Your Data Management Plan

This week, Karen Markin had an excellent article on Data Management Plans (DMPs) in the Chronicle of Higher education. As many federal agencies are requiring data management plans for large grant projects, and policies are being developed, it's not surprising to find that these DMPs are often times a core part of the criteria on which grants are judged.

Part of the push behind DMPs is the call for data that has been collected using the taxpayer money to be accessible and usable for further analysis. This, of course, excludes data that is classified to protect personal information or data where there is a justifiable reason for its confidentiality. Unfortunately, trying to maintain your edge as the PI who has collected the data is not seen as a justifiable reason by most agencies.

Agencies will often offer templates or checklists that spell out exactly what they're looking for and the criteria for which they will judge a DMP in review. These resources should serve as your guiding document. However, good DMP's tend to include the following, as recommended by the NIH:

• Description of data
• Schedule for data sharing
• Format for DMP
• Documentation that will be provided
• Details on any analytic tools
• Details on any data sharing agreements
• Mode of data sharing

As you put together a DMP, below are some resources to help you...

• Check for templates or checklists from agencies or other PIs 
• Consult with your library
• The NIH maintains a list of data-sharing repositories
• Try the University of California DMP tool

Resources
Where Should You Keep Your Data - Karen Markin
Data Management Planning Tool - University of California

Program Officers: Face-to-Face Meetings

This week, one of our faculty members received a fundable score on a grant resubmission. She sent us a note to let us know that key to her success was a meeting with her Program Officer (PO). She had attended our Grant Resubmissions seminar this Spring, and after our discussion around working with PO's she decided to fly out to meet with her's at a conference. She reported that she ended up sitting down with a Program Officer for an hour and that he gave her feedback on her grant and invaluable career advice. Although she had been on the fence as to whether she should spend her own money to fly to the conference at the last minute just to see her PO after he had suggested their meeting, ultimately she decided that the investment was well worth it

In fact, more and more, researchers are prioritizing face-to-face meetings with their PO's. Some make a trip out to DC as they're starting to think about submitting, going to their first meeting with just a concept paper to introduce themselves and their research idea. And, some request meetings with their PO at large national conferences or in an annual trip to DC.

Dr. John Swallow, at an ORDE seminar on Grant Resubmissions this Spring stressed the importance of developing an ongoing relationship saying, "By the time I got my grant funded, [my PO] knew who I was and was excited for me." He goes on to describe how he makes a point at his national conference to sit down with his NSF PO to not only discuss his current application, but to get her advice on new ideas, see if they're a fit, ask what panel they should go to, etc. This not only gives Dr. Swallow important feedback, but also does the work of building a relationship and a familiarity for him and his work with his Program Officer.

Of course, this does not mean that if you can't see your PO face to face, you should give up on reaching out. Phone, email, and even Skype can be great starting off points to get you and your work in front of your program officer.

Resources:
Resubmissions: Seeking Feedback - ORDE Video
Can We Talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter

Avoiding Red Flags in Your Grant

A couple of weeks ago, one of our faculty and an experienced reviewer for the NSF talked about things to avoid when putting together a CAREER grant application. He explained that as a reviewer, he was given a short orientation before the review meeting where they identified red flags in proposals that might signal to the panel that the grant was not in line with the NSF's goals or preferred approach within the particular directorate in which they were reviewing.

NSF Red Flag Words:

• Develop
• Characterize
• Evaluate
• Optimize

The reviewer explained how the NSF liked to fund research projects that are hypothesis driven and that make clear contributions to their particular field, driving it forward. The trouble with the red flag words is that they get away from the NSF's goals of good, hypothesis-driven, science. They aren't necessarily interested in a research project that is applied, and might use words such as "develop." In the same way the NSF is not interested in its researchers characterizing, evaluating, or optimizing in their project objectives, they want the researcher to pose a solid hypothesis that gets at a core question in the field and then they want to understand how the PI will conduct an experiment(s) to answer that question. It's also important that researchers not suggest a "test and see" approach where there is no clear hypothesis and the researcher seems to propose to throw things at the wall to see what sticks, in a manner of speaking.

To broaden this conversation, although some agencies may not identify particular flag words for reviewers, many agency reviewers go into grant reviews with some in mind.  Your job, as the grant writer is to research the sponsor, including understanding background and goals, and to talk to a Program Officer. This can allow you to intuit what the red flags are and to not only avoid them, but to incorporate the language the agency wants. In doing this, you can show that your project is closely aligned with what the agency is looking to fund.

Resources
What are potential red flags when you are reviewing proposals? - Grant Space
5 things you should not do in your grant proposal - about.com

Abstracts: The Movie Trailer for Your Grant

This week, Dr. Chris Yakacki, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, spoke to a group of faculty about grant-writing. In his talk, he compared a grant abstract with a movie trailer. It's a good comparison - you want to include the most exciting pieces of your project right up front for reviewers and other readers to see. Yet, where the metaphor breaks down is in the full disclosure. A movie trailer, by its very nature, includes a bit of suspense. Producers don't want you to know how it ends - even if it's a romantic comedy.  Grant abstracts, on the other hand, should not hold back in sharing the full case for your project. All of the PI's most compelling points should be incorporated into the abstract. As Dr. Yakacki said, "Don't make your grant like the Shawshank Redemption!" alluding to the idea of keeping your reader in suspense till the very end where you reveal what is happening and the conclusion. Instead, tell them right up front in the abstract.

A grant abstract should include the following:


What:
Describe your project.

Why:
Explain the problem or potential impact of your project. Why is it important that you do this work?


How:
Briefly describe how you will conduct the work.

Make sure, however, that your abstract doesn't come across as too formulaic. You want to maintain the excitement and vision for your project in your abstract tone. Remember, the abstract is often the first thing a reader sees; you want to get him/her excited about your project and entice them to read on in your application.

So, like a movie trailer, you want to get your abstract reader really excited about your research project and in some ways leave them wanting more. But, don't create that desire by holding something back.

Resources
The Elements of a Good Proposal Abstract
Abstract Killers: How Not to Kill a Grant Application