects to build your experience and essential connections that can help you build your edge. Being strategic in this way will eventually give you "the unfair advantage" in the external funding world.

By positioning your case for funding using some of these entrepreneurial strategies, you might find yourself communicating a more compelling grant proposal to investors or grant sponsors.

Resources
It's Not the Product, It's the Person  - This American Life
The Ultimate Pitch Deck to Raise Money for Startups - Forbes

Research Presentation Tips

Being able to write about your research is important, especially when it comes to writing grants. Yet oftentimes researchers overlook the power of being able to offer a compelling verbal presentation on their research. Having a presentation in your back pocket can allow you to introduce your work at conferences, guest lectures, keynotes, and even everyday conversations effectively and engagingly.

In various formats, you can use the following tips to engage and involve your audience instead of subjecting them to a recitation that closely resembles your latest academic publication.

Instructional Strategies:

I've seen faculty members who make a clear distinction between a "talk" and "teaching." Whereas in the latter, they are concerned with involving their students and focusing on their learning, in the former they're worried about delivering information and often forget about the outcomes for their audience.  Bringing solid instructional strategies into a talk can offer a more engaging and memorable experience for your audience. Below are some instructional strategies to consider:

• Ask a question of your audience early on: When you engage your audience early on, you prevent them from settling into a more passive listening mode and encourage active learning and participation in your presentation.
• Give participants a chance to consider or discuss what your work means for them: adult learners tend to learn and remember things that make a difference to them in their own lives and work. So showing how meaningful your research is to them or designing an exercise that relates your research to their individual lives can help capture them.
• Use everyday parallels and metaphors to describe your research: When describing complex research and processes, it can be helpful to identify a familiar process that you can parallel to your work to better show what you're doing to laypeople in the audience.

Visuals:

• Avoid death by bullet points: One of the biggest faults of presenters are using PowerPoint or Prezi as talking notes instead of the visual aid that is supposed to support learning.  This often manifests in bulleted list after bulleted list.  Often times a visual can communicate an idea better than a word or phrase.
• Don't get text heavy: Another faux pas of presentations is filling a slide with a paragraph of text and then reading it aloud. You receive an additional strike if the text on your slide is too small to be read (you should try to stay at 20 pt or above). Remember, if you put a bunch of text on the screen, your audience will stop listening to you to read what's in front of them. And, if you're reading it to them, they could get annoyed, especially if it's more than one slide.
• Keep it readable and simple: Visuals can be a better way to communicate than text, but be careful to keep your visuals easy to see and read and simple enough to communicate your message effectively.  If you present a very complex-looking model, you should not be surprised when eyes glaze over.

Resources
Edward R. Tufte's Presentation Tips - As noted by the University of Maryland CS Department
Talking the Talk - Tips on Giving a Successful Conference Presentation - American Psychological Association

Review - Essential Learning for Grant Development

Grant development guru, Robert Porter, Ph.D., at the University Tennessee, has said that serving as a reviewer is "like a graduate education in grant writing" (Porter, 2011). He suggests that although early career investigators often assume that they will not be good candidates for review panels due to their junior status, it's wise to engage with Program Officers (POs) by sharing an early write up of your research project and to offer to serve as a reviewer.  It is often a challenge for POs to find the right review panel for all of the grant proposals they receive, and to offer to serve in this capacity certainly can't hurt.

If you aren't asked to serve as a reviewer, it still behooves researchers to understand the review process as best they can and to let it guide the development of their grant. The NIH offers an extensive description of their review process, as does the NSF (see below for both). Many institutions host mock peer reviews with senior researchers reviewing the grants of their junior colleagues. This might happen at the departmental level, or for a particular type of grant.  For instance, the CCTSI that serves the CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus offers mock peer review for their NIH Pre K program and K to R program.

At the very least, it is essential to have a few diverse colleagues review your grant proposal before submitting to catch any points of confusion or areas where your grant can be strengthened.

Porter (2005) offers some tips from seasoned reviewers that can provide guidance to those who have yet to experience the review process for themselves.

Adapted from Porter (2005)

It's important that researchers always write their grants for their reviewers. But, the more experience and insight you can gain into what those reviewers want, especially by being a reviewer, will improve your grant development.


Resources
More Paper Out the Door: Ten Inexpensive Ways to Stimulate Proposal Development (2011) - Robert Porter
What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? (2005) - Robert Porter
NIH Peer Review Process
NSF Merit Review Process

Tools for Grant Organization & Clarity

This spring, ORDE offered a seminar on Grant Writing Structure and Mechanics, and heard from Ritu Chopra, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Paraprofessional Research and Resource Center in our School of Education and Human Development.  The center is completely grant funded, and as its leader Dr. Chopra spends much of her time on grant development.

As part of her presentation, she offered up a couple of tools she uses to both organize her projects and to clearly communicate to grant reviewers. These are an Index of Priorities and a Logic Model.

Index of Priorities
Dr. Chopra began including an index of priorities in her grants to the Department of Education to explicitly show where in her grant proposal she was addressing each of the sponsor's priorities. She and her team would comb through the entire RFP, identifying all of the priorities and items that the sponsor was asking for and then outline those in a table of priorities. Under each priority, she would identify exactly where in the proposal (page number/section) her team had addressed it. This tool made it easy and clear for reviewers to see exactly where and how the center had responded to each of the things that were important to the sponsor.

Note: If you're thinking about using an index of priorities, make sure that your sponsor/RFP allows its inclusion in your grant.


Logic Model
Another tool that Dr. Chopra recommended was a logic model. A logic model is quite simply a table that identifies the following:

• inputs: resources that will go into a project
• activities: tasks that will take place in the project
• outputs: direct results of the activities
• outcomes: the benefits realized from the activities
• impact: the broader effects of particular project activities

Below is a simple illustration of the logic model components from the Pell Institute's Evaluation Toolkit

These logic models can serve to help your team clarify and develop your project, but can also communicate clearly to a sponsor what you will be doing in your project and the implications for your project.

Use the resources below to learn more about using logic models and to see examples.

Resources:
Program Development and Evaluation - University of Wisconsin Extension
Evaluation Toolkit - The Pell Institute
The Evaluation Center University of Colorado Denver

Authorship, Impact, and Independence

This week, The Chronicle of Higher Education offered an interesting piece on authorship which outlines one scientist's account of navigating an authorship system in her field. Dr. Cecile Janssens describes finding scholarly articles where she was listed as an author or collaborator without her knowledge and then offers clarifications on what constitutes an author or collaborator, honorary author, etc.

Authorship is significant, especially in a scholarly career, yet many researchers make various assumptions about the systems and implications within authorship. This week we follow Dr. Janssens' cue and work to clarify a few key issues around authorship across disciplines.

Whose on first?
Researchers are generally clear on how multiple authors should be ordered in a publication. But, as more and more interdisciplinary research is being conducted, it's important to discuss the variety of author order rules in each collaborator's field. For instance, in many of the health sciences, the last author position is most significant, followed by the first. In many of the Sciences and Education, it is the first author who is considered the greatest contributor. The rest of the authors are ordered by their contributions, where the 2nd author has made the 2nd largest contribution, etc. In fields like Mathematics and Engineering, authors are often ordered alphabetically.

Regardless of field protocol, the publication you're submitting to will usually dictate how authors should be ordered. However, collaborating authors should be aware of any differences in case they are evaluated using a different system. If you're not sure what the norm is in your field, the accepted system is usually that of your field's style guide.

What are the career implications of authorship?
Being first (or sometimes last) author on publications is important for researchers to show their growing independence to evaluators in the tenure process as well as those reviewing their grants. However, many sponsors are recognizing that with the growing diversity and collaborative nature of research and the corresponding publications, it is difficult to assume what one researcher's role is.  As a result, sponsors are starting to allow for explication of a researcher's roles in different projects and publications in their biosketch. This is true for the tenure process as well. Bob Damrauer, Ph.D., Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Special Assistant to the Provost at CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus says that it's important for faculty going up for tenure to describe their role in each collaboration and project. In fact, Dr. Damrauer says that the tenure review committee will often ask the candidate for more information if they don't describe their roles in significant projects/publications.

Communicating authorship upfront and more than once
Given the close connection between promotion and funding decisions based on numbers of publications and author order, it's not surprising that contentions can arise when research collaborators wait until a project is underway or complete to figure out author order.  This is why experts in team science recommend agreeing on these sorts of things at the outset of a project. When reaching out to collaborators, it's important to have a candid discussion about what's in it for each person, and what their role will be. This helps to prevent a collaborative relationship from souring and/or a research project from ultimately failing.

In addition to this, Dr. Gerald Fischbach, a seasoned researcher at Columbia University recommends having these discussions any time there is a change in the research team or the project makes a shift and requires other types of expert who may take on a larger role that the original PI.  See Columbia's guidelines and a short video clip of Dr. Fischbach here.

Being clear on these distinctions and complexities of authorship can help you to navigate your research career effectively. Please see the resources below for even more information.


Resources:
Let's Clarify Authorship on Scientific Papers - Chronicle of Higher Education
Author Ranking System: 'Impact Factor' of the Last Author - Blog: In the Name of Science...
Responsible Authorship and Peer Review -  Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning

Creating & Maintaining a Productive Research Team

More and more, it is common for researchers to collaborate, developing grants and working on projects together. Given the big problems of our day, bringing together multiple perspectives and areas of expertise makes sense. Yet, researchers often take for granted the work necessary to build and maintain a highly functioning team.

This week, we offer some tips from experts and consultants in team building and team science that can be applied to your research group to improve productivity, creativity, and the experience/benefit of all team members.

Don't draw on your close connections
Research has shown that teams or collaborations that include people with weak connections to each other tend to be the more creative than those with strong connections between team members. Brian Uzzi, Professor of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management attributes this to the diversity of thought and resources that are more likely to be present in a team with weaker connections to one another. So, although it is generally easier to collaborate or draw on the expertise of the usual suspects with whom you have strong relationships, you may be able to create a more dynamic research team drawing on those with whom you have less of a relationship.

Take time for process
Pat Sanaghan (President, The Sanaghan Group) points out that exceptional teams tend to spend about 1/3 of their time on the group's process instead of the task at hand. This open discussion about how the team will work together and what everyone's role will be is important to the success of the team. This does not mean that once you've had an initial discussion about process, you're all set. Checking in with your team to discuss what's working and what's not on an ongoing basis is important in maintaining team health and success.

Define the research problem
One challenge that confronts diverse research teams is getting all investigators on the same page as to what the research problem and project are and how to address it. Dr. Lyall and Dr. Meager with the The Institute for the Study of Science Technology and Innovation (ISSTI) warn that without consensus from the team - you may end up with a multidisciplinary project rather than an interdisciplinary project. Using facilitation tools, such as a Mind Map, to bring your team together to brainstorm and make connections can start your team off in the right direction.


Resources:
Ted Talk: Teaming Up to Drive Science - Brian Uzzi
5 Secrets to Developing a High-Performing Team in Higher Education - Pat Sanaghan and Jillian Lohndorf (Academic Impressions)
A Short Guide to Building and Managing Interdisciplinary Research Teams - ISSTI

Integrating Literature & Funding Searches

Investigators need to show funding agencies that their work is important, necessary, innovative, and well-founded. These attributes are largely determined by the eyes of the beholder, the funding agency. So, to be able to create an argument for sponsors, an investigator must be confident in their project and how it fits in the larger field of work and must understand how to communicate that to the sponsor. This is done by conducting a comprehensive literature search, as well as conducting a comprehensive funding search, and you'll save time and realize the most robust results if you can integrate both of these searches.

Literature Searches
Last year, ORDE offered a seminar in partnership with the Auraria Library to help investigators integrate these two important themes. Lorrie Evans, Research and Instruction Librarian offered the following tips to investigators when conducting a literature search.

• Ask/Meet with a Librarian: Librarians can help you to identify silos outside of your area of focus, and perhaps in other disciplines that are relevant to your work.
• Familiarize yourself with the capability of key databases: To have confidence that you're finding everything you need, learn the limitations and functions of the databases you're using (your librarian can give you insight into "what's under the hood" of your database)
• Search scholarly literature by the number of citations: You can find seminal pieces in your field and other fields by finding those that are highly cited.
• Capture/Save your work: The Auraria library website allows you to save your literature searches when you enter your credentials. This can save you time from having to remember what you searched and where from session to session.
• Use a reference management tool: These tools allow you to capture the literature that is relevant to your work, tag these articles, and directly import your references to a Bibliography. There are many tools available, including EndNote, Mendeley, Sente, and Zotero.

Fund Searches
At the same time that you're using these tips to find and scan the relevant literature, you want to be framing your work to make it a contender for funding. Here are some tips from ORDE to do this.

• For faculty members, meet with ORDE and let us conduct a fund search for you. We work with you to understand your research and then provide you with a search document that outlines relevant sponsors, deadlines, program announcements, and more to familiarize you with the funding landscape.
• Know what projects are being funded in your area.
• Once you identify sponsors that may be a good fit for your research, dig deeper to understand the history, ideology, and preferred approach for research to ensure that your project is a good fit and/or to help you align it with the sponsor's interests and goals.

Integrating Searches
If you are intentional about integrating your literature and fund searches from the get-go, you'll likely find that it saves you time, but also gives you a more dynamic outlook on your research that will allow you to make the best decisions for you and your project(s).

To integrate, we suggest that you use your Aha! moments to remind yourself to dig into the other side of your search. When you discover something in the literature, take that same element and work to understand if that discovery has been funded or is being funded and which sponsors are or may be interested in the work. On the flip side, when you discover a related project that is currently being funded, can you delve into the scholarly literature to anticipate what other projects will be necessary or what other gaps in the literature there are surrounding that project that would be good candidates for funding.

In moving back and forth across the literature and funding landscapes, you can feel confident that you are developing research that has the best chance at success.

Resources
ORDE Website
Auraria Library Website
Video Clip on Literature Searches - Lorrie Evans

PCORI - New Funding Cycle Aug. 6th

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is about to open its new funding cycle on August 6th. PCORI is a viable sponsor for healthcare research that focuses on and meaningfully engages patients.

PCORI's priority areas along with estimated budget percentages:

• Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment Options (42%)
• Improving Healthcare Systems (21%)
• Communication/Dissemination Research (10.5%)
• Addressing Disparities (10.5%)
• Improving Methods for Conducting Patient Centered Outcomes Research (16%)

The PCORI blog has offered a sneak preview of some of the changes for this cycle, which include,

• Letters of Intent (LOIs) will now go through a competition to determine responsiveness and fit and those selected will be invited to submit a full proposal
• The engagement template is now integrated into the proposal
• The Research Strategy page limit is increasing from 15 to 20 pages
• The biosketch is revised to allow for more patient/stakeholder information
• There are less fields on the PCORI online application

ORDE held a Know Your Agency Lunch last year with PCORI-funded researcher and Associate Professor, Amanda Dempsey, who offered the following tips when applying to PCORI:

• Read the directions REALLY, REALLY carefully
• Read the priority areas REALLY, REALLY carefully
• Repeat the language from the RFA/PA in the grant
• Try to find a PCORI grant reviewer to give feedback on study ideas
• Try to find some patients to give you letters and quotes
• Put everything in a patient-centered frame

Be sure to watch the Upcoming Opportunities page on the PCORI website for the PCORI Funding Announcements (PFA's), five of which will be released on August 6th (with required letters of intent due September 5th)..

Resources:
How applicant feedback will inform our new funding cycle - PCORI Blog
Know your Agency Brief: PCORI - ORDE

Mentorship Teams

Great mentors are crucial to development in any career path, but this is no more true than for faculty researchers. Mentors can advise you and support you in focusing your research, attaining funding, balancing your commitments, prioritizing, etc. Given this initial list, it's not surprising that mentoring is a large time commitment, especially for the mentor.

Excellent mentors are difficult to find, and those with excellent reputations can be even more difficult to secure as a mentor. You want to be very careful about having a mentor in name only, especially if you're using that mentor's name to apply for a mentored funding award. Dr. Jean Kutner, Professor in the School of Medicine, at an ORDE seminar last year cautioned participants against this practice. Your research community is usually small enough that reviewers know if a mentor is overcommitted and being used in name only, and will question the feasibility of your career development plan because of it.

Dr. Kutner offered a creative solution to this - research teams. As a senior researcher and mentor, she has more requests for mentorship than she can realistically commit to. However, she has mentored several investigators to a point where they are now able to effectively mentor others. So what she has done is to recommend some of her more developed protégés as mentors to new early career investigators (ECI's). She gave one example of an ECI who was applying for a K award from the NIH who had Dr. Kutner listed as her senior mentor and one of Dr. Kutner's protégés as her main mentor. Dr. Kutner had committed to meeting monthly with the ECI, and the protégé met with her weekly.

This approach offers benefits to all the team members. The ECI is able to have a junior mentor who is accessible to them and able to work with them closely and a senior mentor to lend extra credibility and more of an oversight role to the mentorship group. The junior mentor gains substantive experience and expertise as a mentor. They are being "mentored into mentoring" by the senior mentor, suggests Kutner. The senior mentor benefits from being able to more effectively manage their time and lend their expertise in a way that doesn't lend itself to fatigue.

Traditionally a mentor was thought of more as one guru who had answers and advice for every query their protégé might have, but today, given the ever more diverse responsibilities of faculty researchers, having a diverse mentoring network to support you makes more sense. So, as you identify and ask well-known mentors to work with you, when they apologetically explain that they are time-constrained, ask them if they can recommend one of their protégés  or propose a mentorship team where they take more of a senior mentorship role. In this way you can get the support that you need and effectively use the time and expertise of multiple mentors.

Resources
A Mentoring Plan for Junior Faculty - University of Utah, Vice President of Research (good definitions of possible types of mentoring)
Mentoring Best Practices Handbook - University at Albany (SUNY)

How many grants should I be writing?

At a recent ORDE talk on the grant development process, a researcher asked whether it made more sense for Early Career Investigators to go through the grant development process illustrated below, following the ORDE 6-month timeline, or to just send out as many proposals possible to see what sticks.

It certainly is tempting to try to up your chances of funding by sending your project to every agency that might be interested. But, there are two consequences in this approach that are not always obvious. The first consequence is the opportunity cost. Although it takes longer to develop a comprehensive and responsive grant, it still takes a significant amount of time to "throw a grant together." You still have to understand the formatting requirements and respond to the program announcement. Agencies oftentimes have very different requirements when it comes to biosketches, project descriptions, budgets, and supplemental documents. So reformatting the same information again and again takes a lot of time, for little (if any) return.

The other danger of simply repackaging a project for different agencies without tailoring it to their needs, goals, and interests is that you risk building a reputation for yourself that is sloppy. If PO's see an application thrown together and submitted by someone they've never been in contact with, they know that the PI did not put a lot of thought into the grant. Also, given the relatively small worlds of research, your reviewers are often your colleagues and having them review poorly crafted grants can cast you in a bad light.

The truth is that there is no easy money in the sponsored research world. Shaking the tree as hard as you can will just wear you out - both from the amount of work you'll put in, and the frustration of hearing "no" again and again if  your grant is even reviewed.

Your best strategy is to really build your skill and credibility with the few sponsors who are a good fit for you and your research. This is done by understanding the sponsor, working with the PO, customizing your work for the sponsor, and revising and resubmitting to the same sponsor when there is a good fit. This approach does not eliminate the hard work that goes into successful grant writing, nor does it eliminate the frustration felt when you get a "no." What it does offer you is a fighting chance at getting your grant reviewed, building a positive reputation for yourself amongst your colleagues, and it significantly improves your chances for a "yes."

Resources
Proposal Development Timeline
Proposal Development Resources

Researcher Independence - What is it / How do I show it?

Given the approaching July 4th holiday, I thought I would dig into the often-elusive topic of researcher independence. Many sponsors look for PI's to prove their independence before they are awarded major grants, and many early career grant programs look specifically at an investigator's potential to become independent. So, what do you need to do to show independence?

Have your own space
Sponsors must be confident that you as the PI have the time, space, and resources at your discretion to successfully complete your project and to continue your work after the project. Most sponsors do not want to fund research that seems to be "one and done," they want to see longevity in your research and they want to know that you will continue your work after your award expires.

Show a clear differentiation between your research and your mentor's research
Mentors are crucial to supporting their proteges to become independent, but the best mentors foster their proteges to not only develop the skills they need to be productive in the mentor's lab, but also the skills to manage their own lab, write their own grants, develop their own ideas, etc. Sponsors are not interested in helping to cultivate a clone of your mentor; they'd rather just support the original. But, when you can demonstrate your unique niche in the field and begin to build a track record of your own, then sponsors will be interested.

First author major publications
Even if you're doing large amounts of research and writing for the pubs that you are co-authoring, it is essential that you also first author some of those publications. This indicates that you are the leader of the research being conducted and solidifies for sponsors that you are not just contributing to someone else's work, but are instead creating original research.

Receive grants and execute projects as PI
Although it is a limiting definition, the capstone of researcher independence is to receive significant funding from a major sponsor. This is the R01 from the NIH or a large prestigious award from the NSF or Department of Education. The catch 22 in these situations is that these awards prove you are an independent investigator, but you have to prove you are an independent investigator to get them. This is often a hump that early career investigators encounter. But, again, with the right mentor, and with the earlier categories secured, you're often prepared to tackle this barrier. Remember, that many major agencies are looking to fund newer investigators to grow the research pipeline.

These categories are really benchmarks on your way to showing researcher independence. To achieve them you want to have a concrete plan that leads you toward that independence. It's also essential to have support and a great mentor to help illuminate and facilitate your path. Happy Independence Day!

Resources
Making the Leap to Independence - Science Magazine
Resources for Early Career Investigators - Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Grant Tips from NSF Conference

The NSF hosted their Grants Conference in Denver this week, where many Program Directors and other NSF staff shared a wealth of information about applying for funding from the NSF. Yet many of their recommendations and advice were relevant to grant writing for a broader range of sponsors. Below, I outline some key takeaways for grant-writers:

Know what the sponsor is about
This point may seem obvious, but one of the most striking points reiterated at the NSF conference is that they're about advancing good science, and really not as interested in applying that science.  If the word "development" is in your objectives, it's probably not the right fit for the NSF. You must lead with the science!

Program Officers are powerful
Aside from the invaluable insight PO's can provide you about their agency and about the review process, at NSF, the PO's control their program budget. The unfortunate reality of those budgets is that they're not large enough to support all the projects that are recommended for funding by the review committees, and thus the PO plays an important role in determining which projects are ultimately funded. At times, the PO will make a funding decision without a proposal going through review in the case of the RAPID or EAGER programs. These programs award funds that need to happen quickly to prevent loss of an opportunity (RAPID awards were given to researchers looking at tornado sites before they were cleaned up) or to fund exploratory research in early stages (with the EAGER grants).

The Proposal Guide is a grant-writer's bible
The NSF offers a comprehensive guide for their proposals (the PAPPG). This 80-page document gives you all the rules and guidelines for submitting an NSF grant. One tip from NSF staff was to do a search of the word "must" from the PAPPG and make yourself a checklist of these musts to make sure you do everything you need to do.

Write a strategic plan
One Program Officer mentioned that he often recommends that applicants whose ideas are scattered in their proposals write a strategic plan for their research. He finds that the success rate jumps up considerably for applicants that take the time to do this and resubmit.

Pay attention to detail
Although again this seems obvious, the NSF representatives regaled us with stories of grant missteps that either resulted in a rejected proposal or at least an embarrassment for the applicant. For instance, according to one Program Director, 1 in 30 cover pages include a misspelling in the title of their project.

Submit early and check your work
Although, most applicants tend to submit their grant proposals in the last hour, NSF recommends that you submit early; they cited incidents of returning proposals that came in seconds after the deadline. But, it's also a good idea to submit early so that you have time to review what you submitted. Presenters told stories of applicants uploading the wrong version of documents, and even one application that for whatever reason came out completely orange when it was downloaded and printed. "What you think you submitted isn't always what you actually submitted," said NSF staff again and again.

Although these were NSF recommendations, you can see how they easily apply or can be slightly modified to serve as solid grant-writing tips. To get more grant advice from the NSF, see the resources below.

Resources
NSF Grants Conference Presentation Slides
Other NSF Resource Links  - ORDE (See especially the NSF's new Merit Review Process Video under RESOURCES FROM OTHER FUNDING AGENCIES)

Shifting Paradigms to Make Your Point

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is a 3D model worth? Seemingly, quite a bit more given the release and hype around NIH's new 3D print exchange. The NIH is offering an array of 3D models to the public and to other researchers who wish to use them to advance their health goals. Learn more about the exchange (find the article under Other Collaboration Tools). The NIH sees these 3D models as an opportunity for researchers to collaborate, but also to better communicate with each other and the public about the importance of their research.

These 3D models have a collaborative and explanatory power that goes far beyond that of the written word. So, as researchers who are constantly trying to show the importance of our research and illustrate the impact of that research, can we use a paradigm shift in our communication to get the point across?

Certainly, when it comes to convincing grant reviewers of the importance of your work, we are still far away from seeing an agency that will accept a 3D model as a grant attachment, but nevertheless, knowing how to use different forms to more effectively explain your work not only brings people into your sphere of understanding and influence, but it shows you new ways to think about and explain your work. Below I outline some paradigm shifting approaches to conveying the importance of your work more effectively.

Props
I once heard a researcher tell how he made a point to carry a small piece of a telescope that he had invented around in his pocket. This part had a profound impact on what the telescope in question was able to do. This researcher would pull out the part any time he needed to explain what he did to people, and this resulted eventually in a large amount of funding when he pulled out the piece to describe his research to potential investors. The idea of using a prop is easily dismissed by many researchers, because they haven't invented a small piece of something that they can use to draw folks in. But, might you have a small model that you could use to show someone what you're doing? Or even on the more gimmicky side, do you have something small and tangible that can remind people of what you're doing, for instance a prescription pill bottle with a price tag on it if you're researching the economic viability of health programs and prescription drugs? You may need to put up with a couple of smirks when you pull out your prop, but you can rest assured that those smirkers will later remember who you are and what you're researching.

Visuals
Most folks would rather see a visual of something than read a paragraph on it, but so often we see visuals used to distract from an explanation rather than enhance it. Just think about those blinking icons we see in PowerPoints or those diagrams within grant proposals that are just small enough that you can't read the key and are thus left guessing about what it's showing you. I believe I've shared this already, but it's worth noting that recently we heard from one long-time grant reviewer that he had never seen a successful grant that did not have a conceptual diagram of the project in the introductory overview. In cases like this, you really can't afford not to include an intuitive, professional, and readable visual in your grant!

Mind maps/Logic models
Using a mind map or a logic model to clearly layout your project and goals is an effective way to illustrate your projects and its connections to goals and project impacts. You can learn more about mind maps at our past blog: Using Mind Mapping. Logic models are the table form of mind maps, and they also make connections between, inputs, activities, and outcomes. Learn more about logic models.

Metaphors
Often when explaining complicated research, you see your audience's eyes glaze over with your first big, technical jargon word, but what you're talking about is exciting! Using a metaphor to convey a process or significance can often be a better starting place, especially for a lay audience, but don't underestimate your fellow expert's appreciation of a good metaphor either! For example, if you research bilingual education policy, you begin your spiel with, imagine you get a new job and on your first day in the office, you realize that everyone seems to have a code that you don't have. You can't get into your office without the code, you can't find the bathroom, and what's worse, your new colleagues and boss will not engage with you until you use this code first. Now imagine the parallels for a student who is trying acquire a second language in a new educational environment... You might also consider short personal interest stories or concrete statistics that show the need for your research at the beginning of your talk or grant overview.

These tools may feel uncomfortable to use, but as always, as you consider your audience and what's in it for them and what's more engaging for them, sometimes a paradigm shift can be well worth the effort and initial discomfort.

Resources:
NIH 3D Print Exchange for Researchers (find the article under Other Collaboration Tools)
Using Mind Mapping - ORDE blog
Logic Models - University of Wisconsin - Extension

K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple sweetheart

The biggest challenge facing researchers in grant writing is describing their complex research objectives clearly and simply for reviewers. It brings us back to that old K.I.S.S. adage from high school English class - Keep it simple stupid (or sweetheart as my teacher preferred).

Say it back to me
This week, Dr. Bill Hay, Professor in our School of Medicine, spoke at our ORDE seminar on applying for an NIH K grant. He suggested to us that when you have identified your research goals, begin by sharing your research project idea with someone else in one or two sentences and ask them to repeat back what they heard. This will give you insight into how clearly and succinctly you are communicating your idea, and also help you to hone in on the areas where your reviewers might get hung up in your explanations.

Draw it back for me
Another way to get feedback is once you have a solid draft of your grant overview, whether it be in the form of Specific Aims, Project Summary, or Abstract, find a layperson to review your project and ask them to create a conceptual diagram of your project based on how they understood it. This can then show you, the researcher, where there might be holes in your description.

Draw it yourself
On the subject of conceptual diagrams, these can be valuable tools for illustrating clearly and quickly what you're going to do in your project. Dr. Michael Schurr, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine and long-time NIH reviewer, recently spoke at an ORDE seminar on grant-writing and he mentioned that as a reviewer, he had never seen a Specific Aims portion of a funded grant without a conceptual diagram of the project. Admittedly, this is a big commitment of grant "real estate" to a visual, given that the Specific Aims page is only one page long. But, going back to our K.I.S.S. principle, a visual is often the simplest and clearest way to communicate something, so don't rule it out!

Resources
What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want, Anyway? - Robert Porter, Ph.D.
Writing Concisely for Grant Proposals - Tufts University Office of Proposal Development (under General Grantsmanship Advice)

NSF Transparency and Communication

Last week, the NSF released their Open Government Plan 3 (under Resources From Other Funding Agencies). in accordance with President's Obama's goals of transparency in his 2009 "Transparency and Open Government" memorandum. In their plan, the NSF previews some changes relevant to grant writers and also highlights some of the mechanisms available to the public and grant writers to allow them to stay on top of the research and priorities coming out of the NSF.

Lay-person friendly abstracts
One significant change outlined in the plan is the NSF will begin offering more easy-to-read abstracts on their funded projects. They will do this by training program staff to rewrite abstracts for the layperson - making them easier to understand for the public. For grant applicants, this will mean that the abstracts listed on the NSF website will not necessarily be written by the project PI's. Nor will they model the grant project summaries as many do now. Although the PI-written abstracts have been useful examples to other grant applicants in the past, the new abstracts should be more easily understandable, as well as reflect the most important elements and impacts of the project from the perspective of the NSF, which will offer grant applicants insight into how the NSF is viewing the awarded grants.

Social Media and Mobile
The NSF is active on a variety of social media and mobile venues. Offering grant applicants a variety of ways to stay on top of what's new at the NSF...

Facebook: On their facebook site, the NSF posts regularly on their latest research. Researchers and laypeople are welcome to comment on their posts.

Twitter: As you'd expect, NSF's twitter feed offers more bite-sized updates on their latest research.

LinkedIn: NSF's LinkedIn site posts job openings as well as HR policies at NSF. Many NSF employees are on LinkedIn - you might try connecting with Program Officers through LinkedIn to make a contact and to learn a bit more about their background.

Youtube: The NSF's YouTube channel offers short video clips on NSF supported research. You can sort the videos by program directorate.

Science 360 (Mobile): The NSF also offers a radio program - Science 360 that can be accessed online or as an app on your iphone. The program offers a diversity of science-related pieces.

Grant Writing Rules (and when to break them)

Last week I sat in on a mini-workshop by Dr. Robert Porter, who is a grant development expert and has written many fantastic articles on the topic. Dr. Porter took us through several exercises on boiling down grant language to be shorter and clearer. Below are some techniques and examples:

Use active language
Passive language often removes the subject from the start of a sentence making the sentence longer and more difficult to read. Dr. Porter offers the following example:

Example: It has been demonstrated by research that...
Improved: Research shows...

Use fewer words when you can
In writing, we often assume that all the words we use are necessary. I once had a Technical Writing Professor who insisted that we should never use the word "very" in our writing. She argued that when you removed it, you never changed the meaning of the sentence. It came across as useless hyperbole.

Example: At that point in time
Improved: Then


Use shorter words
I recently sent an academic article I'd co-authored to my parents, and my Mom complained that there were too many big words, although she was anxious to use some of them in her next scrabble game. Editors and target readers of academic articles rarely balk at big words, but grant reviewers want their grants to be succinct and clear. With that in mind...

Example: Utilize
Improved: Use

Always opt for what will make things clearer for reviewers
There is no shortage of writing rules that some folks propose as writing gospel. However, as grant writers, we have to be willing to throw any and all rules out the window if need be to offer the easiest and clearest read to our reviewers. With that in mind, I offer one final example of improving a sentence from an NSF abstract. Look at my revision and you'll likely see areas that I could continue cutting. I tried to maintain a balance of clarifying, shortening, and maintaining the meaning and intended emphasis. You be the judge.

Example:

The long-term objectives of this project are to enable a paradigm-shifting future for simulation-based engineering with big data and to demonstrate this future through specific applications to challenging problems in medical device design.

Improved:

Long term, this project will drive a paradigm shift for simulation-based engineering with big data where we will apply these solutions to medical device design challenges.

Resources:

Crafting a Sales for Your Grant Proposal - Robert Porter, Ph.D.

Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals - Robert Porter, Ph.D.

The Elements of Style (book) - William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White