Grant Reviews: Making your project better?

This week we held our second seminar on Grant Resubmissions on the Denver campus. Dr. John Swallow spoke to our group about how he approaches resubmissions. And although, the thought of needing to write and re-write your grant is enough to make anyone melancholy, Dr. Swallow had a different perspective.

He told us that someone had once told him that on average a PI must submit a grant four times to be funded by the NSF.  Dr. Swallow, Professor and Chair of Integrative Biology, embraced that statistic, whereas others might have decided it wasn't worth submitting in the first place with those chances.  Dr. Swallow submitted his CAREER grant to the NSF all three times before it was funded on the third application. But because he expected the need to resubmit, Dr. Swallow worked to use the feedback he received from reviewers to improve not only his grant, but his CAREER project. This meant that when he was finally funded, the project that he carried out was much better than what he would have done had his first CAREER application been funded.

We've all heard the adage: feedback is a gift. Yet we oftentimes do not feel like we've received a gift when someone has constructive criticism for us. Although Dr. Swallow talked about the positive approach he takes to reviewer comments and resubmissions, he also talked about his frustration when he hears that he has not been funded.

A couple of weeks ago, our blog focused on deciding to resubmit, and we suggested talking to your Program Officer as you make that decision.  Yet, you want to make sure that before you talk to your PO that you have let go of your frustration so that you don't inadvertently take it out on your PO - that would be a bad move.  It doesn't do you any good for a PO or any colleague to have a bad taste in their mouths about you when they're reviewing your grant because you vented your frustration to them in a moment of weakness.

Similarly, when you respond to reviewer comments, you want to make sure that you keep a positive tone, reminding reviewers of what they liked about your grant (if they're the same reviewers) or telling your new reviewers what the first group liked about your grant.  Although you can't be in the room when reviewers discuss your grant, you want to do everything you can to set a positive and excited tone around your project.  If you're frustrated and defensive, even a great grant won't fair as well.

Social Psychologist, Amy Cuddy, studies how behavior can influence thinking and attitudes, and in her Ted Talk she discusses how you can not only "fake it till you make it" when you're not feeling confident, you can fake it till you become it. So, in acting confident (even when you don't feel it), you can trick yourself and everyone else into believing.

I think this principle can be translated into grant resubmissions. Even if you are feeling bad about your grant when it's not funded, by "faking" enthusiasm and excitement to improve your grant, you can not only convince your reviewers of this excitement in the next round, you can actually make your project even better, just like Dr. Swallow has done.