This week my little brother emailed me a one-page write-up for a small funding application and asked me to give him some feedback. I opened the document and started reading. It all looked pretty good. He was making a case for himself as to why he should be funded. But, as I started to think about my feedback, I was reminded of the cardinal rules of grant-writing that really must be followed any time you're asking for money (including in my brother's application).
Below are the rules:
Know the funding agency
First thing's first. You must know who your overarching audience is. Why is this agency in existence? What are they trying to do? What's their mission? What elements are prioritized in their strategic plan? Certainly, a program announcement will give you specific details on what the particular program is about, but how does this program fit into the agency's larger vision?
Understand what they want
Along with understanding what an agency is about is understanding what they want. Are they trying to cure cancer or invest in cultural activities? If so, how? What have they funded previously that can give you additional insight into what they want after you've read the program announcement?
Know their criteria and reviewers
Certainly, it is important to know what criteria they are judging your application on and for you to spell out how you meet that criteria explicitly, including using the same language that the agency uses in its program announcement and its other communications. Be crystal clear about where in your application you are responding to what. Remember that tired reviewers want your project served to them on a silver platter - that means it's clear, succinct, and easy to read. Also, in addition to understanding your agency, it's important to also understand your reviewers. Are they all researchers like you? Are there lay people? Family members of the founder? Consumers of whatever research you're producing? The better a sense you have of who you're writing for, the better you can write for them.
Describe why they should fund you
Once you're clear on who you're trying to convince to fund you, you then need to craft your case in terms of why you and your project are the best possible fit for their funding. Of course it's important to showcase the impact and ingenuity of your project, but you also have to impress upon the agency and the reviewers why you/your team are the best possible people to carry out the amazing project.
All of this discussion boils down to the most important element in grant-writing - writing for your audience. You cannot do this unless you first understand who your audience is and what they want. This seems like a basic principle, but it's amazing how often it is ignored or set aside until the last minute when it is really the very foundation of good grant-writing.
Resources:
Know Your Audience - NIAID
Know Your Audience - InsideHigherEd
Apologies to my brother, who unbeknownst to him inspired this week's blog. :)
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Top Ten Frequently Made Mistakes (in grants)
As a grant developer's tribute to David Letterman's final days on the Late Show, I thought I'd offer my own top ten list of common mistakes grant writers make:
10. They are overly technical
Although, many grant reviewers will be experts in your discipline, depending on the agency, you're likely to have some reviewers who are not as familiar with your specific research area. Because of this, it's wise to cut down on jargon and overly technical descriptions of your project.
9. They offer too much detail
When writing a grant, it's important to offer reviewers enough detail on your project so that they can understand it and get a sense as to whether it's do-able, but you don't want to give them more than that. You have limited space to make your case, so cut out extra details in favor of making your overall argument more compelling.
8. Graphics are not readable
A picture is worth a thousand words (as they say), but not if you can't understand it. When using graphics in your grant, make sure they look professional, are clear and easy to understand, and are referenced in the body of your grant.
7. There is no white space
Even though most grant writers find it difficult to fit their ideas into grant page limits, it's a bad idea to cram in as much text as you can. You want your grant to be as visually appealing as possible and appropriate white space and break up of ideas make your grant easier to read.
6. They are poorly organized
Although many writers get started by just writing and brainstorming, make sure at some point you step back from your free writing and craft an outline for your grant to make sure your final proposal is clear and logical.
5. The narrative is not compelling
Although researchers' projects are incredibly exciting to them, it's important to take the time to understand what makes the research exciting and what might make it especially exciting to the agency to which you're applying? Remember to focus on what's most important to your audience.
4. The aims/objectives are not clear
Certainly, you must be crystal clear on your research objectives before crafting a grant, but even when you are, it's a good idea to vet your aims or objectives with your peers, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure they are equally clear to your reviewers.
3. They submit at the deadline
Grants take a lot of work and a lot of time. So, it's not uncommon for applicants to be putting their final submission together at the last minute. However, doing this puts you at great risk. Systems go down and errors pop up, and you don't want to lose your shot at funding over a minutes-late submission.
2. They don't fit with the agency's mission
The grants climate is competitive. You may have heard the saying, "flat is the new up" in reference to federal granting agency budgets. Because of this, only the grants that are a perfect fit for an agency's mission, vision, and approach will have a chance of being funded.
1. They do not read the program announcement
It may seem weird that this is the number one suggestion. Yet, as Robert Porter found in 2009, 60% of grants are not even reviewed because they are a poor fit or they do not follow directions. And, anecdotally, we frequently come across PI's who are well into writing their grant and have not yet read the agency's program announcement.
Resources:
The Grant Development Lifecycle - NORDP 2015 Presentation
What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter
10. They are overly technical
Although, many grant reviewers will be experts in your discipline, depending on the agency, you're likely to have some reviewers who are not as familiar with your specific research area. Because of this, it's wise to cut down on jargon and overly technical descriptions of your project.
9. They offer too much detail
When writing a grant, it's important to offer reviewers enough detail on your project so that they can understand it and get a sense as to whether it's do-able, but you don't want to give them more than that. You have limited space to make your case, so cut out extra details in favor of making your overall argument more compelling.
8. Graphics are not readable
A picture is worth a thousand words (as they say), but not if you can't understand it. When using graphics in your grant, make sure they look professional, are clear and easy to understand, and are referenced in the body of your grant.
7. There is no white space
Even though most grant writers find it difficult to fit their ideas into grant page limits, it's a bad idea to cram in as much text as you can. You want your grant to be as visually appealing as possible and appropriate white space and break up of ideas make your grant easier to read.
6. They are poorly organized
Although many writers get started by just writing and brainstorming, make sure at some point you step back from your free writing and craft an outline for your grant to make sure your final proposal is clear and logical.
5. The narrative is not compelling
Although researchers' projects are incredibly exciting to them, it's important to take the time to understand what makes the research exciting and what might make it especially exciting to the agency to which you're applying? Remember to focus on what's most important to your audience.
4. The aims/objectives are not clear
Certainly, you must be crystal clear on your research objectives before crafting a grant, but even when you are, it's a good idea to vet your aims or objectives with your peers, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure they are equally clear to your reviewers.
3. They submit at the deadline
Grants take a lot of work and a lot of time. So, it's not uncommon for applicants to be putting their final submission together at the last minute. However, doing this puts you at great risk. Systems go down and errors pop up, and you don't want to lose your shot at funding over a minutes-late submission.
2. They don't fit with the agency's mission
The grants climate is competitive. You may have heard the saying, "flat is the new up" in reference to federal granting agency budgets. Because of this, only the grants that are a perfect fit for an agency's mission, vision, and approach will have a chance of being funded.
1. They do not read the program announcement
It may seem weird that this is the number one suggestion. Yet, as Robert Porter found in 2009, 60% of grants are not even reviewed because they are a poor fit or they do not follow directions. And, anecdotally, we frequently come across PI's who are well into writing their grant and have not yet read the agency's program announcement.
Resources:
The Grant Development Lifecycle - NORDP 2015 Presentation
What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter
Friday, May 15, 2015
Understanding Private Funders: A Look at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
As stated on their website, "The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health" (RWJF). Because of this, the RWJF is certainly worth knowing if you are a health researcher, but even if you are not, it's useful to understand the RWJF to get a sense of how private funding agencies can work similarly and differently than the federal agencies with which we tend to be more familiar.
Understanding the big picture vision of a private agency is vital. Although, it is important to understand the big picture for any agency, private agencies tend to set a a more narrow focus for their funding. For instance, the vision set by RWJF is "Building a Culture of Health," which although they define this culture of health very broadly, they have nailed down four interconnected and measurable action areas:
Another way that private funders like RWJF can be unique is in the role of their Program Officers (POs). Some smaller foundations do not have POs, and for those that do, the responsibilities and processes of those POs can differ from what we expect from POs at the NIH or the NSF. For instance, the RWJF assigns a PO to each call for proposal and supplies an email address for that PO in the call. PI's are encouraged to email questions to the PO and the PO will offer live webinars at times to allow him/her to answer questions for everyone at once. However, the RWJF does not supply comments or feedback on proposals and the PO does not discuss declined proposals.
The RWJF also tends to be a proactive agency in terms of the connections it makes with researchers in the field. Last week Benjamin Miller, Assistant Professor in Family Medicine and RWJF-funded researcher spoke at ORDE's Know Your Agency Lunch on the RWJF to share his experience. He talked about how the RWJF reached out to Dr. Miller's colleagues to find out what he was like to work with before contacting him directly and asking him to submit a proposal. Since being funded, the RWJF has served as a partner and a resource for Dr. Miller. This gives us a glimpse into the RWJF's approach and also the vast network they have and use to move their mission and vision forward.
As with any agency, it's important to understand the mission/vision of the agency, their history, and what sorts of projects they've been funding as you work to understand if your research would fit. Use the links below to begin to understand if the RWJF might be a good fit for your research.
Resources:
RWJF Site
ORDE Know Your Agency Brief: RWJF
Understanding the big picture vision of a private agency is vital. Although, it is important to understand the big picture for any agency, private agencies tend to set a a more narrow focus for their funding. For instance, the vision set by RWJF is "Building a Culture of Health," which although they define this culture of health very broadly, they have nailed down four interconnected and measurable action areas:
- Making Health a Shared Value
- Fostering Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Well-Being
- Creating Healthier, More Equitable Communities
- Strengthening Integration of Health Services and Systems
Another way that private funders like RWJF can be unique is in the role of their Program Officers (POs). Some smaller foundations do not have POs, and for those that do, the responsibilities and processes of those POs can differ from what we expect from POs at the NIH or the NSF. For instance, the RWJF assigns a PO to each call for proposal and supplies an email address for that PO in the call. PI's are encouraged to email questions to the PO and the PO will offer live webinars at times to allow him/her to answer questions for everyone at once. However, the RWJF does not supply comments or feedback on proposals and the PO does not discuss declined proposals.
The RWJF also tends to be a proactive agency in terms of the connections it makes with researchers in the field. Last week Benjamin Miller, Assistant Professor in Family Medicine and RWJF-funded researcher spoke at ORDE's Know Your Agency Lunch on the RWJF to share his experience. He talked about how the RWJF reached out to Dr. Miller's colleagues to find out what he was like to work with before contacting him directly and asking him to submit a proposal. Since being funded, the RWJF has served as a partner and a resource for Dr. Miller. This gives us a glimpse into the RWJF's approach and also the vast network they have and use to move their mission and vision forward.
As with any agency, it's important to understand the mission/vision of the agency, their history, and what sorts of projects they've been funding as you work to understand if your research would fit. Use the links below to begin to understand if the RWJF might be a good fit for your research.
Resources:
RWJF Site
ORDE Know Your Agency Brief: RWJF
Friday, May 8, 2015
Developing a Concept Paper
Well before you begin writing a grant, you should have a concept paper. Concept papers are one to two page overviews of a research project or idea that an investigator uses to vet and tailor their project to be a good fit for a particular funding agency.
A concept paper can be used as a tool to allow a researcher to hone a particular research idea, but they also serve as a tool for marketing your research and networking with potential collaborators or Program Officers. You can keep concept papers on hand at conferences to give to folks you're interested in partnering with, or email them to a Program Officer to get a sense of the fit of your project for their directorate, study group, or program.
Heilmeier's Catechism is a good format to use for your concept paper. The catechism's creator, George Heilmeier is the former Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) who recognized that answering the following questions are important when making a good case for funding.
What are you trying to do?
Give the reader an overview of what your project is about. Don't go into great detail but give him/her a good sense of the project.
How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
Offer some context for your project. Give enough background that the reader understands where your project fits in the larger story.
What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
Explain why what you're doing is unique, why it's important, and why it needs to be done now.
Who cares?
Who benefits from your research and how? What are the financial, social, health, or scientific benefits from you project?
What are the risks and the payoffs?
What happens if things don't go as you planned, and why is your project worth taking those risks, i.e., what is the payoff and why is it worth the risk?
How much will it cost? How long will it take?
What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success?
How will you know that you've been successful? What sort of assessment is necessary to show success or impact?
Resources:
Heilmeier Catechism: Nine Questions to Develop a Meaningful Data Science Project
Writing a Concept Paper - University of San Francisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)