NIH K Awards

The NIH's Career Development Awards (or K awards) are generally mentored awards designed to move an early career investigator, in need of mentoring, to an independent investigator, successfully competing for an R01 (ideally) by the end of their K award.

There are some exceptions to this K description. K24s for instance are designed for midcareer investigators. However, the majority of K awards are mentored awards, including the K99/R00, K01, K08, K23, and K25. For mentored awards, the following are generally true:

• They require 75% protected time
• Generally the awards range from 3-5 years
• There are no renewals
• There is a salary cap (95K for K08s and K23s and 105K for K02s)

The NIH has K awards that are available at different points, but the idea for these awards are to facilitate and support an investigator in different points in their career, but particularly early on.

The chart above from the NIH gives a sense of the appropriate timing for applying within one's career trajectory. At the post-doctoral level, the K99/R00 is designed for post-docs looking to transition to independent or tenure-track positions at an institution different from where they did their postdoc.  The K01 is a mentored research scientist award. The K08, the mentored clinical scientist development award, is designed for MD's who want to become bench scientists.

The K23 is the mentored patient-oriented research career development award and the K25, the mentored quantitative research career development award is designed for PhD's in Engineering who want to transition to the Biological Sciences.

The important thing to remember when applying for the NIH mentored career awards is that they are for folks who would not be considered independent investigators. Those who successfully compete for an R01 or other major independent award are ineligible. But, the applicant must also show their need for mentoring and additional training, and show reviewers how a K investment in them will move them from a promising start to realize their full potential as an independent investigator after being mentored and trained during their K award. 

Resources:
NIH K Kiosk

Positioning Yourself for Tenure & for Grants

This week, ORDE hosted a panel of faculty on the Denver campus to discuss how to position oneself for tenure and in grant applications. Our panel included Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research; Donna Sobel, Associate Professor Emerita in Special Education; and Kat Vlahos, Professor and Chair of Architecture. The panel offered many important insights and takeaways to participants, and below are some highlights:

Write clearly:
Dr. Damrauer began the conversation, saying, "I only have one thing to say...The most important single skill you need in order to succeed in an academic career is to write well. Learn what a simple declarative sentence is and use it." As we've seen, many faculty members get quite a way through their career only speaking to and writing for those in their field, but they face an eventual barrier when they come to the point where they need to illustrate the importance of their work to someone besides their immediate colleagues.

Integrate and distinguish:
Dr. Vlahos stressed that when presenting your case for tenure and/or promotion, you must be able to both integrate your work in research, teaching, and service, but also be able to speak about them distinctly. In this way, you can clearly show your work and accomplishments in each area, as well as tell the story of your work as a whole.

Organize your work:
Dr. Sobel made the point that when you have people reviewing your work, be they reviewers for your grant or dossier, "Don't make them look for it!" When folks are reviewing scores of applications, there is little that is more frustrating than when they can't find what they need to assess your work. Needless to say, you don't want to frustrate someone who is reviewing your case for tenure or your grant application. Dr. Vlahos reiterated this, saying that one of the greatest strengths of her dossier was its clear organization.

Offer context:
All of the panelists talked about the importance of bringing your reader/reviewer up to speed. You should not assume that they understand your jargon, that they know your history, or even your perspective. Be explicit and tell your story so that that your work can make sense to a broad audience.

Throughout the discussion, the panel stressed the importance of seeking mentorship and getting help when you need it. Resources include ORDE, The Office of Research Services, and the Center for Faculty Development. We're happy to help!

Resources:
Elevator Pitch Video - NSF
Ask the right questions - Inside Higher Ed

Writing into Clarity

This week I read a piece by Laurel Richardson on Writing as a method of inquiry in The Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition in which she discusses the process of learning and indeed developing research within the writing process. She offers various methods to seize on writing as a method in and of itself, but in addition to helping me see writing as a research method, the piece reminded me of the power of writing toward clarity.

I'm a terrible test-taker, I won't take the time to prove it to you with the less-than-stellar scores I've chalked up, but really my only saving grace in my testing years (hopefully, they're behind me now), was the essay question. In high school and college, when confronted with an essay question, I would inevitably draw a blank, begin to hyperventilate, and start to write. I would rewrite the question and reframe the argument being described, using only slightly different wording than the original question. But, as I wrote a ridiculous and overly circuitous introduction to my response, something magical would happen. I would remember a concept, I would come up with a new perspective, and the answer would begin to unfold. It became commonplace to get comments back from instructors that would say, "Not sure where you're going here" at the beginning, but then turn to "Excellent point!" and "Well said!" as I got to the conclusion.

I offer this trip down my memory lane not just to reminisce but to speak to the power of writing into clarity and even into realization. Depending on your discipline and your practice, writing may be like breathing for you or it may be a tumultuous relationship, one of dread and avoidance. If you place yourself in the latter group, you may want to rethink your relationship with writing and to see it more as a tool for clarity and idea development. You might keep a journal or a blog to reflect on your work, both the breakthroughs and conundrums, to see if you're able to write into new meaning or out of a sticking point.

As I bring it all back to grant development (you knew I would), when you have been writing about your research regularly, you will likely find that when you sit down to describe your project in a grant or to a colleague, it flows a bit more easily. Perhaps it is easier to illustrate why your project is compelling because you have been wrestling with this in your writing previously.

Our slogan for the upcoming workshop on Scientific Writing, in conjunction with the CCTSI and The Writing Center is "Keep calm and write on." So, that is the sentiment I will leave you with for today, whether you're a nervous freshman or a top researcher and scholar.

Resources:
Writing: A Method of Inquiry - Richardson and St. Pierre