The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just released its strategic plan, designed as their guide for 2016-2020. The plan is not long (45 pages), but I thought I'd use this blog as an executive summary. The NIH will use this plan as complementary to the individual institutes' plans, so it is certainly worth looking at the current strategic plan of any institute in which you are interested in seeking funding as well.
In its plan, the NIH laid out four objectives:
1. Advance Opportunities in Biomedical Research
The NIH is looking to seize on the "cross-cutting opportunities" in three areas: fundamental science, health promotion/disease prevention, and treatment. Key to these are the increased and enhanced data sharing that will allow for more collaborative work in these key areas. Additionally, the NIH is promoting collaboration across the public and private sectors vying for the most innovative approaches. The re-focusing on fundamental science may mean that for more basic scientists, they may find more of an entree into NIH where they may have sensed a larger push toward translational approaches previously. Under the health promotion/disease prevention category, the NIH is particularly focused on "precision medicine," to encourage more individualized treatments to disease prevention and management. Additionally, they are looking to streamline clinical trials through their Clinical and Translational programs and in updating the Common Rule protections.
2. Foster Innovation by Setting NIH Priorities
The NIH will be engaging in prioritization over the next five years. Along with this, they will work to ensure that Institute/Center Operations (ICOs) will be allowed to set their own paylines and that the cutoff will be based on peer-review scores. However, ICO Directors will be given flexibility to use their select pay funds on projects that do not fall within the payline, yet meet a named priority for the institute. The NIH will also look for other avenues to increase the nimbleness of their responses to breakthroughs and needs.
Around disease, the NIH will have a focus on the burden of disease, in an effort to better understand the full "cost" of disease (including basic science research). They will also continue to look at rare disease, not only to help those afflicted, but to also enhance understanding of physiology that comes in studying rare diseases. Excitingly, the NIH is going to also invest in the eradication of HIV/AIDS, in an effort to foster the first generation that is HIV/AIDS free in over a half century.
3. Enhance Scientific Stewardship
In an effort to strengthen the Biomedical workforce, the NIH will also look to increase its funding to new and early career investigators in an effort to close the gap between the funding rates for these and more seasoned investigators. Additionally, the NIH will work to increase the Biomedical workforce diversity, with particular attention to racial diversity.
The NIH will also continue its work, in collaboration with scientific journals to increase the reproducibility of the research they fund, conduct, and publish. On the administrative side, the NIH will look to streamline the reporting system to lessen the burden on PI's. They will also look at the funding and review process to encourage interdisciplinary and team science projects. In addition, a greater expectation will be placed on funded researchers to serve as peer reviewers.
4. Excel as a Federal Science Agency by Managing for Results
In an effort to better measure the impact of its sponsored projects, the NIH will focus on assessment of research outcomes rather than outputs. It will also invest in "the science of science" to lead the work in understanding how to better assess and manage Biomedical research broadly. The NIH will also continue to re-assess its peer review process to find where improvements can and should be made.
This executive summary gives you a glimpse, but the strategic plan is really an exciting and inspiring read. It reminds us of the work, breakthroughs, and innovations that have been developed with NIH support and further shows us the kind of opportunities we have to work toward.
Happy holidays from ORDE!
Resources:
NIH Strategic Plan
Friday, December 18, 2015
Friday, December 11, 2015
Time Management for Faculty
I had the opportunity to join a Faculty Lunch & Learn yesterday out of our Center For Faculty Development. The topic was "If I'd know then what I know now" and faculty shared their ideas and best practices for preparing for tenure that I wanted to share. I thought this was good timing, as we approach the end of the year, and some of you may be looking to incorporate better time management practices in the new year.
Be mindful
One of the key messages yesterday was to be mindful of what works for you. It was interesting listening to the diversity of practices discussed. One person would say that they had to have their research time scheduled on their calendar, and the next person said they felt too confined when they had to work within parameters that they set for themselves. Thus, before you take on any new strategies, it's important to consider your own needs and your own style. How do you work best? When do you work most effectively? What environment do you prefer for your work? etc.
Have a system
An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education last week was authored by a tenured faculty member who was in a rather unique position of having gone through tenure twice (he was tenured at one institution and then took an Assistant Professorship at another institution). He contrasts his disorganization when going for tenure the first time with the system he set up the second time. In the latter, he used Evernote and other technology to really streamline his process. The key point in this article is that whether you are tech-savvy or prefer using your scheduling book, develop and stick to a system of organization that works for you.
Front-loading teaching
One idea shared at yesterday's lunch was that of front-loading your teaching. One tenured faculty member mentioned that when it came time for her to write her book, she worked with her Chair and Dean to teach all of her courses (four) in the Fall and then to have the Spring to focus on her book. Another newly tenured faculty member did something similar but taught most courses in the Fall and only one in the Spring.
Block 40% of your work time for research
One thing we notice in our office is that oftentimes new faculty put their research on the back burner for their first semester teaching as they develop their new courses and get into the teaching groove. The problem comes when faculty are slow to move their research back to the front burner quick enough. One faculty member mentioned that because she knew that 40% of her time was supposed to be dedicated to her research, she would block two days a week on her calendar to focus solely on her research. In this way, she made sure that it didn't fall to the wayside.
Some of these ideas, I hadn't heard before yesterday, but I thought they were creative solutions to time management. Going back to being mindful, some of these strategies may work for some faculty members, but not others. But, as we near the end of the year, it's important to step back and make sure that you're setting yourself up to accomplish your goals.
Resources
How Tech Tools Can Help Professors Prepare Their Tenure Portfolios - The Chronicle of Higher Ed
Be mindful
One of the key messages yesterday was to be mindful of what works for you. It was interesting listening to the diversity of practices discussed. One person would say that they had to have their research time scheduled on their calendar, and the next person said they felt too confined when they had to work within parameters that they set for themselves. Thus, before you take on any new strategies, it's important to consider your own needs and your own style. How do you work best? When do you work most effectively? What environment do you prefer for your work? etc.
Have a system
An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education last week was authored by a tenured faculty member who was in a rather unique position of having gone through tenure twice (he was tenured at one institution and then took an Assistant Professorship at another institution). He contrasts his disorganization when going for tenure the first time with the system he set up the second time. In the latter, he used Evernote and other technology to really streamline his process. The key point in this article is that whether you are tech-savvy or prefer using your scheduling book, develop and stick to a system of organization that works for you.
Front-loading teaching
One idea shared at yesterday's lunch was that of front-loading your teaching. One tenured faculty member mentioned that when it came time for her to write her book, she worked with her Chair and Dean to teach all of her courses (four) in the Fall and then to have the Spring to focus on her book. Another newly tenured faculty member did something similar but taught most courses in the Fall and only one in the Spring.
Block 40% of your work time for research
One thing we notice in our office is that oftentimes new faculty put their research on the back burner for their first semester teaching as they develop their new courses and get into the teaching groove. The problem comes when faculty are slow to move their research back to the front burner quick enough. One faculty member mentioned that because she knew that 40% of her time was supposed to be dedicated to her research, she would block two days a week on her calendar to focus solely on her research. In this way, she made sure that it didn't fall to the wayside.
Some of these ideas, I hadn't heard before yesterday, but I thought they were creative solutions to time management. Going back to being mindful, some of these strategies may work for some faculty members, but not others. But, as we near the end of the year, it's important to step back and make sure that you're setting yourself up to accomplish your goals.
Resources
How Tech Tools Can Help Professors Prepare Their Tenure Portfolios - The Chronicle of Higher Ed
Friday, December 4, 2015
Writing for the Layperson
I read a draft op-ed piece this week by a brilliant academic who used both the words: venerable and somnolent in not only the first sentence, but the first clause. Now, I probably shouldn't admit this, but I headed to the dictionary on somnolent and double-checked what I understood was the definition for venerable while I was there. My point is not that I have a lackluster vocabulary. Rather, I fall pretty firmly into the "intelligent layperson" category for most of the pieces I read as a professional in research development. So, when I can't get through the first sentence of a piece that's intended for the lay audience, there's likely some work to do on the part of the writer.
As we near the end of the year, I wanted to return to one of our more popular blog topics: writing for the layperson, if for no other reason than to help prepare you to move from your very technical and scholarly writing to writing your end-of-year family newsletter.
Make it useful
Back in tech-writing school, technical writing was defined as writing for a purpose, and more specifically, writing to be useful. Meaning to transition to technical writing is to take yourself out of the equation (you're not writing for your own edification anymore) and focusing on writing that will be useful to the reader. The first thing to do is understand what your reader is using your writing for. If you're writing a grant proposal, your audience is at least in part your reviewers. So, who are your reviewers? Are they experts? In your specific field? After figuring out who they are, realize that they likely want to skim your application initially to get an understanding of what it's all about. So, how navigable is your piece? Are you using clear and consistent headings? Are you organizing your writing in a way to make your grant "useful?"
Start with what they know
If you're writing a technical piece for the layperson, begin with both things they are familiar with and things that matter to them to draw them in. Talk about the big picture and possible impact that your research will create. Explain in plain language why your work is important and what difference it will make. When you're addressing the "who cares?" question, make sure you explain why they, the readers, should care as well.
Use examples that will resonate
As you move into the more technical nitty gritty of your document, let your reader come up for air every so often by providing an example or a metaphor with which they will be familiar. Having just completed a statistics course, it's amazing how useful it is to have my instructor show a picture of the curvilinear relationship we're studying or offering an example of interpreting an odds ratio. These teaching practices can really be put to good use in your own technical writing. If you equate the intended use of your grant proposal with the learning outcome for a class, you can then start breaking down your subject matter in such a way that it gets your reader to your intended outcome in the same way you instruct a learner.
Going, back to my original example, I don't mean to be a fancy-word-hater, even if I am a Technical Writer. Think how much smarter I am now that I can start describing things as venerable or somnolent! But, if you're going to wax poetic in your piece, make sure there is a good reason for the reader's sake. Make sure that you're really using the best word(s), and that your reader's potential trip to the dictionary will be worth it. Or, better yet, use the fancy word(s) in such a way that their meaning is obvious, so those readers who are too lazy to look it up can still stay with you.
Resources:
The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing - MIT
Writing a Layperson Summary - UNC, Charlotte
As we near the end of the year, I wanted to return to one of our more popular blog topics: writing for the layperson, if for no other reason than to help prepare you to move from your very technical and scholarly writing to writing your end-of-year family newsletter.
Make it useful
Back in tech-writing school, technical writing was defined as writing for a purpose, and more specifically, writing to be useful. Meaning to transition to technical writing is to take yourself out of the equation (you're not writing for your own edification anymore) and focusing on writing that will be useful to the reader. The first thing to do is understand what your reader is using your writing for. If you're writing a grant proposal, your audience is at least in part your reviewers. So, who are your reviewers? Are they experts? In your specific field? After figuring out who they are, realize that they likely want to skim your application initially to get an understanding of what it's all about. So, how navigable is your piece? Are you using clear and consistent headings? Are you organizing your writing in a way to make your grant "useful?"
Start with what they know
If you're writing a technical piece for the layperson, begin with both things they are familiar with and things that matter to them to draw them in. Talk about the big picture and possible impact that your research will create. Explain in plain language why your work is important and what difference it will make. When you're addressing the "who cares?" question, make sure you explain why they, the readers, should care as well.
Use examples that will resonate
As you move into the more technical nitty gritty of your document, let your reader come up for air every so often by providing an example or a metaphor with which they will be familiar. Having just completed a statistics course, it's amazing how useful it is to have my instructor show a picture of the curvilinear relationship we're studying or offering an example of interpreting an odds ratio. These teaching practices can really be put to good use in your own technical writing. If you equate the intended use of your grant proposal with the learning outcome for a class, you can then start breaking down your subject matter in such a way that it gets your reader to your intended outcome in the same way you instruct a learner.
Going, back to my original example, I don't mean to be a fancy-word-hater, even if I am a Technical Writer. Think how much smarter I am now that I can start describing things as venerable or somnolent! But, if you're going to wax poetic in your piece, make sure there is a good reason for the reader's sake. Make sure that you're really using the best word(s), and that your reader's potential trip to the dictionary will be worth it. Or, better yet, use the fancy word(s) in such a way that their meaning is obvious, so those readers who are too lazy to look it up can still stay with you.
Resources:
The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing - MIT
Writing a Layperson Summary - UNC, Charlotte
Friday, November 20, 2015
Giving Thanks (and getting grants)
In this Thanksgiving season, if you currently have a grant, you're probably grateful for that grant. If you've received a recent rejection, you may feel less so. However, whatever camp you're in, giving thanks in a variety of grant development situations can be an opportunity for you to further your case for eventual funding.
When we think about the relationship-building side of the grant development process, saying thank you and following up with a Program Officer (PO) gives you a chance to put your name and your work in front of the PO again in a positive light (everyone likes a thank you). Even when you are not funded and receive feedback from reviewers, email your PO to discuss those comments, but start that email with a "thank you" for the agency taking the time to thoughtfully review your grant. And, again, after you discuss reviewer comments, follow up with another "thank you" for the PO's time.
This may seem like overkill, but did you know that there is a field and science to the follow-up and thank yous for people who give you money? In higher education and the nonprofit world, we call this stewardship. The idea behind this field is the follow-up with a donor after they've made a gift to not only thank them, but also to begin moving them or "stewarding" them toward making a next (hopefully larger) gift.
You may think that comparing an official at a grant-making agency with an individual donor to a charity as apples and oranges. However, I think there are some donor stewardship ideas that apply to relationship-building with POs.
Donors want to know the gift was received and appreciated. Oftentimes, your PO is the one to let you know that you've been funded. So they know that you know that you're funded. But, again, don't miss the opportunity to say thank you and show your gratitude and your excitement to pursue your project. Also, it's good to bear in mind that grant making agencies and their POs do see themselves as investors in you and your project, and in that way, they want to be acknowledged and kept in the loop.
Donors want to know their money is being used for its intended purpose. POs want to know the agency's money is being used for its intended purpose. Remember those pesky reports you are required to submit annually or bi-annually? Those reports are actually a great opportunity for you to steward your PO. Write a report that demonstrates your gratitude and your excitement around what you're able to do with your grant. In a recent ORDE seminar, Timberley Roane, Associate Professor in Integrative Biology, described how at a conference she attended, a PO came up to her and just said "Thank you!" He was so appreciative for her diligence to send reports on time that she stood out from her colleagues in this way.
Additionally, when you receive any press on your research, especially your funded research, be sure to forward to your PO with a quick thank you. Also, be sure to acknowledge the agency in any recognition or press that you receive. Granting agencies are essential to accomplishing research in this day and age, so bear this in mind, and when there is an opportunity, give thanks!
Resources:
Stewardship - More than a Thank-You - Blog by Michael Rosen
Million Dollar Donors - Presentation by Shelley Henry, Debbie Meyers, and Kristin Sullivan
When we think about the relationship-building side of the grant development process, saying thank you and following up with a Program Officer (PO) gives you a chance to put your name and your work in front of the PO again in a positive light (everyone likes a thank you). Even when you are not funded and receive feedback from reviewers, email your PO to discuss those comments, but start that email with a "thank you" for the agency taking the time to thoughtfully review your grant. And, again, after you discuss reviewer comments, follow up with another "thank you" for the PO's time.
This may seem like overkill, but did you know that there is a field and science to the follow-up and thank yous for people who give you money? In higher education and the nonprofit world, we call this stewardship. The idea behind this field is the follow-up with a donor after they've made a gift to not only thank them, but also to begin moving them or "stewarding" them toward making a next (hopefully larger) gift.
You may think that comparing an official at a grant-making agency with an individual donor to a charity as apples and oranges. However, I think there are some donor stewardship ideas that apply to relationship-building with POs.
Donors want to know the gift was received and appreciated. Oftentimes, your PO is the one to let you know that you've been funded. So they know that you know that you're funded. But, again, don't miss the opportunity to say thank you and show your gratitude and your excitement to pursue your project. Also, it's good to bear in mind that grant making agencies and their POs do see themselves as investors in you and your project, and in that way, they want to be acknowledged and kept in the loop.
Donors want to know their money is being used for its intended purpose. POs want to know the agency's money is being used for its intended purpose. Remember those pesky reports you are required to submit annually or bi-annually? Those reports are actually a great opportunity for you to steward your PO. Write a report that demonstrates your gratitude and your excitement around what you're able to do with your grant. In a recent ORDE seminar, Timberley Roane, Associate Professor in Integrative Biology, described how at a conference she attended, a PO came up to her and just said "Thank you!" He was so appreciative for her diligence to send reports on time that she stood out from her colleagues in this way.
Additionally, when you receive any press on your research, especially your funded research, be sure to forward to your PO with a quick thank you. Also, be sure to acknowledge the agency in any recognition or press that you receive. Granting agencies are essential to accomplishing research in this day and age, so bear this in mind, and when there is an opportunity, give thanks!
Resources:
Stewardship - More than a Thank-You - Blog by Michael Rosen
Million Dollar Donors - Presentation by Shelley Henry, Debbie Meyers, and Kristin Sullivan
Friday, November 13, 2015
What do Program Officers Say?
Last month, I polled former National Science Foundation (NSF) Program Officers (PO) about how they wanted PIs to work with them and reach out to them. Below is a summary of those responses. Although all of these folks had been NSF POs, their insights can be applied to working with POs more generally, especially at the federal level.
Here are the questions and responses from our POs:
What is the best way to reach out to a PO?
Resources:
The Role of Program Officers (NIH) - Timothy Gondre-Lewis
Here are the questions and responses from our POs:
What is the best way to reach out to a PO?
- email a one-two pager (3)
- Set up a phone call (2)
- Arrange a face-to-face visit (2)
- Be persistent (2)
- Find another PO (2)
- Not much you can do (1)
- Send them projects interesting to them (2)
- Visit the PO (1)
- Invite them to your campus (1)
- Be concise in your communications (1)
- Don't request funding for the same old thing (2)
- Don't cold call (1)
- Ask to be on a review panel (1)
Resources:
The Role of Program Officers (NIH) - Timothy Gondre-Lewis
Friday, October 30, 2015
Planning for Sabbatical Funding
Most faculty who take their first sabbatical do so right after they receive tenure. At CU, tenured faculty are eligible for a sabbatical after six years of service. Although it makes sense that faculty are given a time to refresh right after a herculean effort to earn tenure, because it happens so close to the award of tenure, faculty are often ill-prepared for their sabbatical when it comes to funding.
At CU, faculty applying for sabbatical are eligible for one semester off at full-pay or two semesters off at half-pay. Many who plan to take off one academic year seek funding to help cover salary and other expenses. Yet, many of the fellowships and funds designed for sabbaticals must have applications submitted at least a year in advance of funding. Thus, if faculty wait to look for and apply for sabbatical funding once they've received tenure, oftentimes they've missed out on some opportunities.
It may feel strange to be planning for your sabbatical when you're still in the throes of going up for tenure. But, considering that those you're competing with for sabbatical funding are likely in the same boat, planning ahead, can give you an edge. Another consideration, if you are too pressed in pulling together your dossier for tenure review, is postponing your sabbatical for a semester or two to give you a chance to search and apply for funding to allow for a full sabbatical. Other sabbatical-planning faculty include more seasoned Associate Professors or Professors who are once again eligible, and sabbaticals can sneak up on these folks too.
Sabbatical funding can come in many different forms. Oftentimes, it is in the form of a fellowship or residency, allowing for you to get away from it all to do your work in a new space. Or, it can allow you to develop a new skill. Some sabbatical funding opportunities allow you to work at and/or with federal agency staff on new projects using their data and resources.
While many faculty going on sabbatical think about starting or writing a book, there are a limited number of opportunities that will fund you to do that outright. But, if you can make a case for a fellowship or the need to travel and/or collaborate in conjunction with a book project, there may be greater opportunity.
When it comes to sabbatical funding, the most important thing to remember is to start early, and probably even earlier than you think is early. To get started, use the link below to start digging through our e-book on Sabbatical funding!
Resources:
Sabbatical Funding e-book - ORDE
Five Steps to a Successful Sabbatical - Science Careers
At CU, faculty applying for sabbatical are eligible for one semester off at full-pay or two semesters off at half-pay. Many who plan to take off one academic year seek funding to help cover salary and other expenses. Yet, many of the fellowships and funds designed for sabbaticals must have applications submitted at least a year in advance of funding. Thus, if faculty wait to look for and apply for sabbatical funding once they've received tenure, oftentimes they've missed out on some opportunities.
It may feel strange to be planning for your sabbatical when you're still in the throes of going up for tenure. But, considering that those you're competing with for sabbatical funding are likely in the same boat, planning ahead, can give you an edge. Another consideration, if you are too pressed in pulling together your dossier for tenure review, is postponing your sabbatical for a semester or two to give you a chance to search and apply for funding to allow for a full sabbatical. Other sabbatical-planning faculty include more seasoned Associate Professors or Professors who are once again eligible, and sabbaticals can sneak up on these folks too.
Sabbatical funding can come in many different forms. Oftentimes, it is in the form of a fellowship or residency, allowing for you to get away from it all to do your work in a new space. Or, it can allow you to develop a new skill. Some sabbatical funding opportunities allow you to work at and/or with federal agency staff on new projects using their data and resources.
While many faculty going on sabbatical think about starting or writing a book, there are a limited number of opportunities that will fund you to do that outright. But, if you can make a case for a fellowship or the need to travel and/or collaborate in conjunction with a book project, there may be greater opportunity.
When it comes to sabbatical funding, the most important thing to remember is to start early, and probably even earlier than you think is early. To get started, use the link below to start digging through our e-book on Sabbatical funding!
Resources:
Sabbatical Funding e-book - ORDE
Five Steps to a Successful Sabbatical - Science Careers
Friday, October 23, 2015
NIH Grant Application Updates
This week the NIH announced upcoming changes to their grant application process. These changes fall in the following areas:
Research rigor/transparency: Seemingly responding to concern over recent reports showing the low rate that research is able to be reproduced, the NIH is asking for more specifics in the significance and approach sections in grant applications that allude to the rigor and transparency of the project. Additionally, reviewers will be asked to consider new criteria to this effect in study section.
Font requirements: The NIH is becoming more flexible on the fonts accepted in grant applications, but they still offer recommended fonts. Before you go crazy with a nice Brush Script font, remember the expectations of your reviewers. Although font may seem like a small thing, when your reviewers are used to seeing a particular font, and have written their grants in that same font, they may find a new font a bit irksome. We'd recommend staying with NIH's recommended fonts even if you don't have to.
Biosketch clarifications: After the NIH updated their biosketch format earlier this year, these clarifications offer a little more information as to what they're looking for. For instance the link that you're allowed to include for your publication list needs to link to a .gov site, like My Bibliography. Publications and research products can be discussed in both the personal statement and in the contributions to science sections of your biosketch. Also, as many folks are still trying to figure out "what counts" as a research product, the NIH is making explicit that no graphics, charts, etc. are allowed in the biosketch (so although you could describe any of these as a research product, do not include the image itself).
The larger changes will be applied in a phased approach, with the first being implemented in January 2016. If you're working on an NIH grant or plan to start soon, be sure to read through these updates!
Resources:
NIH Notice
- Research rigor/transparency
- Vertebrate animals
- Inclusion reporting
- Data safety monitoring
- Research training
- Appendices
- Font requirements
- Biosketch clarifications
Research rigor/transparency: Seemingly responding to concern over recent reports showing the low rate that research is able to be reproduced, the NIH is asking for more specifics in the significance and approach sections in grant applications that allude to the rigor and transparency of the project. Additionally, reviewers will be asked to consider new criteria to this effect in study section.
Font requirements: The NIH is becoming more flexible on the fonts accepted in grant applications, but they still offer recommended fonts. Before you go crazy with a nice Brush Script font, remember the expectations of your reviewers. Although font may seem like a small thing, when your reviewers are used to seeing a particular font, and have written their grants in that same font, they may find a new font a bit irksome. We'd recommend staying with NIH's recommended fonts even if you don't have to.
Biosketch clarifications: After the NIH updated their biosketch format earlier this year, these clarifications offer a little more information as to what they're looking for. For instance the link that you're allowed to include for your publication list needs to link to a .gov site, like My Bibliography. Publications and research products can be discussed in both the personal statement and in the contributions to science sections of your biosketch. Also, as many folks are still trying to figure out "what counts" as a research product, the NIH is making explicit that no graphics, charts, etc. are allowed in the biosketch (so although you could describe any of these as a research product, do not include the image itself).
The larger changes will be applied in a phased approach, with the first being implemented in January 2016. If you're working on an NIH grant or plan to start soon, be sure to read through these updates!
Resources:
NIH Notice
Friday, October 16, 2015
Emailing Agencies
As ORDE is preparing for our October seminars on Working with Program Officers, I've noticed the questions from PI's about reaching out to PO's or agencies in general. Reaching out may seem like a simple thing to do, but as we've seen many researchers and scholars are hesitant.
Robert Porter in his article, "Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers" (2009), suggests that this hesitancy lies in academics being more used to the lack of relationships they have with journal editors or even those universities to which they apply for tenure track positions. It would, of course, be inappropriate to contact an editor to see what you could do to get your article published. And, at the University of Colorado (CU), hiring authorities are not allowed to speak to potential applicants about open jobs anyway.
For these reasons, researchers sometimes think that it is cheating to reach out to agencies and their PO's. Yet, in a recent poll of former NSF PO's at CU, all responding PO's emphasized the importance of PI's reaching out to make sure the grants they are developing are in line with the agency's priorities.
Given this importance, below are some tips from PO's and research development professionals on initially reaching out to PO's.
Start early
PO's are busy people, but they get even busier as they approach grant deadlines or as we approach the end of the fiscal year, so make sure that you are preparing early and reaching out at a time when a PO isn't up to his or her ears in questions, requests, and grants.
Do your homework
Before you reach out to an agency in any form, make sure you know about that agency. Be familiar with their website, their mission, how they are organized, and who you should contact. If you are responding to a program announcement (PA), make sure that you've read it several times. Nothing makes you look unprepared as asking a question that is answered in a PA or the website.
Send an email
When you're ready, send an email to who you think is the appropriate PO. Make the email short. Introduce yourself (are you an early career investigator? have you received an award from the agency previously?) and give a quick description of your project (3-5 sentences). Use your subject line to describe why you're reaching out and keep it short. Something like "Scheduling phone call?" or "Request for feedback" let's the PO quickly know why you're contacting them. Lastly, make sure that there is a call-to-action in your email. This is usually a request for a brief phone call to discuss your project.
Send a one/two-pager
Some PO's at some agencies are ready for you to send a one-pager in your first email, but if you're unsure about it, you can send the email outlined above, but you want to have that project description in your back pocket. One PI told us about her reaching out to a PO and discussing her project only for the PO to ask her to send along her one-pager. The PI spent the rest of the afternoon and night putting together a project description (she hadn't written it yet).
Schedule a call
Usually, when first emailing, you're trying to schedule a call. But, in doing that, you want to remember that although you are busy, the PO is also busy and you are the one that needs to be flexible. You're asking for their time after all. Give them some times/days and ask if anything would work for a call.
Follow-up
If a week goes by and you haven't heard anything, send another brief email "checking in" on your last note. Be polite and friendly, refer to your previous message, and ask again to schedule a call. Even if a PO is slow to respond to your outreach, do not be slow to respond to them. When they ask for a one-pager, send it within 24 hours, and in your follow-ups, always thank them for their time and note next steps. Anything discussed or agreed to by phone, briefly restate them. For instance if the PO said they would put you in touch with another PO, in your follow-up email, say something to the effect of "Thank you so much for reaching out to Dr. X on my behalf; I look forward to following up with her."
I want to leave you with a caveat: there are no hard and fast rules to reaching out to PO's. You must adjust all of the advice above based on the agency you're reaching out to. When doing your homework on the agency, it's a good idea to find someone at your university who has worked with that agency before to give you some insight on their preferences. But, don't let the unknown keep you from reaching out.
Resources
How do I approach a foundation...? - grantspace.org
What to say-and not say- to Program Officers - Chronicle of Higher Education
Robert Porter in his article, "Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers" (2009), suggests that this hesitancy lies in academics being more used to the lack of relationships they have with journal editors or even those universities to which they apply for tenure track positions. It would, of course, be inappropriate to contact an editor to see what you could do to get your article published. And, at the University of Colorado (CU), hiring authorities are not allowed to speak to potential applicants about open jobs anyway.
For these reasons, researchers sometimes think that it is cheating to reach out to agencies and their PO's. Yet, in a recent poll of former NSF PO's at CU, all responding PO's emphasized the importance of PI's reaching out to make sure the grants they are developing are in line with the agency's priorities.
Given this importance, below are some tips from PO's and research development professionals on initially reaching out to PO's.
Start early
PO's are busy people, but they get even busier as they approach grant deadlines or as we approach the end of the fiscal year, so make sure that you are preparing early and reaching out at a time when a PO isn't up to his or her ears in questions, requests, and grants.
Do your homework
Before you reach out to an agency in any form, make sure you know about that agency. Be familiar with their website, their mission, how they are organized, and who you should contact. If you are responding to a program announcement (PA), make sure that you've read it several times. Nothing makes you look unprepared as asking a question that is answered in a PA or the website.
Send an email
When you're ready, send an email to who you think is the appropriate PO. Make the email short. Introduce yourself (are you an early career investigator? have you received an award from the agency previously?) and give a quick description of your project (3-5 sentences). Use your subject line to describe why you're reaching out and keep it short. Something like "Scheduling phone call?" or "Request for feedback" let's the PO quickly know why you're contacting them. Lastly, make sure that there is a call-to-action in your email. This is usually a request for a brief phone call to discuss your project.
Send a one/two-pager
Some PO's at some agencies are ready for you to send a one-pager in your first email, but if you're unsure about it, you can send the email outlined above, but you want to have that project description in your back pocket. One PI told us about her reaching out to a PO and discussing her project only for the PO to ask her to send along her one-pager. The PI spent the rest of the afternoon and night putting together a project description (she hadn't written it yet).
Schedule a call
Usually, when first emailing, you're trying to schedule a call. But, in doing that, you want to remember that although you are busy, the PO is also busy and you are the one that needs to be flexible. You're asking for their time after all. Give them some times/days and ask if anything would work for a call.
Follow-up
If a week goes by and you haven't heard anything, send another brief email "checking in" on your last note. Be polite and friendly, refer to your previous message, and ask again to schedule a call. Even if a PO is slow to respond to your outreach, do not be slow to respond to them. When they ask for a one-pager, send it within 24 hours, and in your follow-ups, always thank them for their time and note next steps. Anything discussed or agreed to by phone, briefly restate them. For instance if the PO said they would put you in touch with another PO, in your follow-up email, say something to the effect of "Thank you so much for reaching out to Dr. X on my behalf; I look forward to following up with her."
I want to leave you with a caveat: there are no hard and fast rules to reaching out to PO's. You must adjust all of the advice above based on the agency you're reaching out to. When doing your homework on the agency, it's a good idea to find someone at your university who has worked with that agency before to give you some insight on their preferences. But, don't let the unknown keep you from reaching out.
Resources
How do I approach a foundation...? - grantspace.org
What to say-and not say- to Program Officers - Chronicle of Higher Education
Friday, October 9, 2015
Flip the Script: Think Like a Reviewer
I've noticed that our more seasoned faculty researchers all seem to share one recommendation for early career investigators, and that is to serve on a review panel. This can be a bit tricky for very new investigators as some agencies prefer to have previous grant awardees on their review panels. If you are a bit green to be selected as a reviewer, volunteering to be a reviewer can give you another good reason to reach out to a Program Officer to introduce yourself and offer your service.
In the meantime, it can be a worthwhile exercise to practice thinking like a reviewer to get some insight into their experience and what they're looking for. Use the following questions to get started:
What excites you?
In your field, what would you be looking for in the next great project? And, where would you expect to find that information in a grant? Hint: You'd want the exciting stuff right upfront!
What makes a grant clear and easy to read?
Think about any grants or other technical documents you've seen in your field. In the ones that were clear and useful, what did the author(s) do? Was there a clear abstract or some sort of orientation to the document? Were the headings clear and consistent? Were the sentences straightforward and in active voice? All of these things can make a grant much easier to read and clearer!
What annoys you?
On the flipside, think of a grant or document that was terrible to read and perhaps irksome. Maybe this was a student paper or a report. But, why was it so annoying? Did they leave out key information when you needed it? Were things hard to find? Did you have to read two pages before you understood what the author was getting at? All of these can make a grant hard to read, as well as give you a negative perspective toward the PI.
What flaws would you look for/expect?
As a researcher in your field, what are the givens and inexcusable problems that you would make sure were not in a grant that you endorsed? What things about the PI would sway you one way or another? What experience should they have? How many pubs should they have? Of course, no one is a master at everything, so it's important to have collaborators for the areas in which you are weaker.
What would it take for you to advocate for a PI and their grant?
Going back to the first question, and considering the rest, what would it really take for you to put your reputation on the line to advocate for a PI and their grant? What would be exciting enough and what would make the project solid enough that you would want to build a case for that person and argue it with your colleagues?
Considering these questions and the experience of the reviewer can give you a new angle to consider for your grant. Are you capitalizing on what reviewers would see as strengths? Are you avoiding things that might drive them nuts? How can you easily convey the power and urgency of your project so that they are compelled to join you by advocating for your project?
Resources:
Learning from Peer Review - The Scientist
What do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter
In the meantime, it can be a worthwhile exercise to practice thinking like a reviewer to get some insight into their experience and what they're looking for. Use the following questions to get started:
What excites you?
In your field, what would you be looking for in the next great project? And, where would you expect to find that information in a grant? Hint: You'd want the exciting stuff right upfront!
What makes a grant clear and easy to read?
Think about any grants or other technical documents you've seen in your field. In the ones that were clear and useful, what did the author(s) do? Was there a clear abstract or some sort of orientation to the document? Were the headings clear and consistent? Were the sentences straightforward and in active voice? All of these things can make a grant much easier to read and clearer!
What annoys you?
On the flipside, think of a grant or document that was terrible to read and perhaps irksome. Maybe this was a student paper or a report. But, why was it so annoying? Did they leave out key information when you needed it? Were things hard to find? Did you have to read two pages before you understood what the author was getting at? All of these can make a grant hard to read, as well as give you a negative perspective toward the PI.
What flaws would you look for/expect?
As a researcher in your field, what are the givens and inexcusable problems that you would make sure were not in a grant that you endorsed? What things about the PI would sway you one way or another? What experience should they have? How many pubs should they have? Of course, no one is a master at everything, so it's important to have collaborators for the areas in which you are weaker.
What would it take for you to advocate for a PI and their grant?
Going back to the first question, and considering the rest, what would it really take for you to put your reputation on the line to advocate for a PI and their grant? What would be exciting enough and what would make the project solid enough that you would want to build a case for that person and argue it with your colleagues?
Considering these questions and the experience of the reviewer can give you a new angle to consider for your grant. Are you capitalizing on what reviewers would see as strengths? Are you avoiding things that might drive them nuts? How can you easily convey the power and urgency of your project so that they are compelled to join you by advocating for your project?
Resources:
Learning from Peer Review - The Scientist
What do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Five Things to Know About the NIH Review Process
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at the NIH offers a variety of resources for applicants trying to better understand the NIH peer review process. Below, we offer five pieces of information to better familiarize you with the process, but encourage you to explore the CSR site and resources using the links below.
1. Levels of review
When you submit an application to the NIH, the CSR assigns it to a study section (which you can request in your cover letter). The second level of review conducted by the NIH Institute/Center Council looks at the application's alignment with the institute's mission and goals. See the CSR graphic below that illustrates the process.
2. Who sets priorities?
NIH priorities are set by the scientific community, congress, and other industry, patient, and public representatives.
3. Your Early Career Investigator status
For new and early career investigators submitting applications to the NIH, your status is formally taken into account for R01s and considered for other applications as well.
4. The core review criteria
The core review criteria that NIH uses to assess its applications are:
In the peer review process, reviewers score applications on a scale of 1-9 where the lower the score, the better. Receiving a 1 means exceptional and receiving a 9 means poor.
Continue learning about the NIH peer review process through the CSR site and resources, accessible through these links:
Resources:
Peer Review Site* - CSR
Insider's Guide to Peer Review for Applicants* - CSR
* When you click the links, you may be asked for credentials, but when you hit "cancel," you should be directed to the site.
1. Levels of review
When you submit an application to the NIH, the CSR assigns it to a study section (which you can request in your cover letter). The second level of review conducted by the NIH Institute/Center Council looks at the application's alignment with the institute's mission and goals. See the CSR graphic below that illustrates the process.
2. Who sets priorities?
NIH priorities are set by the scientific community, congress, and other industry, patient, and public representatives.
3. Your Early Career Investigator status
For new and early career investigators submitting applications to the NIH, your status is formally taken into account for R01s and considered for other applications as well.
4. The core review criteria
The core review criteria that NIH uses to assess its applications are:
- Significance
- Investigator(s)
- Innovation
- Approach
- Environment
In the peer review process, reviewers score applications on a scale of 1-9 where the lower the score, the better. Receiving a 1 means exceptional and receiving a 9 means poor.
Continue learning about the NIH peer review process through the CSR site and resources, accessible through these links:
Resources:
Peer Review Site* - CSR
Insider's Guide to Peer Review for Applicants* - CSR
* When you click the links, you may be asked for credentials, but when you hit "cancel," you should be directed to the site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)