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)
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
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
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
Friday, June 13, 2014
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)
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)
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)