Make me care

Andrew Stanton, Screenwriter for films such as Toy Story and WALL-E, in his TED talk suggested that a core tenet for storytelling is to "make me care" or rather, make the reader care. This, I would also suggest, is a core tenet for grant-writing as well. Stanton talks about how a good story draws an emotional investment from the audience by using intrigue to make a promise to the audience that engaging with the story will be worth their time.

How then can we as grant-writers capitalize on these same principles to make our readers, and more importantly our reviewers, care? I suggest that we begin by clarifying and developing the case. The overarching case for your research project is composed of two parts: the problem and the solution. You can help your reader care by highlighting both pieces early on and creating a contrast. You want your reviewer thinking, "This problem is terrible and we have to do something about it!" And then you want them to follow that hopefully emotional response to the problem with that of excitement at your solution.

You may feel like this doesn't apply to you, because the problem you're trying to solve isn't that bad or the solution embedded in your project does not solve the whole problem. This is fine; most projects have some work to do on both of these fronts. On the problem side, start looking further out. Why is it that you were drawn to this area? If this problem isn't confronted what could happen? Who are the people affected by this problem (see the storytelling blog from a few weeks ago). If you do have a big, bad problem to work with, don't skip the accentuation of that problem in your grant. If your work will help cure cancer, don't just assume everyone will understand the full significance of the problem. Take the time to share how many lives are lost, how many lives affected, how many dollars spent, etc. so that the reviewer is immersed in the problem.

If your solution only partially confronts the problem, join the club. Most research projects make incremental gains against a problem, but your job is to show your reader why your incremental gain has to happen. What happens if we don't continue down that path you're on? What are the consequences? Whose consequences are they ultimately? What are the potential breakthroughs that you're working toward and what will be the end game?

Peter Frederick in his book, Persuasive Writing: How to Harness the Power of Words (2012), describes his Boo/Hurray Theory as a form of persuasive writing to create the contrast between the problem and the solution in a grant. He suggests, that the grant-writer structure their introduction as follows:

There is a problem/opportunity
It is big enough to justify the funding requested
No one else has come up with an adequate solution
We have an idea for that solution
We can’t just do it because there are major barriers
Funding can overcome the barriers in these ways
If we overcome the barriers and develop the solution, the benefits will be significant for everyone we’re trying to help (Frederick, 2012, p. 148)

Although, Frederick jumps back and forth between the boo and the hurray more than I would probably advise doing, the way he contrasts the problem and solution using this strategy make good sense. He is suggesting that we lead our reviewer through these steps to provoke an emotional investment. In short, we work through this to make them care.

Resources:
Frederick, P. (2012). Persuasive writing: How to harness the power of words. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Andrew Stanton's TED Talk
Clear and Compelling: Persuasive Scientific Writing Prezi- Naomi Nishi